order to continue to be detained with that new justification that we did not get in this case. . .

>> a simple test. >> if you're going to do. you can't reasonably extend or pass the time it takes to deal with it correct? >> i think that would be the simple rule. >> a simple rule if i may propose one is the same one the professor proposed simple stuff. basically the officer sees the infraction, pulls the person over the officer told the person what the infraction is runs the license, registration, car numerous stuff. he gives him the ticket that gives them a traffic stop.

there is no other reason to hold the person after that time. >> he runs the car come up with license plate into the radio and links the report from the station as to whether or not the licenses okay? >> yes, your honor. >> why is that part of the mission? that is the question. if you are not going to have a formal rule you have to explain why someone pulled over for a broken tail light them a why adding a time to the stuff in order to do a weapons jerk is part of the mission. >> i can understand the rule. pull rule. pull someone over for broken tail light, maybe you get the registration arrived the ticket to the right person, given the ticket, and that is it. no times -- no time for the record check. what does that have to do with pulling someone over for broken tail light. >> i can understand that but is that your argument?

>> that is part of -- the court has accepted as part of the stop. you're looking at the vehicle itself. the dog, dog your honor, is different. the dog is not a past related -- with the courts have accepted is related to a traffic stop. a collateral where you have the dog sniff and do nothing more than look for drugs. [inaudible conversations] >> i don't want to interrupt. your answer is, the courts the courts have accepted you can prolong this a little bit to do a record check but then you have to explain why the dog sniff is different. >> you are not prolonging it, prolong it your honor to do a weapons check. that is part of the stop. as long as the officer is diligently working toward the mission -- >> why is it part? unrelated to the traffic stop.

does that have to do with the traffic infraction? see if the defendant has a criminal record. >> that is something that the courts are looking at i could come back. this is not something that happens because it is clear-cut that issue is extremely important but it is something that i don't think can be done today. >> one reason i think they do that weapons check check, the officer needs to know who he is dealing with. incidents when officers are shot and wounded making traffic stops.

if you are the registration and see it as a stolen car you need to know that before dealing with the driver and other occupants. what if the police officer determines he should be concerned and links but he is not going to go back to the car until he is back up. so because ahead and said, i would like back up. twenty-five minutes. fine. is that a legitimate reason? the traffic stop is not over because he does not want to go back. he is alone and is not know who these guys are. >> that is a legitimate reason. >> okay. what is the backup is a k-9 unit. he gets there. they're. it has not been prolonged. as the officer goes up. >> i think that is all right the reason it is all right all right is because you have the diligence of the officer. officer safety is certainly

a reason to ask for backup. once the backup is there the officer then completes the traffic offense, everything is done and before that the dog is running around i don't think there is a problem with that because the delay was for a legitimate reason, not putting the ticket in your pocket. >> i request rebuttal. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> in order to avoid the arbitrary results the right line rule would impose on traffic stops the darkness conducted should be subject to a reasonable's -- reasonableness analysis. >> how long is reasonable? you keep saying you have to look at the totality of the

circumstances. but i don't know what that means. i think keeping keeping the past keeping the past giving you the ticket is annoying insect whether it's five minutes, ten minutes, 45. what are the circumstances that would make any difference in holding somebody five minutes or 45? it all has to do with your need, not the passengers. >> if i could explain the reasonableness approach. approach. it is not a strict the minimus approach that focuses on the amount of time in isolation but the objective reasonableness to going to the stop. >> go into their home and search their home is that okay? >> the reasonable length of the stop is the amount of time -- a stop is reasonable even if it includes a dog

sniff if it's duration is within the amount of time a range of reasonable routine traffic stops the don't involve a dog's death. still tethered to the traffic violation purpose of the stop. the officer has to be reasonably diligent which means he needs to be focused overall. >> what is the heartland of routine traffic stops in a minute criterion? >> the universe of you team traffic stops, there is a range. >> what is it? i want to know what it is so i can complain. >> it depends. more people in the car so the officer asked to check the criminal histories and more people. worried about officer safety.

you have to pick a minute. it's not possible to pick a minute. >> what more do you need. >> as we said,. >> a great idea the stop you can do what is normal there but it cannot be prolonged more than the time reasonably required to complete the mission. it or a cannot last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose.

it happens to be language in two cases they say anything different? i don't think so. if so, what? if not this not this is a case where the lower court said it did last longer than necessary because the policeman and effects that according to the judge i called the i called the dog after the stop was over or some like that. goodbye to all litigants. but i suspect you don't. >> the amount of time reasonably required to complete this traffic stop is the duration it takes looking to other similar's bots.

>> the time necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. we can do better than that. how can we? we are not traffic policeman command our experience comes from unfortunately being the stop the rather than the stopper. >> it has to include. [inaudible conversations] >> in the middle of it. you call the dog. you cannot prolong it beyond the time reasonably necessary. i have said that several times. i think you may agree with that. if you do it was prolonged more than reasonably necessary. that is that is what they found. >> looking to whether it occurs before after the traffic ticket is given, the court this positive significance of the officer secrecy. i understand petitioners

position. if in the midst of a traffic stop the officer spends one minute on a dog sniff, a dog sniff, that is okay even though it has incrementally increased going to the stop. the very same stopper the officer gives the ticket 1st and then -- [inaudible conversations] >> there are a lot of problems with any rule based on reasonableness. of course that will be difficulties. here we have said twice that once the stop is over i.e. goes beyond the time reasonably necessary to complete the mission you cannot: the dogs. and before you can. of course there will be anomalies in that respect. of course there can be bad-faith exercises. there can be confusion as to which is which but that is inevitable in the situation what can you suggest that

would help us suggest we could do something about it. >> what is it we can say that in the language of the two cases -- i'm not denying there is a problem. there is. you know, every day of the week. but if you want a better rule that no one way down the two cases. >> two ways to understand the language in the cases you're referring to. one is the time required to complete the traffic violation means that time and nothing else so that any delay attributable to a dog sniff -- >> no, i don't think you have to do that. you get into arguments about it. it is cannot be prolonged

beyond the time that is reasonably necessary. it necessary. it is difficult sometimes to decide what is reasonably necessary. the. >> it can be prolonged. that is the exact same intrusion that would occur if the officer decided to do all of the traffic related tasks first. that took ten minutes. they needed a dog a dog sniff immediately afterwards. it is exactly the same intrusion. >> a little clarification on your argument. if i understand what you have been saying, you are accepting the idea idea, aren't you, that the dog sniff is something that is extraneous to the mission of the snuff. is that correct? >> we are not suggesting it is an ordinary incident. >> it is not an ordinary incident.

>> says the court said that a dog sniff is permissible to perform an stops sometimes we think of the analysis as to when it is permissible -- >> a marketing area. because some of the questions are focused on what is the stop for what is the mission of the stop what is entailed in her normal stop and you are not contesting that a a dog sniff is not something that is entailed in a normal stop even though there might be occasions where you can do a dog sniff attendant to a stop. >> i think that is right but as the members of the court have suggested -- >> what about this -- >> suppose you have a police department in a small state. every police cruiser has a dog. and they make it just as common to check on the license plate call in to see if the person has any

prior convictions. so also they always take the dog around the car. it is a routine part of a traffic stop. >> it will be permissible to do that as long as it fell within a reasonable amount of time that it would take for a routine traffic stop. >> including the time for the dog sniff. >> we would not include the time for the dog sniff. >> why not. that is what a routine traffic stop is the jurisdiction. >> i think our issue is once there is probable cause to perform a set of legitimate investigative inquiries, if the officer can do other activities, it ought to be constitutionally reasonable. that is what actions of the court of appeals and told us with the most part. >> i thought i thought the position that i have tried to find let me state it more clearly. it is unlawful to have the dog sniff where the dog sniff unreasonably prolongs

the stop. is that -- is that okay? thyroid those words in an opinion? >> we don't think a dog sniff a dog sniff performed right after the ticket per se unreasonably prolongs the stop. >> well, how if the ticket writing is over and there's nothing else to do and the policeman says, hey this is over at that time has it not unreasonably prolonged. if the sniff takes place afterward? >> i don't think so. >> because -- >> only two minutes and that is not unreasonable. >> it's only a violation of the 4th amendment for two minutes. >> prolonging the stop. here's the amount of time

you allowed to prolong it sometime after that. it's part of the time the stop. the dog sniff can prolong a traffic stop. is that routine part of every single traffic stop i do think this because the dark step prolongs the traffic stop by some amount of time doesn't mean it's unreasonable. >> the extraneous dog sniff does not relate to the traffic violation to the police say i've taken the time i need to look into this traffic violation but we are in a high crime

neighborhood, so would like to keep this driver bit longer and interrogate him about what others think she might've been doing. and is not going to take eight minutes. but traffic stop you have taken care of that and now instead of having the dogs come the police officer says i have a few questions i want to ask you. >> the court held in arizona versus johnson that that questioning about an unrelated matter is not like a dog sniff, an independent 4th amendment intrusion. the only interest is take from the individual.of view is the interest against unreasonable delay. says that is the case i think that the officer can incrementally extend the stop. [inaudible conversations]

>> so you said -- >> to me -- now what about this? i see your problem, well you cannot prolong the stop the traffic stop more than reasonably -- you know it has to be -- take time reasonably required to complete the mission. that is what it says, complete the mission. so we have the intermission prolongation which has to be reasonable command we have complete the mission. complete the mission. what's the mission is completed, it is over. that is language from the opinion, to. complete, complete, goodbye over. that is when it turns into a violation of the 4th amendment. >> i can tell you are practically officers end up or need to do the dog sniff after. the hypothetical i propose is, two officers conducting

a stop and the 1st officer is explaining the ticket and what is happening with the ticket to the person -- to the driver. well he does that the 2nd officer is performing a dog sniff. if the officer was explaining the ticket in his 1st and the dog sniff takes another 30 seconds i don't think there is any reason to say that stop lasting a total of maybe ten minutes has gone on a longer reasonably required. >> i have a fundamental question. this line drawing is only here because we have now created a 4th amendment entitlement to search for drugs by using dogs whenever anybody is stop because that is what you are missing. and if that is really what the 4th amendment should permit? >> i don't think it is an entitlement, justice so mayor. >> the circumstances.

when it is being done simultaneously with writing the ticket. if not, then it is unlawful. >> that leads to arbitrary results as i was explaining with justice breyer. >> the 4th amendment is arbitrary by its nature. you cannot search unless you have probable cause to search. petitioner's role would say it's impermissible in every circumstance, even a 32nd extension of the short traffic stop is always unreasonable, even if that stop falls within the amount of time it usually takes to do a routine traffic stop -- >> ms. anderson. >> i'm sorry, please. >> you know, i think i read kabbalists differently than you. here is where i think you

degrees and where does not. it agrees that a dog sniff a dog sniff is not part of the traffic stop, so i think that you two are in the same place they are. it definitely says that even though a dog sniff is not part of the mission of the traffic stop, we are going to allow a a dog sniff if the dog sniff does not extend the traffic stop. you know, there are two officers or, some other reason why you are not being detained one moment longer because of the dog sniff and they basically say, sure, no harm, no foul on that one right? but then you are saying it gives you this extra leeway to detain people even though it is longer than an ordinary traffic stop would take. i think take. i think that is just not right. i think that reasonableness language is all about an extra limitation, the court says. don't think just because this officer was really slow and it took a really long

time to do the traffic stop and he was able because of that to get another officer in and do a dog sniff and it was all -- it is like an additional limitation. but you have to be diligent and reasonable in the way that you conduct a traffic stop. if you are not the dog sniff can't come in even though it was conducted during the time the traffic stop occurred. but that is an additional constraint. it is not some kind of extra leeway for the police officers to do things outside of the bounds of the traffic stop itself. >> i think that is one way to read the language. the the reason we don't think it is the right way is we know it is not an independent 4th amendment intrusion, not a intrusion, not a search. it does not violate any independent scope plantation >> it is not a search, but the theory is that you -- end of all of our cases is

that you can't attend somebody if you don't have some kind of objective reasonable basis for doing so. and that any detention maybe ten minutes five minutes, two minutes without that kind it's a 4th amendment violation. >> was the individuals already being detained of in a traffic stop the probable cause the implication is that if the dog takes times in the intrusion we are talking about is the current his vehicle into the lake a temporal intrusion. from the individual's perspective her interest -- is the same in avoiding the dog sniff as it is avoiding a warrant check or any other incident of the stop unreasonable delay., unreasonable delay. because that is the case with think -- [inaudible conversations] >> reviews the phrase several times incremental. i sense that meaning less than, right? i mean,, if the actual

traffic stop this five minutes, then you minutes, then you would not say a 15 minute dog sniff is a common does the dog sniff have to be less than the traffic stop? >> one thing the court should look to is the proportion of time of the dog stepped to the rest of the stop. the reason i think that's relevant to my case a routine traffic stops as well. the officer has to be reasonably diligent and that can take into account whether he is resolving a traffic violation. if is able to do it within a reasonable amount of time and not have the traffic stop exceed the duration of a reasonable routine traffic stop and he ought to be able to do that. >> is that almost always the case, that the dog sniff will take longer than the

traffic stop? i mean i would assume so. it takes license registration, texans license registration, texans, contract gives you take it. the dog sniff is something else altogether. they have to work around the car. i'm not sure it's hardly ever going to be reasonable. >> the dog sniff itself doesn't take anywhere from 30 to 90 seconds, so it it is something that can be -- [inaudible conversations] >> if the dog happens to be they're. >> even in a situation with a situation where the dog isn't there already in the officer calls early enough, there are situations -- and recited this and are brief or you have the dogs arriving in the officer gets out to give the ticket. it is a scenario mechanic or there are several there are several reasons why an officer may want to give the ticket 1st and then do the dogs family. one of them is officer safety. everything he does, how it -- [inaudible conversations] so it can be a safer thing to ask to use the ticket and explain the ticket as a nonconfrontational a nonconfrontational way -- >> i see that.

another aspect, i was seeing it the way justice kagan described it. one virtue you may not agree with this of ministration. what do you what do yo

once you have told in those two things they have got it in their head. if it is not over they better be careful. they will understand that and it will be both protecting with the 4th amendment protects and also i think giving them enough leeway to conduct a traffic stop. >> that makes the officer sequencing decision entirely dispositive whether the dog sniff can occur.

if it happens after fine, -- if it happens before flying after not. from the officer's the officer's perspective there is an interest in officers having some leeway to sequence the traffic stop the way it is. >> judge breyer -- judge breyer says, you can't unreasonably all the person. any measurable time to get the dark. it has to do with the resources of the police department. we can't keep bending the 4th amendment to the law enforcement, particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. it is purely to help the police get more criminals yes. but then the 4th amendment becomes a useless piece paper. >> i think --

>> to take your answer, i would have to say your answer is right. it is just about effective mobile. and the virtue of, you know, the two-part rule is what we said was the virtue of it. there just is not much more to say. willing to run this. my purpose which is a sequence. it might. that's true. i don't know what to do about that. the answer is i couldn't do anything. >> there is a law enforcement interest. i was explaining the reasons that an officer might want to do it contemporaneously or before. >> hypothetical, please pull somebody over and start the process and in the police officer says i would like a cigarette break now. a cigarette probably takes about as long as the dog sniff. and just smokes a cigarette and goes back to work. would you say that was

unconstitutional prolongation of the stop? >> an officer has to be reasonably diligent. if the officer takes breaks for no valid law enforcement reason the stop would become unreasonable. >> so it would become unreasonable because he wasn't doing anything related to the mission of the stop. that is true if he gave the ticket and then said i want you to stay while i take a cigarette break or or is true if he didn't 4:00 p.m. the ticket, either way. what i'm saying is i kind of think it is the same thing. once you acknowledge that the dog sniff is something extraneous to the stop itself it is obviously more helpful to the police that a cigarette break, but his extraneous to the stop itself and the same rules apply as of the police officer had just taken a moratorium on the stop in

order to conduct his own business. >> i think when an officer has a one-stop we don't expect them to ignore potential evidence of criminal behavior. they would be remiss if they did. if the officer if the officer is able to do a dog sniff that are reasonable time and is reasonably diligent. >> but then you really are saying because we have a reason to pull you over for a traffic stop that gives us some extra time to start questioning you about other law enforcement related things. after do other law enforcement related business and i never thought that that was the rule. once the objective you know, 1st off dissipated that was it. >> well, if you take

unrelated questioning, questioning about other crimes, other criminal activity there is a a strong law enforcement interest in officers having leeway to pursue this. >> i did not think an officer could do that. >> that's right. the officer can command i think it is important that the officer has some leeway so long as the overall a lot of time remains reasonable. if he starts in the questions about where the person is going we don't want officer so have to make finely tuned questions in the moment about whether the next question he is about ask is related to the traffic stop that. there needs to be some leeway to take some time to pursue the things that he observed as long as they can do that within the amount of time reasonable and a routine traffic stop. i we will say, i think a reasonable analysis allows courts to calibrate based on the nature and security of the intrusion. even a 32nd extension of a

traffic stop for a dog sniff would be unreasonable in every case. >> what your rule is going to be something along the lines of everyone will decide 30 minutes or 40 minutes being reasonable for a traffic stop. you see a tail light violation. that is 40 minutes of free time for the police officers to investigate any crimes that they want because they can do it all in the range of what you have decided is kind of the reasonable traffic stop. >> i don't think that's how we envision the analysis going. that is going to vary based on circumstance. routine traffic stops it's based on the circumstance. they can look at what was actually done and determine the officer was able to do the whole thing that a reasonable amount of time

essentially what the court contemplated. these inquiries are fact specific. the heart of cases will be appealed and they will start to be guidelines. the same thing can happen here and has happened with respect to unrelated questioning. the courts have looked to how much time it would take the overall stop, it was the officer reasonably diligent? we think the same thing should happen here. i was the only rule. no further questions. >> thank you, ms. andrews. mr. o'connell. >> thank you, justice breyer, much better. the.was well made. >> what did you think about her response? she has an interesting., an important. the trouble with what i said she said here is what

is really going to happen. the police will the police will think, i just better be sure those dogs get here in time. what they will do is tend to prolong. a little want to be sure the dog out there. dark out there. if you had this up and thought about it experimentally the class of stopped drivers with their hunches is going to end up waiting longer and being in custody innocence longer than if we follow her approach, and her approach is just to say, hey, apply reasonable response -- reasonableness across the board. i took i took her answer to be something like that, and i thought -- and it is a. it is a. >> we hope that if you like an officers diligence there are things that will help enforce that. one is the committee.

will the committee accept 40 minute stops? with the law enforcement officer himself expect that i'm going to stop being a police officer for two, three, four minutes. i think that is very significant. reasonableness. reasonableness stops when you have a stop and. at that time reasonableness has nothing more to do because the person should be released until there is another reason, another purpose. a reasonable, articulable suspicion or you have consent. otherwise it is done. the statement that was made that it is not reasonable that we give the officers enough time. we're not talking about the 4th amendment and officers and open season on officers and what they can do.

the 4th amendment and the protections that it has on the driver. you don't work at, well, it will only be a minute longer if you do it this way. the 4th amendment shouted out what it is done. >> what do you say about the questioning that took place in this case? where you going? joined by carson place come all of that? was that part of the mission? >> we did raise that, your honor. is that part of the mission? it is something that has not been challenged. it has been accepted as being part of the mission. i we will tell you that is will the courts say accepted as part of the mission. i have lots of questions before as to what is part of the mission and how far you go. that that is for the courts to determine. my response --

>> well call one of those courts is this court, and that is what i don't understand about a position this definition of the mission. i understand the definition this is where you need to do to resolve the traffic violation, but if it includes other things i questioning about where your going to go to buy a car that i really do not see why i want to know what the differences between that and having a dog sniff. >> well, the other things that are tasked and part of the traffic offense and that could be questionable, but no doubt a dog sniff is not part of the offense. that is collateral and nothing but an investigation the last thing i would like to do it's your question as to the eighth circuit. the the eighth circuit did not make a decision as to probable cause.

you have a court the did. the court court did make that decision. it made the decision -- >> but that would ordinarily be reviewable by the court of appeals. so it is an open question for the court of appeals. >> if it can go to the court of appeals you have a question based on a hunch but you give the discretion to the magistrate who have the evidence. the magistrate has a question as to the credibility of this witness. witness. if you have a question as to the credibility of the witness, then there is not sufficient facts able to make a determination as to whether in fact there is probable cause. we would ask the court to adopt this finding that there is no probable cause is something that you can do because the facts have been

established. we know that the judge has problems with the credibility of the witness, the fact that are left is not enough to establish any type of reasonable suspicion. what we do is make the decision here and now because we would have to do the same thing. the eighth circuit would have to make a decision based on the magistrate's finding of credibility command that is what i would ask the question you today. >> thank you council counsel, the case is submitted. >> coming up, senators debate the human trafficking bill. and then the va sec. robert mcdonnell testifies about his department's 2016 budget followed by the supreme court oral argument. a case regarding police traffic stops and searches.

>> well, this money, they came to the floor and talked about a deal in principle that had been struck over this antiabortion language that is held at the trafficking legislation for several weeks since the middle of last month. they both came to the floor and praised the deal and said that that deal would allow the trafficking bill to forward. since that time this morning there has been -- there was some meeting that went on to try to figure out how exactly the particulars of the deal would go forward they did come up with a resolution to the antiabortion language which has been holding it up as far.

>> what is the reason that language, high provision abortion language has stalled this bill's action? >> the reason fundamentally is that the democrats contend republicans are looking to expand the scope which traditionally has banned funding for abortion in most cases except rape or incest and the democrats contend republicans are basically looking to expand the scope of the language through the legislation. so the compromise reached today creates a two-pronged funding stream for the trafficking victim where some services will be provided by taxpayer funds and they will be subject to the traditional restrictions on taxpayer money to fund abortion, and the 2nd funding stream would then come from the fines placed on the human trafficker the legislation, and that fund would be used to provide different streams of funding for health care for the survivors that would not be subject to the restrictions. >> and the democratic and republican side, who were the key senators that struck the steel? >> senator murray has been very involved, the primary go to person.

on the republican side senator cornyn they both have been working with their colleagues but each in a member of a member of the leadership in the respective parties and have been the primary negotiators. >> everyone breathing a sigh of relief that this is moving forward? any expected opposition? >> with the exception of a sticking.over the abortion language there is broad bipartisan support. the remaining question is with the senate until everything is completely a done deal nothing is a done deal, and this trafficking legislation has been creating a backlog in the vote on word alleges nomination, nomination beginning a series of votes on senator corker's bipartisan legislation dealing with a review of an iran nuclear deal, those things along with every other piece of legislation

are waiting in the hopper until after this trafficking legislation is dealt with. essence this morning or today beginning this morning that the compromise and the abortion language could on cost us of step backstop but it remains to be seen how quickly things will begin. >> a lot with that announcement about the trafficking bill, the announcement from the majority leader mitch mcconnell in the next couple of days the senate will vote on the language nomination. senate leaders reaching a deal to allow a lurid allege confirmation vote tied into the trafficking do? >> exactly. sen. mcconnell said he would not turn to the which nomination until after the trafficking quite had been pleaded. so basically that is the next thing coming up. loretta lynch has enough support to be confirmed confirmed, the support of at least 51 senators, and so she will be confirmed. the question the question is when, in both sides of the diagonal the position with

democrats calling for a vote as soon as possible and saying it is a church is not been voted on yet and republican saying we will put on her but we get this agreement on the antiabortion language and complete the trafficking language. essentially trying to use the word allege as leverage in that debate. >> your article bloomberg.com points out the pres. nominated for november 8. eric holder filling in. 51 in. fifty-one senators, enough support. is that still the case for what you hear? >> i think that will be the case. i heard rumblings that there might even be additional republican support. we see this often but basically a nominee or piece of legislation has enough support to make it over the essential hurdle which in this case is 51 votes sometimes you see a slew of other members coming on board. no one wants to be a deciding vote with that

kind of riches that threshold you see people jumping on board with it. i heard rumblings today that she might get as many as 60 votes. i think that would be unlikely. >> senate correspondent for bloomberg news. read more at bloomberg .com, follow her reporting a twitter. thank you for the update. >> thank you so much. >> and you just heard that the senate has reached a deal on the human trafficking legislation. next, senators debate the bill on the senate floor. you will hear from leaders mcconnell and read as well as senators mary, clover chart, and cornyn. this is half an hour. a stark reminder of >> president obama recently declared this to be national crime rights week as a reminder. the stark reminder of the need to pass the justice for

victims of trafficking. it it is a bill the victims group is advocates: is comprehensive legislation currently pending. it provides unprecedented support to victims of domestic trafficking who are all too often invisible and underserved. this group further said, as leaders in the antitrafficking antiviolence child welfare civil rhts, r away and >> as leaders of the movements legislation. good faith negotiations to resolve the impasse that has prevented the senate for moving forward on this bill. i am glad that we can now say there is a bipartisan proposal that will allow us to complete action on this important legislation so that we can provide help to the victims are desperately needed. as soon as we finish the trafficking bill and i have

indicated for some time now we will move to the president's nominee for attorney general, hopefully the next day or so. i particularly want to thank the senior senator from texas for leading these negotiations and for his continued diligence on this important issue. there is no stronger advocate for victims of human trafficking and senator cornyn. >> mr. president. >> the democratic leader. >> after weeks of working on the trafficking bill my republican colleagues have now agreed not to expand the scope. democrats and republicans have come to an agreement on a path forward. rejecting expansion of the trade language and taxpayer dollars that did not apply before. i think the senior senator from washington for the work

that she put into brokering this compromise. i have to say and through a bouquet to in clover chart who has worked so hard on this for weeks and weeks and she has been quick on this. she worked consistently to arrive at the conclusion we arrived at. appreciation to senator leahy. available for us at any given time to help us work through these issues. it was not easy. but thanks to their efforts it has been extremely important. we fight human trafficking, a really really, very, very important thing to do. we reject efforts to further obstruct amendments to access for services that are deserved and needed. i also want to say something

about senator cornyn. john cornyn i came thursday we thought we had something worked out. he is now very reasonable and helping us arrive at a conclusion a conclusion to this command i express my appreciation to him publicly for that. this compromises evidence this compromises evidence that when democrats and republicans sit down together and work toward a solution good things can happen. the senate needs more of this. but the post agreement amendments. each side we will be cautious because any one of those amendments could cause a knew filibuster. we don't need to get involved in that. we need to move forward on this legislation. we will have opportunities to offer amendments.

i think we better be very, very careful on things that are offered. i say to my republican colleagues be careful that you do not destroy this human trafficking legislation that is so important. you can do it with -- i looked at some of the amendments being talked about being offered. not going to sit back and let the stuff go forward without responding in a fashion that will also cause some difficult votes for my republican colleagues. so let's get rid of this quickly. let's get loretta lynch confirmed quickly and move on to other matters. >> mr. pres., from the very beginning of this discussion on of the trafficking bill and the underlying issue members on both sides agree we need to get this bill back on track.

without question, survivors of trafficking deserve a report. senator clover chair has done an amazing job getting us to this time. i am pleased that we were able to reach a deal analogous this done away that is that expand restrictions to taxpayer dollars in new programs and provides survivors provide survivors with real dedicated support and services. no compromises perfect. i am sure sen. cornyn would say the same thing. there is more that we can and must do when it comes to strengthening women's access to quality healthcare but i am pleased sen. cornyn and i want with a number of others including senator clover chart, were able to work together in a bipartisan way to get this done. i would like to thank him and all of his colleagues. i hope that we can get this legislation passed quickly for survivors and move on to

continue to work together on the many challenges our country's face defend our country faces. thank you. faces. thank you. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from minnesota. >> mr. pres., i am happy we have reached an agreement and want to thank senator murray for her leadership, senator reid, mcconnell, and cornyn. we have worked on this issue for years and finally will be able to move these important bills forward. what this compromise does is set up to funds. funds. the 1st uses senator cornyn's funds which is fees on perpetrators, things like shelters law enforcement things we envision used for people to combat sex trafficking. the 2nd is a medical fund based upon the same principle we used. it passed 92 to eight. a minimum of $5 million, messed up to 30 million in funding.

that is that is the cornyn fund. there is a parallel fund serving the exact same purpose. and this is a way that we were able to eliminate extraneous provisions but still keep the spirit of this really important bill and allow us to move on to my bill to stop exportation trafficking which really is about not prosecuting kids under 18. a huge bill that passed unanimously in the judiciary committee. i want to thank senator murray for her leadership. we have been a team and have been able to work with sen. cornyn and friends across the aisle to get this done. it is also time to confirm the next attorney general of the united states, loretta lynch. thank you. i yield the floor. >> i came to the floor to talk about the work of the

senate and particularly the justice for victims of trafficking act. but i would say to my colleague and friend my work with on so many important issues that i also look forward to once we get past today's business that we look forward to working together with you on patent reform criminal justice reform, also continuing our update for a productive partnership on open government and transparency, particularly information, information, freedom of information act legislation. mr. president, before i talk about the justice for victims of trafficking act, i have to note, it is my responsibility, duty, honor to know that today is an important day in taxes. this is the san jacinto day. and for those who did not know what that is, this is the official state holiday

that honors taxes independence where 910 soldiers led by gen. sam houston won the decisive battle of the texas revolution. so it is not the battle of the alamo that gave texas its independence. that is the one that people, perhaps, people, perhaps, remember the most maybe because of the movies and books. actually, the battle of the alamo did not turn out too well. virtually everyone was killed, but it gave rise to the opportunity for these 910 men led by general sam -- sam houston on san jacinto day to win the decisive battle of the texas revolution. now, almost 180 years later i think it is only appropriate and fitting that we recognize there bravery and their sacrifices in pursuit of our dream of freedom. but on the subject of the justice of victims of trafficking act, this has been a strange experience

starting, as we did, on something that passed unanimously in the judiciary committee 30 cosponsors on a bipartisan basis and all of a sudden to have this legislation stuck here in the united states senate and i and i won't relitigate the reasons for that because, frankly, i think we have now found a way forward for this legislation as the majority leader, senator mcconnell, and the democratic leader senator reid announced this morning. .. handful of amendments that we'll have an opportunity to vote on, although i know the desire by everyone is for us to finish this trafficking bill as soon as we can and then we can address the concerns that the ranking member from vermont senator leahy has about the attorney general nomination. senator mcconnell has made very clear that once we get

trafficking resolved, which it appears we will -- we are on a path to doing then we can turn to the lynch nomination. but i've actually been somewhat surprised and more optimistic than i have been in a long time about how the senate is beginning to work again from passing a budget to dealing with the broken doc fix that had been the law of the land since 1997 which had required us to come back and patch every six months to a year, and the reforms that actually were negotiated b >> >> and then if you consider what happened in the foreign relations committee with the sanctions issue with a unanimous vote that senator

alexander and senator murray to move forward on the reauthorization of childhood education, we have some good progress i just came from the senate finance committee. ashes consideration of the of partnerships the truth is the united states has roughly 20 percent of the purchasing power. to have 5% of the of world's population they live beyond our borders.

with medium-sized businesses. it is very exciting. so after a long period of dysfunction in the united states and its for it to work again the way it has historically through the committee to build consensus that will come to the floor with a majority to offer suggestions how to solve our nation's biggest challenges then work together to get the president's signature. and i hope even more positive things occur in the near future.

but i have been focused like a laser on justice for the victims of human trafficking. when i think for a minute the typical victim is the 12th or 13th year-old girl that has been sold into use sex slavery and has lost control over her life or for future i cannot think of a more compelling need for the united states senate to offer a lifeline to the victims of human trafficking. do you know what it is really trying to urdu of fund as high as $30 million with fines and penalties paid by people who have often slows them represent the demand side of the human

traffic the equation. we have found a way on the bipartisan basis to move this legislation forward to offer at hand to give them an opportunity to heal for a better future. five virtue of the privilege of the office about here in trafficking and i remember quite clear of a few now works for nonprofits to return her tragic story to likewise to become part of human trafficking herstory is almost beyond belief to say at age seven she was sexually abused literally

held captive in the basement and sold two men who paid money to have sex with her purpose as a seven year-old child. she you had your paid and begin to heal the now she has turned her tragic story into hope to help others find a way out of life that she experienced as she had died healing committee of survivors of rape and abuse and sex trafficking another horrific story as all members have heard coming from their state this is an international phenomenon.

another is melissa of woodward who was 12 years old when she was sold by a family member unbelievable. eventually she was pulled out of school to be trafficked full time when she was in the sixth grade. her life was a prison literally chained to a bed in a warehouse to into were regular beatings and sexual assaults even once they attempted to set her on fire by one of her abusers been forced to serve between five the and 30 men every day she said she wished she was dead. as heartbreaking as her story is just it -- just as

sad is when she escaped her captors at one point because they engaging in prostitution but that is an oxymoron they cannot consent to a life of prostitution and looking at those victims many are manipulated and coerced and forced to be engaged in this sexual activity for the economic benefit to their traffickers this is all about money the face of evil that treats human beings as an object or a thing without the basic dignity and respect them all human beings are entitled to

the one of the problems the way we used to treat those victims was like a criminal that was all too common but ultimately to return to a nightmare that existed in our country and that is beginning to change candidates to change even more which is another reason why we need to pass this bill. this is the kind of legislation that is unique with the non-partisan piece of legislation it was designed to help victims of human trafficking to get on with their lives that provides much needed resources for victims played and simple purport may be nothing more than a safe

place protected from the people who continue to abuse them and designed to help those, of the tens of thousands of human trafficking. this legislation will not only provide help but ensure that children like was the are treated like victims and not criminals. it also has law enforcement tools with the organized criminal the works that support them. that is an important point because it is not mom-and-pop but run by organized crime and criminal the work of some of the international or transnational. thank you to my colleagues for caring about people like melissa and of many examples

of human trafficking we have been introduced zero and i want to express my a colleagues for not giving up until we found of pathway for success this bodies consideration shows that the compromise may not be relative to the past alive rand paul with indeed is so great as it is in this area so now let's get this legislation passed to provide crucial help to the children of modern day slavery to conclude by saying a few thank yous but we would not have gotten this far without the help of the organization of rights

for girls, a coalition against trafficking in women and child prostitution and national associations to protect children and members of the staff to guess where we are today. i will express my gratitude to senator murray and senator reid on the other side of the aisle and senator grassley and tousing allowed senator mcconnell the majority leader who said we will not move the nomination for attorney general until we get this done and today i hope we will then we can enter into that nomination. this senator warner and

hiding camping and others senator collins comes to mind if others who have worked so relentlessly with that determination of where we are today. to get this over the finish line to move to other business.

>> i was in jail because i did not reveal the hidden idea of the source and

protecting sources is the lifeblood of journalism for pro for those and i stuck to with classified information. to protect them my source newswire dried up. and i did not have much choice.

>> but yesterday celebrating martin luther king's burkett -- for its day to have honest and open in a conversation with the excessive force and as the conversation progressed to win from training police officers school will see much the responsibility is as a whole and for the first time and in southern california every talk about race there is enough trust

anti-nafta diversity that was the conversation and in northern california with a progressive community to move beyond discussion or race with diversity as though whole. but to go back and time is all the things that you dealt with in the '50s although baltimore you may have a black community then caucasian then the italian community's soul of a lot of people live in a short range but working with my mayor to have that conversation to bring people to the table to have conversations about race that works to break down those barriers in those communities

veterans affairs budget request. $168.8 billion including funding to expand care to veterans and to transform the va into a customer centric department. this is one hour 50 minutes. and. >> a vietnam veteran and presented himself with chest pains at the v.a. to see the head of cardiology and referred him to the floor and then expired of a heart attack. we want to make sure that does not happen to our veterans to have of our

people and mr. secretary to raise this issue with your multiple times behind that is the story of say cardiologists who thought that was out right now practice. he did not one to resign his record. >> to the chairman and ranking member i have the brief opening statement but i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on the subcommittee and also secretary mcdonald thank you for your work and your commitment to the nation's veterans it is good to see is a key for coming to montana it was informative i hope you feel the same way. and we can address those concerns and issues and

those that are raised today i have been impressed by your the ship purer cantor to confront tough issues you experience that every day. that has created a mistrust to restore that is a task but a lot of that responsibility falls on our shoulders it is critical we provide you with the tools that you need to get the job done and ready to hold accountable those who abuse their authority but also to recognize the dedication those that come to work every day with his singular goal to help those dedicating all the time for

the past failures is not a recipe for success. at the end of the day we're in this together americans veterans are entitled to health care system that is far superior than private-sector benefits and for good reason it is something the veterans have come to rely on so we each have a responsibility to sustain this model. the v.a. must improve its delivery and congress needs to use stepup to fully fund the model as veterans have come to expect. thank you again mr. secretary and thank you for your testimony.

>> ranking member and members of the subcommittee we will discuss the 2016 and 17 appropriation request. for the assistance of veterans service organizations as the v.a. moves from a serious crisis we have a critical opportunity to take full advantage of it. to make it comparable to the best private sector businesses for pro 22 million veterans are registered gore in rolled or using at least one benefit or service. perrault's overtime because demands for services continue to increase. over the years 22% to vietnam veterans have the service connected disability

benefits we expect that to increase from 1960 through the year 2000 the percentage of veterans receiving compensation was about eight-point 5%. over the last 14 years that is more than double. in 2009 completing 980,000 and we project 1.4 million of a 47% increase her but there is a huge growth of medical issues and projected 5.9 million. that is 115% increase over eight years for probe 19531995 the average disability was 30 percent since 2000 there has risen while the total number is declining it is increasing

due to more than the decade of agent orange the increased claims in shares survival rates of the wounded it is important to understand why the most important consideration is an aging veteran population for years ago to point to million veterans at seven-point 5% of the population expecting 9.8 million of 46% we server and older population that is less able to afford private sector care to see those changes has a military downside there will continue to rise.

so whenever they tell us with a a transformation changing the culture of the center of everything we do recall that my eight v.a. but has the objectives to focus on veterans outcomes rather than metrics to improve the veteran experience to have a seamless and responsive customer service experience every time. to approve the employee experience by eliminating barriers of customer service to focus on people and culture to better serve us. third. improving internal support. for. to have continuous improvement to replicate solutions and all facilities to enhance strategic

partnerships we cannot do this by ourselves and they become critical as a first up in the past v.a. had nine structures that were disoriented outlining the organizational boundaries it is better tf1 then multiple disconnected more -- organizations as a storage of taxpayer dollars we will improve those systems but we need a congressional vote in cannot be restored of resources with our current portfolio of assets no business would carry such a portfolio. it is time for that underutilized facility 900 virginia facilities are over

90 years old curly having 336 building is vacant that is 10.5 million square feet in to pay for 144,000 visits to veterans or support the 900 days of nursing home care. please help us to do the right thing my reforms will take time but in the long term there will better provide benefits and services the budget request allows us 73 by five of discretionary fund of mandatory front but that

increase of 5.$2 billion above that inactive level to continue serving of care and benefits the research required in the budget request is an addition to a congress provided with the veterans' stories act we don't know how many will use the act for care or how much it will cost ranging from 4 billion at the low-end 13 at the high. but there are a recent decisions to change the name from a straight line to approximately double veterans eligible for care under the act and does we have requested funds from the act.

the project has a long history but the broadest to this point and in my opinion is significant increase results from four factors in first not walking down a designer in the process. second son had aspects and the third increase the construction cost row we have not effectively negotiated and premiums paid for a perceived risk due to problems with the project we have learned to take meaningful corrective action to improve performance that requires major projects prior chiru request funds. to implement that process

any significant changes would be approved by me prior to submission of congress then looked at the project review board similar to their corps of engineers. and to integrate planners into the construction projects from concept to activation. those measures help in the future but after analysis by the corps of engineers we informed the committee the facility will cost $1.7 billion an increase of 930 million of additional funding of the hundred 30 million. the choice act is the best approach that we must work with this committee to secure the offending the the

project budget request is cut by what is proposed by your colleagues in the house they would have these defects cutting care by $690 million the equivalent of fewer than 70,000 compared to the president's request to eliminate the funding for major construction projects to reduce the ability to provide additional outpatient services the planned rehab therapy building the initial phase of the alameda and california instruction community-based outpatient clinic. to eliminate funding for cemetery expansion and projects in st. louis and

portland and a riverside and pensacola to reduce our ability of 18,000 veterans and eligible family members annually. is unacceptable to me and to members of congress. chairman and ranking member thinks for your support for working on the budget request with the forward to your questions. >> i would ask unanimous consent so that 7.3 billion

for missile defense 7.nine years and in the case to also take up special operations that is a big hit i would add to your list of things the corps of engineers of received the construction. but we have done that as of today. the core is active on the ground working with them and we continue to want to use them and other projects. >> may i make a statement? this is not really a hospital but a medical complex. this is what it looks like as you can see it as many buildings not just one of very close to university of colorado medical school who

is a partner so this is a major undertaking of many buildings not just one hospital i want to be clear. >> with say your proposal is to take $1 billion from the care act that would eliminate about 40 percent of the care act money up promise to have already made to american veterans we do want that because of mismanagement we need to have the people fired to better no longer on the payroll. those that are in charge that you're no longer with us to let them quietly contract -- retire. >> she chose to retire the day after the interview but

if the investigation is ongoing. >> we had evidence of the whistle-blower separate e-mail is likely to go $500 million over budget and that is why you're here because of that the real someone to continue the process to nail the whistleblowers how does that happen? >> of with love to get more information that all whistle-blowers that have been retaliated but the

person to think we would go $500 million over budget that person was let go. >> but we have said it is unacceptable to retaliate against anyone who has criticized our operation. in fact, we believe we want employees the only way that can happen is if they are critical looking at the special counsel to be certified to reinstituted whistle-blowers to new jobs to celebrate with the national board some whistle-blowers to be committed there not

retaliated against and it is unacceptable. >> one to make sure we don't wipe out the money for the overrun we have in denver. >> we just don't know how much of that money will be used and how quickly. >> mr. secretary if we could just wrap up that denver situation it cost 3 million a month to maintain is that true? >> i am not familiar. >> we don't have that figure but we will check. >> echoes of those say that how we need to do our job together and with that being said coming in at one

poillon $4 billion in day chavis of the f y 15 levels with other funding cuts in the past there have been those that have criticized for what you need for monday and there is criticism warranted that led to a funding shortfalls such as the choice act. now a lot of those folks who refuse to give you the flexibility that our veterans need. is it fair to say? >> it is inadequate and will cause the veterans to suffer as i said on the budget we

were going to be very tight purse is that demand and in addition to the budget itself we want flexibility to move items from line item two line item because we cannot predict ephedrines will go for community care with their choice act or virginia care because of the way the budget is formed we don't have that flexibility to move money. >> is it fair to say to to vietnam veterans putting in more demand on the facilities? can you tell me what that means to the veterans? >> the spending cuts it basically means less veterans will get care the medical care has been cut which is the equivalent to a 70,000 fewer veterans

receiving care. does use the demand go up up, you cannot come close. >> is it hiring? we have given increased funding to address that mechanism it looks like we could lose ground to keep the ones we already have. the v.a. dates the authority then to hold them accountable with that cascading negative press with those that we have in montana or in the country not to excuse any of the

wrongdoings but. >> so my question is to you. to what extent. >> senator gesture i have been to a of a dissident kim dates we have looking at competitive pay with than address system. return the have fired over a hundred more doctors area

and we have an open facilities reopened a 17 per year. but the demand has increased during roughly 4 million outpatient patience to nearly 6 million. that demand will increase as we continue to approve the system and customer service. that is not the full effect of those that fight the war's so we have to be ready for 20 years from now. >> i will add on to that for who is responsible for the debacle is in denver with that bonus. >> how could we ever take care of our veterans.

>> if that that was given to her from before purpose as we get to the bottom of this we will talk about the appropriate reaction. >> diane agree with the senator from north channel -- but to work very hard. would shows is that they don't have touche travel -- they don't have it to travel. but to bring up the issue before your time but yet it is hard in the sense that people lose faith.

we have but the fda received the $8 million grant. >> batted said veterans hospital for august 2012 they cannot where do one ted? but to be aware of the conflict at the time but to travel for someone to put some of and then to function

of the accrued to begin with. we have and those things going on and what are the debris have changed the leader. he has experience across many sectors of government and has done this before. i am also in into gear with vice certification is in junior trading yesterday that west point and/or deputy secretary is a former cfo of a bank. very bright and intelligent as we dig into this and i would simply say that what happened. it didn't happen in 2012 i appreciate you bringing it

up but that will not happen in the future it just want. we have designed committee's review of our process with the corps of engineers the best practices available in order to make our system better. >> the one thing to be very careful is yet i don't know how forthcoming the virginia was with the process to be there but even now when you ask how much will it cost to reinstalled. >> i you agree we are trained to be more transparent than ever before and i hope since it became secretary knows seen in increase with my presence and transparencies.

i wish we were more transparent than better. what to i want to compliment you is reimbursement to providers to lacerations -- to provide the situations it appears the v.a. those people lot of money and has not been very forthcoming to pay those bills and it is a concern it is another thing of the trust issue. if you don't pay your bills they will stop dealing with you so could you quickly

talk about that? >> talking about the five strategies was improving the internal support services where we centralize the ability that we're in the process of doing. we are not done yet but that would dramatically improve those rates. >> we are tracking this on a weekly basis and what we have been struggling for a while is improving faster. if you don't pay your bills people would say above to help you but i have to pay rent.

>> thank you very much mr. chairman. with the rest of the of members with their aggressive leadership. i respect the team with the more businesslike approach to what has been an incredible issue to veterans across the country. let me thank you for the constructive dialogue moving forward as you near the first during last week's visit to will be sure that they have access to care for virtue often they are prevented because of barriers to access starting

with disability claims to be adjudicated in a timely manner to reduce that backlog that has been stagnated. i have a chart behind me we have come down dramatically to make good progress and i am hopeful they could get the resources to reduce the backlog was again and started in a downward turn. with regards to use scheduling issue we have a lot of work to do to be sure they're seen on time in the system was not used in a fraudulent manner i asked them to look into this matter and we're waiting their findings and we need

to do more to have creative solutions with their problem facing the medical community this is not something solely a of the a problem to take a leadership role to address based on the budget requirements which could be the best way to improve access of quality care with expanded fee-for-service program or that recruits and retains to expanded to allow health and which is the most cost-effective way? you have given this a lot of thought. we envision a system that is a combination of v.a. care

and community care working together to make sure veterans get the care that they want a bite to comment on your chart if you back up the time period you will see more dramatic decline and all so to go back a couple of years the reason is a level that was we had a head count because we were working mandatory overtime to drive the backlog down to zero. as i was doing town halls i was seeing an increasing conflict of labor and management that 660 people were stripped out of the choice act before it was passed congress did not give

us those people we took that off hoping to drive it down that straight line is when the tipoff mandatory overtime we had to do put it back on the data is not a good idea we have more people to get the backlog down we need those people. >> could you update on who was not on your chart? >> first of all great chart your numbers are right on. >> i should say we published our numbers every two weeks. >> back as vague when

baghdad is the number that has come down you were down to 47% backlog 30500 claims pending you will see the continued downward slope for the next three months because pretty soon it is for the entire nation. >> to ask a question on the tele- health could you very briefly? >> mexico is of model working closely with us so we could use that expertise. rick has worked phenomenally

>> pete you very much. >> thanks for your courtesy. >> i want to thank the secretary and others to be here today for the of willingness to work as you know, in the state like mine we could be hours in the car to help veterans across the country. i know you are aware to be enclosed three times for mold is the facility because of their quality and i think that i read the mobile unit will serve the 2400 veterans in that area.

day you have any other alternatives? >> i would like your land to comment on the specifics. the facilities are too old they need to be replaced every 25 years i talk to about facilities over 100 years old this is unacceptable we have to decide which chew close or refurbish so they don't have these chronic problems we cannot do that with the budget mark down 1.$4 billion by the house and the major construction part is gutted by almost half. >> so we are hopeful we could resolve these issues and i will point out that it

is not part of the calculation for more flexibility. that is the plan right now. >> is definitely a problem. i would briefly ask you. but to mention those excess properties. day you need help with that? how can we help you? it isn't just budgetary is is statutory? iraq to have the up or down vote i think it is of brilliant idea i would suggest it be passed and we

go at it. >> you mentioned these are the region's and to mention of vision this is v.a. 101. >> we have started a process will realign the vision with that region and in doing that to see if there is an opportunity to reduce the number of business this is a huge issue that reflects the actions of accountability 91% of our medical centers have a space leadership team we are weak on the leadership with new of the tourism plays i don't want to increase the span of control so much that we take imager the jurors with less

experience to put them under more pressure so re-elect data modest reduction of business of state boundaries >> that makes no sense. . . we just had a leadership change at that b.a.. are you seeing anything yet, too early to tell? >> i would be happy to follow up with you on that but i want to make the point for you and your colleagues that we are tracking the access and quality issues on an almost daily basis but i would be delighted to follow up. >> thank you for tha