is as we move into this new version of the technology lay down, we started to use we have and are using field input for all of the installations. >> give us some examples of that spirit we have this process called capability gap analysis and those in business partner with gap analysis come as a border patrol agent if something is well-known in this environment. ..

a look at us a hint of where to go next, what might becoming available and we cannot do research on the dhs side. >> what countries your family from? >> vietnam, sir. >> i knew it. north or south beard beatnik salad. >> great to see you. i served a little time over there. >> thank you for serving. thank you for keeping me free and safe all of those years. >> you are welcome. >> urban s&t standpoint i would say the biggest challenge always has been how do we transition from an effort into acquisition and it is a challenge that is

not unique to just dhs. dod has the same challenge and it's been in existence a lot longer. >> have you seen some instances where folks have overcome the challenge? >> yes sir. when i say that the challenge it doesn't mean methane is sufficient. we have a lot of things that dhs as well. what i am trying to say is it is a challenge in the sense the way the budget is structured i'll give you a specific example. my division has been working hand-in-hand and even a lot of technology is in my opening remarks. undergoing assessment right now. the cycle for fy 17. the two organizations sat down and try to put in the budget on

my side with technology costs to complete the development of technology we think would be ready for acquisition and delivery that. the cost acquisition and maintenance of that. we both do it because we know it's the right thing to do. i frankly doubt that the budget request that mr. borkowski put in will get approved. it is just because the way the budget is structured. being an operational department from the cbp has many urgent needs. if ota comes up and ask for a budget for a possible technology that might or might not be successful it doesn't come as a strong argument against other urgent needs. the problem of what we call wedging the budget if we don't do that even if i am successful

to delivery technology and fy a team coming at us by that time we passed the operational assessment and fatal bp says they wanted technology. if mark doesn't have a database plan, he would have to scrounge for me because it's the budget. that is the problem that does impact most of us who are trying to bring an innovative technology into acquisition. >> thank you. where do you wear? you don't work at gao, do you? i think 2.1 and are coming from gao's work on border security and acquisitions were broadly. one is determining what the user needs are upfront before moving forward with deploying technology and it is important

and we've recorded on this as it relates to surveillance technology in arizona for cbp to better document the underlying analysis and justification for what it's deploying, where it is deploying in what quantity. we think that is important. second pieces to ensure you are identifying an arrest early on in the process as the process as possible this cbp's best possession to address those before moving toward full procurement and full deployment. those are two key themes emerging from our work. >> good thanks. do you have any ideas? >> i'll begin by saying i'm an attorney, not policy analyst. i will defer to my co-panelists on that issue and i'd be happy to put you in touch if necessary

with the serous border security experts. i could make an observation and this is more in terms of the legislative role. that is simply that a central issue for congress then what is appropriate level of discussion in the appropriate level of guidance proffered to dhs through legislation. sometimes congress has been very specific. sometimes very general. sometimes it's reevaluated or has provided a general authority later imposed with a specific requirement or other times it has specific requirements that are too onerous and provide a more general framework for dhs to operate with. the two observations would be number one, the appropriate level discussion and died in me the different incompetency depending on the issue related to border security. number two it is not

necessarily guaranteed just because congress had a particular moment is certain amount of guidance should be given that they cannot change it at a later date. >> that was very helpful. i used to get better results trying to figure out how to do something by asking a lot of other people. what do you think? at the end of the day we usually come up with a better idea. if we don't use their idea we have announced. i'll give you a chance to briefly comment. i know you tried to at the beginning and he swung and missed. >> second chance. one is struggled with in the past as we procure new assets. that has been an issue in the

past and one thing we don't want to continue in the future. we make sure that affects the readiness. >> that makes a lot of sense. thank you. >> me ask a couple questions and dropped onto some specifics as well. do you need where people are more technology? if you're going away between the two, which is more than others? >> you have to have the right mix depending on this rainy night tiffany. right now our challenge is finishing what we started on the technology piece. that would do more for us. if you look at the environment at the border, my priority would be our priority for the agency. >> in the type of technology has most of the agencies we met with yesterday have 207 different computer systems in the agent he and they don't all talk to each

other. have grown up organically over the years. at some point you realize it cost more to maintain the systems into centralized ones this time. how many systems do you have and i'll give you a first in spirit how many types of helicopters are you using? >> that would be my area. stars, black cox ac 120. >> would help us from either one or two of those pop rooms as they determine trying to accomplish that maintenance of five different types of aircraft has its own unique dynamic. >> the direction of the go to the helicopters. >> or would it take to get there? >> basically for chairman of the helicopters to replace the one that are odd types. >> is that something we need to help with?

>> part of it is on the process. >> you mean you can't retire the old ones? >> i can't replace the ones that need replacing. >> other technologies we have multiple platforms love. is there a need to shrink one or two types that have been tried and tested. we've had five different types of knowing the 20 into a couple. >> actually, we went the other way with the crown based knowledge it because we had this largest of the system which was overkill. it made sense to have a multiple number of technologies from small to large. the way we handle that is designing a strategy where essential as our work hours that does maven to take advantage of economies of scale. is a work in progress. it does continue to be concerned with multiple radars, multiple

cameras we want to make the cameras the same but that will be a plan going forward. >> tell me a time. i'm not. again the more people five feet in and the fewer people would have on border patrol. >> by the way and this is counterintuitive that the actual cost sustaining the system has gone down because we sustain lower cost systems. that doesn't mean we can't drive efficiencies and drivers even further. so far this is a good trend. the way we deal with the combination is what we call technology refresh i systems asian three, five, seven years. will be the the timeline we talk about. >> currently, what are we detecting that we can't address

their aerial systems for detecting what percentage we cannot address to get someone to do in a manner to actually enter date. >> the fixed and mobile technology does really well on ground targets. the assets brought on the ua ice has been very good. i think our biggest challenge collectively with air and marine trying to procure the slow rate of protection for small ultralight aircraft that has been a challenge for us. we've had some success but not as far along us would like to be. the other big challenge based on terrain and conditions of protection. >> that is headed to my next question. where are we technology wise?

>> where the system was borrowed from dod and had some success with. terrain varies so much that it is very difficult to find about a machine that will machine that will give us the fidelity that you would like to see the kind of things would get with aircraft or six hours, et cetera. >> what kind of interchange would that be to be able to swap all we've learned and what we've gained, the head of this can help far as communication or are you finding any walls of separation. >> we have a great extent is increasing relationship with dod at all levels from the secretary to the lieutenant colonel nick in the decision. mr. wong has an office that does that. we are very much plugged in with technology they do. all kinds of programs are not in to the environment and in some

cases to support operations. very extensive. >> we do have extensive collaboration. dod has taken to want us to buy systems. before excess military cases were passed for use in homeland security, now we have to purchase those. >> are you getting warmer prices or saks fifth avenue prices. >> it is not saks fifth avenue. there is then everything on the dod site. >> one more thing on aircraft and how that is working our blood. amazing the right term? >> there are two systems. the system i work with this guitar system, high-altitude 15,000 feet works very well. needs to be recapitalized and also i will let her talk about the systems. >> the lower altitude systems that we borrowed from dod in

iraq and afghanistan distinguish. we have five of them in texas. they are relatively expensive. has been extraordinarily effect. we are now in the process of deciding at that cost how often we should use them. >> is that the item itself for statement? >> it is the operation and sustainment. has been able to get dod to transfer for the small ones. but right now we are leasing systems and paying for the operations and support. >> one more thing if i may. i want to come back to a percentage i talked about before. the percentage of people in just a gas we can detect. >> one of the measures is called the effectiveness and it is designed to get how many people across the border last night in hominy apprehended.

this is an estimate but the data for last year shows where the 75% to 70% effectiveness on the southwest border. >> those are individuals who saw that we could pick up. feedback either through a camera observation, individual agent or what we call footprint in the desert. you wrap this up and tried to do a four by seven estimate across the southwest border. also the effectiveness ratio accounts for the people who came in and were apprehended as well and ran back. will recall turned backs. >> thank you senator lankford. in terms of testifying before the committee, there is discrepancy there. if you are looking at detection and measuring how many people you detect versus how many you

apprehend, it is 75%. you are not detecting everybody which is why asked a question about some understanding of the situational awareness. is there any sense of what you are not protect in question aren't >> at the departmental level they are also the tempting to look at apprehension which would start to estimate the flow that gives you a scientific estimate about the number of people crossing. when it reports real-time information there were enough asians to show you what is happening in real time and record the responses in real time. it is very well documented. you can use the camera and the data is to wrap the shift by shift come a day by day look at trends across in the places where we don't have that deployment we use the change

detection technology. for instance, something that hangs off of the ua ice that can fly the border take a digital snapshot if you will end and interval later, maybe an hour, maybe a shift, maybe a day. you can start to recognize change based on the way of the picture. you can verify when you have crossings and they will find out if there is change in the specific areas to investigate what it is. so that can be useful in this location where we believe based on the people who live there based on the dignity levels that there's not a lot of traffic and we validate publications doublecross border traffic. >> this is very difficult to wrap your arms around in what the information is and what the truth is. we started this series of hearings on border security.

certainly dhs is funny to apprehension switches because i may check for how effect do we are securing our border. at the same time we started our first panel, people on the border themselves. very emphatic making the border not a fear. a pretty interesting metric a depressing metric when we have general mccaffrey here. he said there were only interdicting 5% to 10% of illegal drugs. there's some pretty big discrepancies. 75% to 70%. only 5% to 10% in drugs. as i grapple with that plus border patrol agents talking people on the ground 30% to 40%. i realize it's difficult to

grapple with, but i really take a look at the interdiction rid of drugs as pretty indicative of how not secure our border is. can you comment on terms of how that relates. >> as they get better with these deployments as we fill up out the plan and move into the other locations will get better in all categories. we look at more effective at the drug interdictions. looking not to estimate and looking under seizure data there is a wide discrepancy. but if it is out there and agents get wind of it, if they can track it down and they can interdiction, they'll do that. there's a lot of hope out there. >> you dispute the estimate that 5% to 10% range? >> i can't dispute it. i'm not familiar with the

aggregate of drugs produced. i assume we are in a small percentage of interdictions actually made. >> the reason i point that out as we explore the problem for the manufacture back around, the ranking member talks about causes well. if i were to put a finger on the root cause of our border it's our insatiable appetite for drugs and the drug cartels with the destruction of institutions in central america. this is a huge problem and the drug cartels align themselves with international criminal organization aligning themselves with terrorists. it's why we spend so much time on it. commissioner alles, i owe you the ability to respond to the office of inspector general's report on the drug program.

you're pretty emphatic that you did not agree with it. just giving you the opportunity to give your bum that report. >> part of the discussion has been on the old issue of awareness that will recall the main awareness and now is one of the key things missing from the report. the predator uis system has sensors on it. we've never had before the movements of the craft and also personnel and they seem to have missed that for some reason. 18,000 detections in the report in 2013. that's a pretty substantial detection rate of technology. the other part is they did not consider the value of the system in terms of contraband. we just finished the deployment in el salvador at $370 million in contraband. that is impressive for this half of the year that we completed

with $370 million. for the year they did the report we have a 440% return on investment versus our calculation versus butler returned in contraband. it's been a successful system overall and i look forward to better performance in the future. >> one of the biggest problems in inspector general's report of his hours of operation and the inability to drive that cost for operational level down. can you speak to that at all? >> this is an area we need to still work in. it is not achieving the hours i want to achieve each year. part of that has to do with the weather but we need to build the system terms of personnel, maintenance. i would like to get it more towards 9000. is not looking for the numbers they put out. frank has been mentioned to you

guys, those kinds of rates aren't available. >> very quickly because this is a detection and you are in charge of apprehension. you speak to the program and how useful that will be what are the drawbacks and advantages. >> this is something we have never tried before and people were project team that we weren't even sure of is capable of doing. it turned out to be a useful system and we are now underway to procure more. we think it will be part of the future and obviously something makes the uas more capable. already robust system been able to see moving targets in real time. we've learned a lot. we are starting to experiment and use operational test in south texas and we look forward to it there as well. >> besought pretty amazing

demonstration when we were down there. senator carper. >> good to hear. very encouraging. if you and mr. alles and mr. borkowski would respond because it's my understanding the house that level somewhere between $39 billion come in maybe a shade over that. this is $350 million below this year's appropriation. thomas $2 billion from what the president requested for 2016. take a moment and talk to us about have the potential budget cuts will impact your work and associate work with to secure our borders. >> yes sir. it is obviously potential. the first tier would be of

concern in the flight hours to maintain that area that is what we projected in the coming years. if we can't back that is going to sub optimize our forests were situated in aircraft at the levels. if we don't do we have not been as efficient as it can be. i should just kill them is good with two per year if not actually! multi-employers in aircraft. it is a key error. jay beech king air. if i were to somehow stop because of money that would close. >> obviously and i will leave it to the chief of general alles to talk about the impact, but

there's also a medium impact. oftentimes we need to cut back on contracts. for example, i have an arrangement with industry. the arrangement is up to but not necessarily all the way up to two years in this tree projects based on mind and take some chances in the early part. if i cut the downstream effort they don't get the return on investment. the other thing that happens is competition becomes winner take all. because down and dirty and increase protests installation process. it affects the ability and interest in investing independent research and development three.it should provide for the future appears it makes it difficult for the long-term when she clearly within the system. it allows us to have his good transition including industry for the s&t arena.

>> okay. chief peers >> senator, it remains to be seen whether this cut are. give me a chance to amend my answer about what not to do. >> we don't have a lot of second chances. what happens at cbp is as a component we have over 70% of the budget apply to salary. that if people in the field. almost everybody employed at cbp is 65 plus thousand. smaller numbers in each of the field locations. within the border patrol specifically, an enormous amount of money provided by utah, but 93% goes to salary. it becomes difficult to decide what you need to make that capable but you cannot do with specific levels of cuts.

93% labor come 7% to do everything else that has to do. all the cars and radios and clothes of the equation becomes a difficult challenge for us here is >> different subject. this would be for you ms. gambler and ms. duong and if we have time these guys. not just congress, but others as well often are better at buying technology than we are paying to get the full value of those investments doesn't make a lot of sense. we talked a little bit about this already. they are not ready to pay for their operation cost to keep disaster spending while and make sure we have the right people trained to do that. city should you comment starting with you ms. gambler on whether this is a challenge for

the security security investments and what advice you have for us on how to improve matters? >> with regard to the arizona technology plan, when we get a report of last year, we did assess the cost estimate at cbp has placed on the players in the highest cost programs under the plan had found cbp could take additional action is to ensure the lifecycle cost estimates meet practices. a key area was in the first ebp to verify and validate estimates against independent estimate to make sure the estimates of both fully reliable and credible and we made recommendations in the area to ensure the lifecycle cost estimates were fully meet practices and we understand and mr. borkowski may speak to this literature dating the lifecycle

cost estimates for the plan going forward. >> ms. duong. >> from the same point of technology that we have s&t are developing, as would make sure have a good job investigating the lifecycle cost before we submit that information to mr. borkowski, for example for a potential acquisition. as you know, before we start a project, we are addicted with an operating component and estimating return on investment. ..

>> so it's not just about oh, look what great this capability could do what great things this capability could do for you but if you were to buy one or three or five systems and we estimate it would help you find five or ten more tunnels just be with conservative per year, what does that mean in terms of cost saving? so we try to do that from an s&t standpoint to help them make the right decision. the other part is about acquisition program. and as you know s&t it's not in our responsibility to do acquisition. that's otia's responsibility.

however, the department does employ us as an adviser and we try to make investments to help acquisition programs better understand the implication of the maintenance costs the tale of anything. just like you pointed out senator, a lot of times the acquisition costs is actually the lowest cost, but it's the easiest one that everybody look at. so s&t always say that we want to be able to spend millions in order to save billions or hundreds of millions for mark. so it's always a goal that we strive to achieve and the department has become more and more, has become more and more in recognition of our role. and i'm glad to say that s&t has become a trusted adviser for the department along that line. >> oh, good.

well my time's expired. we're going to have one more round so i can let these guys answer that question or not. >> no, i've got a couple more questions also. >> great great. >> chief, i've got a couple questions, i do want to go over this office of inspector general report that came out today about the lack of the department collecting data on prosecutorial discretion deferred child had action and arrivals. in the report it says as of september 30 2014, cbp's office of border patrol reportedly had released 650 daca-eligible individuals. so you are keeping track of that? and what fashion -- >> in cbp specifically in the border patrol when we process someone who is encountered by an agent and refer them to deportation proceedings or in the case of unaccompanied children to the hhs and then all of the encounters that we make are document inside a system.

documented in a system, the enforcement system. so if it's appropriate fingerprints biographical data, photos, etc. >> but if you're apprehending somebody illegally crossing the border, how could they qualify legally under daca? >> they would not. >> but you released 650 under that? >> i don't know that's a cbp number i have not seen the report. we've had very few encounters with daca-eligible individuals in our context. >> yeah. according to this report you reed 650 isis released 12,750, so your percentage, obviously is quite low. i was just questioning why -- how could anybody qualify under daca coming into this country illegally? >> so we do have environments we operate in is such as checkpoints that are encountered by our agents, and they have eligibility under the standard. not everybody we come in contact with obviously has crossed the border. >> i believe the department has

basically agreed with the recommendations of the office of inspector general to collect more data. are you -- have you already been contacted in terms of the kind of data they're looking for as it relates to prosecutorial discretion? >> specifically to that, i have not seen that. we are always looking for ways to identify where there are gaps in the system so the issue with the unaccompanied children last year we struggled mightily with understanding how our data connected with the data that i.c.e. keeps as it relates to the detention and then, further on the removal proceedings within the justice department. that's been a struggle for us for a couple of years. >> do you deal much with the prioritization of who we're going to remove, aliens, fugitives, otherwise? is that something you deal with or just, basically you apprehend with them, and somebody else deals with those criterias? >> there's a training regiment for everybody to understand what the priorities are but,

obviously, over 190,000 arrests or apprehensions made so far this year, those are all recent border entrants, so they fall well within the priorities for action. >> so those priorities really don't affect you as much as they obviously affect i.c.e. or other -- >> correct. >> -- justice or hhs. okay. you did mention border patrol agents, the numbers. i just want to get your assessment. i know the texas d. of public safety engaged in operation strong safety, and they surged a lot of manpower to the border. i just want to get your evaluation how effective that was. because we've talked about technology, you know different technicians -- detection systems, fencing, that type of thing in the end we need manpower. so just give me your assessment of how operation strong safety worked in, i believe, it was mcallen, texas or all texas

borders? where's that centered? >> it's mostly south texas. i've actually seen directly the deployments in the rio grande valley, and obviously i'm going to tell you more boots on the ground is always better. that really would be for the state to tell you how effective their deployments have been. but i know we've worked very closely with them. most of our deployments especially in south texas are near the river. and having the department of public safety's -- they have some capabilities and role enforcement on the river, etc., but most of that deployment is related to hard top on the highways, and they've been an asset for us with regard to, you know helping chase smugglers, etc. >> so is operation strong safety is that continuing? >> as far as i know, it is. >> have you measured at all? do you have kind of a before and after now? >> i can look at all of the data that we've developed. i'm not sure -- obviously locally we're aware of their contributions directly. but, again, it's a situation where there are more boots on

the ground, etc., in that particular location. and in their deployments they help us in the areas where we know traffic is going to eventually try to make it if it's made it past us. >> we were down there particularly the sunday the extra day i stayed down there, you see their presence. i would never try speeding around the rio grande valley. i would really be interested in any kind of analysis your agency your department do in terms of, you know, what was the apprehension rate, what was the detection rate prior to the operation strong safety, and what is it now. because i think it's just a really good test case of additional manpower, and we can kind of measure how much we've increased the manpower because of that. >> yeah. so we have seen, you know, obviously, you know, in the prior testimony that you mentioned, we've seen lower levels of activity across the southwest border. >> okay. >> that does include where the strong safety is employed. what's their contribution of the other assets we've been able to

procure and send to the agents for their use and capability there, that's the part we struggle with. that's what you want us to do better at. >> yeah. so again, please look at that i mean, it's -- and, because for example, we talk to the people where those things were deployed, it shut down illegal crossings, but they just went someplace else. so -- go ahead. >> that's often the case. i mean, i think what you what i've heard from the agents on the ground that are the benefit of that capability they went from not having, you know, high altitude persistent surveillance situational awareness if you will to having, you know, a very capable system. we're advantaged in the sense that we don't have to use agents to monitor those seven sores and run those systems. the other side of that coin is it's very expensive -- yeah and when the wind's blowing and they're down, let's face it. i would cross when the wind's

blowing. >> correct. that's why we're in favor of the additional rvss, the cameras and sensors on the fixed and the mobile technology. we know those capabilities work. we've got a long history with some of it. we know that's part of the future, and you won't be subject to the vagaries of the weather. >> okay, thank you. i was actually trying to be shorter, but i've got so many questions. senator keep. senator carper. >> so many questions so little time. i'd like to take, ask chief mr. borkowski and mr. ales, just go back to my last question about life cycle. no more than a minute apiece, but could you comment whether this is a challenge for the department in terms of border security investments and what advice, if any, you have for us and how to improve on this. >> yeah. i think we have -- this is the data question, this is refining the assets that are available and recognizing what life cycle costs. as an operator we try to say

this is the environment, this is the problem we're trying to solve, and we leave it to the acquisition professionals to understand what's out there, how much does it cost. and i think we've gotten really good at learning how to establish requirements and then recognizing that life cycle what we call o&m, operations and maintenance, is crucial for us to understand before we make the final decisions on deployments. >> okay, thanks. mr. burkowski? >> senator we've got some discipline to check the affordability which includes whether or not we can pay for o&m, but there is a continuing problem -- and i'll just be frank, that when i challenge people they blame it on congress. >> no. >> they do. i'm not sure that's true, but i'll tell you what they say. what happens is we buy more technology right? you would expect that the operation and maintenance costs would go up. so what our budget plan is, let's suppose i have $100, and i start with $80 to buy it and $20 to operate it. after i've built all of my

technology, maybe i'm down to 0 and i've moved all of that money from buying to operating and maintaining. what happens is the budget people don't look at that as a total of 100. they look at it as money to buy and money to operate okay? >> they see the money to buy going down and they say that's great, we love you you save money. that's not really true, but that's what they say. but we hate you for operation and maintenance because that's gone up, and you need to make it flat. that's the real problem we tend to have with operation and maintenance. we have to look at the totality of the budget, not the individual pieces. >> okay, thank you. mr. alles? >> senator lankford asked a key question about numbers of different types of airplanes. we compute life cycles across each year platform, but if you think about the big picture five different kinds of airplanes, five different pilot training programs, fiver different maintenance supply chains training programs, those

kinds of things. so one efficiency we need to keep working on is these numbers of different platforms. >> good. excellent. question if i could for ms.-- chief vitiello. it's my understanding that cbp is doing an extensive gap analysis for border security that involves what else is needed to better secure our southwestern worder with mexico -- border with mexico. could you give us a preview of what might be in that gap analysis, and when do you think it might be done? how could it be used? >> so describing the process, the capability gap analysis is gone to the field asked them what their challenges are where they have specific things that they would like to solve with technology with additional kinds of deployments or other innovative ways to solve problems at the immediate border and in, you know, specific zones, specific stations, specific sectors. and so what we've done is we've gone to the work force we've --

i explained to them what the process is and then gone out and taken surveys and gotten from the agents who walk the ground, who patrol the border, who are there and gotten their ideas about what is required. we try to take that data that information at the station level, roll rate up to the sector d roll it up to the 20 sectors that are out there, and that will be fed to us at the headquarters. right now we're many a situation where the training is out for the bulk of the work force 95 98% of it, and we've got about 70% of their ideas and their innovations about how to go forward with specifically on the technology side. we've got about 70% of the data in. once we get all of the data, we'll have a baseline. we'll start to have conversations to find out is there technology available, is technology the best available resource for solving the problem as stated? and then we'll be able to it rate that process as we learn about new things that are coming onboard, what the future looks like. using the success we know we

have with other things and try to fit a program together that says this is how many of these things that you need, and then you could go down specifically into the locations and say, you know, for instance the agents need the brush cleared, or they need additional rvss. that's the kind of capability we look to have once the cgap the first iteration is in as we move forward. >> and last -- thank you for that. and the last thing i want to just touch on briefly and when we think of force multipliers we think of a lot of stuff we talked about here today. and it's important. sometimes i think in terms of our being able to better insure that our borders are not so porous is to use a needle in the haystack analogy. and say the needles are folks that are trying to get into our country. could be human traffickers, it

could be drug traffickers, it could be just people trying to flee a hell arabs situation -- hellacious situation at home. one of the ways is to make the haystack smaller. another way is to have better equipment to detect the needs and maybe another way would make the needles bigger. would -- and i think to some extent if we, if we do immigration reform, do it smart, we can actually make some progress in, on this front. if we do a better job with intelligence. i think one of the reasons we do pretty well up on the northern border is the great relationship we have with the canadians and a lot of sharing of intelligence and doing joint operations. the other thing i keep coming back to, and the chairman and i have talked about this a fair

amount, we've talked with general kelly, southcom about it. and that is to figure out how to convince a lot of people that live under guatemala and el salvador, that they ought to just live this and figure out how we can make them less likely to want to flee their country to come up here. did you all have any thoughts on any of this before we close? be i'd welcome that. mr. garcia, just briefly any thoughts please. just very briefly. you may not have, that's fine. okay. yeah. it's okay. ms. gambler. >> i would just add on the unaccompanied alien children issue which i think we have touched on today gao has a body of work looking at that issue and have a couple of reports that will be issued this summer including looking at u.s. programs in central american countries to address some of those issues as well as a report looking at screening care and custody for the children when they're, when they come to the

u.s. and so -- >> good. >> -- we'll have some work on that this summer that will help inform some of those points. >> good. we'll welcome that, thanks. ms. duong? >> senator, i know the focus of this hearing is not about -- >> i'm going to ask you to be very brief. >> -- or p.o. event, but when we talk about needle in haystack, that is exacerbated at point of entry because we know that travel is increasing by 5% per year it's, indeed, one of the strategies that s&t is pursuing technology for. >> okay. excellent, thanks. chief? just briefly. >> i would echo your comments as it relates to our partners in canada. i think that relationship is a very good one. the local law enforcement and the federal law enforcement as well as our partners in canada, that makes a big difference. we're increasingly having those kinds of conversations in mexico, and as we get more smart about how the unity of effort and the joint task forces roll

out, it'll give us another opportunity to use the whole-of-government approach at the southwest border. and as mexico, our relationship with them matures, it will be a benefit to all of us. >> any -- very, very briefer comments. >> i like the needle in a haystack. if technology deters, it can reduce the haystack so we agree with you but we also agree that technology's not the only or not necessarily the best way to get there. >> thanks. mr. alles? >> briefly, joint task forces help and then i think working with mexico better is going to help us. >> great. thanks so much. thank you all. great panel. i appreciate it. >> thanks, senator carper. i think one of the advantagings of me not making long opening statements i'll make a closing one, because i've got a comment. if you want to reduce the haystack, what you should do is try and reduce, maybe even eliminate, the incentives for illegal immigration. one chart we have been putting

up here is a history of unaccompanied children coming from central america. and prior to deferred action on childhood arrivals, we were somewhere around 3 or 4,000 per year. and then, you know, we issued those memorandum in 2012, and that number jumped to 10,000. the next year, 20,000. the following year, 51,000. i know it's come down a little bit, but it's still way above historic levels. so i think we have to, again looking at the reality of the situation, what causes these things, and we need to reduce those incentives. i've always been very supportive of a functioning guest worker program. 8.1 million of those individuals here in this country illegally are working. it's a rational decision. when you have, you know, wages that are so much lower in central america and mexico than they are here in the united states it's a rational economic choice particularly when the reality of the situation is

regardless of what the memorandums say or says, if you get into america, people are staying, you know? particularly if you're a minor. so i think we really need to take a look at our policy. i want to solve the problem. i think realistically we're probably not going to have a comprehensive -- we don't really do comprehensive very well. so what i've asked the secretary, what i've, hopefully, asked my ranking members, work with me. let's identify those incentives, let's reduce them, and let's start approaching this on a step-by-step basis. i come from a manufacturing background. you don't solve problems just like that. i'm all -- i'm perfectly willing to engage in continuous improvement. let's take the step-by-step, incremental improvements. let's identify the things we can do. if all of you would be willing to work with this committee to identify those incentives, identify those steps, maybe those small little pieces of legislation. we reported one out of our committee yesterday -- last week in a business meeting just

allowing cbp on federal lands in arizona. i'd like to do it across the board, probably some resistance there, so how about we just take a look at arizona and see if that would actually work. so i really do hope that the administration the department your individual agencies will work with us. let's identify those and, you know take a step-by-step approach and improve border security. with that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days -- no i forgot to thank all you folks. again, thank you very much for your thoughtful testimony for sitting here and answering, you know in very thoughtful manner. we really do appreciate it. i know how much time and effort goes into this, so thank you very much. the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until may 28th, 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the record. this hearing's adjourn end. adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> the senate has reached a deal to move ahead on a trade bill giving the president broad authority when negotiating trade agreements. the fast track trade promotion authority would require congress to vote on treaties without amendments or filibusters. here's senator mcconnell announcing that deal along with majority leader harry reid and senators wyden and lankford. this is 35 minutes. >> mr. president this morning i restated my commitment to working with senators in a serious way to move our country ahead on trade and the economy of the 21st century. i said that we need to allow debate on this important issue to begin and that our colleagues across the aisle need to stop blocking us from doing so. that's the view from our side. it's the view from the white house. and it's the view of serious people across the political spectrum. i've repeatedly stated my

commitment to serious bipartisan ways forward on this issue. now serious and bipartisan does not mean agreeing to impossible guarantees or swallowing poison pills designed to kill the legislation, but it does mean pursuing reasonable options that are actually designed to get a good policy result in the end. that's why i've agreed to keep my party's significant concession of offering to process both tpa and taa on the table. it's why i've said we could also consider ore policies that -- other policies that chairman hatch and senator wyden agreed to and that's why i've underlined my commitment to an open amendment process once we get on the bill with. of course, our friends across the aisle now say they also want a path forward on all four of the trade bills the finance committee passed, and this isn't just an issue for our friends on the other side. there's a great deal of support on our side, on our side for

many of the things contained in these other bills. however, as the senior senator in the democratic -- a senior senator in the democratic leadership reminded us yesterday, we have to take some of these votes separately, or else we kill the underlying legislation. so the plan i'm about to offer will provide our democratic colleagues with a sensible way forward without killing the bill. the plan i'm about to offer will allow the regular order on trade bill while also allowing senators the opportunity to take votes on the customs and preference bills in a way that will not imperil the increased american exports and american trade jobs that we need. we would then turn to the trade bill with tpa and taa as the base bill and open the floor to amendments as i've suggested all week.

it's reasonable, so is i look forward to our friends across the aisle now joining with us to move forward on this issue in a serious way. so, mr. president i ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, may the 4th, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 57 h.r. 1295 and callen -- number 56, h.r. 644 en bloc, the hatch amendments at the desk the text of which are s. 1267 and s. 1269 respectively be considered and agreed to. that no further amendments be in order and that at noon the bills, as amended, be read a third time and the senate then proceed to passage on h.r. 1295 as amended. followed by a vote on the passage of h.r. 644 as amended

with no intervening action or debate and that there be a 60 affirmative vote threshold needed for passage of each bill, and that if passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. i further ask that following disposition of h.r. 644, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314 be agreed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314 be agreed to and that at 2 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314. further, that if cloture is invoked, the 30 hours of postcloture consideration under 22 be deemed expired at 10 p.m. on thursday night. >> is there objection? democratic leader? >> [inaudible] first of all, i want to take

just a very brief minute and express my appreciation to my democratic colleagues who have been understanding and vocal in their opinions as to what we should do to move forward. i also extend my appreciation to the republican leadership, the majority leader, for having this suggestion to go forward. we worked together last 24 hours. i think we've come up with something that is fair. a bipartisan majority of the finance committee reported out four trade measures; fast track trade adjustment assistance, trade enforcement and a bill expanding trade for africa. democrats what a path forward on all four parts of this legislation. yesterday we made it clear that we didn't accept merely a fast track or new trade agreements, we also must enforce the trade agreements we make. the proposal before us today provides that path forward. so i look forward to

consideration today and tomorrow of the trade enforcement package and the africa bill. once we've proceeded with the fast track measure the majority leader has offered an amendment process that in his words, will be open, robust and fair. i appreciate that offer. it is a complex issue and one that deserves a full and robust debate. once we get on the trade bill democrats will want to debate and vote on a number of amendments and so with the background and the understanding we have on both sides i do not object. >> [inaudible] mr. president? >> senator from georgia. >> i did not rise with the intention of objecting could i propound a question to the majority leader? >> why don't we get the -- [inaudible] >> i'd prefer to propound the question first. mr. leader, as i understand it, the african bill and the trade the african bill and trade enforcement bill will be in tandem, and then we'll go to tpa and taa which will be open for

amendment s that correct? >> the senator from georgia's correct. >> in that case, i would not object, but i'd ask unanimous consent that senator coons and i be allowed to make a one minute statement. >> is there objection? without objection. >> mr. president, on the committee we put an in-cycle and out of cycle review vis-a-vis poultry and other issues important to the united states. we would have offered an amendment on the floor had it been possible without this uc, but we have gotten permission to talk to ambassador froman who has assured us he is willing to instigate an out-of-cycle review or whenever necessary and i commend him on doing that and wanted to memorialize that in the record, and i yield to senator coons for the purpose of confirmation. >> mr. president, i thank my colleague, senator isaacson, of georgia, and simply want to express my shared concern that if we are going to proceed to a long-term renewal of the african

growth in opportunity act which provides duty-free access to the u.s. markets to all of sub-saharan africa -- which i support and i've worked hard with the senator from georgia and many others to make possible -- that we also insure there isfective trade enforcement. this is a basic principle that underlies all of the proceedings here today that those of us who support free trade and an open global trade market also support fair trade and effective enforcement. and as the good senator from georgia recently commented, we are acting in reliance upon representation by the united states trade representative that there will be enforcement action taken, if appropriate on access to the markets in south africa. with that, i thank the president and yield the floor. >> is there an objection for the request of the majority leader? >> [inaudible] >> without objection so ordered. >> mr. president? >> senator from oregon. >> mr. president before he leaves the floor, i want to thank the senate majority leader for working with us in the constructive fashion to make it possible for all of the vital

parts of the trade package to be considered. look forward to working closely with him. and, colleagues, i will say that what has been done through the cooperation of the majority leader and the minority leader is in effect, to say that trade enforcement will be the first bill to be debated. and in doing so, it drived home yesterday's -- it drives home yesterday's message of 13 pro-trade democrats who together said that robust enforcement of our trade law is a prerequisite to a modern trade policy. and in making this the first topic for debate, it is a long overdue recognition that vigorous trade enforcement has got to be in the forefront not

in the rear, and a recognition that the 1990s nafta trade playbook is being set aside. now, mr. president, i'm going to be brief at this point but i'd just like to give a little bit of history as to how we got to this point. >> mr. president? would the senator from oregon yield for a moment? >> i'd be happy to. >> thank you. i want to thank senator wyden for his work on the customs bill that we will be debating the bill to which he's referring especially his amendment that we worked on on prohibition of child labor closing an 85-year loophole, if you will allowing child labor in far too many cases, and we as a nation were importing goods produced by child labor. i appreciate his support and senator hatch's support early in the process before the mark-up began on our level-the-playing

field language which is particularly important to a number of industries in this country to make the playing field more level, as senator wyden was saying and, third importance of currency. we know how many jobs we've lost in my state and all over the country because of what's happened with people gaming the -- countries gaming the currency system. so i just wanted to express my thanks to senator wyden. >> mr. president before he leaves the floor, i want to thank senator brown for again and again putting in front of the committee and all senators the importance of this issue. and i just want to read a sentence from the paper yesterday that really puts a human face on this enforcement issue that senator brown has so often come back to. a quote here from "the new york times" that says: candy makers want to preserve a loophole. now, this is the loophole that we've closed in the customs

bill. the article goes on to say that candymakers want to preserve this loophole that allows them to import african cocoa harvested by child labor. now, what senator brown has said is without, in effect, this enforcement language, this vigorous enforcement language that's in the customs bill we would basically be back in yesteryear's policy. back in what we had for decades and decades where youngsters would be exploited in this way. so we're going to talk about trade here for a few days. and i think colleagues and, certainly, my colleagues on the finance committee know that i strongly support expanded trade. i look at the globe and there are going to be a billion middle class people in the developing

world, mr. president in 2025. they're going to have a fair amount of money to spend, and we want them to spend on the goods and services produced in the united states. so we support expanding those opportunities, increasing those exports. and the reality is expanding trade and expanding exports and enforcing the trade law are two sides of the same coin. because what happens at home, i have community meetings in all of my counties, had several just here in the last several weeks. the first question that often comes up is a citizen will say i hear there's talk about a new trade deal. well, how about first enforcing the laws that are on the books? and that's why the group of 13 pro-trade senators yesterday wanted to weigh in right at the outset of this debate talking about how important trade

enforcement was to a policy that i call, mr. president trade done right. trade done right. a modern trade policy. and i'm going to be brief here in opening this discussion. but i wanted to just spend a few minutes describing how we got to this place. a few weeks ago the finance committee met and passed a bipartisan package of four bills. these were more than a year in the making, and the message that i sought to send right at the outset was a message that would respond to all the people in this country who want to know if you're doing more than just going back to nafta. and those four bills suggest that this will be very different. the first, trade promotion bill,

the tpa as it's called, helps rid our trade policies of excessive secrecy. and the reason this is so important, mr. president is first thing people say whether it's in south carolina or oregon or anywhere else is what's all this excessive secrecy about? if you believe strongly in trade and you want more of it, why would you want to have all this needless secrecy that just makes people so convinced that you're kind of, sort of hiding things? so we have made very dramatic changes in that area. a second strengthens and expands the support system for our workers. it's known as trade adjustment assistance. and this is to make sure that when there are changes in the private economy, changes that so

often take place and cause workers to see positionings that they've had -- positions that they've had be affected, this is a section of trade policy that gives them a chance almost a springboard into another set of job opportunities. and the third would finally put, as i've said, trade enforcement into high gear so that we can crack down on trade cheats and protect american workers and exports. the reality is trade enforcement is a jobs bill. it's protecting jobs. and that's another reason why it's so important. and the fourth, which is touched on, has been touched on by our distinguished colleague, the senator from georgia, senator from delaware involves the trade preference programs that are so crucial to both our

employers and developing countries. taken together, the bills form a package of trade policies that are going to help our country create more high skill high wage jobs in my state and across the land. and as i have said so often, if you wanted to explain what a modern trade policy is in a sentence, what you'd say is this is the kind of approach that helps us grow things in america make things in america, add value to them in america and then ship them somewhere. and particularly, if you look to that developing world where they're going to be in just a few years a billion middle class consumers, that strikes me as a real economic shot in the arm

that will be of long-term benefit to our people. now, with respect to enforcement i want to take just a few minutes to talk about why i think this is an appropriate opening step in the legislative process. now, mr. president i already talked about the 14 -- 1314 pro-trade democrats that got together and weighed in as a group. and why we did it is that trade enforcement in that particular bill, which is part of the initial debating here, is a jobs bill. it is a cornerstone of a new trade approach that is going to reject the status quo. as the president said to his credit during the state of the union address: past trade deal cans haven't always -- deals

haven't always lived up to the hype. my own view is a lot of that can be attributed to subpar trade enforcement. that, in my view s because so many of the same old enforcementing tools from the nafta era and decades prior just aren't the right kind of tools to get the job done in 2015. our competitors overseas, mr. president, use shell companies, fraudulent records and sophisticated schemes to play cat and mouse with u.s. customs authorities. our competitors overseas in a number of instances intimidate american firms into relocating factories or surrendering our intellectual property. our competitors often spy on our companies and trade enforcers to steal secrets and block our efforts at holding them

accountable. to mask that are activities -- their activities, they hide their paper trails and engage in outright fraud. and for a number of years, mr. president, i chaired the trade subcommittee of the finance committee, and i can tell you these examples i've given of modern challenges is just touching the surface of what we found in our investigations. at one point we set up a sting operation to try to catch people who were merchandise launderers. not only does our trade enforcement need, mr. president to catch up to these schemes we've got to have a trade enforcement policy that stays ahead of the game. and that is why the bipartisan enforcement package, the customs package, will take enforcement up to a higher level. in this bill raises the bar -- this bill raises the bar for all

of our trade enforcers whether it's the can customs agent at the border checking inbound shipments, the commerce department investigator looking into an unfair trade petition or the lawyer from the office of trade representative following up on possible violations of trade agreements. so i want to just quickly pick through a few of the major parts of this trade enforcement package. a proposal that i pushed for a number of years, mr. president to include will help customs crack down on foreign companies that try to get around the rules by hiding their identity and sending their products on hard-to-trace shipping routes. another will close a shameful loophole, a shameful loophole that senator brown and i just

talked about that allows products made with forced and child labor to be sold in our country. a third will build what i call an unfair trade alert to help identify when american jobs and exports are under threat before the damage is done. with in this early warning system, mr. president in effect you will have warning bells ringing earlier and more loudly than ever before when a country attempts to undercut an american industry like china recently tried with solar panels. and i think that's especially important because when you're home and you're listening to companies and workers and their organizations talk about trade enforcement, they say, you know it just gets to us too late. by the time somebody back there

in washington, d.c. is talking about enforcing the trade laws, the lights have gone out at the plant, the workers have had their lives shattered, and the community is feeling pain from one end to another. so the point of the early warning system is we now have the kind of technology and access to kind of information that can set off these early warning signals. that's what the unfair trade alert provision is all about. and fourth, for the first time in decades the congress would set out clear enforcement priorities with a focus on jobs and growth that will build real accountability and follow through into our trade enforcement system. and finally it includes a proposal from senator brown that goes a long way to insuring that our trade enforcers use the full strength of our anti-dumping and

countervailing duty laws to fight unfair tactics. mr. president i said months ago repeatedly, making it very clear, when senator hatch and i -- chairman hatch and i began working on this package that strengthening trade law enforcement was at the very top of the list of my priorities. and i did in starting all those discussions and the debate repeatedly come back to the fact that for those of us who are pro-trade, who think it is absolutely key for the kind of export-related jobs and growth that we need in this country we've got to shore up trade enforcement. because it's not credible to say that you're pushing for a new

trade agreement if people don't find credible that you're going to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books and relate to the past trade agreements. so strengthening trailed enforcement -- trade enforcement has been at the top of my list of priorities for many, many years. the finance committee passed this enforcement measure with a voice vote. so that ought to indicate alone mr. president that this was not some topic of enormous controversy. we had votes on the trade promotion act, we had votes on the trade adjustment act, and those were some pretty vision yous debates on those. pretty vigorous debates on those. voice vote on the enforcement provision, on the customs package, because it includes so much of what i think members

actually on both sides of the trade debate feel strongly about. i've talked about why as a pro-trade democrat i feel so strongly about enforcement. my colleague, senator brown, speaks eloquently about another point of view, but he feels strongly about trade enforcement. so i'm very pleased that the senate is on this bill, is beginning debate on this legislation. i am thoroughly committed to getting this legislation passed before we leave for the recess. no one can ever make guarantees, but i'm sure gonna pull out all the stops to do it, and i just want as we close the opening of this debate to thank both the majority leader and the minority leader for working with myself and chairman hatch and others to get us to this point.

we had a bipartisan effort in the finance committee, and we're very pleased to see the distinguished president of the senate join us on the finance committee. we had a bipartisan package as the distinguished president notes, in the finance committee which passed really overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. now, starting this debate and with what's ahead of us, we have a chance to build on the bipartisan work that took place in the finance committee. it's very appropriate that we begin this discussion focusing on trade enforcement as the 14 -- 13 -- 14 pro-trade democrats did yesterday in making an announcement with respect to the importance of this topic. this is going to be a good debate. the stakes are enormously high. mr. president i look forward to working with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to get this legislation passed, to get a bill that the president of the united states will sign. and with that, mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> senator from oklahoma. >> mr. president i have a concern. it's not about trade. quite frankly, trade is one of the things we've done as a nation all along. we were free traders before we were a nation. one of the grievances we had in the declaration of independence was the fact that king george was restricting our trade. we've always been individuals and a nation of trade. my issue is particularly with this customs bill that's coming. and, again it's not about the protections in it. it's about the way we paid for

it. now, as odd as it sounds while we're doing trade and while we're trying to engage in things, we can't lose track of this simple thing called the deficit that's hanging out there as well. we have basic rules on how we actually handle budget issues. anything that we set out that's going to take several years to pay for, we have basic rules. those rules involve it has to be deficit-neutral in year six, and it has to be deficit neutral in year eleven. you can't game the system that way. you can't just back hold the whole thing and say we're going to be deficit-neutral in the last year, but every other year we're going to run up the bill and have something to pretend pay for it at the end. halfway through your deficit neutral. at the other end of it, you're also deficit neutral. well, here's what the can customs bill does. the customs bill sets up this unique something called the corporate payment shift. corporate payment shift. so here's how it works. six years from now every

corporation that has a billion dollars or more in is assets has a 5.25% tax increase in year six. in year seven every one of those companies that has a billion dollars or more in assets gets a 5 .25% tax refund. now, let me run that past you again. this is set up and the way the bill is written six years from now taxes go up on every company -- that's 2,000 companies in america that have a billion or more in assets -- by 5.25 %. and in the next year, they get a refund of that same amount. can somebody help me understand exactly why every company in america has to gear up, change the way they do all their tax policies pay an extra tax that year and so the next year they can get a refund? that's additional cost, that's additional expense only to help

this body circumvent the basic rules that we've said we're going to abide by. now, in all likelihood those companies won't actually do that six and seven years from now because in all likelihood, next year this body will come through and will waive the corporate tax shift because it's now not year six and seven, now it's year seven and eight and so it doesn't apply. this is ridiculous. this is a problem that this body is playing a game in how we're trying to actually accomplish a basic rule. now, if anyone can stand up in this body and say that's a good idea, that we're going to raise taxes six years from now on all these companies and refund the same amount in the seventh year, if anyone can tell me that's actually a good idea please do can. all that that's set up to do is to be able to help us in our cbo scoring. so here's what i think we should do can. option number one, have a real

pay-for. not have some pretend and say this is a deficit-neutral bill when it's not. we have a $3.7 trillion budget. i think we can find a real pay-for to be able to put into this bill. if you're lacking for any of those, my office can give you many options that are real pay-fors rather than something fake year six and year seven. here's option number two: at least admit that this is not a deficit-neutral bill and that these pay-fors are fake. there's something this body has called a budget point of order and it should apply in this sense because this is not a real pay-for. now, i've had these conversations with staff behind the scenes, with individuals in this body, and i've been told the same thing over and over, this is how we always do it. in other words you're a new guy here, you don't know this is how the game is played on the budget-neutral

deficit-eliminating bills that really don't do that. okay yes, that's true, i am the new guy here. and i've heard this is an old practice. and it needs to go away. because no one can defend this. how about this? how about next week i try to go get a car loan, and i try to negotiate with the car dealer a five-year loan. and i tell him i'll pay all of my loan off year four, but i want a full refund in year five for all that i paid off. do you think i'm going to get that car loan? no. i'm not going to get that car loan because he's going to say that's fake. and i'll say i paid it off completely year five. yeah, we paid it all back in year -- in the next year. we've got to be able to actually have real accounting at the end of day. this is not invisible money this is debt that's being added. and with a $3.7:00 trillion budget -- $3.7 trillion budget

we can find real pay-fors. mr. president, this is a practice that has happened in this congress and in previous congress that has to stop. we have the ability to do that. i have to oppose this bill because it's not genuine in how we're actually paying for it. saying that we pay for it in year six and refunding it in year seven is not real. and we know it. in the days ahead i hope we can address this practice and not just eliminate it for this bill, but that we can eliminate it from ever being used again in any bill as a gimmick pay-for. with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. >> and that debate from yesterday. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in with more work on trade promotion and enforcement bills. as majority leader mitch mcconnell laid out the agreement at the top of the senate debate that you just saw essentially dividing the four trade-related bills into two parts; a pair of bills dealing

with trade enforcement and preferences, votes at noon and then at 2 p.m. a vote to actually begin the debate on trade promotion authority. final passage also expected later today. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2 as work is about to get under way. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god king of the universe bestow upon our lawmakers understanding to know you, diligence to seek you, wisdom to find you and a faithfulness that

to embrace you. today, help them to experience the constancy of your presence. lord gave them a courage which shows itself by gentleness and integrity. provide them with a wisdom which shows itself by simplicity and unity. impart to them a power which shows itself by humility and restraint. guide them by your higher wisdom and fill them with your peace. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i was glad to see our democratic friends accept our path forward on trade yesterday. under our plan, the senate will avoid the poison pills that have been floated in favor of the

very type of bipartisan approach we have been advocating all along. it follows the regular order. it allows senators to express themselves without endangering more american trade jobs for the people we represent. so this is good news. it's good news for bipartisanship it's good news for a new congress that's getting back to work. and it's good news for america's middle class. the people we represent deserve the kind of good jobs we could secure by knocking down unfair trade barriers. one estimate shows that trade agreements with europe and the pacific could support as many as 1.4 million additional jobs here in our country. in kentucky, they could support more than 18,000 additional jobs. but we can't get there without first passing the kind of legislation we'll vote to open debate on this afternoon.

it's the only way to enact clear standards and guidelines our trade negotiators need to move forward and that congress needs to appropriately assert its authority in this area. so yesterday's agreement is significant. i want to thank chairman hatch and his negotiating partners for the good bipartisan cooperation that got us to where we are. i'd like to thank the president too. no you're not hearing things. president obama's done his country a service by taking on his base and pushing back on some of the more ridiculous rhetoric we've heard. he was right to remind everyone that -- quote -- "you don't make change through slogans." end quote. or ignoring realities. he should be recognized for it. the american people sent divided government to washington, but it doesn't mean that they don't want us to work together on issues where we can agree and

on this issue we agree. today's vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent and i look forward to continued piven gaugement for both the president and members of both parties as we move forward on these bills. now, mr. president on an entirely different matter, it's good to see forward momentum on trade. that's certainly good for the american people. but there are other issues that both parties should want to address, too like the broken promises of obamacare. it would be nice to see more bipartisan support there and i hope we will at some point because we all know that obamacare is a law filled, literally filled with broken promises. we all keep seeing reminders of how it fails so many of the same people we were told it would help. back in my state in kentucky, we're seeing how hospitals and their patients are feeling the

negative effects of this partisan law. that's particularly true in the rural areas of my state. a recent report showed that obamacare's multimillion-dollar attack on hospitals in kentucky is expected to result in a net loss of a billion dollars over the next few years a net loss to kentucky hospitals of a billion dollars over the next few years. these hospitals are expected to lose more money under obamacare than they're expected to gain in new revenue from the medicaid expansion. and largely due to obamacare. these losses are forcing kentucky hospitals to cut jobs, reduce or freeze wages and in some instances even close altogether. we've lost at least two rural critical access hospitals this year. officials report that kentucky

hospitals are suffering partly because more than three out of every four kentuckians who signed up for obamacare was in fact put on medicaid, and we know that medicaid reimburses hospitals for less than it costs to treat patients, and so despite promises that greater access to coverage would decrease visits to the emergency room and cost -- and the costs associated with those visits, the vast majority of emergency room doctors now say they've actually experienced a surge in patients a surge visiting the e.r. since obamacare came into effect. in fact, a recent survey reported that thousands of e.r. doctors have actually seen an increase in emergency room visits since the start of last year. one physician from lexington was quoted as saying he had seen a huge backlog in the e.r. because the volume has increased.

he went on to say the e.r. volume rose by almost 1/5 in the first few months of this year, which is nearly double, nearly double what he saw during the same period last year. there are a lot of reasons for these increases but as one e.r. physician put it, visits are going up despite the a.c.a., and in a lot of cases because of it. volume in the e.r. is driven as a result of coverage expansion adding a lot of new people that has largely been borne by the medicaid program. as i've said previously, though, increasing coverage doesn't guarantee access to care, and prior to medicaid expansion kentucky already faced a shortage of physicians participating in medicaid. now there are more than 300,000 additional enrollees in an already broken system. added 300,000 new people to an already broken system.

and so when americans on medicaid get sick and can't find a doctor, who will treat the medicaid patients? where do they end up? of course, in the emergency room. here's how one kentucky newspaper described it last year. that's just the opposite of what many people expected under obamacare, particularly because one of the goals of health reform was to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by expanding medicaid and giving poor people better access to primary care. instead, mr. president what's happening, many hospitals in kentucky and across the nation are seeing a surge of those newly insured medicaid patients walking right into the emergency rooms. one kentucky doctor described it as a perfect storm a perfect storm. we've given people an a.t.m. card he said, in a town with no a.t.m.'s.

given obamacare's most famous broken promise about americans being able to keep the health plans they liked it's easy to see how a person who had access to good insurance and quality care before obamacare would find himself or herself forced into medicaid and into the emergency room today. a recent report found that among certain hospitals in kentucky, as many as one in five, one in five individuals covered by medicaid had previously had private health insurance. so unfortunately it wasn't hard to see this coming. a lot of us warned about it. we warned that providing a supposed health coverage without actually giving someone access to health care is really just a hollow promise. you can promise coverage, but it doesn't mean anything if there's nobody there to care for the people who are covered. the same could be said of warnings regarding the impact of

obamacare's deep medicare cuts. and the impact of that on hospitals. i wish the people, the politicians who ran obamacare through over the objections of the american people had heeded these warnings. we made all these warnings six years ago. so this is just one more reminder why obamacare is bad for kentucky, why it's bad for the middle class and why it's bad for our country but here's the good news. the new congress just passed a balanced budget this week with legislative tools that will allow us to begin to address obamacare's broken promises. i hope president obama and our colleagues across the aisle will work with us to do so. we owe the american people more than obamacare's broken promises. we owe them real health reform that lowers costs and increases choice. i hope our friends across the aisle will work with us in a bipartisan way to help achieve

that important outcome. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: yesterday the house of representatives voted overwhelmingly -- and i m.v.p. overwhelmingly 330 votes approximately, to end the bulk collection of american phone records. last week, the federal court second circuit court of appeals ruled that the federal government's bulk collection program is illegal. the majority leader seems prepared to lead the senate into reauthorizing an illegal program. he has spoken here on the floor in that regard. so how can one reauthorize something that's illegal ?f this is not a partisan issue mr. president. democrats and republicans are united in reforming the national security agency and how they

collect their data. the house yesterday as i've indicated, voted in favor of reform overwhelmingly, but republicans in the senate want to move forward without making any changes i don't think so. the republican leader isolated his desire for a clean extension of illegal spying programs. for example mr. president the chairman of the judiciary committee in the house of representatives, mr. goodlatte said yesterday if the house gets an extension of fisa foreign intelligence surveillance act it will go nowhere, it is dead, according to the chairman of the judiciary committee. republicans and democrats have vowed to filibuster a clean extension if the republican leader brings one to the floor. that's what's going to happen here in the senate. i've heard extended statements by the junior senator from kentucky who says that. there are others who feel the same way. even if my friend plows forward

in face of what the bipartisan opposition is to this matter, it will take a week at least to secure the vote, and maybe that isn't even possible. we have a chance to take bipartisan action that protects american civil liberties. it would be irresponsible for us to squander this opportunity. mr. president, i said yesterday yesterday -- and my heart goes out to those who suffered in that terrible accident on the amtrak's northeast regional train, train number 188. dues night at 9:00 the accident occurred. as we know now the train was going more than 100 miles an hour on a curve that should have been -- that it should have been going 50 miles an hour. it's very tragic. seven people died and scores were injured. there were about 250 people on the train. it's unfortunate that sometimes

it takes an event like this before policymakers learn they need to do something. i guess they need to learn what they need to learn. the policymaker's failure to learn nothing at all. we learned the other night something that should frighten us all. the national transportation safety board one of its members, robert sumwald said there's technology available called positive train control that would have prevented this accident. that technology is in place in a few places in the northeast corridor. this northeast corridor, millions of people travel there. it is not yet in place where the accident happened. mr. president, there are members of the republican senate who have for years denigrated, belittled and harmed the amtrak

system. i've watched this and it's really unfair. they've attacked amtrak every year every appropriation process. many on the far right regularly try to punch the nation's train system right in the gut. they've made it a punching bag. and yesterday the house of representatives approved a bill that underfunds amtrak by another $250 million. a day after that tragic accident they say we're going to help amtrak by cutting spending another $250 million. the nation's train system can be efficient and it can be productive. it can be a point of national pride. but too often mr. president the neglect of amtrak has left america's train system a disappointing embarrassment. amtrak is a vital part of our nation's economy and everyone should understand that. it helps i repeat, millions and millions of people get to where

they need to go. it takes cars off congested highways. it take people away from airports. for the safety of rail passengers for the business it helps to foster, and for the reputation of our great nation, i hope that we could learn to invest more in this important national resource. they need more, not less. mr. president, my friend, the republican leader, must be in denial to come to the floor and talk about obamacare the way he did. he is neglecting the facts. and i will only repeat a few of them. number one there's 17 million people that now have health insurance that didn't. using his own numbers he said one out of every five people go to the emergency room in kentucky had insurance private insurance. well mr. president four-finals of-- four-finals offifths of them

had no insurance. they have it now. rather than cut health insurance funding in the republican budget they should not be doing that. the reason there's long waiting lines is because the republicans aren't helping us fund medicare and medicaid in the appropriate fashion. the late-senator ted kennedy once said, "an essential part of our progressive vision is an america where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care." close quote we're not there yet. but since the affordable care act became law that vision has become more of a reality every day. the facts are indisputable. health care costs are growing at an historically low rate. the overall health of americans is improving and health care providers are finding innovative ways to reduce health care spending while improving the quality of care that patients have just last week the department of health and human services anowdgessed a key pilot -- announced a key pilot program

created by the affordable care act saved medicare almost $400 million in just two years. this is good news. the pioneer accountability accountable model was launched by medicare and medicaid services to improve delivery and payment options. it shows an average of about $370 of savings per beneficiary every year. rather than this be a model it should cover all patients. this model is serving more than 600,000 americans. the idea is called accountable care. accountable care organizations organizations tie provider reimbursement to reductions in total costs for care for patients. better care, less cost. what is most remarkable is that huge savings are being achieved without threatening the quality of care that patients receive. in fact, the quality of care is

improving. medicare beneficiaries within the pioneer accountable model have improved communication with their health care providers. they now have an ability to understand what is happening to their health care. their questions are being answered. these patients use inpatient hospital services less and fewer tests and fewer procedures. that's what it's all about. last week's announcement shows that the affordable care act is working to the tune of $400 million. can you imagine the impact that this pilot program would have on the health care costs when it is expanded. it is true that we have more work to do, but these reports show that senator kennedy's vision for america's health care system is beginning to become a reality. mr. president, would you be kind enough to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. the senate will be in a period of machine until 10:00 a.m.

mr. reid: mr. president i see no one on the floor. i would ask the chair to begin a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. tester: i would ask that the quorum call be eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you mr. president. i rise to honor the cascade county deputy sheriff who died in the line of duty in august of 2014. on behalf of all montanans, i

want to thank deputy dunn for his service to our nation and to the community of great falls montana. beforen listing to serve and protect his neighbors as a deputy sheriff joe dunn served our nation in the united states marine corps deployed to the battlefields of afghanistan. upon returning to montana deputy dunn married the love of his life rob in. they-- robin.they had two children. his love for his family was the guiding principle for his life. montana leaders have leaders have honored him by naming an eight-mile stretch of interstate 15 outside of great falls montana named the joseph j.dunn memorial highway. on may 15, 2015, peace officers memorial day deputy dunn's name

will be enslinked along the other police officers killed in the line of duty. during his lifetime of service deputy dunn always went beyond the call of duty to ensure the safety of those he served often work the evening shift and long hours away from his family. deputy dunn always put others above himself and he is the kind of leader that montana can be proud of. everyone who knew deputy dunn has been toughed by his commitment to serve others and hishis passion for making his community a better place to be home. above all deputy dunn was a family man. regardless of the difficulty of his day his top priority was that of being a father. today as a body we offer our deepest thoughts and prayers to his family, robin joey and

shiloh. this country and montana is endlessly grateful for his service. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: