brigade and its british and french counterparts 30 years, vastly outnumbered by soviet and east german forces and still manage to keep west berlin free by their presence. the third area the west needs to work on and perhaps needs to work more on is the question of sanctions of russia. the goal of sanctions should be to change russia policy. those sanctions which today are relatively modest have had an economic impact on russia. for example, russian companies in 2013 were able to sell foreign currency bond about $830 million. january february they sold them $6 billion. since march they sold zero. i think the sanctions are successful in their economic impact. but they have failed in their primary and political purpose to affect a change of policy in the kremlin. i worry that the west has not handled the sanctions process

well. the last day on which the united states and the european union announced sanctions together at the end of april, the russian stock market gained 1.5%. i would suggest that is not a positive signal for the effect of those sanctions. may 2nd, president obama and chancellor merkel said if russia interfered with the may 20 elections there would be substantial sanctions. there were activities by armed separatists supported by moscow. we have not seen any punishment for that. in the g-7 when they met in normandy said there would be additional sanctions over the course of the next month if russia stopped being part of the problem. again, we've seen continued problems including the introduction of heavy weapons on the part of the separatist tanks, missile launchers as evidenced by the shootdown of

the ukrainian elutian 76 on friday. the west needs to be tougher in terms of imposing costs if we are going to try to encourage the russians to shift their policy. the last point is it does seem to be if the russians are prepared to be part of the solution, you can see the elements of a compromise. the government in kiev talked about decentralization of power and political authority, which makes sense. governors in the region should be elected, not appointed by the president. they talked about some status for russian language which addresses some of the concerns expressed by those in the east. there is talk of early parliamentary elections which would be a good step. it could revalidate the legitimacy of the ukrainian parliament in the way the may 25 election gave the president a new democratic mandate. as dr. brzezinski suggests, you can see the elements how ukraine orients itself in terms of foreign policy, drawing closer to the european union, but not

pursuing nato. i would try to craft language that said not ask ukraine to say no how, no way, never, but you can make clear to the russians that nato is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future. the most important reason ukraine would want to pursue that is not a foreign policy reason. that would be usually controversial within ukraine. president potoshenko is trying not to seek controversial issues. it's not going to be addressed early on. my own analytical judgment is it's very hard to see a scenario which ukraine is able to regain sovereignty over creamia. that does not mean the west should accept it and the west should continue a policy of nonrecognition until such time, if and when the ukrainians

decide to do something otherwise. that can be an issue you perhaps put down the road. the other pieces might put together a basis for a compromise that would help mend the divisions within ukraine and could be an acceptable way forward, but i think the big question here at the end of the day, is that still acceptable to russia? i am not sure the russians are happy with just ukraine saying no to nato. they are unhappy with the idea ukraine wants to draw, and this is not just the president but the parliament and the ukrainian people a that they want to draw closer to the european union. when you look at the association agreement and what that does, if the ukrainians were to implement it, but if ukraine implements the eu association agreement, it is out of moscow's political orbit. that still remain as sticking point for the russians. >> thank you very much, ambassador pifer.

i want to get to your questios s and comments. i would like to give an opportunity to respond to dr. brzezinski's marks. >> very little to add. thank you for a brilliant presentation. and thanks, steve, for your comments. just a few very brief points. first in a way and i mean this only half cynical, we can say thank you, vladimir putin for reminding us that there is a good reason for having nato. nato was in the process getting off the radar screen a little bit of the major european and transatlantic debate. now it's back on the radar screen and that's good. second, president putin has

also, by doing what he did, reminded europeans that there is an overwhelmingly good reason for trying to get our act together in terms of speaking with one voice for the eu to be a political actor that can exercise a significant role as it should representing 500 million people, but these events are in the process, are already reenergizing the debate about how best european countries, including my own, can unburden itself from two great a dependency on energy imports from russia. so that's actually all pretty good. second point, when you discuss delivery of support, extension

of support including weaponry to ukrainians, the one problem i believe we would run into is that the ukrainian military is in terrible shape. that is not fault of the russians or anybody else. it's simply the fact they have been understaffed, underfinanced, underequipped and it's not going to be very easy over the short period to make of this rather sorry state of the ukraine military. something that can work efficiently as a military body. next point, deploying nato forces to eastern nato countries like poland or the three baltic states. we will have here at the wilson center, if i can make a little advertisement, in a couple of days, the new german defense

minister. i'm sure somebody is going to ask her that question, whether germany should or could join those who have already taken some steps. the one word of caution i would add is that we should think twice before we violate the promise we made in the context of the nato russia founding act almost 20 years ago when we said that we would not permanently deploy major combat troops among the new nato members. major combat groups is something that can be interpreted, but sending for smaller force, sending a few airports is not a major combat force. a symbolic act would be helpful

in the sense dr. brzezinski has suggested. finally last point, one point that has not been mentioned, i believe, merits being mentioned, president putin has not only challenged the european security architecture as dr. brzezinski described it, he has also presented a challenge to the very idea of european integration, to the idea of europe. is it not amazing that not only the post communist leaders of west european parties including my own country is traveling to moscow to conduct discussions with russian leadership, that's normal, but it is very

surprising certainly to me and to many in my country that many other right wing leaders in europe have discovered that vladimir putin is their hero, the hero that rejects overcoming the nation state, that looks for nationalistic leadership. these are strange bed fellows, the european right wing and president putin. in my view, this is a rather fundamental challenge to the very concept of europe. i'll stop mere. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. let's go to your questions and answers. if you could wait for the microphone it's coming right there. >> thank you all. i remember you talking in the cabinet meetings of the carter white house. i think it was your warm-up act.

this was just magnificent. thank you very much for coming here. my question is about an organization that got very little mention, but wolfgang recently spent a lot of time connected to it. that is the osce. the osce secretary-general was here about a month ago and it was the round tables in ukraine that wolfgang chaired that are credited, to some extent, with really encouraging ukrainians to participate in the election. it is true, as ambassador pifer said, unfortunately some of the eastern part of ukraine couldn't participate, but the turnout was substantial, above 60%. better than our elections. so my question is, could the osce, which is a security organization which includes russia, but which operates by consensus play a bigger role in negotiating an outcome here that

would be satisfactory both to the west and to russia and benefit ukraine? >> thank you. >> well, i suppose it could, but probably at this stage discussions were with informal and basically not open to the press and conducted in private. because right now we are not at a stage which it is likely they could lead to something very positive. certainly, doors should be open to that. i think it's desirable. could i make just two comments on also what was said earlier. very briefly on the arms. the arms, the ones i am talking about are defensive, for urban warfare, cannot be used defensively against russia. there is no reason to say this is provocative to russia. it doesn't require military sophistication to use them. if the military is organized as

you rightly say, civilians who are motivated can take part in it. that really works. i could regale you with stories how russia stormed and how surprised they were and in world war ii there was urban warfare. there is an easy way to say don't expect an easy walk-in because it will be painful, costly and prolonged. one more aspect and this pertains a little bit to what you asked, jane. right now the russians are really in a phase in which they are trying to mobilize global support of western reaction. that's what you referred to. the interesting thing about the western reactionaries is they like the content of what the russians describe as the russian global civilization. anti-modernistic is socially,

sexually, racial eactionary dra inward but self-righteous. this makes the new western right-wingers the equivalent of the old western left wingers who love russian communism. we are seeing a flip-around here. my guess is that the change in character of russian society over time, particularly changing character of the middle class in the big cities is going to spell the doom of that once two things happen. putin is not successful in militarily asserting himself, and at one point or another is no longer the central player. >> thank you. >> i think it remains to be seen whether osce could play a role in the negotiation of the settlement. a lot of that depends how the russians approach this. if did you have a settlement, osce mechanisms could be hugely important getting ground truth

are, building confidence among the population. >> if i may. one brief word on that. we had on the 17th of april a meeting in geneva between john kerry, sergey lavrov, european union. that was unfortunately only a one-time event. in my view it is highly desirable that a second geneva, geneva ii as we continue to call it, should take place. osce, i think, is a good organization to support and implement, help implement the kinds of decisions that were taken already in geneva 1 and are still not fully implemented, unfortunately. so i do agree that osce has potentially important and continuing role to play in

supporting what at a different level needs to be hammered out between the u.s., european union, the ukrainians themselves and of course the russian government. >> thank you. please state your name and affiliation. right there. >> rand corporation. >> speak up, please. >> quick comment to wolfgang and statement to dr. brzezinski. that statement you mentioned regarding troops and so forth, that was, the beginning of that sentence was very important that we have because it said as long as the current security situation does not change, well it certainly changed when one country invades another and

annexes it. the situation has radically changed and western policy is no longer obligated by that statement. i wanted to get your reaction to china. how do you think china looks at this because they certainly were not very happy with the annexation of crimea. what implications do you think this might have nor u.s. relations with china? >> i have to say that regrettably, in my view, neither china nor russia -- neither china nor america have handled their relationship all that well in the last couple of years. i am not thinking just of the american press. i think i'm thinking of some american official pronouncements

and then actions such as the speech which unfortunately was not well worded because its intent was not to give the impression that the united states is committed to the physical military containment of china, but the emphasis on pivoting, on the pivot, on the reallocation of troops, on the deployment of troops in australia, which as far as i know is not under the imminent threat of an attack from papua and new guinea so it had to be china which give the chinese the impression we are sliding in a position of siding with whatever neighbor of china has a territorial conflict with china. that is an exaggeration, but that's the way they have interpreted it. secondly, on the chinese side in the last year or so, there has been a dramatic increase -- i

follow this very closely -- a dramatic increase in public pronouncements in the officially controlled and censored press, but also in the statements of the particular officials from different parts of the government. notably the military, extremely hostile to the united states. so i think this relationship needs some careful tending and correction. however, on the russian/american, quote/unquote conflict, the chinese have been unscrupulously neutral not backing the russians. in the u.n. the chinese abstained. they did not support the motion introduced, but did not vote against it as the russians did. with that kind of in between posture reflecting with their own national interest more than anything else. and incidentally, a posture

copied, not much noticed in the american press, but israel, who is the principal beneficiary of our military assistance, political assistance and so forth. they took this neutral position for their own reasons and interests. so one shouldn't be too surprised that the chinese did it, too. in the russian/chinese relationship, i think what we are seeing is a gradually increasing russian dependence on china. that 30-years treaty, by and large, is more advantageous to china than to russia. even though the chinese squeeze the russians into some price concessions because the fact remains that the major financial investments in order to make this treaty operative are going to be made by the russians. in communications, facilities, pipelines and so forth. and the chinese are going to have alternatives in terms of

price as soon as iran opens up, as soon as they reach out to deal with saudi arabia and so forth. and thereby, at some point chinese will be able to go to the russians and say very nice, we value this treaty, but you have to low the price because the world price is going down and we have these options. the russians will have no choice. they have to accommodate, which means that the benefits of this treaty will be increasing favorable to the chinese who are the same time moving into central asia quite visibly and openly. >> thank you. yes, in the center. >> thank you. rs office for cooperation trade investment. i have two questions. one pertaining to trust. one of the common elements i picked up on is there is a dent lack of trust of the russians. my question is what makes you think we can build trust with

the russians because it's on the basis of our actions over the previous years in terms of invading countries, in terms of spying on our own citizens, in terms of illegal detentions, in terms of our own disregard of international law, what makes you think that we can somehow convince the russians to sit at a table and trust us if we don't trust them, with good reason given what you have all described? how do we get back to building trust? the second question pertains to the cost of doing what you have said. it's clear in terms of the cost you laid out for the russians, but what's the cost in supporting ukraine for europe and for the u.s.? how much is that going to cost? and can that be borne, the burden, by the recovering economies of europe, in particular. >> thank you. i'd like to take that on. >> i can answer the second question.

ukraine has struck a deal with the international monetary fund. the imf agreed to provide ukraine $17 billion over two years provided, and this is a very important provided, provided that ukraine does the necessary reform steps that are required in the program. so the way the imf doles out the money is every several months there is review. if ukraine hasn't met the conditions agreed to in the reform steps, they get the next dole of money. usually the mission would go there and sit down with ukraine and say here's the problem. it would be the imf mission saying here is what you need to do. what i understand was in march when the imf mission went to meet with the acting government the first time dealing with independent ukraine, the acting government said here is our to-do list. it was the right to do-list. i think people like president

potoshenko understand the economic steps they have to take. the real question will be, can they sustain the political support for these steps which are going to be very painful? so for example, to get access to the program, to start the program on may 1st, ukraine raised the price of heating to every household. may 1st is a great time to raise the price of heating but nobody needs it. in november, december when the temperature is down in the 20s and the teens, people are going to notice that their heating bills are way, way up. at that point politically, is the government going to be able to say to the public, we need to do this to get through the next couple of years? it doesn't stop with the imf. with the imf program in place, the world bank, european bank, european union, so ukraine has potentially access to 25 to $35 billion over the next couple of years.

primarily in the form of low-interest loans. that should help ukraine get through this period if they do the right things. >> would you like to take on the trust question, the first part of the question? >> i'll be very brief. i don't think it is fair to compare russia's behavior on ukraine and especially crimea with person behavior going that's a very popular thing for russians to claim, that we are at fault because as russians say, we, the west, we egressed the former yugoslavia. we did what we did in libya and of course in iraq, et cetera. i believe that it is important to note that, for example, in

the case of libya, we, the west, certainly the united states, went to the security council of the united nations and obtained with russian abstention at the time a resolution endorsing activities directed at libya. the same is true in a number of other activities. we went to the security council, i don't know how many times, trying to find a way forward on syria, trying to find a way forward on kosovo and on bosnia, et cetera. i am not aware that the russian federation even tried not even once to seize the security council to authorize russian action on crimea. i think the comparison is not fair. i would grant you one point,

with nato, the nato russian council, osce is not working the way it should. we do not have a sufficiently functioning body of institutions and rules. that's my take from what we are witnessing. that needs to be improved and repaired. in order to do it, you need to have a minimum of trust that all actors are singing from the same page. that's very hard now that we have had such a terrible loss of trust in the predictability of russian policy as it happened over the last few months. >> thank you.

i want to ask your assessment of germany meaning chancellor merkel and the german people, whether germany is prepared to support the policies of deterring this chauvinist russia dr. brzezinski described. even though germany will pay significant costs in doing so? >> david, i think yes, but the question is how. how exactly? if you take the majority of view among the german public you find a lot of skepticism regarding our jointly adopted decision on sanctions. you will find a lot of skepticism regarding the question of weapons delivery. you will find a lot of skepticism regarding deployment of military force to eastern

nato countries. in other words, there are obstacles to overcome in terms every public opinion. and quite frankly, as much as i personally agree with the point that our eastern nato members need to be reassured, should be reassured by certain types of activity, including symbolic or not so symbolic military deployments, i think that our priority number one needs to be to stabilize ukraine. and quite frankly by sending a few airplanes to estonia or poland, we are not directly doing anything to help these poor ukrainians to handle their problems. so i think the first objective, the first priority needs to be

things that will help ukraine directly. i know of having been involved in these discussions over how to deal with the ukrainian crisis over the last month or so, i know of no leader, certainly no leader in europe who has spent more time trying to explain to president putin that he is making a mistake, a big one. i think chancellor merkel has also been quite successful, surprisingly successful, in convincing the german business community which has a much larger stake in the russian business than the u.s. business community that the german business community should not oppose sanctions against russia. in fact, just over this past

weekend, the leadership over the german business community issued a statement supporting with pain, as they said. for us this is painful, but we accept that this has to be the prerogative of political decision making among transatlantic partners and if more sanctions are needed, that is a painful thing for somebody to say who represents many hundreds, if not thousands of large and small businesses who have been doing a lot of business with russia and their subsidiaries in russia so it's not a small thing. >> i very much agree with what wolfgang just said about the problems and especially the problems with the europeans and germans when it comes to subsidies.

sanctions. i want to add that it's true their difficulties in that regard are greater than our difficulties. we also have expenses. for example, the president just committed $1 billion for the reenforcement of central european security. that will come out of the pockets of the voters, but it is a step in the same direction so we assume certain obligations and difficulties, costs, as well. i also think in any case solidarity is what is essential. solidarity need not be on the tangible. it can be symbolic and anything our european allies can do to show that the issue of european security is of common concern and a common responsibility is to do good. it's not an anti-russian step. it is a stabilizing step. in the last several years, the

russians have health several exercises, military exercises in the western territories. in large measure on bela ruse soil which brings it much closer to the balkan states. these are enormous exercises by our standards, large army formations, repelling an alleged attack then moving forward. the last one ended with a simulated nuclear attack on the central european capital, nuclear attack. no one has used nuclear weapons since 1945. i mean, these are things we haven't paid much attention to but they are part of this equation. bi building security has to be a reciprocal responsibility in addition to solidarity in the face of challenge. >> thank you so much. this was a terrific round table. let me just congratulate ambassador ischinger on the

volume. highly extraordinary. thank you, dr. brzezinski for your keynote and ambassador pifer, to all of you, we are adjourned. thank you so much. if you missed this panel, you can watch it in its entirety online c-span.org. moscow has stopped gas supplies to ukraine after they missed a payment deadline and failed to deal with the unpaid bills. "new york times" reporting the russian energy company gazprom stopped supplying natural gas to ukraine and warned they could diminish gas flow to the rest of

europe. they have cut off gas supplies in 2006 and 2009 over political and financial disputes. you can read more at "the new york times." more live programs coming up on the c-span networks. noon we'll hear from u.n. whistle-blowers on oversight and corruption at the u.n. on c-span. the senate is back in at 2:00 eastern time with votes at 5:30 on judicial nominations. live coverage on c-span2. cable in the '90s when the current regulatory environment existed did have over 90% of the market. today the cable industry only has a little over 50%. so the business mass matured.

you have to lower costs to keep your margins good or find new sources of revenue. i think they are attacking both things. to focus on the revenue side, i think, one, looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers. if 2 you look at comcast and its investment in the x-1 platform, if you can make video-on-demand more attractive, the interface is more web-like and delightful. don't lose what you have. innovate to keep what you have. you also see them taking advantage of broadband, right? that is a blessed source of new business opportunity for our industry. it is growing much faster. it has a huge market, good economics and it's a good business. >> the rapid change in telecommunications, technology advances and the future of the cable industry with national cable and telecommunications association president michael powell tonight at 8:00 eastern

on "the communicators" on c-span2. a senate committee recently held a hearing on u.s. border security and current pay structure for border patrol agents. with officials from u.s. customs, the u.s. office 0 of special council and the national border patrol council, the labor union that represents border patrol agents. >> welcome, everyone. i am going to make for me a fairly short statement here, then turn it to dr. coburn and senator tester, if you would like to make a statement, that would be great. senator kuhn is tied up in transportation? okay. all right. is he going to come in at all? do you expect him at all? >> no. >> fair enough. my thanks to our colleagues and our witnesses for working with our staffs to put this hearing together fairly quickly.

the purpose, as you know, of this hearing is to exam the merit of s 1691 the border agent payment act of 2014 introduced by senators tester and mccain and co-sponsored. . bill could make badly needed reforms to the system of border control which is currently too complicated and too difficult to manage. before we get into the bill, i want to talk about what is happening currently along our borders. over the past few years we've seen a surge in unauthorized migration from central america, which is nearing record highs. and unprecedented number of people we are apprehending a the the border are unaccompanied children. some as young as 10 years of age. the laws require that the children be treated differently than othering mying my -- migrants.igrants.

they must be transferred to the department of health and human services and there are strict rules about their care. secretary last week announced he's creating another agency task force and devoting to the care of those children. since i became chairman of the committee some 18 months ago, visited the southern border of mexico and arizona and texas on a number of indications. i've seen firsthand the crowded conditions a the the toll stations in the rio grand valley and visited mexico and hope to spend time honduras. what i come to understand is what happens along the border is only a symptom of the problem. it's not the underlying cause. today's hearing will focus on how we can better address one of these symptoms by increasing an enforcement. the bill we're examining today will save, we believe, we hope, taxpayers money. hopefully a good deal of it, and increase our ability to patrol and secure our borders. one estimate i've seen shows this bill would ate the equivalent of 1,400 agents to the border. that's a lot. given the challenges on the border which have been underscored by recent events.

moving the bill serves to be a no-brainer. i fully sport moving forward with the bill as soon as possible. while we need to treat the symptoms. we can't stop there. it's critical we understand and address the causes why all these people are willing to risk everything, life and limb, to come here. based on what i've seen in my trips to so the cause they are a lack of economic opportunity. in i describe it as squeezing a balloon in one place. bad guys go south and end up in the three central countries. they're creating may heim. they're creating mayhem.hem. nearly one ago the senate passed bipartisan immigration reform measure that addresses many of the root causes of undocumented immigration. while the bill is imperfect. it's a significant improvement other the status quo and provides our nation with an important opportunity.

to fix our broken immigration system and grow our nation economy by almost $1 trillion. in order to become law, we need our colleagues in the house to act. we also need to do a better job of helping central american countries improve their prospect for the young people and those not so young by helping provide them with the jobs that are secure communities and a future so they stay and build their own countries instead of trying to get to ours. on june 19th i'll be convening a round table of experts across the u.s. government to multilateral banks as well as private institutions to discuss how we can continue to improve the prospects of young people and not so young people in central american countries. i urge and invite our colleagues in the committee to join us for this round table. dr. coburn, please. >> first of all, thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to senator tester and senator mccain as well as senator portman.

senator portman and mccain -- i mean tester, held an important hearing on this in january. i'm the one that asked for the hearing because -- two points i would make. one with the auo, my goal is not to take anything away from our border patrol agents. we have, i think about 900 or so that auo is no longer authorized for. the goal should be to adequate pay for the risk and effort they put in. but i'm really concerned about what we're doing here in terms of setting up a system that could become government wide and the question i ask as both accountant and former business manager is if in fact we need to have about $28,000 above or

$29,000 above a gs 12 maxed out the way we're going to do this. why wouldn't we change the base pay? why wouldn't we just change the base pay system rather than having this overtime system? the other questions that i have associated with what we're doing is things change. and what we're doing is we're talking about putting a payment system into statute that guarantees a certain amount of overtime every pay period that is not part of contractual obligations. this is statute. so i'm a little concerned about that as well. if, in fact, the border more difficult acquiring greater risk and expertise, we're going to be somewhat limited by how we've done this. i'm looking forward to asking the questions to try to get settled in my mind. how do we compensate our border

patrol agents at the level they have been being compensated and make sure they're secure in the future. i don't want to take 25% of anybody's pay away. that's not our intent. our intent is make sure it doesn't go away. the other point i would make is there are a lot of positions within the border patrol that don't have to do the write up at the end of the day. don't have to travel back from a position assignment, and yet we're including all those in this that we're doing that shouldn't have an auo payment. in other words, their job shouldn't require it. the characteristics of the mix is important to me as well. so what i would do is get answers to critical questions today. i have a statement that has written for the record and again, my hat's off -- i want to fix this.

i'm not trying to stop it from getting fixed. my understanding is very limited number of people no longer have auo as a comparison of the total work force. i want to make sure we fix it right. we also fix it in the way that the house is going to acede to so we solve the problem. i appreciate really senator tester acquiescence on and pledge my support to get the problem solved when i get my questions answered. >> senator tester. good to see you. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member coburn. i think i can answer your questions now. i think it would be better left to the expert panel to answer the questions about things changing. because you're right. things change. that's why we're here today is things have changed. senator mccain i introduced the legislation a little over a year ago, and we did have a hearing back in january. since our initial introduction,

we've worked closely with the cbp, border patrol union, department of homeland security opm and others to make this bill even stronger. we worked together something that is fairly uncommon in the senate these days. it is co--sponsored by heitkamp and ayotte, and convening bill is in the house sponsored by a host of others both democrats and republicans. the bill is supported by both the cbp and the border patrol union, which represents 16,500 agents in the field. it saves money. it creates more stability for border agents and their families and increases manpower along the border so the security is increased and the agents are better-equipped to do those jobs that are very important to all of us. a reform of the border patrol

pay system is long overdue. the operation leaves from 40 years ago are different from the criminal operations we see on the border today. things have changed. we have waited long enough. we need to move forward with this bill because it ensures stability for our border patrol agents and makes sure that our borders are properly manned. in the end, i appreciate the opportunity to have a full committee hearing on this bill. i can tell you that as i look at this bill, it increases enforcement, it saves money, and i think it makes -- it allows for our borders to be as secure as they possibly can to meet the dangers of terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration that is so common on both northern and southern borders. with that, i appreciate the

opportunity to hear from our witnesses and be able to ask them questions about this important issue, and hopefully end up being able to get this bill out of this committee and off the floor of the senate and over to the house. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you bet. thank you very much, senator tester. let me take a minute to welcome our panel. distinguished witnesses and give very, very brief introductions. first witness is ron vitiello. deputy chief of the u.s. border patrol. in his capacity he is responsible for the daily operation of the border patrol and routinely assists in planning and directing nationwide an enforcement and administrative operations. deputy chief vitiello is one of the contributors to the u.s. custom and border protection and the creation of the department of homeland security. is that true? [ inaudible ]

>> okay. good. thank you. good to see you. second witness is brandon judd. he has more than 15 years of experience as border patrol agent. currently serves as president of the national border patrol council representing more than 17,000 border patrol agents and support staff. mr. judd spent much of his career on the southwest border in the central california and tucson, arizona, sectors. in the past he's been stationed as a field training officer and canine officers in naco, arizona. from 2001 to 2002 as an instructor at the border patrol academy. welcome. mr. judd, nice to see you. next witness is paul hammer, the deputy assistant commissioner of the office of internal affairs for /* for u.s. customs and border protection. a post he's held since 2012.

i understand mr. hamrick became our witness this morning. this morning due to changes announced by the commissioner today. not much warning but thank you for joining us. we hamrick stepping up, giving his extensive knowledge of the issue we are going to discuss. he joined the customs service in 1986, is that right? 1986. he's been with the office of internal affairs since 2007. thank you again for joining on short notice. final witness is adam miles. mr. miles is the director of policy and congressional affairs of the u.s. office of special council. prior to that, he was on the staff of house committee on oversight and government of reform. with thank you for your service. we thank all of you for your service and testimony today. if you want to give us your testimony in roughly five

minutes, that's okay. if you go way over, we will reign you will. glad you are here. thank you for joining us. mr. vitiello, why don't you go first. >> thank you chairman carper, ranking member coburn and distinguished members of the committee. this is a matter of concern to the department of homeland security dhs, cvp and border patrol. we welcome the opportunity to work with you and find affordable solutions. our application of overtime administratively stretches back many years. they no longer meet the needs of a modern border control. senate 169 pay reform act replaces it with a system that controls costs, fairly

compensates agents for necessary work and maximizes capability for border security responsibilities. if enacted, the work force continues to work and meet missions beyond the eighth hour of his or her shift and provide rotations around the clock. agents receive compensation for work over eight hours per day and remain eligible when emergencies occur and special emission sets require. in addition to patrol hour capacity by 2.5 million hours, the act reduces overall costs. it would eliminate fair labor pay for most agent assignments, which total $105 million in 2013. based on the cost estimates briefed, they would save $38 million to $67 million annually.

a requirement that relies on agents rotating into and out of assignments in the training environment. this maintains up-to-date field experience. it prepares leaders as they advance. like other law enforcement agencies, affordable pay. the cost to train and maintain an agent's skill is considerable. cvp moves resources around the country to maximize their impact and is committed to continuing to do so. the bill provides strict thresholds to ensure cost savings. without relief, legislatively will suffer and expected to take a downward turn. we have a commitment to modernizing the pay structure and proposing legislation that provides them the flexibility for a cost efficient and ek

quitable pay system. we look forward to continuing to work with congress on this endeavor. >> chairman carper, ranking coburn, members of the committee, i look forward to this opportunity and answering your questions. >> please proceed. >> chairman carper, ranking member coburn, senator tester, on behalf of the border patrol agents i represent, i want to thank you for having this meeting. i would like to thank senator tester and if senator mccain were here, i would like to thank them for bringing this up. i would like to speak with you. i'm looking forward more tho answering your questions than a prepared statement that you already have. there are a couple things i would like key issues that i would like to point out. the first issue is we are no

longer dealing with mom and pop smuggling organizations on the border. we are dealing with sophisticated criminal cartels. they control all traffic that is happening, that comes into the united states and into mexico. they also control the illegal activity that happens on the northern border and the coastal border. approximately a year ago, all border patrol agents were notified their hours per two week pay period would be cut from 100 plus down to approximately 95. since that time, we have seen, almost immediate increase of smuggling across the border. in fact, on the map up here, not only are we seeing an increase in the rgv sector, we know about that tidal wave that is happening, but we have seen an increase in corridors like el paso, texas, san diego, california. these were considered

operationally controlled areas. they have increased in arrests in the last year since we cut these hours by nearly 15%. we have also seen senator tester, in your neck of the woods, in montana, an increase in arrests since these hours were cut by nearly 50%. that's a huge increase. we have also seen an increase on the coastal border in miami, in miami, florida. we have seen an increase of almost 30% on the coastal border. these cartels know what we do, how we do it and when we do it. they know when we are vulnerable and due to the hours that were cut, we are vol neshl. 50% in montana. that's huge. the second point that i would like to address is the retention. in senator mccain's neck of the woods, the busiest station in the tucson sector, historically one of the busiest in the entire

nation. i believe it currently seized more drugs than any border control station in the nation. we have seen a 5% -- we have seen 5% of the work force leave in the last year due to the number of hours that have been cut and the pay reduction that we are experiencing. we also have another 15% at this station alone who have pending applications in for other agencies. we can't afford to lose 20% of a station, especially a station that is so important to the tucson sector. that's what's happening under the economic climate. the last point that i would like to make and i would like to read this statement. back in 1997 when i came in border patrol, the recruitment i was offered was 25% of overtime for the rest of my career.

that's what we were told we were going to get. that's now been cut. we no longer have that. there's two reasons, budget issues and legal issues. we approached congress four years ago and tried to get the powers to be to amend the laws to allow us to continue to do what we need to do to control the border. unfortunately, because it's an expensive system, we couldn't get any traction. because of that, we have worked diligently with the agency to come up with a plan that will satisfy all parties. it will satisfy the taxpayers in a huge cost savings. it will satisfy the agency as it will give the number of hours to security border and satisfy the border patrol agents as we will have a consistent and constant paycheck and know what it is year-to-year. i want to make it clear, no agent is happy about losing

$4600 per year. we recently made another push to keep fsla. we were not successful. in the end, it will be a boom for border security, the american public and the agents i represent. it is very, very rare that congress has the opportunity to consider a piece of legislation that saves money and enhances the agencies capability. that's exactly what this does. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thanks for your testimony. mr. hamrick, please proceed. >> chairman carper, ranking member coburn, senator tester, it's a privilege to appear and go over the overtime compensation systems, specifically those used by the border patrol. properly paying border security personnel and managing the pay systems are essential to the cvp

mission. cvps application of overtime specifically auo, the primary compensation system used stretches back many years. established more than 40 years ago, auo is a payment mechanism that allows for the compensation of employees on schedule and necessary overtime. approximately 77% of auo goes to employees of cbp including border patrol agents. in order to be eligible, an employee must be in a position the hours are not controlled administratively and requires substantial amounts of regular or overtime work. cbp takes seriously its responsibility to ensure the proper use of taxpayer funds. many front line officers and agents require work hour flexibility, often through the

use of auo, mixed use of the funds is not tolerated. allegations of misconduct that are raised by employees are typically handed by internal affairs offices or the d.a. office of inspector general along with the resource office. employees engaged in misconduct are subject to disciplinary action. they conducted a series of inquiries regarding the alleged and proper use of auo. internal affairs, field offices in washington, district of columbia, houston, texas, and seattle, washington conducted them at specific border control headquarters, stations, training entities and commission situation room. the office of special counsel

received complaint that is overtime hours were not being worked, allegations that, if proven, could constitute it, did not substantiate allegations that employees received auo compensation for hours not worked. the investigations did substantiate allegations and whether it was the appropriate mechanism for specific overtime compensation. in short, the investigations determine that work was conducted and importantly, even where it was not the proper overtime mechanism, cbp had an obligation and cbp employees had the entitlement to be compensated for the overtime hours worked. dhs and cbp have taken steps to address the situation.

secretary johnson took immediate action to suspend auo to suspend employees. as a result, 600 cbp personnel, full-time trainers found to misuse auo and completed investigations were suspended from receiving auo. after additional review, may 23, deputy secretary issued a memo to develop a comprehensive agency plan to address auo compliance issues. the components will work with the dhs manager director to develop a departmentwide way to reform the efforts. it will include requirements for independent audits and mandate disciplinary measures for those who violate the policies in the future.

supervisors and managers -- until such time, they can address the compliance issues, cbp has interim measures such as the position review of auo eligibility to eliminate the use of auo where the available evidence suggests the use is impermissible. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thanks. thanks again for showing up on short notice. the next and final witness is mr. miles. adam miles, please proceed. >> chairman carper, ranking member coburn and senator tester, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the united states special counsel. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss widespread misuse of overtime payments to dhs employees.

i want to acknowledge the overtime team, many of who are sitting behind me. together, their work with whistleblowers helped to identify and address millions of dollars of overtime abuse and pay. special counsel's october 31st, communication to congress and the president outlined systemic misuse of uncontrollable overtime or auo. this was first addressed in 2007. the communication october 2013 had the debate of auo payments to dhs employees and within cdp. encouraging this type of discussion with ruling out waste is at the heart of oses mission. as stated in the october 31st

letter, abusive overtime pay is a violation of public trust and gross waste of government funds. it's incumbent to take the steps to incur the abuse and up to the administration and congress to develop a revised pay system that ensures fair compensation for employees working overtime. since october 2013 and particularly in response to senator tester's hearing in january, 2014, dhs has taken steps to place controls on auos. this desert fied some of the positions where they should not be collecting auo payments. we are encouraged by the steps dhs is now taking. in addition, we are also pleased congress is helping cdp to find ways to solve this long standing problem including through legislative reform.

ose doesn't have a position, our update today on pending cases will provide contents for the committee as it considers the legislation. in particular, i want to compare and contrast two reported by oia and set the legal and factual framework for this discussion. these were in response to whistle blowers in san diego, california and cdps loredo north station. they came from locations all around the country have identical disclosures, border control agents or i.c.e. enforcement officers claim it. the overtime is unlawful because they don't meet the requirements. the reports substantiated the coal allegations.

the reports confirm agents in these locations extend their regular shifts by two hours every day routinely in violation of the rules that require unpredictable law enforcement reasons to stay on duty. in addition to the across the board sub stan chuation, there key differences in the reports worth going through. these are based on the duties of the agents in those locations. i want to start by addressing the border control agents. the report noted, the oia report claimed to complete the work necessary to travel back and forth from a border assignment to the station, they call it routine post shift activities. the agents that were interviews by oia indicated the post shift activity cannot be completed in eight hours. border control managers insisted in the report providing ten-hour

shifts is the most cost effective approach even if that means misusing auo as it is currently used. as congress considers proposals to address auo misuse, they may want to consider the arguments in support of the shift and the unique demands on -- at the training facility in georgia prosent different issues. it helps the misuse within cdp. for example, the report states some border patrol agents in san diego work as paralegals. they claim two hours of auo daily like agents in the field. it notes border patrol agents have the same duties and non-border patrol agents referred to as civilians.

for example, the border patrol agents send out notices on cease property and do other tasks in support. they are basically in an office setting. the non-border patrol agents with the same duties are not eligible for auo and do not work ten hour shifts, yet they sit side by side with the agents working the ten-hour shift. as congress considers pay reform, it may want to consider whether or not they should cover border control agents or other office rolls where they have duties but not eligible for auo. the same issue is presentacadem. i hope this information is useful to the deliberations and would be pleased to answer your questions. thanks for having me. >> thanks so much for your testimony. thanks to all of you.

we have a couple cameras here. i presume this is being broadcast on c-span. some people are watching this around the country later tonight or tomorrow and they are going what are they talking about. i'm going to start off, i ask the staff, who among these four can explain this so someone watching on television, somebody who is maybe not here on this committee, somebody who maybe stumbled into the room, what is the problem we are trying to fix? what is it? don't use acronyms, use regular language and explain what we are trying to fix. what is the problem we are trying to fix? >> we are trying to get ourselves in a situation where border patrol agents are sufficiently ready and capable and authorized in whatever format to engage in post shift activities.

so, all agents are scheduled for eight hours a day and if you were on a factory floor and your boss came in atd the end of the shift and said i need you to stay, someone is not coming for the next shift. they ask you to perform that same activity for a subsequent eight hours. most factories, that is double time or considered overtime. the government isn't different that it requires people to stay on their shift or do things at the end of the shift that prepare the rest of the team to be better informed as they deploy. there needs to be an overlap in exchange of information. the government calls that overtime. in the current configuration, it's uncontrolled overtime. it's more complex as it relates to auo. it allows for agents to assess what mission requirements are in front of them. in essence, self-deploy against

the work in front of them. it was good back in the day it was established because agents could flex to the work even though their shift might be over. it allows for people not to watch the clock. if there's work in front of them necessary, they can stay on and do that. what the legislation proposes is to continue that practice, but it covers all the work post shift. so, whether it is, in fact, chasing a group or arresting people or preserving a chain of custody for evidence or informing the next shift or things in an administrative setting that prepare the next team to be more capable in the shift. it's important to recognize, in this setting for auo and what's contemplated in the legislation, it's straight time. the compensation for the first hour of the shift and the compensation for the tenth hour of the shift is the same rate of pay. >> all right. what concerns have been raised.

you can answer this, if you want or if someone else is better prepared, that would be fine. but the concerns about abuse, how the current system has been abused or rewarded people who shouldn't be rewarded in this manner. could someone talk to that for us? speak to that? mr. miles, you might be the best person to do so? >> so -- >> concerns have been raised. talk to us about the concerns and what has the department tried to do about it and talk with us about the legislation. what concerns about abuses? >> cbp witnesses are in a better position to discuss the chain circumstances and why it is this overtime authority is being misused. in general, decades ago, when auo was first developed, the border was big and there were not a lot of agents. so, if anybody needed to stay

after hours to arrest somebody or follow a lead, they were able to do that. they didn't have to report back to headquarters, call up their boss and ask, can i stay on the job? now the situation has changed. there are more agents and the border hasn't grown. technology has been developed quite a bit. so, the way in which the border is being guarded has changed significantly. again, i'm way out of my league talking law enforcement issues. now, it's much more regular and more reteen and predictable the way they are told to fulfill their duties. the legal framework that allows for the overtime compensation authority says it has to be unpredictable. when you look at the report that is have come into osd and what 16 whistle blowers from across the country have told us is basically the way auo is being yulsed is the opposite of what

was intended. it's routine, it's daily and two hours a day, in contrast to the rules that require irregularly, unpredictable, you can't control it and can't manage it. there's a core legal problem with the way auo is being used. we've had secondary allegation that is were addressed by cdp testimony saying people were staying on the clock to fulfill the hours just to work a ten-hour day. they are not doing any work. those allegations, to date, have not been substantiated. basically, people are goofing off, they are surfing the internet during the ex-tra two hours and not doing any extra law enforcement work. it's been a concern. we haven't been able to pin it down. that's the secondary concern going on here. >> okay. next question is, what can the department do to address the abuses and make sure they are

treating the border patrol officers fairly and making sure we have the resources we need. what can the department do themselves, what have they tried to do to address the concerns? >> paul mentioned the memo that suspended auo. prior to that and since then, cdp, the department and others have looked at position by position review to try to discriminate which of the job categories, specifically border patrol in our instance are eligible given the rubric and which are not. so, that suspension went forward january 28th for those discreet categories and the position by position review, additional training has been authorized and deployed to the field. we need to put ourselves in a place based on the subsequent memo from the deputy secretary,

put in a place to better document the actual use and correct use of auo, even in the field where it's understood that the field is the biggest user of the auo. there are problems with the way we have been documents it. in the other categories referenced in the allegations and findings of the investigations there has been this overall generalization of how it's used and authorized. we have gotten ourselves in a place where it's used in the training environment. sometimes, it is unpredictable, but more often than not, in the current sbreinterpretation, it getting smarter in the way we teach ourselves that. going forward, better documentation about the work being done, whether it's irregular or otherwise. the work is still there in each of the environments in the field and at the administrative and

training regimens, but we are going to use different types of compensation in either case, in both environments be able to document it more specifically. >> i have a number of other questions in the second round. i'll telegraph some of those now. they include how would the legislation that senators tester and mctan crafted, how would they address it, how it is fair to folks working border control and the taxpayers. the idea that we are told this is legislation would save 25 to $50 million a year, it's a lot of money and at the same time, put 10 to 1,000 border patrol officers on is an attractive combination. want to find out how that works. dr. coburn.

>> thank you. mr. judd, would you say again what you said in your opening statement, when you were recruited, that you, in fact, were told that you would have guaranteed overtime. >> yes. there were -- >> that was what year? >> back in 1997. >> i don't remember what the specific announcement was on the opm website, but there were -- we do job recruitments, we still do job recruitments. we send recruiters out to different college campuses in different areas. yes, at that time, we were told we would earn 25% auo. >> i understand that's the expectation. i'm not critical of that, i want it in the record. >> certainly.

>> chief, you said that you need to reform the post shift activities. what about jobs that don't have post shift activities? in auo. >> so, i think we are talking about where the suspensions are now, the headquarters and the training environment. it is a normal course of business at the academies and in my office that people regularly have assignments that carry them over an eight-hour shift. they carry them past the eighth hour of their shift. i'll give you specific examples. over the weekend, i was on several conference calls dealing with a situation in which we were moving individual unprocessed illegal aliens from south texas to points west, namely el paso and tucson. arranging for the flights being coordinated in the inner agency, arranging for the flights,

arranging for the destination location so it was sufficiently prepared, it was sufficiently staffed by border patrol agents and others in the inner agency and giving the specific instructions to the rio grande to make sure those people were -- >> i understand that. your testimony, then, is all the departments, all the management, all the training facilities need extra time. everybody that works for cpb in a management or training facility is going to have at least two hours of overtime, all the time? >> i think they regularly exceed the shift that they are assigned for a specific purpose of preparing for the classroom work, again, this work that we did over the weekend, we were managing other incidents at the same time that required cross sector coordination and my team -- >> can you imagine? what about other areas of the government. what about the military?

they are doing that all the time, aren't that? >> they are. >> what about the fda, they have a drug problem, they are doing it. to me, it's incomprehensible that somebody in a training facility needs to be working an extra two hours a day to meet the requirements of the training facility. that says we have poor management or haven't structured it right. >> it may require a different structure. what i'm saying is the academy is an eight-hour day. they need time to prepare for the intake of the students. >> how long have they been instructors? >> it's an individual kind of, we assign hundreds of people when we are doing the surge. there was over 1,000 instructors at the academy. they stay in rotations of three, five, sometimes longer. the portability comment in the opening statement was having people who sufficiently spent time in the field and recognize the challenges that individual

journeymen agents and supervisors struggle with on a day-to-day basis. it is good, desirable and necessary to get those people. people successful in that environment make the best staff officers i have because they recognize the challenges in the field. when we push a requirement down range for cross sector coordination, people sending and receiving the information have sufficient experience that know what is it means, they can fill in the blanings. they can push the information back with a level of expertise. it's a desirable business model for us. >> okay. so even the administrative assistants in the training facilities would need two extra hours and even the janitors? >> no, no. my experience is -- >> my point is, when you ask the american public about people in

administrative offices getting a guaranteed two extra hour as day and all of them have jobs, and i'm kind of with you, i would like to go back to the portion of this and pay them or increase the number so we adequately reflect it. i find it a bit hard to swallow that everybody that works in management at border patrol and everybody that works in training facilities at border patrol have the need to have 20% more -- 25% more time added to get their job done. that, to me, says we are not staffed correctly, one or we are managed improperly. >> well, i think the staffing at the academy location is adequate for the mission at hand. at the headquarters in my environment, the staff i manage, there's a light footprint. >> the point is, if you bring

somebody in to train, they know how to train or they wouldn't train. to say they have to have two hours at the end of the day to prepare for tomorrow when they are not consuming the whole eight hours of training anyway, it doesn't make sense and doesn't pass the smell test to me. again, i don't want a cut in pay. i want this stuff restored. my question is the assumptions under which we are doing this don't pass muster for common sense. your testimony is everybody needs two extra hour as day to get their job done whether they are on the border or not. i'm not sure, even with your statement that you can justify it. mr. miles, how many allegations of abuse has your office received? >> 16 at 16 locations dating back to 2007. >> what percentage did the whistle blower allege it's

actually not being worked by some agents? whether agents left early or watching tv or surfing the internet or hanging out? >> some variation of that was made in eight cases. >> have you been satisfied with the reports saying they cannot sub stan chuate they are billing hours they did not work? >> um, not give you a direct yes or no. >> i don't want -- i'll withdrawal that question. in some of the allegations sub st stan ch wait -- did they not have the same jobs? >> that's why i think the frakeswork oia has put forest is helpful. we can go into more detail about

the training facility. the border patrol agents who testified they were in an instructor position said they needed ten hours a day. sorry but cbpo is not eligible for auo but instructor position said they routinely testified they can get the work done in eight hours. >> that's my point. to your knowledge, has management tried to stop agents from working past eight hours a day? >> i'm not aware of any. >> okay. >> mr. hamrick, describe for me your investigation of the osg referrals in terms of those people who were not working. how did you go about the investigation to sub stan chat

or not substantiate. >> allegations of auo misuse by cbp employees. in each of the investigations, our internal affairs agents collected all the relevant documentary evidence that was available. we conducted interviews with all the relevant employees, interviewed complaint tents and employees alleged to be misusing the auo compensation system. documented those investigated steps in at least one case conducted surveillance out in the field. >> describe that. >> our agents actually were in

the field watching employees at a -- >> were the employees aware? >> no, covert surveillance, sir. watching the employees to see what time they reported to work, what time they left work and comparing those activities with the hour that is were documented. >> okay. >> once the investigations were complete, all the investigative activities were fully documented. the investigative reports went through a series of management reviews within the office of internal affairs both at the field office level as well as headquarters. once our internal affairs managers were satisfied the investigations were adequate and complete, the investigative reports were subject to a second level of review at the office of chief counsel at cdp and once that level of review was

complete the reports were forwarded through the leadership to the office of special council. >> the employees in general were aware auo was a hot topic? >> sir -- >> this had been in the press? >> yes, sir. >> so, basically observing agents at work, you determined everything else the whistle blower said, other than eligibility wasn't accurate, in most incidences? >> in each of the six investigations we conducted of auo misuse, what we confirm second-degree that the hours claimed were being worked. we also confirmed that those hours that were worked were not properly compensated under auo provisions and another overtime compensation mechanism should have been used. >> okay. i'm way over time.

senator tester, sorry to take -- >> jon, you are on. >> i'll start out talking about the benefits of the bill, then get into meat here in a second. i think all of us can agree this is an antiquated pay system that doesn't meet the needs of today. border patrol has come to us. i think it's appropriate to listen to their work they are doing in the field. i went through border stations efrl times. i have never packed a gun on the northern border and face what you face by putting your lives on the line ever day. common to us in support of the pay cut and we'll get to that in a second. i would just say that one thing that this bill does, it does many, many things, it gives stability to the hours they need.

that stability in hours is very, very important when you have folks, the last thing you need to think about is when the shift goes off. at any rate, i would ask you, deputy chief vitiello, has cbp supported this legislation? >> yes, sir. >> how about you mr. judd, is your organization supportive? >> yes, sir. >> um, for both judd and vitiello, do you believe this legislation increased border patrol operational capacity and effectiveness? >> it will. >> i don't think it will, i know it will. >> okay. will it help or hurt recruitment and retention of border patrol agents? >> i think it will help. >> it will help. >> does it provide more

certainty for the agents and their families? both of you? >> agree. >> it does. >> absolutely. >> and, we are probably going to get into cost savings in a minute, but does your group and your agency believe this saves money? >> it does. the key provision of eliminating it for overtime work as the work force is now entitled would save us considerably. >> okay. i want to talk about training for a little bit. mr. vitiello, who do you use for training? >> a variety of assignments at the academy, but some of the instructors are border patrol agents that teach operational aspects of the work in the academy setting. >> you said these are ten hour -- or eight hour sessions? >> the curriculum is eight hours plus lunch, et cetera.

>> okay. one thing that i would really like to point out, is it -- if i'm on the northern border and somebody asks me to be a trainer, i applaud the fact your using border patrol agents to train with. there's no way i'm going to take a reduction in pay to come here. i think, furthermore, if in fact you are using agents, that solves a problem that i have with a lot of the agencies around here that actually have people in training positions that don't know what's going on out in the field. you are using folks that know what is going on in the field to train the folks that are going to be out in the field, that is correct? >> we use lawyers to teach the law. pt instructors to teach physical techniques and border patrol

agents in the field who know how to operate the vehicles. the range of operational techniques are taught by agents as well. >> senator, may i? >> yes. >> i taught at the academy. i would have never went if i was going to lose 25% of my pay. wouldn't have happened. >> we are currently, in this day and age using -- unmanned aircrafts and drones to man our borders and we have been successful to fight against terrorism. the question is, with this age of technology, why do we need more agents. go ahead. >> senator, the technology is fantastic, but it doesn't arrest anybody. when i'm dealing with groups of illegal aliens or drug smugglers, i'm dealing with 20 to 40 persons and those drones cannot put hands on those individuals to arrest them. normally, when i'm dealing with

these groups, it's me and one other person. so, the drones do a phenomenal job of spotting the groups, but now i have to get to the groups and i have to actually arrest them. those drones can't do that. that's why we have to have the manpower to get the arrest. >> okay. mr. miles. i believe in your testimony you said the research bore out that five ten-hour shifts is optimum? >> in the -- we received a report back and again a helpful report discussing the san diego sector. managers there, i'm sorry, loredo north station, loredo, texas. the managers insist and provide they do an extensive cost analysis of a ten-hour shift versus eight-hour shift. what the report confirms is that

ten-hour shift is currently being compensated with auo and it's not lawful. we have to figure out if ten hours is the best way. >> the reason it's not lawful is because it was set up for conditions that were unpredictable, correct? >> correct. >> if it was set up and said make it predictable, use it when you want, it would have been fine. the fact is unpredictability. >> right. we want to flag that. it is worth understanding from the witnesses why ten hours is the most cost effective approach of securing the border. >> okay. mr. judd. when discussing pay reform, and we are discussing this bill, we are talking how much money it's going to save. why would your folks be in favor of it? >> because the alternative is worse. what we've found is, again, mr. miles testified that what we are

doing is not actual auo. mr. hamrick has testified the hours are being worked, but improperly compensated. if it was properly compensated, you would be paying more money thand auo. if i could convince you to amend the auo laws to keep it, i would do that. but, unfortunately, we have this budget restraint where nobody is willing to consider a time and a half overtime system, therefore we are asking you for this. >> fine. we are going to have several rounds, right? my time is up. >> half way through my questioning. i want to come back and pick up where i left off. the question, the next question

i want, we talked about a little bit and i want to talk more. we're going to start with mr. miles and come from my right to my left. what concerns have been raised about -- let's go back, what concerns have been raised? how does this legislation address those concerns. use your mic. >> three separate concerns. one, auo is unlawful because it's used routinely. two, a lot of the whistleblowers were concerned it's used in an office setting and by managers in those types of settings. three, which we discussed in detail, auo is being claimed for hour that is aren't worked at all or while people are doing various things. the legislation would clearly address the first issue on whether or not the hours being worked but can be scheduled in

advance, it would provide a legal framework for compensating the individuals working those hours. all right. mr. hamrick, same question, please. >> i would echo mr. miles. the legislation will allow cdp to properly compensate employees for their overtime work, which they are entitled to while alleviating the issues we are currently experiencing with the limitations on auo and what type of overtime hours can be worked under auo and how those can be paid. >> okay. mr. judd? >> simply, this would make what

we do legal. i don't know how better to state it. >> all right. mr. vitiello? >> i agree. there are specific mission requirements that, in a system like what's contemplated allow for us to do. then, avoid some of the transaction that is occur if you were on a fee for service issue. you would change what the expectations are of both managers and individual agents and they would be watching the clock versus what we can accomplish now, which is to continue the work until the end of the shift. >> okay. i just want to lay out an example. senator coburn and senator and myself and senator tester being senators, say we are border patrol officers. say dr. coburn is in california border, i'm in tucson and mr. tester is in south texas.

there's not much going on along the california border. after eight hours, mr. coburn is done. i'm in a part of the border where there's a lot going on and we've got 20 people i'm tracking across the border and trying to catch up with them and working well beyond my shift. maybe work an extra four hours to track them down and hold them until somebody can come and relieve me. mr. tester is actually going the other way, down across the border to try to apprehend somebody that slipped across the border and he used an extra two or three hours. i think most people who are familiar with overtime issues know that people work similar jobs, they have to work as long every day. so, common sense, my dad always said, use common sense.

they would say somebody is working, dr. coburn over here is working an extra four hours to track down and hold 20 people or i am and he's not, whatever, why not just pay people along those lines? i think i know the answer. i would like to hear you say it anyway. >> if you would, i would like to take that question. >> in fact, i want each of you to. >> if you are a border patrol agent, you love your job. you might not like where you live, but you love your job. since we have cut the number of hours, we have seen the cartels exploited the holes we created. just because you are in a patrol function and not arresting somebody doesn't mean you are not performing an essential job. you are deterring the entrance of illegal aliens. if you are out there and patrolling the border, because you are not putting hands on somebody committing a crime, you are letting them know your

presence is there and you are ready to put hands on them, if need be. when i say put hands on them, i'm talking in a legal and lawful way. but, we are ready and prepared to deal with the threat that will present itself, if we are there. >> let's hear from others. >> in a similar example in san diego, before you were done with assignment at the line, even if there isn't anything specifically spectacular going on, we want someone to relieve you. there needs to be a compensation mechanism to allow for the release to use the model to expand it versus four or five shift model where there's an overlap for relief. auo is not suited and we have been called on that in a legal framework for using it in a frame work. auo is not specifically for that. in the tracking example in

loredo or elsewhere, it's straight forward. that's what it was designed for. when you have 85.5 hours, when you hit the 85.5 threshold, we are going to pay you more. that's what the compensation and lou allows for. it's more expensive at that point. there are additional hours. itis not just the 25%. it gets you up to 25%. once you are beyond the 85.5 hours, you are getting closer to a time and a half model versus straight pay for the first ten hours. >> mr. miles, mr. hamrick, can you add to this, please? >> the only thing we would want to add to the conversation is a fourth and fifth example, the instructor at the training facility and the paralegal in san diego. i think mr. judd makes a good argument. maybe you can't get a border

patrol agent to go if he's not going to get a promised ninth and tenth hour. it's a cost analysis we aren't comfortable making, but want to flag that issue and put it out there whether in all three of your examples and the two office settings or training settings if it should be institutionalized. >> we want somebody experienced in the field, make him be a good instructor, something extra, what's wrong with that? >> i think that would work in a general sense. the tools don't exist for us now. >> okay. before i yield to dr. coburn, any unintended consequences that senator tester and mccain worked on? please? mr. judd?

>> we have looked at this every way manageable. this is a four-year process that we are seeing. i think that we have attacked this the best we can. i just don't see any unintended consequences. >> others? please. >> i would say that we have learned from the mistakes and problems with auo. this legislation borrows from existing structures. the rest of federal law enforcement in the academy and headquarters lead the model which is 25% compensation for the formats. we have looked at that. it resinate as bit in this, but this is, i think, a better scenario for cdp and the border patrol. it contemplates not being available but actually being assigned. >> okay. mr. hamrick, mr. miles, please. then i'll yield. >> i have nothing to add, sir. >> okay. mr. miles? >> we have tried to flag the

issues we think are worth you considering as you debate and discuss this bill. don't want to go into those again. >> okay, when i come back, the issue of calculation of pensions and how it works now and how it would change under this legislation. dr. coburn? >> chief, vitiello, do you support 100% getting 90% until an audit is done saying you need to go above that? >> what's contemplated is for us to have a baseline requirement in every location at least 90% of the core work force to be at level one, maximum capability. it's important for stability and projection of cost. >> you mentioned availability pay by the fbi, social security, i mean secret service and other law enforcement agencies. aren't they required to be

available on a 24 hour basis to get that pay? >> they are required. the difference between that and my understanding of it because i don't administer it and what's here is this compels a ten-hour day. >> okay. i put something on the record. in 2013 we had 21,391 border patrol. in 2005 we had 11,26 ha4. they dropped dramatically, the arrests. technology has helped us a great deal but we have doubled the border patrol and yet our arrests are down. part of that is because we don't have the ingress. i would think you would agree. it had decreased for a period of time due to the economic condition that we went under. the other thing i want to enter into the record is the notional journey man border patrol gross

agency cost, this is a comparison of auo versus flsa and the bill as put forward, and it does document some savings that will be there. i'll come back again to you, chief. until we can know just from a common sense standpoint who really needs within your organization -- i agree that the 90% number is a good number, john. i don't have any problem. i have a problem getting above that in some of these other areas where it would not seem fair to people that work in other areas of the federal government that we're going to compensate people who are not doing things that are required extra time that they get paid in that. you don't have -- in your written answers to our committee you said that you would support that. i'm trying to get you to answer that question now. >> so, i think it's appropriate given your description of the growth over the last several years that the border patrol,

cbp and the department take time to refine the hours we use. i prefer maximum capability in every location and i also -- we are building a system by which we can show you and others how many hours are spent at each location, not only that, but in discrete categories of work. so i think that's important and we're happy to be a part of a demonstration to this body and others that says here are where all the 21,000 agents, here's where they spend their time hour by hour. that's a refinement that we are pursuing. we think it's important given the growth that we've had, the increase in capability. we totally agree that the environment has changed, but it's still a dynamic place. over time we'd like to be in a position that says here's where all the hours worked and it would be easy for us to substantiate maximum capability. >> does that tie in with the study that you all are doing now in terms of the auo and everything in terms of -- you're trying to get a better management handle by metrics and by location and by area.

does that tie in with what the secretary has asked in terms of an auo evaluation and the study that you all are doing now? >> it -- they're independent in the sense that one was started with -- in mind to reform the situation that we're in and to the extent that we can improve the auo condition, we're going to do that. the management requirement's determination process will support our effort to refine and demonstrate to you the capabilities that are being used and how they're being used but it will also inform the secretary's work and the task that he's given us to reform this issue going forward. we'll be able to quantify and justify the hours as they're being used. >> okay. all right. i just have a couple of other pieces of paper i'd like to put into the record. i have no other questions. >> all right.

senator tester. >> yeah, thank you, mr. chairman. a couple questions for mr. miles real quick. we've got two special council reports in this issue of auo. your office has published two reports, one in 2008 and one in october of this last year. do you think bhs has provided adequate regress in the five years the agency has known about the problem? >> i think our october letter outlined a lot of concerns. the pace that dhs was making reforms and for example in 2000 sev 7 and 2008 they addressed that. in the 2013 communication we noted that the directive was still lacking. in january since you held your hearing on auo they've taken a lot of productive steps and a lot of those are making a

difference. >> i want to talk a little bit about a suggestion that senator coburn brought up in his opening remarks. you can add to it. talked about just changing the base pain. not doing all this -- what we're doing in this bill but just changing the base pay. and my take on that is that we do need to address the extra hours needed on the border, that that would not address, and we do need to address the overtime issue that that would not address. and we need to provide some stability in the schedule. would either judd or botellio want to add to that at all? >> in essence, we are in fact changing the base pay. the overtime hours, although it's beyond eight hours, it's still being paid at straight

time so in essence you are just changing the base pay. what you're doing is you're guaranteeing -- you're putting a guarantee in there that this is what we are going to make which is what we don't currently have. you are changing the base pay. this will become part of the base package. >> mr. botellio? >> the current system supports a regular work -- what's contemplated in the legislation better supports irregular work but it also gives us management controls that i don't have now, self-deemployable overtime, and it gives us greater accountability with regard to where people are in relation to their base pay and then the extra hours that they're putting in each day. >> mr. hamrick, do you believe -- i don't want to put words in your mouth. do you think that part of the problem with auo is just bad

management? >> no, senator tester, i believe the biggest issue is the challenge in identifying what overtime hours are legally compensated through auo and what overtime hours are not. i once was an auo earner myself many years ago before the leap law came into effect, and in nearly 28 years of federal law enforcement i've learned more about leap or auo in the past 12 months than i ever knew as an auo earner. so i think it's a complicated pay system that is difficult to navigate. >> do you agree this would simplify that pay system? >> yes, sir. >> make it easier to manage?

>> yes, sir. >> i should have brought a picture of my farm here. i live 75, 80 miles south of the northern border. what impact -- what impact do you think -- you've already said that this would -- this would help with retention and recruitment, mr. judd, and senator coburn has already said he doesn't want to reduce pay. and i believe both of you, okay? the question becomes if we -- i'm very concerned about retention and recruitment and kind of, mr. judd, give me your take on how this will be accepted versus completely redoing the system and not

giving the kind of predictability that i think this bill does. >> senator, it's very simple. back in 1997 what i pursued a career with border patrol, i was in the process of two other local law enforcement agencies. these were in very desirable locations in which to live. the only reason that i took the border patrol job was because with the auo it was more money. >> okay. >> i moved to a very -- well, frankly, a less desirable location to live but i did that because i was making more money and over the long term and with retirement it would have been better for me. if you get rid of this 25%, you will not be able to recruit quality individuals to do this job. >> i appreciate that. i would like to make one quick statement with making the floor the cap that senator could he

burch talked about. i would say we depend on customs and border patrol to tell us what their needs are. we're hearing from the agency and we're hearing from the folks that are working on the ground that 90% is a reasonable floor, and i think it would be dangerous to use as a cap because these are the guys that are out there. they know the impacts that are happening every day. they know the kind of intrusions on that border that, quite frankly, i don't hear about and most of the folks that live closer to the border than i do don't hear about. i don't speak for senator mccain, and it's to