>> yes. sorry. ,efinitely in today's economy no vendor can bring their systems to the market without a of clinical and financial. we evaluate the value at every step of the where else the customers would go away. if we took the cardiac patient that i explained before, you they come in and they do not need to activate it. you save it $7,500 and you reduce the length of stay in the icu icu because better quality in your heart muscles mean less time. and then, also, that is about

.85 day stay reduction. the readmissions for cardiac patients under the affordable care act, two of the three conditions that will be penalized are cardiac conditions and we are seeing a decrease of 25% on cardiac admissions which is a problem. you can continue down each service line. of stud tricks, patient monitoring, what is the benefit we bring to the table? is up.ime i ask the indulgence of the chair to continue. >> no problem, we would like to hear the continuation of the witness. to hear thatting you have the cost-benefit analysis brought to the table to fully develop it. is that what you have experienced? >> it is. as a shared in the testimony, we faced skepticism about the power of mobile apps to engaged,

so we laid out a very careful journey to build more and more proof points. we started with health outcome measures in light of the most significant, the reduction in emergency room visits. all outcomes have been positive. we are collecting cost data working with multiple insurance companies to have hard cost data to map to the outcome. likewise, we continue to scale and scope and size of our clinical trial so they will will have more and more relevance. health andimproved cost backed by black-and-white aided. can you givece, me some data that showed how many lives it would save, the amount of money saved by lessening the amount of time in the hospital in recuperative

care? on theave hard data reduction of emergency room visits for a select measured population. >> give me one. had a study of medicaid asthma patients, 26 individuals that had 12 collective er visits prior to the six months in the study. during the six months, it was reduced to zero. >> really? >> we can project it. it's a staggering cost savings in the world of clinicians and insurers, there is a high bar of diligence for proving such claims, but the early health outcomes would suggest that the cost savings would be very significant. >> we are early on and we have not collected data to directly answer your question, however, many studies have shown that

having a complete comprehensive prescribedications is crucial in preventing the adverse drug reactions cited by the ranking member, namely as desperate00 of them year are from adverse drug reactions. we are intrigued going beyond that obvious point to collect data, but we have not yet done so. your testimony. i guess you are still in the development stages? and you have some data to anticipate savings? >> more anecdotal evidence at this point. reduction in a readmission rates so there will be cost savings from that, but we have been looking more at the intangible cost at this point, the benefits of better having the understanding of the care process by both patients caregiver.

by having a better understanding, there will be intangible cost to the health care system and a more longer- term perspective. >> i appreciate the chairs indulgence, that was very informative. >> i just have a general question as we go through this. three out of the four of you are in business and we talked about roi. it's intriguing as entrepreneurs come forward ultimately to say how you make money on what it is you're doing. i thought it was an interesting comment made that as he is developing, here's already subject to the medical device tax of obamacare because it is not based on profits but revenue. curious because i'm already hearing one of you is focused on selling to an insurance company. may be focused on consumers. there may be different ways to

get to market. part of an entrepreneurs job is, after you have invented this get it outhow do you there and get customers? to hearbe interested your different financial models to the extent you would like to share. >> if we look at what has happened over the last few years, we have significant growth in the last three years, but definitely, we are starting frome a significant impact the beginning of the affordable care act. definitely, i think the model could eventually work because you are reducing the reimbursement and putting more money on the uninsured patients that eventually will come back in the system and increase admissions to the system. sequestrationril,

created a huge problem. in new york at north shore cancer center, these patients are rejecting 16,000 of them because they cannot afford to keep those patients in the system. throughtarting to see all healthcare organizations, the effect that they are starting to look on their operating expenses. at how toooking more manage the affordable care act as a caveman, but was really for sequestration. partnersens is we are to those healthcare organizations and we are here to make an impact to the quality of care. look at the model of service and we partner with them and look at risk. what we're doing doing now is evaluating our prices and make sure that we clearly measure the benefit that we bring to them so that at no point they are losing

money. that is our approach. >> we do sell to insurance companies. specifically, we sell population licenses. we provide licenses to cover a broad swath of their population and they focus on the subset with the most severe conditions and we work together to roll it out to those populations. the savings that they realize is that er visits are reduced in they go directly to the insurance company's bottom line. we are a return on investment proposition. it reduces costs significantly. we do sell to health systems, accountable care organizations, also to hospital systems that may be focusing on reducing oricare readmissions

aligning with meaningful use guidelines. we have a number of potential sales candidates within the health ecosystem, but insurance realize the most direct cost benefit from the purchase. >> thank you. >> hours are currently available in the itunes store and play store. individuals can use our apps. it is free to download. whenve a nominal charge the user to download and process the medicare record, which is a few dollars for five records or a few dollars more for 25. we give a credit every time a patient pushes that record to a doctor ran the shares it. they get credited back. frequently to share, the cost is really nominal. we believe that medicare and

cms should consider policies to allow reimbursements for this type of technology. we would of course be happy to talk with cms. we think having every medicare beneficiary have access to past procedures, lists, all their doctors is a self-evident good, so we would be happy to discuss that with them further. >> what is it called? >> my blue blood and -- my blue button. thanks for asking. >> thank you for getting the word out. still innow you are the development, but have you thought the financial piece yet? >> it is one of the big questions we are tackling at the moment. our goal is to have the most people be able to use the app, there are several options to best position our product to be able to do that. think the panel here for

giving us some interesting insight into their models and how they are working though. >> we're joined by mr. kaufman from colorado. we certainly welcome any questions you may have for this dynamic and appropriate panel in this technological age. >> thank you all for testifying before congress today. i just had a veterans committee hearing scheduled at the very same time, so i left utterly to come over here in the interest of what you are doing. i wonder if all of you can just say what the and state is. in terms of questions we all have surrounding healthcare, quality, access, cost. influencest you do those three critical areas that

are so important to the american people. >> of course, you are mentioning quality, access, and cost. our testimony, we are addressing those three areas. of thea big proponent fda regulating medical device mobility. as we are moving, as i said before, to a patient-centric model, we have fewer physicians taking care of my patients today. it is very important that the data that they get is diagnostic inlity and then they get it a real-time basis. the real-time basis is also very important. that is how it relates to quality. area of costs, also, is very important. as i mentioned before, we are

partnering with a number of healthcare organizations like , to really help us figuring out what the model should be moving forward. we talked about sequestration affecting many of the healthcare organizations. as far as cost, we are putting models in place with them. in some cases, we are going on a risksharing basis to be able to work with them. as far as access, we talked .bout the challenge the fact that there are a number of standards for healthcare information exchange, standards that are not enforced by the government and the vendors are not complying. even though their standards, like we mentioned before there wherertain areas of h 7 there are varieties in that language and then all of the

vendors decide to put 99% of their day-to-day around and one percent following the standard. the federal government really needs to take a hard look into us tond force all of collaborate. we are not realizing that as we move into an outcomes-based reverse mint model, no longer fee-for-service, as we have the issue with a shortage of healers and patients increasing, we're not going to be able able to sustain this model without innovation and without vendors collaborating. going to be responsible for the system collapsing if we do not act. >> our model is built with the desire to make a difference in quality, access, and cost, so i appreciate the question. the insurance company today of

a fixed-price provider, essentially, manages the population including severe doesic medicines and often it or case managers. they reach out occasionally through telephone calls to try to connect with those patients. with his casely managers across the nation and they are incredible individuals. aey care and they can make difference if they can just connect with, for example, the severe asthmatic. the noble occasion, we give that case manager the opportunity to be present every day of the life, a connected way that is right there in the child's life that goes back to the case manager website i can provide incentives, motivation, insight. and theased the scale reach of the case manager and in turn provides access to the deployed from urban

detroit to rural kentucky for patients who would otherwise not have access to a daily stewardship of their condition. we have targeted insurance companies because our belief is that if we lower the cost for insurers, it plays a significant role in lowering the cost of our nation's health care and lowering the cost of everyone's access. >> unanimous consent for one more minute? >> absolutely. this is very interesting. >> thank you for the question, congressman kaufman. given that you are just at the va committee, i should mention, theapp gives every veteran opportunity to download their record. how are we trying to help? veterans often gets care both at the va and in the private community. by giving the veteran the ability to download their record which is output from the

stove when they see a physician in the community, they can now see the record that our app is delivering, either on the patient's own smartphone, or it allows them to transfer the record with an optical code to computer.ians this is a key problem for the va. faxes are from the mode of communication. by offering this, this is an important way to affect quality of care and cost for the veterans administration. we are on the va website as a partner. veterans can go there and link to download an application. >> as industrial engineers, these are concepts very near and dear to us. what we set out to do was oflly to reduce the costs redundancy or a revert to care.

we wanted to improve the quality perception and the understanding of what the care process is and not only what the steps are but why you should be doing them. do through the assessment portion of obama's understand not only only what the level of comprehension is the one or the other constraints that are in this individuals situation that could prevent them from enacting this level of care prescribed. if there are conditions where they are working adults, but there are clearly scheduling conflicts that need to be considered. if we can take us all into account in the beginning, we can hopefully create a more attainable care plan preventing all of these adverse events and effect coming up once the plans are not working out as they were intended. .> thank you, mr. chairman >> do you have follow-up

questions? >> i do. when yout thinking recall -- talking about cardiac patients, i was thinking about my own father who was a county supervisor in the 1960's in los angeles. his heart doctor came to him one day and said, how would you like to save one life at a? i fathers like, great. marty registered to vote. how does it work? wewe have discovered that if can get to them in the first hour, we have a chance of saving their lives. his idea was to train firefighters to be allowed to where theydrugs were instead of waiting until transported to the hospital. my dad thought it was a great

idea. at that point, it took legislation because, obviously, a nonmedical person was not allowed to administer these drugs. it was passed by the california state assembly and legislature and our governor at the time was ronald reagan. he was going to veto the legislation because at that point, the ama was against it. nurses were against it. you are taking something in their jurisdiction and giving it to these firemen. to governor reagan before you veto. ande flew up to sacramento wanted to give one last opportunity to understand what it's about. .et me ask you one question

paramedic mobile devices, would they be allowed to cross jurisdictional lines? just be assigned to certain cities? the point is they are ready base hospital. whoever closest is dispatched to the heart attack victim. ronald reagan said, i'm going to sign this. my dad said, what changed your mind? >> his own father in beverly hills had a heart attack and his mom called an .mbulance in the 1960's it came from los angeles and it stopped at the beverly hills property line and turned around and went back without relaying the information to anyone else and his own father died in beverly hills. sitting here today, this is great political satisfaction for

someone like me, whose new around here, to think 45 years later, something that my dad championed, the paramedic program, and here we are 45 years later. of course, that was government. very exciting to hear small business people talk about it, and i think we are on the verge of something automatic and life- changing, life-saving, as one my dad championed which became czar paramedic program. -- which became our paramedic program. center research 56% of u.s. adults own a smartphone. a lot ofstill leaves people in this country, 45 million people, who will not be able to access your applications

because they do not have a smartphone. my district that i represent is a poor minority district and a lot of those people cannot afford a smartphone. how do we embrace this, help you to succeed? try to support you? how do we not leave behind 45 million americans who, by the way, are probably the ones who have the medical conditions that would exactly need this kind of help with their healthcare in general, to save money and be more efficient. how did we not leave them behind? >> a lot of important points that you made. but i would like to address first is, of course, what a vision he had. what we need to look at is,

many times we learn a lot from what happens on the military side. we worry, of course, what we're going to do in rural communities, but many things we're doing today comes from the military. we look from the model and the theater of operations prior to coming to us from the military health system. i deploy systems in every military base throughout the world. if you look at the theater of operations, the battlefield, that is were a model like this would have a significant impact. medic who is not a physician but they need to be able to take action right there. if you can really provide the access of the doctor can make a position. if they have to perform a procedure, now they're going to be able to have those doctors working with those medics to be able to save those soldiers. we can start we

immediately. we have the right regulations and then really bring those models into the air, supporting underserved communities. the issue about people opposing an idea like that, because they did not want firefighters to make that decision, we go back to what we were saying the battlefield. you can have someone remotely helping an emergency where something like that has to happen. as far as this group helping us, how we could have more adoption on cellular phones and the silent, we are partner of the patient. i am more about the physicians being able to get access to the data for all of the patients anywhere anytime. anything that can support caregivers to be able to do care

coordination through mobile technology, i think that is the area where we need the most healthy and reimbursement from medicare and medicaid is very important. >> thanks for the question. it's true not everyone has a smartphone, although that is changing rapidly. thismmunities that have advantage individuals where economics may not be there, we have been amazed at how many people, particularly of the younger generation, do in fact have a smartphone. more people use smartphones to access the internet venues apc. this is extraordinary. we have gone through an amazing inflection point. theirduals who accompany mother to the hospital with a smartphone with records on a smartphone, this is an extraordinary thing for individuals who may not be able to answer those questions.

who are your doctors? what are your medicines? and even individuals who do not speak english, they have the record right there to show to the doctor and this is really, really something. we think that this kind of technology is very important for the communities you're referencing. >> we have seen the proliferation of mobile technologies that is exploding even as it has already reached the inflection point and it continues to go up and up. a solution like ours can run on a smartphone but also on a tablet, anywhere that there is wireless where we have supported the application. often, the insurance company will provide the device to the population, whether it is to children with severe asthma, senior citizens with heart .onditions the expected cost savings are so significant, the cost of device

paling in comparison. we also designed a solution so doesn't require pervasive internet. it only requires occasional. we have scenarios were users who do not have access to everyday internet go to a library, a school setting, a local restaurant and upload the data. there is a variety of approaches we have used. ,n terms of what could help looking to the future, i would underscore that bandwidth is beautiful indignation with great band is a strong nation today. -- a beautiful nation with great bandwidth is a strong nation today. >> there are still a lot of people who do not have smartphones. even when you look at the aarp, i'm a member -- i'm not embarrassed. they advertise for the jitterbug.

our senior population is not embracing. ,he young people are, clearly but the seniors and those who are disadvantaged are really considering it a luxury they cannot afford. i hope we can figure out a way to not mean that many americans behind as we embrace the technology. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i want to thank all of our witnesses for their participation today. what we are seeing is entrepreneurship at its best. we do rely on small businesses. , 80% ofmployees today new jobs created in america is the entrepreneurship we see here and it is alive and well. bringing solutions to problems people did not know they had, but as you demonstrated today,

the solutions are somewhat common sense, but their only common sense after you discover them. as you present them, parents are saying, of course, i would like to be able to monitor my child's behavior whether they are diabetic, have asthma, comfort of mine, or all of us with aging parents, we want to be able to know what they are doing. they go to different pharmacies, different doctors. we all worry about that. when you have done today has helped describe where this is going. anytime you are on the cutting edge, which we are are today, there will be bumps in the road, but i think your testimony was good. it was very informative to all of us. thank you for your time. like to ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to submit same it's -- statements and supporting materials for the

record. the hearing is now adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] click some of thursday's senate debate leading to the passage of the senate immigration bill. then a meeting on border security. then a first meeting of the independent review panel investigating the military's response to sexual assault.

white house continues. he will visit key caucus and swing states live on c-span at 6:30 p.m. eastern. we will follow that with former florida governor jeb bush speaking at a fundraiser for the conservative party of new york. he outlines his immigration policy which includes a path to legal citizenship for those who enter the country illegally. on c-span 2 at 9:30 a.m. eastern, the house oversight committee meets to look at whether lois lerner waived her fifth amendment rights during testimony at a june 22 irs hearing. the resolution, they could bring her back for more questions. also, the u.s. institute of peace will host a panel of young afghanis.

3 atan see that on c-span 10:30 a.m. eastern. sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the main figure in this monument, the statue of the , a chieftain of the delaware tribe who is well-known for being both a warrior and a diplomat and he became a representative of the democratic faction in new york city. the 42nd new york, third day of july, participated in a picket charge. they lost at least 16 of their men killed. the dedicated edition of this monument, they said that this was -- at the education, they said this was america, head to toe. it represented the best that the nation had to offer.

150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live coverage sunday at 9:30 a.m. eastern with historians through the day including -- , your calls and tweeps and penn state university professor. , the keynote ceremony followed by a candlelight procession to the national cemetery and we will end the day with civil war institute director peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions and comments to our sunday guest today at facebook.com /cspanhistory. >> after three weeks of debate, the senate approved an immigration bill to provide millions of undocumented aliens the opportunity to become citizens. 14 republicans joining two independence and all democratic senators in voting for the bill.

vice president joe biden presided as they voted from their seats. >> is there anyone in the chamber wishing to change their vote? the chair announces the vote, express terms of approval or disapproval are not admitted in the senate. 68.yea's are the nay's 32. the bill as amended has passed. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. can!s, we yes, we can! >> the sergeant-at-arms will restore order in the gallery.

the sergeant-at-arms will restore order in the gallery. >> today's vote was preceded by debate. florida senator marco rubio. this is a little more than one hour.

>> my father had a rough childhood. a small catering company that his parents ran together collapsed so as a young child, he was forced to leave school and go to work. he would work virtually every day for the rest of his life. as hard. grew up just her father was disabled by polio and to struggle to provide for his seven daughters. my parents met at a small store. he actually lived and slept in the storage room of that store. like all young couples, they had dreams. my mother wanted to be an act risk and my father tried hard to get ahead. after work, he would take correspondence courses to become a tv and radio repair man, but it was hard because he barely knew how to read. they did everything they could to make a better life, but living in an increasingly unstable country with limited

education and no connections, they just couldn't. they saved as much as they 1956, theyn may 27, boarded an airplane to miami. they came to america in search of a better life. like most recent arrivals, life in america was not easy. had someone fanatically right on a small piece of paper the words, "i'm looking for work? he memorized those words. he today jobs wherever he could find them. they both went to work in a factory building aluminum chairs. my dad eventually became a bartender and he saved money trying to open a business is. when that did not work, they tried los angeles, las vegas, but he found himself back on miami beach behind a bar. they were discouraged and they

were homesick for cuba. in the early days of castro's rule before he came out as a marxist, they even entertained going back permanently. of course, communism take root and that became impossible. i'm sure on their worst days, they wondered if it would ever get better. then the miracle we know as america began to change their lives. by 1967, the saved enough money to buy a house within walking distance of the orange bowl where they used to make a little extra money is by letting people park on their lawn. became a star quarterback at miami high, but it was not just their lives that changed, but also their hearts. they still spoke spanish at home and they kept all of the customs they brought with them from cuba, but with every passing year, this country became their own. my mother recalled how on that terrible november day 1963, she wept at the news that her

president had been slain. she remembers that magical night in 1969 when an american walked on the moon and she realized that now, nothing was impossible. you see, well before they ever became citizens in their hearts, they had already become americans. reminds us sometimes that we focus so much on how immigrants could change america, that we forget that america has always changed immigrants even more. this is not just my story. .his is our story it reminds us of the words senate -- ee pluribus unum. out of many, one. likee should dispute that any sovereign nation we have the right to control who comes in. we areother countries,

not afraid of people coming in from other places. instead, inspired by our judeo- christian principles, we have seen the stranger and invited them in. our nation has been blessed for it. of these ancient words, god divided the sea and let them through. he made the water stand up like a wall. by day, he led them because and above they night of fire. he split the rocks in the desert. he gave them plentiful to drink as from deep. he made waters run down like a river. he commanded the clouds above and the gates of heaven. he rained down manna and gave them bread from heaven. our history is filled with dramatic evidence by god's hand is upon our land. who among us would dispute that we, americans, are a blessed people? there's a statue of a woman

holding a lamp and that the base there is statement, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send thee to me. i lift my lamp beside the golden door. for over 200 years now, they have come. often, just in search of a job to feed their kids and a chance of a better life. from ireland and poland, germany and france, mexico and cuba, they have come. they have come because on the

land of their birth, their dreams are bigger than their opportunities. here, they brought their language and customs, religion and music. somehow they have made art as well from a collection of people everywhere, we became one people. the most exceptional nation in all of human history. even with all of our challenges, we remain that shining city on a hill. we are still the hope of the world. go to our factories and our fields. go to the kitchens and construction sites. go to the cafeteria in this very in there you will find that the miracle of america is still alive, for here in america, those who once had no hope would give their kids a chance at a life they always wanted for themselves. generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass.

that is why i support this reform, not just because i believe in immigrants, but because i believe in america even more. i yield the floor. >> madam president, i appreciate the remarks from the heart of my good friend, marco rubio. he is a great addition to the senate. i would say the heart of america is good. the heart of this country is good. for 30 years, they have been pleading with congress to keep a generous immigration policy of foot and america, but at the same time congress has refused, the president has refused.

this is why we now have 11 million people in the country illegally. they want to do the right thing, but by a quattro to one margin, they said they want to see this congress to do what members of congress have repeatedly promised and never delivered on, creating a lawful system we can be proud of, a system that serves the national interests. rather than working with law enforcement groups and

prosecutors considering the needs of everyday citizens, the sponsors of this bill has spent months in negotiations with partial interests and lobbyists to produce a bill that will not work. it will create more lawlessness in the future. i want them to hear what those men and women on the frontlines have to have to say about this legislation. shouldn't we listen to them? they ask to be able to participate in these negotiations and they were rebuffed. i ask that they be allowed to participate and they were rebuffed. a bill that senator schumer, let's say what they say. a bill that senator schumer in committee said was tough as nails. a bill senator schumer was tough as nails. was that correct? i think not.

this was a joint statement issued today. the united states citizenship and immigration service officers released this joint statement, representing tens of thousands of officers. they say this -- "ice officers and adjudicators have pleaded with lawmakers not to adopt this bill. the proposal will make americans less safe, and it will ensure more illegal immigration, especially these overstays in the future. it provides legalization for thousands of dangerous criminals. the legislation was guided from

the beginning by anti- enforcement special interest and should it become law, will have the desired effect of these groups, blocking immigration enforcement. this is an anti-public safety bill and law enforcement bill. we urge all lawmakers to oppose the final closure vote thursday, and oppose the bill we will be voting on soon." they call on all americans to pick up their phone and call on members of congress. who do we trust on this question? are good, political senators who work hard but have not been on the front lines doing the work, or the people we pay trying to do the work every day, putting their lives at risk? there is something else i would like to talk about today.

i think it is one of the least discussed parts of the conversation. we will have others talk in more detail about enforcement failures of the legislation, but in many ways this could be the most important. i know our friends in the media certainly had not given a lot of coverage to it, and that is future flow of immigration to america, or the legal immigration part of the bill, the bill that controls the legal flow in the future. cbo tells us that the bill cost large increase in mostly lower skilled legal workers will push down wages and increase unemployment. push down wages and increase unemployment. that needs to be talked about.

it must be understood fully. hundreds of people are hurting today. there was an article recently in "the new york times." 700 people camped out for five days to get a few jobs as elevator repairman. they camped out in the rain, waiting in line, hoping to get one of those jobs. there was an article involving philadelphia where individuals who had prior felony convictions convictions, any not all felonies, who wanted work, and they set up an opportunity for them to apply for jobs. they expected the 1000. 2000 and them showed up. the stories they gave were heartbreaking. do we not need to consider the impact this policy could have on working americans? it is a sensitive topic, but a crucial one. here is what david cameron, the prime minister of the uk said recently.

"there are those that say you cannot have a sensible debate because it is somehow wrong to express concerns about immigration." now, i think this is nonsense. yes, of course, it needs to be approached in a sensitive and rational manner, but i have always understood the concerns, the genuine concerns of hard- working people, including many in our migrant communities that worry about uncontrolled immigration and the pressure it puts on public service, the rapid pace of change in some of our communities, and the concerns deeply felt that some people might be able to come and take advantage of our generosity without making a proper contribution to our country." mr. cameron goes on to say "it is our failure in the past to reform welfare and training -- that meant we left too many

young people in a system where they did not have hoppers skills, proper incentives -- copper skills, proper incentives to work, and we saw people coming over -- from overseas to fill jobs in our economy. our job is to train our youth, not to rely on immigration to fill the skills gap." that resonates with our people today? have we thought through this? let's look at our situation in america. 21 million americans are unable to find full-time work. one in three without a high school diploma are unemployed. 47 million americans are on food stamps.

labor force participation is the lowest since the 1970's. the percentage of americans actually working is lower and has been continually falling since the 1970's. it goes back to the date when women were just beginning to enter the workforce. one in three youth in our nation's capital are living in poverty. it appears we are in an area of a new normal. economists have been talking about this, a new normal really see lower growth in developed economies than we normally would see. there are more robotics. businesses are looking to contain the growth of employment and low job creation has been the result. our own congressional budget office -- madam president, i would ask that i be notified after 20 minutes. >> the senator will be notified.

>> our own congressional budget office has done a 10 year economic projection as they do every year. they found in the second five years of our 10-year window, 2018 through two -- 2023, we would only create 75,000 jobs. i know some would say we would bring in workers and that would create jobs, but we will talk about what economists really say about that. what does this legislation do? i think this legislation has not given thought to the plight of these unemployed americans. the legislation that is before us today and four times more guest workers -- people that come only to work, not just seasonal workers.

they come for years at a time with their family, but specifically to take a job four times or more than in the 2007 bill that failed in many objected to on the grounds that it would hurt workers. it also triples the granting of legal status. that is a result of the legalization process. experts who have looked, have come to the same conclusion, at least 30 million people would be given legal status over the next decade, whereas normally we would give 10 million people legal status. yet, to this day, sponsors of the legislation have refused to tell us how many come into the country. what we do know is that the plan

is not a merit-based lan, but most -- plan, but mostly lower skilled. we have data that shows that. this would be a hammer blow to poor and working-class americans. they had hearings on this, saying it would devastate poor workers. we have a glut of lower skilled workers. that is a direct quote from their letter. compare the current situation, when the legislation was introduced in 2007. today, 5 million more americans are on and played than in 2007. 25 million more americans are on food stamps. median household income -- get this, median household income is 8.9% lower than in 1999. that is huge. professor borjas at harvard,

himself an immigrant, who studies economics from says a large part of that decline is driven by the immigration flow that comes into our country. this would increase the dramatic late. we want to have immigration. we will not stop immigration. we will maintain a generous immigration flow, the people need to know this bill increases it dramatically. cbo did a report on the legislation. this is what they found. the legal immigration surge in this bill would reduce average wages for a decade -- reduce average wages for a decade. our own cbo said it. it is in their report. i had it on the floor earlier. wages will remain lower for many years after that and if the bill had never passed. what about unemployment? it will increase according to

cbo. per capital, gnp, will be lower or the next quarter of a century. you will have an increase in gdp and our colleagues are quick to say that because of a large, new group of people, but that increase per person in america does not occur. it reduces the per capita gnp. these are conservative estimates. dr. borjas suggests the situation with the worst than this. to whom do we all our allegiance? to this group that wants more people in the high-tech world, the agricultural world, the meatpacking world or other businesses?

or to the american citizens that were card, a texas found -- that fight our wars and pay taxes? the time is long past for a national discussion. nobody proposes ending immigration. it is a deep part of our history, but the nation has the right and the duty to establish a responsible flow that for most assimilation, for most self efficiency and rising raises and helping identify people that can flourish, the last thing we want to do is advise people to come to america to work and find out that there are no jobs for them here, or that they are putting americans out of work. that does not make sense. we have not had that kind of discussion we need. the data indicates, objectively speaking, that this would be a

detriment to working americans. a great nation needs a policy that promotes its legitimate national interests, considering a tough time that workers are having today. a policy that rejects ideas that will pull down even further the wages of hurting workers. that could, as senator sanders has said some create a permanent underclass in america. it is a dangerous thing. we need to do it right. the legislation is a step. i urge rejecting the bill and come up with a plan that serves the interests of all americans. sadly, this legislation advances the interests of those who wrote it some -- wrote it. the vote we are about to have his for final passage. the promise of an open process have been as hollow as the promises this bill would be the toughest ever.

it just will not happen. law offices have told us this. this legislation is amnesty first. legality occurs first. it plainly -- lacks a system that will work. there is a lack of commitment. you see it throughout the bill. it is not written by people who are out there every day. if they were, it would affect some of these problems shown throughout the bill. more money has been promise with a recent amendment for the border, that is in the distant future. what about the rest of the bill

-- the e-verify system is flawed. it has been delayed. it can be in place right now. why it would be delayed that long is beyond me, unless you are not intensely interested in getting started and -- in making sure half the people are legalized, and others cannot take the job who enter illegally. the entry/exit system is much weaker than current law. this says you only need to have electronic system at air and seaports, making it incomplete.

reading passionate letters from my law enforcement officers, pleading with us not to pass the bill because they say it will weakenforcement and national security. the method of processing those given legal status will not work. the citizenship and immigration service who manage this is one of the biggest objectors because they say there is no way they could accomplish what would be asked of them. they say it would lead to lawlessness, and they will be unable to do and i dangerous -- identify dangerous people that should not be in the country. i will be wrapping up. the thought of having fines to pay for the cost of this amnesty is a huge budget buster. huge budget buster now. the obamacare provision that was

supposed to ensure that persons who were given legal status did not get subsidized healthcare, now provides an incentive for businesses not to hire american workers because they will have to pay the obamacare premiums, but would hire foreign workers, legalized, illegal workers who were not given legal status. they would have multithousand dollar advantages in hiring them over american workers. the legislation will not work. let's continue to work through all of these problems together. i do feel that the bill sponsors are clearly correct to say that we need to fix this broken system. a bill that will respond to the pleas of the american people for a lawful immigration system that serves our national interest and in which we could take pride is what i will support.

how could we go for a bill that our own congressional budget office says will reduce average wages in america for 12 years? we have in this group of american workers thousands, millions of immigrant workers, millions of minorities, african- americans and others at low wages, and this legislation, at a time they are hurting very badly now will reduce average wages for 12 years, increase unemployment and reduced per capita gdp for over 25 years? this is policy we have to ask serious questions about. all of this at a time of high unemployment, long-term falling wages, surging welfare, and disability and dependency. not a healthy trend in america.

we have to ask these questions. our real focus, as prime minister cameron has been -- has said, should be to work hard to train our young people for jobs that pay a decent wage and have a healthcare and retirement plan. this legislation will not end the lawlessness as professional officers have repeatedly told us. it will not do so. he will give legality, amnesty, and you want to call it that, virtually immediately. and the promise of an hour and is in happen now -- promise of enforcement is not going to i know law is and the difficulties -- law officers and their difficulties.

this is a letter that was written today from an ice officer, a true patriot who has worked so hard to do this. he says -- "one of the problems with the bill is a failure to enforce the nation's immigration laws on the interior of the united states. it is not just a border issue. it cannot and will not end as a result of increased border security. it must be resolved through increased interior enforcement. 40% of all the illegal immigrants in america did not illegally cross the border, but entered instead legally with a visa and did not leave when the visa expired. 40,000 border patrol agents provided in your legislation will never come into contact with these people. do you hear that, colleagues? they are never coming in contact with the people in the interior.

he goes on to say -- "systems like e-verify and biometric entry/exit, still missing from the bill, might identify thousands of illegal immigrants and status violators, but ice officers will not exist to locate and apprehend them. rendering the system useless. the majority of foreign nationals identified by the systems will remain in the united states. 500,000 are currently in the united states. 2 million criminal aliens at large. 900 thousand criminal aliens are arrested by local police each year. they go on to note that there are only 5000 ice officers in america, and this administration sues state and local governments who try to help ice officers get

their jobs done. then, the joint statement today from the ice and uscis, says "they have plead with congress not to adopt this bill, but to work on real, effective reforms for the american people. --is is an anti-oblique safety safety bill and anti-law enforcement bill. we urge all lawmakers to oppose the bill." madame president, this legislation will not end the lawlessness. i wish it were different, but that is the fact. it does not create a merit-based future flow as has been honest and it leaves us in a very difficult decision.

so, i feel like there is no choice for us today. let's vote no on the legislation. ends not going to and the-- the efforts. we are going to have to continue to wrestle with this. the good news is that the house, at least, initially what i have seen in their work, indicates that they are giving a far more prudent approach to it. the first note that they produced, i try to offer as an amendment, but it did not get brought up, and he really has an effective effort at improving interior law-enforcement. that is the kind of thing we need to be doing. then we can win the confidence of the american people and move past this very difficult time in our history. i think the chair and reserve the balance of the time on the site. -- side. >> the senator from south carolina. >> thank you.

if i may -- well, thank you very much to my good friend from alabama. you have been consistent. you have conducted yourself incredibly well. you are a man of passion. i agree with david cameron in jeff sessions, let's have a debate about immigration, but i am in the camp, let's stop talking about it and do something. this bill is a giant step forward in many ways. for the senate, we are at 10% or 12% of approval rating, and my question is who are the 10% and 12%, and what the hell do they like? i do not approve of what we are doing. i see this as a significant step to work together in a bipartisan fashion to do something that matters. is this bill perfect? is it like senator sessions described? no.

to the american people, you have to be frustrated by your congress not being able to do the hard things, and sometimes not even the same old things. -- simple things. they should give you a little bit of hope that for the first time since 2007 the united states senate, in a bipartisan fashion, is about to pass legislation on an important topic that is emotionally tough but needs to be dealt with. to the critics, i appreciate the debate. this time around, it has been so much better, but some of the criticism i will address. senator rubio spoke in an fashion about his family's history and about who we are as americans, but everybody has a story. his story is an exceptional story. i am the first person in my family to go to college. neither one of my parents graduated high school. my dad and mom ran a restaurant, a liquor store and a pool room, and i learned everything i need

to know about politics in the pool room. a great place to learn about people. one of the critics of this bill said that the average illegal immigrant has a 10th grade education. well, all i can say is you and a united states senator who came from parents who did not have a 10th grade education. to those who believe that how long you go to school determines your character, how much money is in the bank determines your worth, they really do not understand america. only in america can you do what senator rubio has done, and my parents have long since passed. when i was 21, my mom died, 17 years younger than my dad. we thought he would go first, but life is not understandable and predictable. she went first. 15 months later, he passes. my sister was 12.

he never made over $30,000. i am in the united states senate because i live in a country where anything is possible, and there are a lot of self-made people in america. i am not one of them. if it were not for my family and my friends, i would not be here today. to those who say that among this population,grant they are just not well educated, offensiveo idea how that is to me. you can take your criticism -- and we will just end it at that.

80 million baby boomers are going to retire in the next 40 years. to my good friend from alabama. to my good friend who feels like we have too much legal immigration -- i am taking strom thurmond place. he got married and started having kids at 67. unless all of us started doing that, we have a problem. in 1965, there were 15 workers for every social security retiree, today there are three, and in 20 years there will be two. i am part of the problem. i am not married and i do not -- i am married and i do not have unlessds. there is a baby boom, we had better hope we improve the system. we will need more legal immigration. i wish we can do more. who will take care of the baby boomers. who will replace the workers if legal not have better

immigration? what did the cbo said about this bill. over the next 20 years, you reduce the deficit. how can that be? how can you reduce the deficit by $890 million if you do not create economic activity? to the american worker, the biggest threat to you is illegal immigration. tell me how it is better to continue amnesty, which is doing nothing, paying people under the table, with no regulation, how does that help the american worker to compete against some person that is being paid under the table? this bill brings people out of the shadows on our terms, not theirs. you get to stay here if we decide you can stay. we are regaining our sovereignty that has been lost. your system is broken from top to bottom. every nation has the right to control its borders and control this bill odesob.

th -- does that. i am glad to have my name on it and doing nothing is the worst thing for the american worker. we will stop paying people under the table. have you ever been to a meatpacking plant? find out who was working in the plant. mostly, hispanics, people from other parts of the world full. our population is declining and our needs for legal immigration is growing. this bill does that. it affects the economy. it will increase our gdp by 3.5% over time. it is good for america to have legal immigration. you will be brought out of the shadows and you will stay on our terms.

if you have committed a felony, you are not eligible. here is what we are going to allow. go through a criminal background check, pay a fine, get right with the law, and you will have a legal status. you will get to pay taxes like the rest of us and get to know the irs. welcome to america. we're going to create order out of chaos. we will get people working and paying and rather than taking out under the table. what we are going to do above all else is we are going to prove to ourselves that we can work together for the common good. i have never been more proud to be involved in the issue than i have trying to fix illegal immigration because it is a national security threat, a

cultural threat. i am doing great among hispanics in south carolina. there are not many who vote in the republican primary. i have tried to work with my colleagues to start a process that would pay great dividends. to senator grassley, thank you. i have never been more proud to be in the senate than i am today. to my critics, i respect your criticism. to the american people, who are beginning, the greatest deliberative body. you will have a second chance,

take advantage of it, embrace the fact that you are being given a second chance. to the american people, what makes us special is that being french means you're french, being german means you are german. in american means nothing about being where you come from, being an american is an idea that so many people embrace. ladies and gentlemen, being an american is something everybody wants to be part of. unfortunately, we cannot allow everybody in. i want to thank senator durbin. i want to tell my colleagues in the city, this is a day i have been waiting for.

thank you so very much. >> let me thank senator graham, senator mccain, senator rubio, senator frank, senator schumer, and senator bennett. seven of us came together to create a bill and we did a lot more. we created a bond of friendship and trust and the life experience that none of us will ever forget. each of us brought our special pleadings to this negotiation. i argued for protection of refugees and american american workers, access to immigration courts, reforming the program, a path to citizenship. my colleagues knew from the start that there was one issue that was more important to me than any other. madam president, it was 12 years

ago when i first introduced the dream act. i did it for this young woman. they were about to deport her from chicago back to korea. she was 18 years old. she did not know any other country but the united states. she was an excellent pianist. she was about to be deported. i introduced the dream act to help her and hundreds of thousands just like her. this story ends well. she finished her education, she is working on a phd in music, she played in carnegie hall and she married an american and she is a citizen. would america have been a better place if she were deported?

of course not. the plight of teresa and this bill the dream act became a cause, a national campaign. in the beginning, teenagers used to come up to me in chicago filled with emotion, meet me at my car. i am a dreamer, can you help me? over time, their numbers grew and so did their courage. they stood up as they have so many times and so many places and said, i am willing to fight to be part of america's future. it was not easy for them. i had a press conference in the capital. i invited the dreamers to tell their stories. i hate filled congressman from colorado called the immigration authorities and said a those-- said, arrest those kids. theywre not arrested, and

left that press conference more determined to see the dream act become a reality. we called the bill on the senate floor and it failed. we could not break the filibuster. the galleries were filled with streamers in caps and gowns. we called the bill for a vote and we lost. we could not break the filibuster. one of the saddest meetings i ever had to place afterwords. i went downstairs and i met with these dreamers. their heads were down and they were crying and they said, what can we do? i said to them, i am never giving up on you, do not give up on me. today, i have a message. for gabby, and all of the dreamers in the galleries here and all around the country, your determination kept us going and your faith in the only country you have ever called home has been rewarded.

this bill before us has the strongest dream act ever written. i listen to my colleagues speak about immigration. those of us to support this bill have not talked about the details of the bill. we talked about what this means to us personally. what immigration means to america. --r anyone in this chamber who the child of lithuanian immigrants, whose deram -- dream came through when she was naturalized. that woman was my mother. i dedicate this to her.

for anyone in this chamber who believes this is just another vote, go to a naturalization ceremony. watch those new citizens as they take that oath to be part of this country. you cannot help but feel the emotion that courses through them at that moment. let me say a final word about the senate. i am proud to represent the great state of illinois. we are elected to make this nation better. the aid of us came together across the aisle, we cheered one another and we wrote a bill together. to my fellow colleagues, it is your turn. reach across the isle and show the american people the senate can still rise to the challenge. show the skeptical nation that the faith in our founding fathers will be honored by our generation. i yield the floor. >> i would like to thank senator durbin for his compelling

remarks and his deep and abiding concern for many years concerning the so-called dreamers. i would like to thank all of my other six colleagues for their involvement and i would also like to thank senator corcoran, i would like to thank my colleague senator flake, and mention senator lindsey graham who gave his own unique perspective as well is my friend from colorado, senator bennett, and also who played such. leadership role. the word friend is tossed around, but these seven individuals are my friends. we are friends of america. we are sent here by our constituents to achieve results

and i do not know at this particular time of a greater issue that we should be involved in. we have heard a lot of personal stories today and i am deeply moved by all of them. there is another human story, there are millions of them. i would like to tell you a few of them. over the last week, the arizona newspapers have reported that eight bodies were found in the arizona desert. the arizona desert is in triple digit temperatures. on june 21, four men may have been dead three days before their bodies were found in the arizona desert by border patrol agents. on june 24, the associated press reported sheriff's deputies found another body in the arizona desert.

days after four bodies were discovered in the same area. no identification was found on the body and there were no signs of trauma or foul play. june 27, today, the arizona daily star reported that three decomposing bodies were found by border patrol agent in the desert over the weekend. there have been 12 people rescued from the desert by agents. the list goes on and on. since 2007, the last time we tried to pass this legislation, more than 2425 immigrants have died trying to cross our south west border. these are people who wanted to come to this country because they realize the american dream.

that is what they risk their lives and give their lives for. yes, they did so illegally. they are willing to pay a penalty for crossing our border illegally. should we give them the same chance that we have given generation after generation of immigrants who have come to this country, wave after wave of irish and italian and poland. how do we address some of these. isn't it in us to bring 11 million people out of the shadows who have none of the protections of citizenship?this legislation does secure the border and i can tell you from 30 years of being on the border, this bill secures the border and anyone who says it does not does not understand our security needs because i

have been there and i have seen the technology. the technology that was developed in iraq and afghanistan which will give us surveillance. there is a bill with 20,000 new additional border patrol agents, but the fact is the technology that is there now will give us the ability for 100% situational awareness and to intercept. i guarantee because i saw it work. that technology -- there are 700 miles of total fencing, 700 miles. my friend, we will also have additional border patrol. what is the key to this bill? the key is this bill is not only because the fencing on the border and the border patrol, but it is 40% of the people illegally overstayed their visas. they did not cross the southwest border.

veat do we do about that? verify program makes sure that every person who wants to come to this country will know that that person cannot get a job year. we will have within five years amear-verify system that i confident in, and more importantly so are the people who are really knowledgeable it will be a full proof system with 95% effectiveness. this legislation will give us a secure border, and it will address the key element. people who now want to come here and illegally will know that they cannot. employers will know that if they hire someone here illegally, they will pay severe penalties we have to drive the magnet. today, there is 11 million people. they doe in violation.

not have the protection of our loss. i would like to mention, the people coming across our borders. there is a thing called coyotes. they are drug cartel people, the most evil people on earth. they bring them across the border many times. the reason why we find these bodies in the desert, we are leaving you.tucson is over the hill. thousands have died in the desert. do you know what they do? they keep them in drop houses jammed together and they hold them for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions. they have used the people they-- abused the people they bring up. i will not go into the details. it is an unacceptable situation. 50,000 mexican citizens have been killed by the drug cartels. hundreds of migrants were missing were killed in mexico. the mexican government does not know how to handle the situation. it is all complicated by drugs. madam president, i have had

great opportunity to have many experiences. the one i will never forget was july 4, 2007. senator lindsey graham, joe lieberman were in baghdad for the fourth of july. general petraeus requested that we speak at a reenlistment ceremony where 800 brave young men and women serving in the military were reenlisting to stay and fight. there was another group who were green cardholders who because they joined the military had an accelerated path to citizenship. i was honored to be there. in the front row, there were four empty seats. men and women who were green cardholders who had lost their lives in combat in the previous 48 hours.

men willing to risk their lives and serve our country in order to be citizens. i have never been so deeply moved. madam president, let's give these 11 million people a chance i yield.e same. [applause] >> senator from texas. >> i know the gang of eight members responsible for the basic framework of this legislation have done tremendous work and have advanced the substance and tone of our discussion in measure blaze-- miserably since -- measurably since 2007, which is the last time we had a major immigration bill on the floor. i think the american people understand that the status quo

is simply unacceptable. we have a broken immigration system which is de facto amnesty. we have a system which is lawless and uncontrolled and it operates neither in the best interest of our country economically nor represents our values. the american people are famously generous and compassionate. as a society, we believe in second chances. all of us have benefited from second chances and i believe the american people believe those who come here to america in violation of our immigration laws, if they are willing to step up, pay a fine, register, and live in compliance with our laws, they should get a second chance. polling shows that the american people support a permanent legalization program for 11 million immigrants living in the united states, but only if they are convinced that congress has

made sure they will never have to do this again. i believe the american people believe the borders are controlled, if they believe we had biometric entry-exit system, if we had an effective e-verify system, if we had those three legs in place, the american people would do the generous thing, the compassionate thing, and give second chances to the 11 million people. the problem with this bill, and i say this more out of sadness

than anything else, the promises of this bill have simply not been kept. we were told six months ago that the pathway to citizenship was contingent upon border security and enforcement measures. i introduced an amendment which would conditions of transfer for probationary status to legal permanent residency on a certification that the objectives on operational security at the borders have been met. i believe by doing so, we would realign all of the incentives for the political parties, everybody would be focused like a laser on how we would get this done. how do we hit that mark? if we had had a mechanism in this bill which did not depend on congress keeping future promises, i believe we could regain the trust and confidence of the american people, such that we

could get to a successful outcome. unfortunately, the proposal i made to do exactly that has been rejected. the assistant democratic leader has made the point recently that permanent legalization has been delinked from border security. i believe the problems in this legislation go well beyond the border. the solution my colleagues have offered, 5000 border patrol, i was told even though the gang of eight bill offered zero border patrol, i was told that was a budget. 5000 new border patrol. now we find 20,000 additional border patrol provided for in this bill. we have been told we have a surge of law enforcement to the border and a huge investment in

their technology and boots on the ground. the only thing missing is a plan to make sure those people are --tually employed in the effectively deployed, and the technology will be deployed in a way that secures the border. i know the surge worked in afghanistan, but i am not so sure we need a military surge in south texas and in the absence of any plan to make sure people are going to be effectively utilized. i would say, i do not believe the promises made in this bill will ever be kept. i do not believe we will ever have an extra 20,000 border patrol agents. i do not believe the huge --vestment in technology lover will ever be made because it depends not just on this congress and this administration, but future congresses and administrations. peoplee the american

being asked to grant a gift of a pathway to citizenship to demonstrate the typical american belief in second chances and demonstrate compassion. but in essence, they have been tricked once again to trade that in exchange for hollow promises of future action. and i think it is an unacceptable deal. the problem with the legislation extends beyond that. this bill grants immediate legal status to people with multiple misdemeanors and convictions for driving while intoxicated and spousal abuse. you can have been deported out of the country for having committed a crime, and yet the eligible for reentry into the --ntry and eligible area eligible for probationary status under this bill. i think that is shocking. i understand why we want to give people who are economic migrants an opportunity to get right with the law and to get on with their lives. why would we want to extend that

generosity to people who show nothing but contempt for the rule of law? this bill also hinders law enforcement by making confidential the information contained in applications for probationary status that are rejected. this happened back in 1986 and i remember a quote from the senior senator from new york after that time, that was one of the biggest sources of fraud in the amnesty of 1986. my hope would be we would not repeat that mistake again by keeping that information confidential.away from law enforcement authorities. make sure only people who qualify for this generosity are able to do so. the other problem with this bill is that it is a budget buster.i was told that 5000 border patrol agent paid for out of the $8.3

billion trust fund created by this bill was too much. but now we have $30 billion more in additional spending being promised, and the argument is that somehow this is free money and it does not cost a penny because under the cbo score there will be a reduction in deficits. the problem is, that is double counting the money. money coming into the treasury because of people who are now registered paying into social security and the like. but it takes that money to spend on these other programs and does not appreciate or recognize the fact that the money is also going to need to be available to pay future benefits for the same people. that is double counting. that is phony bookkeeping. we ought to rejected. the truth is, the bill adds to the budget that an additional roughly $14 billion. at a time when our debt is $17 trillion, it strikes me is the

wrong thing to do to say we will add further to that debt and jeopardize our financial health for the country as a whole. , i would close with this -- it gives me great pain to say that i think this is an opportunity that we have failed to take advantage of. i think we could've done better, and we should have done better, and this bill is unworthy of my support and it would be unworthy of the support of a number of members. but my hope is the house of representatives takes up the issue and we can somehow find a way to a conference committee with the house and produce a bill that eventually we can put on the president's desk. it will not be like this bill. i am confident of that. the house has four different views. but what we do have that we did not have in 2007 is a true bipartisan consensus that the status quo is unacceptable and we have to do better.

unfortunately, this bill does not keep promises made originally. >> the senate passed the immigration bill 58-32. democratic senators and two independents voted in favor of lung with 14 republicans. the bill now goes to the house, were speaker boehner says members will work on their own version. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> we will do our own bill through regular order. there will be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the american people. to pass the house, it will have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members. immigration reform has to be grounded in real border security. it is what the american people believe and it is a principle that our majority believes in as well. has done a good

job passing the border security bill. chairman goodlatte is doing good work in the judiciary committee. it immigration reform will work, it is essential that the american people have the confidence it is being done correctly. that is how the house will approach this issue. you said aker, couple weeks ago that you believe immigration reform would pass. you seemed more confident than the new scene now. what do you see as the path forward for reaching what you talked about a couple weeks ago? , we willave made clear go through regular order. home for the recess next week and listen to our constituents. when we get back we will have a conference to have a discussion about the way forward. i do not want to make any predictions on the outcome and what it will be, but we will

have the conversation and determine a pathway forward. overkill, you think? >> i do not believe so. people have to have confidence that the border is secure before anything else is really going to work. otherwise, we risk -- repeat the mistakes of 19 86. >> are there any circumstances where you could personally support a pathway to people herefor illegally? >> my job is to determine policy -- my job is to facilitate a discussion between both parties in terms of how we are going to deal with this issue. i am going to continue to facilitate the conversation. >> in a few moments, a hearing on border security. in a 2.5 hours, the first meeting of the defense department's review panel

investigating the military response to sexual assault. >> on the next "washington journal," representative doug collins, a member of the judiciary and foreign affair committees, will take your questions about this week's supreme court decisions, the us syria, and immigration policy. we will continue the discussion about immigration policy with representative luis gutierrez of illinois. life on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m.. sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the 42nd new york, best known as the tammy regiment. the main figure, the statue of the indian chief, represents chief tammany, a chieftain of the delaware tribe.

he is well-known for being both a warrior and a diplomat. he became a symbol of the tammany hall democratic faction in new york city. participatedyork in the repulse of pickett's charge. in the process they lost 15 of their men killed. american for was had to tell. -- head to toe. it represented the best the nation had to offer. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday beginning at 9:30 eastern. historians throughout the day. we will take your calls and tweets for the author of "gods and generals. go at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with doris kearns goldman -- goodwin.

followed by a processional ceremony and civil war .nstitute director peter, go you can submit questions and comments today at facebook.com/ cspanhistory. >> a border security oversight hearing. household -- house officials heard from immigration and customs officials for two and a half hours. >> meeting will come to order. good morning. i would like to begin the hearing by stating the oversight committee mission statement. twoxist to secure fundamental principles. first, americans have the right to know the money washington takes from them as well spent. americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight committee is to protect these

rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we work tirelessly interest -- partnership with citizen to deliver facts and deliver reform. i thank everybody for coming to attend this hearing entitled " border security oversight -- identifying and responding to current threats." i would like to thank my colleagues here and the people in the audience for joining us today. much of the current immigration reform debate has centered on the importance of border security, but the conversation is not focused enough on how to secure the border in the most effective manner. as a result, today's hearing will examine a variety of threats to u.s. border security, from a legal entrance to drug trafficking organizations to potential national security breaches. the hearing will examine how to measure each of these risks and the most effective responses to the threats we confront.

the department of homeland security is responsible for controlling and guarding the borders of the united's dates. the operational responsibility includes preventing and investigating illegal movement across our borders, including the smuggling of people, drugs, cash, and weapons. the secure fence act of 2006, intended to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the united states, authorizes the secretary of the department of homeland security to take necessary and appropriate actions to secure the u.s. borders. security to 2012, measures implemented to help achieve operational control of u.s. borders have cost u.s. taxpayers approximately 75 billion dollars. despite spending tens of billions of dollars to secure the border, the government accountability office reported in 2011 that there were only 129 miles of the 1954 mile long southwest border, roughly six

percent of the border, where border patrol can actually deter or detect and apprehend illegal entry. 6% operational control. the lack of operational control documented by gao directly contradict statements made by the administration that the border is the most secure it has ever been. after gao reported low levels of operational and roll, dhs changed policy to make the number of apprehensions the measure of effectiveness. however, the number of apprehensions that dhs uses as the metric now does not indicate whether federal government efforts to secure the border are actually achieving operational control or not. one of the fundamental questions i have is, if the rise in ever hanshin's -- apprehensions is increasing, does that mean the border is more secure or less secure? if the number of apprehensions is declining, does that mean the border is less secure, or the

borders more secure? i asked the attorney general this question. attorney general holder said you cannot draw a conclusion based on apprehensions. i have asked the secretary of homeland security, who did not really give a thorough answer to that question. it is something we need to explore. not to play gotcha, but to come up with a and network -- with a metric we can all live with. when the metrics change, you cannot compare them to past performance. that is something we need to explore. since the creation of the department of homeland security, the oversight efforts have examined the effective use of taxpayer dollars of the border. the department is working hard to secure the border. there are examples of wasteful spending. fbi net, intended to improve video surveillance of the border, has cost taxpayers roughly $1.2 billion. but fbi net has been deemed a failure. on april 2 to the fourth of this year, members and staff of

the house oversight and government reform committee, including myself, traveled to to assessthe dallas the federal efforts to secure the border. i appreciate the men and women we interacted with. we had a very productive trip. the committee also visited the detention facility in arizona and were briefed by officials. how the department classifies people -- it stands for other than mexican. it accounted for roughly 900 inmates from 60 different countries out of approximately 1500 in the detention facility. in other words, more than half the people the detention facility housed were not mexicans. they were from 60 different countries. for those who assume that the border problem is simply a problem with mexico, that is just not true.

there is nothing statistical that would support that. certainly if you look at the detentions it is a much bigger and broader problem then just people coming north from mexico. it is a bigger, broader problem. conversations in yuma and other cities, there appears to be an increasing trend across the southwest border. a significant number are coming from latin america, including guatemala and honduras, in addition to india, china, and parts of europe, asia, and other countries. border patrol officers told the committee about potential problems to the immigration system. it appears the judicial process for asylum request and the administration of the says may contain -- these as -- visas may contain serious flaws. the government continues to identify new and emerging threats to secure the border, including the drug cartels' use

of submersibles and ultralight aircraft and underground tunnels. nogalesthe heart of they recently found another towel going into the heart of the city. today we hope to discuss the threats, and also respond to some risks, including the use of effective drones, strategic s,acement of troops and other technology that can successfully be implemented. whether through technology or border patrol agents, we must allocate the necessary resources to secure the border in a way that is smart, strategic, and ensures we do not waste taxpayer dollars. i want to emphasize -- and i commend the work and support of our law enforcement officers from the various different agencies. they do amazing work in exceptionally difficult conditions. we cannot thank them enough or their good, hard, diligent work. it is tough work. today's discussion should focus on understanding the threats to our borders and how we should

respond to each challenge. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses for a productive conversation about securing the borders of the united states. however, i am disappointed that langlois, the associate director with the citizenship and immigration services, has refused to testify before the subcommittee today. hiscommittee requested attendance and participation 13 days ago. june 14 of this year. despite providing essentially a two-week notice to testify before the subcommittee, the u.s. citizenship and immigration services declined to appear, asserting "due to the lack of sufficient notice to prepare and clear testimony as well as compare a suitable witness, uscis will be unable to appear at the upcoming june 27 hearing on border security."

i want to thank you for other people from other agencies who were able to prepare, who did come and were briefed, and you are joining us today. i find it totally unacceptable that with 13 days notice that is not sufficient time to prepare to testify in congress about what you do every day and the job and responsibility you have for your own department and agency. i think those are here -- that are here. we duly note the person who is not here and find that unacceptable. the american taxpayers deserve answers to these important questions before the subcommittee today. we have left the seat open, hoping the witness would appear today. it appears he has not. thank you for the agencies that are here today. i also want to thank and commend my colleague, trey gowdy, for his work. he is the chairman of the judiciary subcommittee dealing with immigration. as we move forward, dealing with the problem that is immigration

from a legislative standpoint, it is critical that we get the border security portion right. every bit of legislation, whether in the senate or house, there is always a focus on how we will secure the border.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i was just reading a blog. what does she mean by the term reverse escort? can any of you answer that question? mr. homen? >> i can answer that. the activity has spiked. we have seen an increase in arrests. citizens from el salvador, guatemala, honduras. three major populations. we have a congressionally

mandated cap on overtime. a lot of arrests are under 8. we are only allowed to detain them 72 hours. before we turn them over to the health and human services office of resettlement. with the surge of juvenile arrest, we are supposed to turn them over to dhhs. we contact them and say we have a juvenile. where do we take them. we have to deliver them. they were doing so many escorts. they are bumping up against the overtime cap. the cost is the same for an officer to go from san antonio to detroit. to drop off a juvenile with health and human services. what we are asking the other fficers to do, we are having a

detroit officer flight to san antonio, take them to detroit. it is the same cost. it is a way to deal with a mandate of overtime we can pay our officers. >> they are saying immigration officers are dropping them off in sanctuaries awaiting amnesty. >> that is not accurate. my officers turn them over to health and human services. officer refugee resettlement. they have contracts to make sure he gets medical and food and until he gets a hearing. you would have to talk to health and human services who they contract with, but that is taken out of context. >> why would you fly a juvenile

rom texas or new mexico to detroit to await trial? >> because health and human services ran out of bed in texas. they have contracts around the country. joule juvenile aliens are arrest all over the states. health and human services tell us, this is where we are going to take this child. here is where you bring hem. >> thank you. i appreciate your larifying. this catch and release thing. i toured the holding facility. prison? what is it called? >> a detention facility. >> thank you.

i understand you're only funded for so much bed space. 1500 something. >> approximately. > if all those beds are filled and you have 30 you just caught, where do they go? >> we are actually overburdening the budget. if we are completely full and beyond budget, as aliens come into custody, we make a determination. is there a case -- maybe he has a job in enforcement. can we put him in alternative form and make that bed available for the priority ase? the priority cases are

criminals, those that threaten national security. we increased the beds in texas to make sure we can't attain recent border crossers, because i think that is an important trategy. >> i have heard border patrol agents tell me they get a message the beds are full, and they do not respond to, they do not make a big effort capturing 26. they may be only captured three or four. is that accurate? >> we detain all recent border entrants. we brought in a couple thousand more tpwheds texas to deal with the inflex. we released people every day like every jail does. maybe we cannot get a travel document. maybe we cannot get a travel document to somalia. we have a supreme court

decision that we can only detain someone for six months. e must release them. we make it a priority to detain hose aliens, but there are times there is an unaccompanied juvenile, and we can release them to our custody. they get there interview and find it positive, they will be on bond. we release aliens all the time on bond if they meet the bond by the judge. if we find out they are the sole caregiver for a child and that person is not in danger, he would serve better in an alternate form of detention. >> we have heard of significant increases in other than

mexicans crossing our southwest border. the chairman tweeted that nine romanians were apprehended crossing the southwest border during this recent trip, and news outlets are reporting an increase in indian nationals, more than 1000 crossing into that state. what other countries are they coming rom? >> a big majority now is guatemala and el salvador. let me explain what we did with that. we were bringing so many into custody, we got way over 37,000. i instruct them to meet and start a pilot program. usually they are in detention for 10 or 20 days before a government official from guatemala would interview hem. it took 20 days, so the beds are backing up.

i issued instruction to start a program with the agreement of the government. they are doing a pilot program within 24 hours. they are issued a travel document within 24 hours. in the last two weeks we removed over 5000 to their country to these pilot programs. that's got the bed level down. they are actually surrendering themselves at a port of entry and claiming fear. they will arrange an interview and tries to make that did termination is the fear redible. if they make that determination that he has a fear of returning to his homeland, they are eligible for release under bond or other supervisor bull release. >> at least nine romanians, it

is my understanding they went to trial and never showed back p. >> we are dealing with cis. last year we removed aliens from over 150 countries, so we see them in every country on the planet. >> walk me through this. they go before a judge? >> on mexican nationals we can return them pretty quickly. tms have to be approved by officials from their country to a certain they are in fact a itizen of guatemala.

after that guatemala will issue a travel document. that is the process. we arrest somebody. we set them up for an immigration hearing. they will see an immigration judge if they request a hearing. >> how many show up after you release them? >> it depends. if it is under some sort of per vision like an ankle bracelet, they show about 80% at the hearing. what the border patrol is doing is those arrested crossing the border have expedited removal. that is a removal order in itself, so they do not have to see the judge. we get a quick interview with the government. they issue a document to remove them.

the only time the hearing comes into effect is if we arrest them in the interior we cannot process them. we have to get an immigration judge. >> what percentage of otms do you have? o you have an average? >> at the time we had approximately 34,000 in custody. we had approximately 7000 or 8000. -- 78,000 o.t.m.'s. >> the rest are citizens? >> citizens of mexico. >> and 80% show up for this? >> atd wear an ankle bracelet. they could be doing a bit check at the residence. we have about 80% for alternative detention.

>> that means 20% did not appear? >> yes, sir. >> how many people is that? >> it is hard to give -- i can tell you. >> 10,000? you are talking 400,000 people you process? >> we had 475,000 last ear. we removed 410,000. some are still fighting their cases. there will be an order of removal. they can go forward and repeal nce again. have lot of ail yeps -- aliens with final orders. >> you have 400 allison plus. 20% of that is 80,000 people. never show back up. >> our current backlog has

people that cannot be removed. 460,000 at the latest count. >> 11 million illegal in this country. someone told me it is closer to 20 million. someone told me it was closer to 30. >> that is why i think what ice is doing is smart and effective. knowing that we can remove 400,000 aliens. that's what we're staffed for and budgeted for. i think the smart way to do that, is it going to be the first 400,000 we encounter? i think focusing on those that threaten national security, i like to think we can decide who those 400 are going to be. the more criminals there are, the safer our communities are. our policy is clear.

let's decide who they are going to be. let's make community safety an important factor. i mentioned earlier 225,000 criminal aliens were removed last year. that is a significant impact on community safety. impact. the recidivism rate, how many crimes did we prevent? half of the 400. > 55%. if you look at the 410,000, the rest of the 96% were either fugitives, those ordered removed and reentered. which makes them a re-entry or a recent border entrance. those border entrance remain a priority for us because we need to secure the border. >> a second illegal entry is a felony. >> if they have been ordereded removed, if we recatch them,

they can be prosecuted for a felony. >> do you agree with other law enforcement professionals who are concerned the rise in otms corresponds with the rise of smuggling coming out of exico? >> i think a vast majority are being smuggled by organizations operating out of mexico. >> i have one last question. id you have one? when i was at eloi they gave me a daily report. it was a sheet of paper with all the countries in the world, and it had a little space. every day they would write down the number held at the facility in that space. s that a daily report?

>> i'm unfamiliar with that. that might be something that facility does. we track where they are from through an electronic atabase. >> all the countries that were represented in that facility, nd knowing we do not capture 100%, but the one thing that offered me the most, -- that bothered me the most, it was next to the country, afghanistan. i don't know why. it really a played on me. if we do not capture everyone, how many are from that particular country? that is a concern to me. i'm sure a lot of other people. anyway, i guess that is why i a

awake at night when i think about this border. and the problems we have there. operational control is often described as a strategy to secure borders. what do you view as the biggest threat to the security of our borders, mr. fisher and we'll go right down the line. >> i would describe those who seek to hurt this country. those are who we target. > what does that mean? >> your question had to do with how we evaluate threat along the border. and what that threat is? >> what do you think the biggest risk is and how are we responding to that risk? just give me an example. there was one person there from afghanistan. right now we're fighting a war

in afghanistan. it is common sense. why is someone from afghanistan sneaking into our country? then i hear we have 11 million illegals. you said the border is not secure and someone wants to do us harm. it is going to exploit our weaknesses and weak points in our border. it is my job to protect this country, the number one by -- priority in the constitution and you're telling me our border is not secure and i would like to know what you think the biggest threat to the security of our borders is and what risks, can you give me a percentage? >> i share the same responsibility as you. as the chief to have united states border patrol. i took the same oath to support

the constitution. the threat that keeps me up as well is those individuals that are potential terrorist seeking entry into this country. and may do so between ports of entry. we identify what the requirements are to minimize the likelihood they are inclined to get into this country. that we're able to detect them and apprehend them. i cannot give you certain that meant and percentages. i can give you an example. areas where we generally do not have capability. we see the vast majority of individuals seeking entry are within those areas thomas a vulnerable area is in the rio grande valley. from a regional standpoint, the

vulnerability is in the rio grandea valley. >> mr. murphy? >> yes, sir. one of the things that we have done is push our border back. both from air traffic, the passengers we get. we know who is coming. we know well in advance of them boarding planes. we know what is coming from the cargo. we get that entry in advance. we have radiation detection devices. i believe that is where we have really done the most work as far as identifying that threat ahead of time. we denied boarding to 4200 people in 2012. these are potentially high-risk individuals who could have come to this country to do harm. >> i want 100% border security and we don't have it. and one from afghanistan comes n and that's all it takes.

>> i have carried a badge and a gun for 29 years. i care about this country. i think it is my job to protect the security of this country and the security of our communities. i think the biggest threat is those who want to come to this country to do harm. a priority is investigations of national security nature. also important is the safety of the communities. for those that come here and want to commit crimes. i have in doing this a long time. there was a time when we would just go arrest aliens. because they are here in violation of law. i am enforcing immigration law. at the end of the day, what impact have i made? at the same time i arrest this person who is here illegally ut has not committed a crime

there is a child predator walking around. by deploying security communities across the country we have a virtual presence in very jail. if they get arrested we will find out about that alien and take action and remove them in the country. he strategy i.c.e. is built on ortizing what we do. let's make that 400,000 count. i have been doing this for 20 years. i think we're in a better spot now than we have been in years. >> thank you very much. ms. gambler? >> border patrol has identified threats to border security from terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal migration. order patrol is working on

developing risk assessment tools to help assess what those risks are and help the identification of resources, and that is in process. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank all of our witnesses from taking time from their busy schedules to appear before us. he committee stands adjourned. >> it is criminal to me that i had to authorize my budget people, my financial people to write a check for $454 million a little bit more than a month to go to extend our contract with the russians to continue to carry our crews to the international space station two 2016-2017 because we have not yet brought about the commercial capability. we are not halfway there.

the congress has just -- we are not -- my job is to try to persuade the congress that the plan is good and that we're going to be efficient users of the taxpayers' money and i have not been successful in that yet, but i'm working on it. we're up to 525, but as i have told every member of congress, the budget is title if we're to make the 2017 date. americans are transported to space again on american spacecraft. >> more with nasa administrator sunday night at can qu8 on c-span's "q & a." >> in few moments part of the first meeting as the defense department's independent review panel investigating the military's response the sexual assault and wournl is live at 7:00 -- "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. doug collins of georgia and

representative louise gutierrez, at-bat an illinois emocrat. >> this is c-span 3. every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> several events to tell you about today. our road to the white house coverage continues with kentucky senator rand paul at a south carolina g.o.p fundraiser. senator paul said he is interested in running for president but don't sbide until next year. in the meantime he said he will visit caucus and primary states live on c-span at 6:30 p.m. eastern. we'll follow that with former florida governor jeb bush

speaking sunday. he outlined his immigration policy, which includes a path to legal zip for those who enter -- citizenship for those who enter the country legally. d discussion of a resolution lerner g whether lois -- to discuss lois lerner. a panel of young afghannies talking about their country's future. you can see that on c-span 3 at 10:30 eastern. >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> it became best known as the tamany regiment.

t represents chief tamany, a chieftain of the delaware tribe. he was known for being a diplomat. the 42nd new york on the third day of july, will participate. in the process, they lost at least 15 of their men killed. as one observer at the dedication of this monument said, this monument was american from head to toe. in its proportions and themes and gallantry. it represented the best that the nations had to offer. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday. at 5:30 we'll take your calls and tweets. and 8:00, the commemorative

ceremony. followed by a candlelight procession to soldiers national cemetery and we'll end the day at 9:15 with peter car michael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit comments to our guests at c-span.com/history.

>> good morning. i would like to open up the public segment of the meeting this morning. colonel ham? >> thank you. >> good morning and welcome to the first public meeting of the response systems to adult sexual assault crimes panel. established by section 576 of the national defense authorization act of 2013. i'm colonel patricia ham. i'm the staff director for the panel. the panel chair is the honorable barbara jones. i just want to let you know that c-span is here recording today's public meeting, but it is not being broadcast live. the agenda for today's meeting

is divided into three sections. first, dr. lynn addington, major gary patton and dr. nate galbreath and finally, today the panel will hear from colonel retired fred borch, a register mental historian and u.s. army judge advocate, and captain robert crow a navy representative from the joint service committee. we have not received any written requests for public comment, and as an administrative matter, i would request you refrain from photographing the presentation sessions. would you like to proceed? >> good morning. on behalf of myself and my colleagues, i would like to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the response panel to adult sexual assault in the military and i also want to

thank chief judge royce lambert who made his courtroom and this ourthouse available to us. this is an issue of national importance. important matters are considered daly with the objectivity fairness and independence. this spaniel committed to investigate, to hear all sides and find the facts necessary to report thoughtful and sensible recommendations to congress and the secretary of defense. the panel, as you know, was created by the national defense authorization act of 2013. our broad mandate is to review and assess the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual assaults in the military, and in doing so, to study civilian systems, compare results and look for effective strategies and best practices. we will do that, but in

addition and central to that work, two specific tasks loom large. one is to consider how our military may better protect and support the women as well as the significant number of men who are victims of sexual assaults. and of course, to identify effective strategies to prevent sexual assaults from occurring. the second is to examine the role of our commanders. not just as the decision makers or convening authorities for the prosecution of sexual assaults under the uniform code of military justice, but also as those responsible for ensuring the operational readiness of our military and essential to that critical mission, responsible for creating a command climate with zero tolerance for sexual assaults. as our study proceeds, we remain acutely aware that congress has also asked for our

assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the legislative proposals currently being debated in both houses. and we're committed to working efficiently to provide timely and thoroughly considered recommendations. for today's hearing, our goals are modest. we know that before we can address the problem of sexual assault in the military, we must understand it. to that end, as colonel ham told you, we have three sets of presenters. professor addington will focus on the civilian sexual assault statistics, providing us the demographics, if you will, the who, what, when and where of sexual assault victimization in american society. where possible, she will also identify parallels, similarities and dissimilarities between the civilian and military survey results. and although we will be looking

at numbers, we recognize there is no number of sexual assaults that is acceptable, but that surveys and statistics can help us to identify the issues. ms. rumburg will describe the unique problems that sexual the victim. the types of supports and services the victims need in the civilian and military worlds. she is uniquely qualified to discuss these issues as she has not only been the chief executive officer as colonel ham mentioned of the pennsylvania coalition against rape for over 18 years, but she was also a member of at least two prior studies into sexual assaults in the military. one of them being the 2009 department of defense task force on sexual assault. and that particular task force studied many of the issues before us. for our next panel, as you have

heard, general gary patton and dr. nate galbreath will present and general patton is the head of the sexual assault and prevention office, which is the office within the department of defense that is accountable for the prevention of sexual assaults and for the creation of policies and programs to assist victims. he will discuss what is currently being done in each of those areas across the four services and together with dr. galbreath, will offer some data relating specifically to sexual assaults in the military. lastly, we'll hear from u.s. army colonel retired fred borch, who currently serves as regimental historian, u.s. army judge advocate, general s corps and captain robert row.

and the role of the commander n that code. captain crow will take us through a hypothetical sexual assault case, walk us through its progress within the military justice system, from the victim's report of the crime to its adjudication. these presentations are broad and will undoubtedly generate more questions than answers, but they will provide a necessary foundation for the panel's work. all right, thank you very much for your attention. professor addington? >> i would like to thank the judge and also the panel for inviting me to present before you today. my goal and my hope is that i'm able to provide some context for victimization and reporting issues. my focus, as judge johnson

mentioned, is on civilian crime data. -- 's my area of expert's expertise where i do my research and my work. but also at judge jones' request, she asked me to do some comparisons with the military that were available and make some comparisons with the workplace gender that was done so i'll be doing that as well. can we have the next slide, please? i'm going to start with a general overview of our sources of crime data. for the civilian crime data, we have two main sources of national crime data. these include the uniform crime reporting program which basically reports to police. the filter was that the crime incident was reported to police by the victim or somebody else so that it is known to police. these are local and state crime data that are collected by the f.b.i. we also have a complementary data source.

i'll be focusing my comments on that. the survey data and they really get at the weaknesses of the police data, underreporting of crime, what we call the dark figure of crime and to get a better understanding of the crime picture. i'll talk more about this in a second, if i could have the next slide, please. and these complement the military sources that you'll hear more about. i won't mention too much about these because you'll be hearing from folks from the office and basically the department of defense sexual assault data based on the restricted and unrestricted reports. somebody has come forward to give that information and then there are two surveys that are done. one is by the department of defense, the workplace gender relations survey ands there centers for disease control has done the partner sexual violence survey. they have done a military sample. some of that information was provided in the most recent

report. those are two surveys. we're trying to get at the underreporting of sexual assault issues and also crime issues, more broadly. as i mentioned, i'm going to focus on victim and civilian data. i was asked to do some comparisons and i guess what i'll say is they will be rather crude, basic comparisons because there is a challenge of looking at two different data systems. there are different ways data are collected affect the results obtained, so the issues to be mindful of, if i can get the next slide. this is one of those wonky slides. i'll apologize for that. basically it gets at issues of the survey design. there are certain differences between the ncvs data and the military data. the wgra data. probably the largest one is the scope of what's included. in civilian data, we're looking at sexual violence, which is basically completed, attempted and threatened, rape and sexual assault.

but the military data also includes in addition to that are the nonconsensual sexual touching, those types of fondling incidents can be included, but what the wtra survey does is it explicitly screens for that. so it asks people about that. you might get more accounts of that. i think that is reflected a bit in this data where you have about 1/3 of the incidents reported are the nonconsensual touching. about 25% are attempts for xual intercourse, oral or anal sex and 1/3 are completed sex, oral and anal sex. the military survey was a web search. an in person telephone survey. again, it is not -- it is not that one is better or worse.

there is just differences that can affect the data that are obtained. he web-based is probably there is a lower response rate. they tend to have a lower response rate than in person. the military survey is more of i would say a workplace oriented, the title of the survey and actually the first 30 questions, i was able to obtain a copy of the survey earlier this week. the first two questions are about workplace. somebody might be primed more for a workplace type of response. it is a crime surveys. pros and cons with that. people might think of crime in a particular way. might think of somebody they know. a workplace survey might be more primed to somebody in your work police. a different context there. with regard to the identification and lassification of these

incidents, there is a pretty extensive screener questionnaire. ask a lot of cues of the respondent to get them to talk about different things. did the incident occur with somebody that you know? different locations. different specific behaviors. and the military survey does that all in one step, describe the type of behavior where you -- did you experience this over the past 12 months? yes or no? then asks about the one event with the greatest effect and that appears to be a respondent defined what they viewed at the greatest effects. not necessarily the most recent incident or what may be on the outside might seem serious to somebody that was the most effective at that particular respondent. and then if i can go to the next slide, please? i've talked a bit about the ncvs already.

it is an omnibus crime survey. it is not just about rape and sexual assaults. there are surveys out there that are just about rapes and sexual assaults. it covers many different nonviolent crimes as well as property crimes to household-based surveys. they ask each household member age 12 and above about their victimization experience for the past six months. it gives a lot of details about underreported crimes and the incident itself. if i could have the next slide, please? in addition to the design issues i mentioned, there are just a few points i wanted to mention about the comparisons and the data i'm presenting. it is age s data, 12 and above. it is not age adjusted. the military is all adults so there would be a little slippage there. it is relatively rare. we don't want any rape or

sexual assault to occur, but it is a relatively rare crime, especially when you're looking at a six-month period. the details are based on female victims of sexual assault and also a couple of years of data. most of the findings i present are from the report, female victims of sexual violence from 2004 to 2010. now with all of that lead-up, i'll get you some data. our next slide is the -- i like this introductory slide. it gives a context of the issues, both the trends over time, serious, nonfatal violent crime reported to ncvs. this is all ages and all sexes. you'll see of the serious violent crime, everything is pretty much dropping over time. that is pretty consistent with data that we have seen. also the most serious, violent crimes are those -- aggravated

assaults so it is about 4 per 1,000 individuals over age 12. ape/sexual assault .9 per -- over age 12 and just to provide some context. in 2011 for property crimes, the property crime of theft, 104, the rate was 104 per thousand. over age 12. that kind of gives you a difference of again, we don't want any serious violent crime to occur, but relatively speaking, it is a rare occurrence. if i could have the next slide, please. i'm putting these data on the same slide, but the caveat is that they are not really comparable. so we have got civilian -- i'm trying to give a little bit of information for each group. for the civilian, the total rate for violence has dropped over time. it has gone from five per

thousand over age 12 to 1.8. n 2010, we had slightly over a quarter million rapes and sexual assaults so that is 100,000. but again, with the military data, again, with -- it is based on percentages so it is slightly different that we have the different ages accounted for. the n.c.s., we have 12 and above. the military is all adult, active duty females. with the scope, we also have he largest scope of unwanted sexual contact included in the military data opposed to the sexual violence and c.v.s. we're looking at more of a prevalence rate. the details are based on the event with the greatest effect on the victim. so it is just one per person.

so it is a prevalence to an incident, a data point there. and also with regard to trends, we have points for the military. it is difficult to discern a particular trend when you have three data points opposed to several years with ncvs. a couple of slides about victim demographics. again, this is one slide will show you male versus female victims. as i mentioned, about 9% of all rapes, sexual assaults from the years 2005-2010 involve male victims and because it is a fairly small rate, it is hard to do any further desegregation of particular characteristics. this is just to give you an overall picture of male versus female. these are female victims of all ages over age 12.

we find that rape/sexual assault is a crime of younger women, under age 34. it involves people from lower ncome households living in rural areas vs. suburban urban areas. many differences in race and ethnicity that we're finding in the rapes and sexual violence. offenders tended to be older and tended to be white based on the ncvs data for 2005-2010. on some comparisons here, again, this is kind of an illustration of whether the differences are due to design features of the surveys or actual differences of the underlying populations or some of both. here we have got civilian data that tend to be one offender, so 90% involve one offender. with the military data we found about a quarter that were multi offenders.

question whether there is a difference in the underlying population, if there is something different going on in the military or because the person was responding to the incident with the greatest effect. one could imagine that an incident involving multiple offenders might have a greater effect on the vick temperature than an incident involving one. a victim-offender relationship 1/3 involve an intimate partner that can be a spouse, a boyfriend or a girlfriend. 7% involve an intimate partner with military data. again, it is not clear based on just these numbers whether there is a difference because of the design. ncvs does cue for partner victimization experiences, whether there is a difference in the population or whether there is a difference because of the workplace oriented nature of the military survey, ut again, both types of sexual assaults areas involved some

kind of use of alcohol seem to be common in both of those. next slide, please. with regard to the location activity here, it is kind of challenging to compare the data because there are different questions that are asked and so with the civilian data, home location, particularly the victim's home is a very common occurrence. a place where rape/sexual assault occurs and activities, not surprisingly because you're at home, your activities around the home parallels that location. what might be most comparable to the military data is that 12% are sexually assaulted at work. these are not age-adjusted. we go ahead and add just them to 18 and above to make them more comparable to the military. depending on where the person is living and working, especially in the military.

so that is something that would be worth exploring and also that with regard to the military, the activity 41% have entered the workday. on duty hours. that does that mean? when you're in combat, deployed, that kiverpb thing, how long does that workday expand? it is not clear. i think it is a worthwhile issue to pursue to better understand the risks and exposure that individuals have. so this gives us -- this next slide gives us a context for understanding rape/sexual assault reporting to police in connection with other violent crime and i think the big takeaway message here is for other violent crimes, serious violent crime of robbery, aggravated assault, a majority of those are reported and that one aggravated assaults, you

have about 65% of those not being reported. the next slide i have gives a little bit of a comparison between the two groups, the military and civilian. i caution drawing strong comparisons, one due to the age adjustment issue, the ncvs are females age 12 and above. also with the military, it is what's t to desegregate the difference between a report for unwanted touching vs. attempted sexual intercourse, completed sexual intercourse and that kind of thing? i will talk some more about that desegregation. i would recommend exploring in a minute but i think those will be important to look at. when we look at reasons reported to police, with the ncvs, they do ask all reasons why they reported to the police and follow up saying what was the most important? the military data, it is just all the reasons so that's why the percentages are a little

different here. i think you see some similar patterns with regard to what's the most important or why people are -- why female victims are reporting the idea of why the offender is hurting them and not hurting others. a duty to report it and that sort of thing. based on type of unwanted sexual contact in the military data to better understand who is reporting and their motivations for reporting. the next slide gives us information about police or military authorities. it is a little difficult to compare these data because the response categories are different for the two different data sources. both, actually probably the one response that is common to both data sets is the fear of reprisal and so that is the most important reason in the civilian data why they are not

reporting to police and in the military survey, it was 47% said that they feared reprisal from the offender. again, those were all response categories that could answer more than one for those answers. and then finally, i wanted to make some concluding remarks. i know have i gone through a lot of information quickly here, but i want to sum up the civilian data that i provided to you, which is rape/sexual assault is a serious crime, but when you look at it in comparison with other serious violent crimes, the rates are lower than those serious violent crimes and it has been declining over time. it tends to be a crime of younger women and low income women. it also tends to be a crime that involves known offenders and incidents that occur in and around the victim's home. it is a crime that has not a

lot of reporting. about 65% are not reported to police. when victims do report, they want to prevent the current crime from continuing or prevent future victimizations. not reporting is often due to fear of reprisal. that is one of the big concerns for not reporting. one of the things judge jones sked me to do is give some comments about the current military survey that i received on monday. i guess i have two thoughts on that. one is that i think there is a lot that can be done with the current data that are collected and i say exploit the data and that, again, is as a researcher, you have to understand, i want to squeeze as much out of the data sources as you can. i think there is a lot that can be done with the current data given the caveats and the limitations and that sort of thing that can inform the panel and its charge. i would divide those into three

areas. one is that i think you can divide the data by type of unwanted sexual contact. i think that would be very helpful to understand the patterns of what is going on. are there certain areas where maybe the military is doing a better job with unwanted sexual touching? is it the completed sexual assaults? is it, you know, what is going on? is there a difference or is it kind of similar all over? i think desegregating it by those types of behaviors would be really useful. what's going on there? when the respondent says there were negative reactions to the incident. they wanted to leave the military or transfer. is it for -- with objectively say more serious completed sexual intercourse vs. unwanted sexual touching. those are definitely doable analyses and could really

inform. the reporting, as i mentioned before, where they reported on military installations, if they were reporting to both military, that is telling. also telling the civilians, i don't know if the military sources are going to help me out here. i think that is an important thing to look at. whether they are making a restricted, unrestricted or converted report based on the activity they experienced, the reasons for reporting, as i mentioned before, why they didn't report and the reasons for not reporting. satisfaction with the services. female victims, there are also male victims. were they more likely satisfied with services if they peenchesed completed sexual -- experienced completed sexual intercourse vs. unwanted touching. it would be useful to know that. the other thing that i think

would be useful to do is look at rates. there are certain areas where it seems to me from the data you have certain percentages of activity that seemed low. for basic training, it was a fairly small percentage. the question is who is at risk for that? how many women are in basic training that would be at risk? it might be a small percentage of vick -- victims who reported. it would be important to know that the risk of exposure to different areas of training, of combat, of you know, deployment, that sort of thing. those were incurred to better understand what's going on there. and then, another area that i think would be -- as a researcher who has analyzed these kinds of data, the survey asks women victims if you're dissatisfied with what

happened, so if you're dissatisfied with certain services, why? they are supposed to write out why. that's juicy information. i'm sorry, as a researcher i'm saying that. but that is really interesting. we want to hear from the victim. i was dissatisfied and that is the reason why. sometimes people don't fill them in. but it is certainly worth looking at. something i have done with my work. working on the national crime victimization survey. when it is like some of the questions say other, looking at that other gives you a really good context for understanding and provides follow-up information that will be quite useful. again, i'll ask the question, would you do the same thing all over, if you reported it, they say if you did it, if you wouldn't do this again, why not? that information is there.

i think it is good to understand what is there. if you're looking at improving an instrument or additional an r additional questions, that gives you data points to start to lynn on that information. it is there. i've not seen me data, but my view of the survey would indicate that those are possibilities to be explored. and then with the survey itself, we can talk about the global changes, again, going back to the design features of the scope, how they are screamed, -- screen, the mode, focusing on a specific sexual assault survey worse is a -- versus an omnibus workplaces from a nation survey. i would be happy to talk about more of those kinds of details if you're that kind of work. i do not want to take up too much time. >> thank you, professor.