the record. we are pleased today to have as an agent for very distinguished witnesses joining us today spent allow me to indicate that am called to be part of a quorum in a market and i'll be away for just a moment. i think the chairwoman for her courtesy. >> certainly. a busy morning here on the hill and we will be having votes a little after 10 so we will move a long. mr. alan bersin is the assistant secretary for national affairs and chief diplomatic officer for the department of homeland security. previously mr. bersin service commission for u.s. customs and border protection. mr. john wagner is acting deputy assistant commissioner for the office of field operations in u.s. border protection. mr. wagner from serve as executive director and passenger programs was responsible for all travelers admissibility related policies and programs. ms. brenda sprague served as deputy assistant secretary of state for passport services in the bureau of consular affairs,

a position she held since july of 2008. and in this capacity this break oversees a network of 28 agencies and centers that are responsible for the exception -- adjudication and issuance of u.s. task force. mr. chabot is the director of interpol washington, the nsa's national central bureau, a position he has held since 2012. as director the xml for the attorney general as the official u.s. represents to interpol. mr. bray has been focused on improving partnerships between the other 189 interpol member countries and the u.s. a federal, state and local tribal law enforcement counterparts. careful statements about what is will appear in the record and the turn of recognizes mr. bersin for his statement. >> thank you, madam chair, ranking member of the, i appreciate this opportunity on this subject. the international criminal police organization or interpol

is the world's largest transnational police association with 190 member countries today. each member country as a national central bureau to conduct interval activities and could make its services within its national territory. on the service is interpol provides to the law enforcement entities of every member country is access to its sltd, stolen and lost travel document database. this database contains over 49 records provided by nearly 170 of the organization's members. on march 9, interpol confirmed that two of the passports used by passengers that boarded malaysia and fought through some have been recorded and installed a lost travel documents a base. as noted by the ranking member, interpol secretary-general ronald noble noted to the surprise of many that very few countries systematically qry the sltd database for the

purpose of verifying whether a passport has been reported as lost and stolen. even more troubling is the miniscule rate at which countries outside of europe, canada and the united states visa waiver countries our country bidding information to the database. madam chair, as you noted since 9/11, the united states government and the american people have addressed the security vulnerabilities exposed so tragically on that day. in the 12 years since any thoroughly bipartisan fashion in which this committee has play significant role, we have together constructed a multilayer, fully automated, in agency approach to homeland security. as additional vulnerabilities have been revealed, and are revealed, we examine and respond to them properly in concert with the concert. -- congress. eveas we do so to in the contexf lost and stolen passports. when an individual seeking admission to the united states

presents a foreign passport, whether he or she seeks admission by land, by commercial air or by sea, that passport to screen against the sltd database prior to admission. in fact, many cases on multiple occasions. doubt as mr. wagner will explain we screen outbound passports in a way. most countries in the interpol committee do not screen travelers against the database as thoroughly as we did in the united states. meaning not at all. the alarming number of countries that report very few and in some cases no lost or stolen passport data to the sltd database. as a condition for participation as the chair noted, these a waiver countries are required to do so. the united states, canada and europe as those of the other the deputy partners according have provided a vast majority of the 49 records in the slt database. some of the most populous countries in the world note of

it including china, india and indonesia have contributed few if any records to the database. despite the remarkable department of the database, 49 records added in the past 12 years, the lack of data provided by many interpol member countries remains significant. i have had the honor of serving on the interpol executive committee, and as vice president of the americas since novembe november 2012, and i've been urging the organization to prioritize the sltd program and other border security efforts as core functions of interpol. to be sure, madam chair, congressmen, there are real and current challenges to this vision. despite the fact that dhs and the united states national central bureau have worked to incorporate recommendations for data reporting and response times into interpol's standard operating procedures, many countries have not been able to

connect their agencies and interpol does not require them to do so. the task ahead is encouraging our partners to more fully utilize the sltd database and to engage in these kinds of border screening and security efforts. this can only add to this that from a standpoint of american security. i look forward to exploring with you how we may best approach this latest challenge. it will not be the last, madam chair, and congressmen, but i take from our past experience that we can forge and resolve this matter in a satisfactorily cost-effective way. thank you for this opportunity again, and i look forward to responding to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. bersin. mr. wagner. >> chairman miller, ranking member lee and testing which members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to discuss our u.s. passports are good for appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague conspicuously

important issue supports the core mission of cbp. today i would like to discuss the sources of information of able to see bp, how we query this information as well as operational responses in a different travelers are desperate to deliver cbp officers to access real-time and reliable information on all travis seeking admission to the estateestates is critical for antiterrorism and anti-fraud efforts. however, secure modern document may be today, cbp must ensure that a traveler isn't fraudulent presenting another individuals valid passport or other travel documents with the dog is stolen or intentionally provided to enter the united states. cbp uses interpol stolen a lost travel document database, and department of state called through lost and stolen passport and support systems in the air land and sea environments to verify the validity and status of travel documents. cbp also uses the sltd data on a

citizen of a visa waiver program country applies for travel authorization through the electronic system for traveler authorization also known as esta. cbs tonight over 98,000 s. does since 2008 for lost and stolen records. and all travel environment air, land, and sea, cbp officers were troubled it was against tax which is our primary database that includes access to many enforcement systems including lost and stolen test -- and edit it in the air and see if i'm cbp as extra advantage of receiving airline travel information prior to departure from the foreign location to this enables cbp to address potential risk factors and admissible issues prior to boarding the aircraft. cbp will coordinate our national targeting center and our assets overseas in immigration advisory program or in preclearance oma cornet directly with the airline to prevent boarding in cases where the esta has been denied

for the traveler does not have a replacement document to the one reported lost or stolen. cbp has recommended over 650 no board recommendations to carriers in the last 18 months. in all environments cbp chordates with interpol when matches are returned from the sltd. many of the cases are actually travelers with no malice i think it. there simply travelers headed for a lost document, but later founded and are trying out to use it for travel. in ms. casey bp will verify the person's identity and if the passport is a u.s. passport we will allow the traveler to proceed but will seize the passport and returned to the department of state. in other cases the travel will have a valid replacement document for the lost and stolen one and cbp will verify that they are the to bear and about the traveler to proceed. this often occurs in the air environment when the traveler hasn't updated their airline profile with an airline and the old passport data has been transmitted to us. if the travelers found to be present a lost or stolen

passport as an impostor or is altered and tempered with a passport in any form, cbp will take appropriate law enforcement action against that traveler. in the last 18 months see pscs over 300 lost and stolen documents using attempt to enter the united states fraudulently. to enhance passport security operations, cbp has developed a carrier liaison program which provides training to airlines and security companies and identifying improperly documented passengers destined to the united states. cop keating provides airline personal hands-on instruction fraudulent document identification or passenger assessment, posture identification and traveler document verification. to date the clp has trained 33,600 airline security personnel. winters encountered a lost or stolen document, clp training instructs teachers to contact the regional carrier liaison groups that are 20 for seven operations maintained at airports in new york, miami and

honolulu. the rcl just respond in real-time to carry increased concern to plenty of the total document presented. after a determinadetermina tion a loss of some travel docket has been made, they will make the recommendation to board the passenger or denied boarding. so in concert with a part of cbp strive to ensure that travelers who present a risk are abruptly interviewed or vetted before boarding a flight bound for the united states in any document his address before traveling to give. cbs place opposite the strategic airports overseas to work with carriers and host nation authorities and has built strong liaisons with airline represents improve our ability to address threats as early as possible and effectively expand our security efforts beyond the physical port abuse but these efforts seek to keep our transportation sector safe and prevent threats from ever reaching the united states. these efforts also enhanced efficiency and create savings for the us government and the private sector by preventing inadmissible travelers from traveling to the united states. and for the opportunity to

testify today and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> think you very much, mr. wagner. the chair recognizes mr. sprague for her testimony. >> chairman miller, distinguish most of the committee to thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the many things the department of state does to promote the security of u.s. passport and to deter passport for appreciate your focus on this important topic. we at the department of state believe to prevent passport fraud we need to focus on five areas. a sophisticated document with technic advanced security features, a robust and vigorous education system, real-time sharing of data, a proactive anti-fraud program, and outraged u.s. citizens to educate them -- i'm sorry. to educate them about the important form of identification. because of the access of passport provides, we spend years creating products with high-tech security features in

photo biometric and secure limiting micro-printed, color shifting ink enhanced electronics that render these documents virtually impossible to counterfeit. but it's the sophistication of u.s. passport increases, so did efforts of those attempting to commit passport fraud. today's passport fraud most often involves fraudulent birth certificates, fake identities and the look-alike photos. passport adjudicative spend hours annually in mandated trained to make certain that they have the skills to identify there is types of fraud. we also integrate several real-time fron front-end databae checks into our education system. but this is not enough. as recent events have shown, even a well-designed, well educated passport still if on ability in the wrong hands. domestically we counter this by reporting lost, stolen and revoked passports detected, the system and custom border

protection used to screen arriving passengers at u.s. ports of entry. in turn cbp transcends us u.s. passport its season at u.s. borders so that we can identify patterns and determine whether the better submits a fraudulent passport application internationally we lead the way in reporting lost, stolen and revoked passport data to the interpol lost and stolen travel document. we provide interpol with real-time data including the passport number and date of issue so it is accessible to member law enforcement authorities worldwide. we also require all countries in our visa waiver program to report lost and stolen data to interpol if they wish to maintain vwp status. the departments of state and homeland security use the sltd to that visa applicants inbound flights and doesn't manifest and people crossing mentors at all u.s. ports of entry. if you this is about international law and border enforcement agencies, the sltd

effectively prevents impostors and is lost or stolen passports they bought or obtained fraudulently for travel. though i would our documents and systems are strong, there is never time to rest on our laurels. the u.s. passport is one of those sought after documents in the world. not only is it an international can't document it is also a legal form of identification and might be used to determine eligibility or endowment benefits, to apply for driver's license, to confirm employment eligibility, to qualify for a mortgage or to open a bank account. this means we must continually assess the passport security features and design for potential vulnerabilities and incorporate new measures as technology advances. through our website, travel top state.gov after committee outreach by our 29 passport agencies, we remind you citizens of the importance of safeguarding their passport and provide guidance for reporting to us if the documentation is

lost or stolen. we continually review our methods to improve our passport issuance system and fraud detection capabilities. and look for new ways to partner with other agencies to educate the public and strengthen existing procedures. we welcome opportunities to expand the efforts with federal, state, local and international agencies to protect our citizens and promote safe, secure and legal travel throughout the world. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. sprague. mr. sprague. thatcher never get jesus mr. bray for his testimony. >> thank you, chairman miller, ranking member jackson lee and distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is an honor to be today to provide you with an overview of interpol stole the lost travel document database or sltd. dashing stl p. before this i'd like to echo the

previous statement of the pen regarding the tragedies there's a malaysia airlines flight 370. our thoughts and prayers remain with the families and loved ones of the flight passenger and crew. this incident servicers to underscore the need for coordination and collaboration across international borders great a safer, more secure world for us all. as you're aware the international criminal police organization commonly known as interpol is the largest police organization in the world. membership is comprised of the national police the first from 190 member companies. all of which participate in the organization on a voluntary basis to interpol exist to ensure and promote the widest possible you to assistance between these police authorities. in order to achieve this high level of cooperation each interpol never should country is required to establish and maintain a national central bureau. interval washington is that national central bureau for the united states. a component of the department of justice were unique in that we are also omitted by the department of homeland security. enough for six year of operation

interpol washington is or but a multisector workforce consisting of a full-time staff from the department of justice and an additional senior personnel represent more than 30 years law enforcement agencies. simply stated our mission is to visit the international police cooperation, communication and investigations through interpol on behalf of the united states. we support and heavily utilize interpol's database and resources, it's global, secure global complete situation in the i-20 47 and what to publish this nation. it is the it would force him that connects the uc berkeley with interpol which with resources but also correctly with our 189 other member country partners. the use of its databases are governed by interpol tools in the processing of data. it is these rules allow interpol washington to extend the service and data including sltd to u.s. law enforcement. in accordance with our internal information sharing session interpol washington is next and the ability to query sltd to all

authorities to existing u.s. law enforcement data systems. the sltd itself is essentially a search of a positive stolen and lost passport, visa and attended document information designed to prevent illicit international travel and false impersonation by criminals and terrorists. a query against the database to which there' there is a naturalt in the return of only information about the suspect document itself but will not include personally identifiable information about the document holder. although stronger encouraged by interpol, participation in sltd is voluntary and does very country by country the u.s. has embraced as a pd in its efforts as the critical point of its persecuting and transportation strategy. in the united states the bureau of consular affairs at the department of state as a designated target and source for the stove and lost passport data that is popular into the stove and last travel database. the u.s. making over 39th of the more than 49 records contained in the sltd. u.s. participation in sltd is

managed at interpol washington by our operations and command center. working on a 24 by seven basis recorded the entry of that data into the u.s. passport data into the sltd, and also verify and result in matches against the database by either for or domestic authorities. in 2013, u.s. law enforcement border security and council authorities already sop in more than 238 million times. accounted for proximate 30% of all query activity worldwide. these queries result in more than 25,000 matches against the database, the of 100 of which were resolved administratively. small number of these hits, however, represent a series potential concern and were referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities for further investigation. as you can see, interpol washington is aggressively pursued the use of sltd to enhance and support on national security investigation. we will also continue to explore

additional applications for sobt to further assist our law enforcement can be to ensure the safety of the american people. chairman miller, ranking member jackson lee, and distinguished of the subcommittee i appreciate the opportunity to testify about our role and support program and i've be pleased at any questions you have at this time. >> thank you very much, nestled appreciate all of the witnesses your it's been very, very informative. i think they're interesting issue and something that i think the united states congress needs to be looking at a bit more. because really the purpose of this hearing, first of all, we have a great story to tell, as has been mentioned here this money. the united states has a great story to tell about how significantly we have ratcheted up our security, our document security, et cetera, for our american citizens, particularly flying domestically here since 9/11. it really is a remarkable achievement by our nation i think. and so i think, i want to make sure that our united states

systems do recognize and take a high degree can't have high degree of confidence and comfort level in the fact of what is happening with our various government agencies when our citizens are traveling domestically here. but as we are very aware now, and i think the american citizens are much more aware, because of the tragic of the malaysian flight 370, that if you are an american citizen and you are traveling internationally, particularly from one international country to another, they don't have the same type of security with their data documentation that we do. and suppose we know that, but yet we need to look at what types of things we could do perhaps to incentivize others to improve a bit, particularly when they see in the malaysian flight 370 there were american citizens

traveling on that aircraft. and so since that has happened, the world continues to search for that flight, we decided to have this hearing this morning really to look into this issue a bit and explore what kinds of options we might have. and certainly one that comes to mind immediately and has been mentioned here of course extensively, and there's a testament today in our opening comments, both myself and the ranking member, i mean, we have 38 countries, a list of 38 countries that do, these are our friends. these are our allies, these nations that are under the visa free travel, the vwp program. and this is a program that the united states started back in the '80s really as a way to expedite travel from our allied countries into the united states and for tourism, for commerce, et cetera. and since 9/11 we have had great

success with them. certainly checking, or giving us information, if there is a lost or stolen passport. so that is all good. however, it is interesting and it really comes like i think because of the malaysian flight that these same countries are not really checking as they could for the potential stolen or lost passport under database when people are getting on their flights. and so again these are other nations, and i think the united states obviously they are our friends, allies consider but we do this particular program with them, and i'm just wondering, i mentioned in my opening statement, it's my intention we are looking at introducing legislation that would require them as a participant in this

program to really not only just regulate submit information on lost and stolen passports, but really for these countries also to routinely check the database for passengers who are boarding these flights. and i mean, you look at the list of the countries here. as i say, these are our friends and allies, closest allies in the world. look at france and germany and greece, ireland, italy, et cetera. this information is available, and in some ways it would seem to me that many of these countries don't need to incentivize by the united states. perhaps they will start doing it on their own at what has come to light with malaysia's flight. i guess i would throw the question out, maybe start with mr. bersin. what is your thought about actually legislation about something like that and what you think would be the reaction of our allied countries for something like that?

would they consider it an intrusion? what would you you about the on something like that? >> madam chair, so of course you recognize that pending the submission of legislation this is, which the department would have a formal review process, this is in good faith response to your -- >> at i appreciate that. there has not been legislation introduced by as i said it is my intent to do so. >> is looking at. >> is looking at the what and which visa waiver countries operate now, we do require them to pipe of the database so that every time someone comes -- populate -- on the way to the united states we have been queried the database, maintained by interpol operate as ms. sprague indicated and find lost and stolen documents, and the number is great because of the requirement. also when you get on a foreign airline and they come, someone is coming on a foreign airline from those countries, we get the

same benefit because the advanced passenger information requirement of games to any flight from any country, whether visa waiver or else coming to the united states. the question you raised which is whether as a condition of protecting into visa waiver program they ought to be compelled to scream against the database with regard to all flights, regardless of whether the coming towards us are going elsewhere, poses an interesting policy question. it does address the issue that we see highlighted by malaysian airline or flight 370 and the two iranians using the lost or stolen passport issued in italy and austria. is a legitimate issue. i believe though that we are going to have to assess whether of all the things that we would require that do not have a direct impact on us, whether that would be one of them, i

think it's an open question. .. ct do that. some of them do it in a varying degrees and then the ability to run that data against the different databases that are there for that government to access becomes a technology and

resource issue for a lot of the governments to do. in the cases where we've had our closest partners develop these types of systems we've also brokered some arrangements to help them targeted information and help them review it and exchange information and located personnel on the ground to work with their authorities to help them adjudicate a lot of the manifests. we have officers in camelot and mexico. it's an extension of the advisory program. but we can work with travelers moving towards the government to identify travelers in the countries to help them identify that. we've had some success with stolen documents entering pamelor in mexico to do that so people continue to push certain countries to expand on those really on those capabilities. >> following up with mr. wagner because it was in your testimony

or one of you that testified at the cbp was going to be just starting a screening for lost in the store when passports and i know you've been doing that on the in-bomb flights. can you tell us what we are doing and why we are doing that and how it advantages us from the security risk standpoint? >> we get 100% of the passengers departing the united states manifests. historically we have screened them for some of our top threats that we face the terrorist screening, no-fly hit with some of the targeting and analysis. we've recently added to the lost and stolen database to the manifests and screaming. we are looking now i want to see 60 to 80 hits a day total. we are looking to program the systems to be able to see if we

can administratively reconcile so we are not chasing down administrative actions. the old database person is interred. as we've seen on the inbound the majority are reconciled in the administrative manner cause they have a replacement document and they lost and found the document so we see ways we can help them pinpoint the ones that are with qualified intent and depart the u.s. on the stove and document. and we are working to see if they can build and prohibiting printing the boarding pass when they get the hits to reconcile the information and respond.

it is properly credentialed the person leverages a lot of that as well. even though we are talking about peace and passports activity i think interpol is an interesting organization and you mentioned all of the members countries. for instance if you had germany got on an aircraft flying into the united states would they be sharing that information with us? not just other threats. so i understand how the information sharing works in the

organization. >> it can be received from germany and other countries. we routinely receive information regarding traveling sex offenders from a generally registered offenders in many countries that have a registry for that but for the countries that may be notifying us. we communicate that information immediately to the determination can bthatdetermination can be me disability in the united states but that's one story. there is information regarding criminals, terrorists that are chain-smoking on a daily basis. at the command center is 24 by seven, 365 s 365 so they procesd over 30,000 messages to and from the law enforcement community. this is the work we do every day

into vs ltd has been a component of the work we do to enhance u.s. security. as we spoke about it is a department of justice concern. there are no officers there. it is law enforcement and tools to help us overcome linguistic and sometimes cheap traffic barriers with other foreign countries. as you said it's been a success story we will be able to build upon in the future. >> as indicated that we can receive information on the criminal records and in fact it is the vehicle that they can communicate and there are sex offender registered but that

information was not come unless there is a specific case or law enforcement inquiry. unless that sex offender or murderer unless that record is in the fbi database we had no routine insight into what is in the data records of other countries. that's the issue. if there is a specific case or inquiry they would receive that information but the point is it's not a routine data exchange because we don't have routine access to german criminal records anymor any more than the routine access unless there is a case towards the criminal records.

>> of the subcommittee and the full committee is interested in pursuing legislation in regards to biometrics etc. and that is the only sure fire wa surefire f verifying somebody's identity in this case we are only talking about foreign travelers into the united states. they are an important tool for something like that perhaps from the department. do we have a comment on that? >> i would never pretend to be an expert but as you know they provide ten fingerprints and of course those can be verified at the entry so the most reliable biometric accepted his fingerprints and they are already collected.

>> one of the requirement requit congress imposed is that we enter into something called the preventing and combating serious crime agreements. there's also a national security agreement that's required that would facilitate the exchange of information and we do have with the 38 countries in agreement and in fact with some countries that are not members we have those agreements. but we are at the very dawn of creating the exchange and one of them is biometric we can inquiry each other's fingerprint databases and if ther there's ad light alert to call the police authority to say what is that

about. >> certainly the information is power. such a critical component of the security that we appreciate that and the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> let me thank the chairwoman and the witnesses again. in my opening statement i mentioned it to individuals and i'm going to mention them again because in the present circumstances of the malaysian flight 370, the investigation initially has not pointed to the individuals having criminal intent to bring the plane down. what is attributed to these individuals in false passports is a benign but important issue

of a desperation added that the bike drop and 50 and sympathy. i don't want that determination to cloud how serious this hearing is and how crucial that we have a construct that will let the world know this is a very serious issue and the witnesses already know that in actuality he was convicted of masterminding not just a traveling soldier standing by the wayside about masterminding the world trade center bombing and many have made note of the fact that it's something that didn't wake america up. it was so unusual we didn't attribute it to the beginning change in the psyche of those

that want to do america harm but he was traveling internationally on a stolen passport and of the widothewidow that is now wantedn kenya is linked to fraudulent passport. we must leave here with the idea that solutions are possible and i would like to put on the record that interpol has taken note travelers have boarded flights more than 1 billion times without having their passports checked against the lost travel documents. that is very much a wake-up call so i would ask you what impediments with respect to technology privacy concerns that are blocking or keeping

countries and what is your view of how the u.s. might be able to be hopeful to these countries? you are correct with the observation on the 1 billion -- >> that is a large number. >> very large. you indicate some of the difficulties the countries have. these include not only resource free strains in terms of lacking the money and priority of a budget decision. it also involves the lack of technological know-how to set up the kind of sophisticated information technology systems that are required to create this kind of automated checking. it also involves as you indicated the invisible requirements or constraints of privacy and the lack of coordination between immigration

authorities and police authorities of the provincial levels in foreign countries. all of those together within institutional, create an institutional capacity to operate the kind of automated vending systems that we have. having said that, we have to have a strategy with regard to those countries that are critical to our security to ensure at the very least they populate the stolen and lost travel document database. the important requirement for us in the near term is that we have the data to be able to see who may be traveling to the united states. the second requirement is to figure out again based on flow of passengers what strategic capacity building efforts we ought to engage in to help countries build up the kind of

technological and capital requirements to build up the systems and while we do that, to some extent we don't, for example, at the department of homeland security have capacity buildinbuilding fund and fundine sector funding in which to do that. so when we go out to do that they grant from the state department or the defense department we have to do that so-called aldehyde which we regularly do. >> that you have no budget line items that would allow you to dip into the funds and be engaged in that kind of capacity building? >> that's correct. >> when the secretary went to visit with countries dealing with tsa responsibilities in foreign countries, what outreach was that? >> with regard to tsa because of

the responsibilities for the screening and airport security has a limited separate line budget with regards to providing technical assistance on airport security no other component to my knowledge has a separate line item that would permit the kind of capacity building. >> let me quickly pursue this very briefly. you said that despite the fact they work to incorporate recommendations on response times and the standard operating procedure they do not require member countries to implement them. do you have recommendations on this? >> as i said in response to the chairs question requiring other

countries to screen the database is an issue we need to debate but populating it has a direct and immediate impact on our security so if we go down that route and mandates or capacity building efforts i would focus on getting data into the database that we could screen. whether we could cooperate with interpol and other organizations such as the civil aviation organization is one we also need to explore as we move forward. >> but there is a question with mr. wagner. cbp has screamed arriving

passengers. you haven't screamed departing pax to the passengers i think you started after malaysia 370. mr. bersin said he doesn't believe any other agency have capacity building. i need a yes or no on that and then whether this indicates our ability in the human trafficking issue because i would imagine that that is also a possibility for individuals being smuggled todathey may be on a fraudulent passport as well but the question is you just started giving the exiting passengers. why haven't you done it and then what about the impact getting our hands around the passports on human smuggling? >> we've recently added to the lost and stolen documents to the

outbound manifest screening that we do. we will focus primarily on the terrorist screening database is and other types of national security. but we will call out some of the administrative heads. >> we will be working to come up with a better -- >> do you believe in issues dealing with human smuggling and trafficking? >> and assuring people that are properly credentialed. as far as the capacity building i don't think we have a line item for it but we do put a lot of resources into doing that and work with the department of state to fund those activities and like i mentioned before helping the governments build these advanced passenger information systems to get the manifests, to do the targeting and analysis and helping ex-

change that information is critical to a lot of our priorities. i have questions i will put in the record and ask for a response from the committee and i will ask about how you discern the possible hits but do you do if a possible hit is discerned. now the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. >> in an effort to share information to the passports as a criteria in the visa waiver program countries must sign agreements with united states regarding the sharing of lost and stolen passports. through participation in the program that nations have agreed to share the lost and stolen passport information.

doctor bersin, do the countries routinely share information on lost and stolen passports in interpol backs >> yesterday due into there was regular checking that we do to see that that requirement is met that would be a preview of how many entries have been made by the countries and if th that problem arises we will remedy that. >> are there any countries that are noncompliant? >> at this time no and asked several of us noteasseveral of e testimony of the 40 million records 96% of them come from the visa waiver countries or aspiring in which the requirement to populate the database is set. >> if the country becomes

noncompliant what actions would you take? >> first would be the communication between the program office working with the components on hsi to point out the deficit and overtime we haven't met the situation yet but there would be the authority of the secretary's office with secretary johnson to take steps to see that that effort was enforced in the law. >> we haven't had this instance happened yet. what would be a realistic amount of time, three months or six months quick >> because of the importance to the security vetting we wouldn't want that to be an extended period of time. i know everybody seems to be in

compliance right now but is there a hurdle to providing the information you hear from the partner nations? >> with regards to the visa as the chair pointed out at the outset of these are the closest allies in the country with whom we share the most experienced that have developed sophisticated information systems operating through, so with regard to the countries we have the infrastructure in place. >> as a result of the requirement to you think the sharing has been increased into the program has been successful?

>> i appreciate you can be named this hearing and exploring the legislative options so soon after the vulnerabilities have been exposed and appreciate the testimony that we've heard from the experts today and want to thank mr. wagner and mr. bersin for the response and the outbound passengers from the u.s. in light of the flight 370 tragedy and everything else that you described but to build upon something the ranking member has asked about the capacity building with other countries around the world you responded that there is not a line item currently but can you talk a little bit more starting with mr. bersin and continue with mr. wagner about funding the capacity and efforts into the

second question you may also want to address in the same way that we are exploring the legislative options in the fixes you've already put in place maybe talk about what other countries have done over the last three weeks so if you would start. >> starting with the second question in the aftermath of the interpol statements come of secretary general ronald noble has been publicizing the issue and countries around have taken note of the problem and while it's too soon to say that it's resulted in changes it has created an awareness that didn't

exist before and i think we will be seeing different countries within the constraints of the systems and cultures into the wall taking action and we should continue to encourage the populating database and also the screening. with regards to capacity building there are instances in which they have received state department grants through programs to help countries build the capacity. my point is it's always on a grand basis and there is no long-term capacity building line item to say we are going to do this and encourage all of the countries in north america from colombia or pinnacle to build a system so that any time someone comes into the north american aerospace or port we would have insight who is on those planes.

to do that would take a large budget. mr. wagner is in a better position to give the experience and can allow anin panama all ad others but the larger vision is that over the next ten years while we cannot build the measures we built here we can put a minimally required satisfactory system in place from ten of all to the arctic but that would take it budget appropriation and i was us. >> i would think every country and every person in the world that gets on an airplane has a shared interest so we have the allies we've already described. the uk is already pursuing this but we also have countries like iran who have safety concerns.

is there any way we can provide resources or encourage others especially wealthy countries to share the burden to make sure everyone is participating? i would love to find from you or mr. wagner what the cost is so we know what we are talking about. do you have a thought on this? >> we did work with mexico and panama on and the caribbean to help these countries with their authorities into the internal laws and regulations to complex of the manifest information to help fund them in the systems to actually go through and screamed that information and we have our personnel with this to share what we can so there's work to

do with other developing develog countries and then there's also the developed world getting our allies to take like approaches to how we do this and you will find very degrees of capacities and authorities and privacy issues that it's a consistent message that all of our allies should be doing it in a similar fashion. >> as a follow-up to today's hearing what you be able to come up with a ballpark figure and share that with the committee so we understand and maybe on the past experiences with other countries what it would take to fund the necessary capacity locally, not that the united states needs to bear that burden on its own, but just so we know what that number is it so that is the basis for engaging other countries that might give to fund that's because it's in

everyone's interest. >> she described this in finer detail. there is an infrastructure background. there is one single that connects the 190 countries have interpol and it's the beginning of the kind of system that you're talking about but perhaps he can explain what the system is and why it is a potential link in the area that you're exploring. >> we have notes in about five minutes. >> it is the backbone that connects the countries to not only interpol and resource databases to each other and the ability otothe ability of the co utilize this is centered upon its bureaus of the national central bureau becomes the cornerstone for making sure that the utilities tools are available.

>> with that said the u.s. has been supportive of the interpol membership in the community specifically in central america. we helped install sites at specialized police units but also border control points as well. we are continue to work prior to the airline disaster we've been working with counterparts in mexico and other countries in the caribbean as well to determine how we can better and most effectively assist them in fully realizing how the utilities and tools may be better serviced in their countries. and we will obviously work with interpol to determine how we can best come up with a global strategy for engaging countries sharing best practices and lessons learned from this process. it's been a process for the united states, one that's taken time to develop and we need other countries to ramp up as quickly as possible.

>> recognize the gentleman from california. first the ranking member has a comment. >> i want to put on the record thank you for your leadership on this issue and a lighter that you joined on into this isn't taking your time but i hope you will submit -- i would like to submit the letter for the record. again thank you for your leadership. >> thinthank you madam chair for allowing me to participate and the ranking member for supporting that request. and as others have stated, my prayers and wishes go out to the families of malaysia flight 370. but as we have often learned from aviation disasters, if there is any hope that has come out of it it is that we learn a lot about our own security and how to make passenger safety

much better and i also want to note int if the chair miller submitted a letter to the department of homeland security and we appreciate the response that we received. and with senator schumer to create this s. ltd database if they don't we simply won't issue than these us and i hope i can work with the chair and the ranking member on such legislation. mr. bersin from you we would've to north america's concern as well because i believe the country we should principally be tracking our ones who have airports near our borders.

for example, and my colleagues district she has mexico which has a large international airport and in san diego you have to yell on a just to the south and washington state you have vancouver and of course new york montréal and toronto are not far. my question is what degree are the bordering countries to the north and south, canada and mexico and of course in the hemisphere and a law and other countries, what percentage of passengers are being screened against the database traveling in and out of those countries? >> with regards to mexico, the figure mr. wagner can confirm what the 100% in terms of people entering mexico and could cross the border and come into the united states. with regard to canada, the canadians are fully cooperative

with us and they screamed. we are in discussion with them about the full screening debut for their own citizens and as a result of this incident we will see a complete screening from the neighbors to the north. >> does that mean a flight originated in venezuela and landed in mexico 100% of the passengers with a check? >> that's great with regards to the stolen and lost travel document database. >> suppose a flight originating from germany and coming to vancouver, 1100% be checked? >> with regards to against the canadian database, yes and against the s. ltd when there is a secondary inspection there would be a check and as i say we are engaged in canada is engaged

in to see what it could do to complete the cycle. with regard to the point on north america the reason i focus is that it's not just the neighboring airports such as far as and el paso, san diego, but it's people coming from outside the atmosphere into central america for example and traveling overland to the border so it's important for us to actually look at this as a continental problem, not a national one and i think president obama in the own the border action plan with the prime minister and canada recognizing perimeter security as a critical issue and our colleagues and partners share this notion.

>> we are beginning to learn about check it whic such as a purchase program with interpol. what is the participation of u.s. airlines and hotels and other tourism companies right now as far as checking passports against the database as a point of purchase rather than 72 hours before the flight? and i'm just talking about the united states. >> i believe that all passports are being screened not by the airlines necessarily at the plaintiff purchased but by cbp and domestic purchases is what we are referring to. >> but i check a program intended to have cooperation with the vendors, right? the airlines and hotels.

>> right. the relationship, the public-private relationship exists in the u.s. for some time and has a better fact it's a model for the world. it's one that we have taken to interpol and the ie check if working group is in a developmental stage. interpol is beginning to look at how to balance requirements into the concerns of 190 companies with a public-private partnership. having said that, the models that have been rolled out have been with hotels and they have seen success. they are now looking specifically at following the malaysian airline disaster at the transportation sector. >> is every purchase in the united states to travel outside or every purchase out of the united states to travel in the united states checked against the database at the point of purchase or closer to the departure or arrival?

>> this will be the final question. >> when the tickets are purchased and checked out the counter. >> 100%? >> inbound flights to the u.s. yes. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i think all of us have additional questions, so i would invite you all to separate those for the witnesses and we will ask for a written response to the questions and again i appreciate you coming on short notice. we convened this hearing i had an idea and convened it pretty quickly particularly for helping us move on capitol hill. so we appreciate the witnesses coming this morning and in person went to the role that record will be open for seven days and without objection the committee stands adjourned. thanks again.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] next, house majority leader eric cantor of virginia and minority leader steny hoyer of maryland. they take a look at next week scheduled for the u.s. house. this is about 20 minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield to mr. cantor, the majority leader.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced. in addition, mr. speaker, the house will consider three bills from the budget committee. the first bill, h.r. 1871, the baseline reform act, authored by representative rob woodall, would require c.b.o. and o.m.b. when scoring legislation to assume that the baseline does not increase or decrease for discretionary spending, which they do now. this practice added $1.2

trillion to the baseline in 2013. the second bill, h.r. 1872, the budget and accounting transparency act, written by representatives scott garrett -- representative scott garrett, brings offbudget onbudget to bring a more accurate of this had accounting. finally, the house will pass a budget resolution on time for a fourth consecutive year. the republican budget, under the leadership of chairman paul ryan and the budget committee members, will adhere to the agreed-upon spending limits and balance in 10 years, as we did last year, increase economic growth and job creation, create opportunity, lessen the middle-class squeeze, cut wasteful government spending and strengthen our entitlement programs. and with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. it's wonderful news that that budget is going to do all of those things, i want you to know. and we're pleased that a budget is coming forward.

we may not be pleased with the budget but breezed that it's coming forward. we had budget levels for fiscal year 2015. they'll adhere to the ryan-murray agreement. i assume that also means that it will adhere to the firewall division between defense and nondefense discretionary spending as well, is that accurate, mr. leader? mr. cantor: i'd say for that fiscal year he's correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i tell my friend, the majority leader, "the wall street journal" had an editorial about , 14 paragraphs. i disagreed with the first 13 paragraphs but i did agree with the last paragraph. it said, but the ryan outline does the service of showing the policy direction in which republicans would have if they regained control of the senate next year. and then it goes on to say, senate democrats don't want to declare themselves without any votes but they favor higher taxes, much more spending, for

anything other than defense. voters will have to decide on the direction they want congress to go. so, mr. leader, as i said, we welcome debate on this budget. we do believe it expresses the priorities of your party and as you know we differ with those priorities in many instances so i think the american people will get a spirited, informative and educational debate on the ryan budget. and i think that will do much to inform them of the priorities of both parties. as i say, we look forward to that budget. unemployment insurance, mr. leader, is being considered on the senate floor. i'm not sure whether cloture vote -- i don't -- i know the cloture vote has been taken. i don't know if the final vote is taken.

do you know if the senate passes that bill either today -- well, today, whether or not that bill might be on the floor next week, and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, i'd ask the gentleman just to refer to a letter by the national association of state work force agencies dated march 19 to the majority and minority leader in the other body. and this letter essentially lays out a case for why their bill is unworkable. again, these are the folks that are in the business of administering these programs. i'd also say to the the gentleman, i think the gentleman knows our position on that bill. it doesn't create any jobs. and right now we are in the business of trying to see how we can get people back to work for an america that works for more people, and i'd say to the gentleman, i look forward to joining him in focusing in on that. with that i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i'm informed by the ranking member of the ways and means committee that the -- we also have a letter from the secretary of labor, or one of the people that works with him, indicating that in fact they believe this would be workable but very frankly notwithstanding the letters, let me ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, if in fact we made a perspective which, of course, would clearly be workable and made it five months perspectively rather than three or 3 1/2 months retrospectively d a month and a half prospectively through may 30, would that be an acceptable alternative, mr. majority leader? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say back to the gentleman, it is my opinion that what the gentleman asks for is a continuance of the status quo. we want to get people back to work. we are in the business of job creation. we want to provide a better

environment for businesses to hire folks. we want to help those folks who are chronically unemployed access the skills necessary to fill the job openings today. as the gentleman knows, i'm sure his district is not unlike mine and other districts, there are a lot of job openings left unopen because the work force doesn't have access to proper training and skills. i look forward to joining with the gentleman in looking towards the future to how we can help those who are out of work get a job. and with that i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response, mr. speaker. but it seems to me it begs the question. my question was, yes, we want to get people back to work. everybody on this floor wants to get people back to work. i don't think there's any doubt about that. hopefully we would be at full employment. however, one defines that, whether it's 3%, 4% unemployment, which would be transition employment or

unemployment, but, yes, we want everybody back to work. the issue is that i ask, mr. speaker, is if we don't get everybody back to work and we haven't gotten everybody back to work, 192,000 new jobs this past month, that's good but it's not good enough. and that's why we have continuing 6.7% unemployment. my question, mr. speaker, to let's rity leader, was assume for argument that the letter to which he refers is accurate -- i don't accept that premise, but accepting that premise for the minute, would the majority leader be ameanable rather than do as the senate does making to retrospective so the 3 1/2 months that would have gone from january 1 or december 29, i suppose, of last year to today and paying that back simply extending for five

months while people continue to look for employment that have been unable to find it because there are three times as many people looking for jobs as there are jobs available and we're adding 72,000 -- excuse me -- 72,000 people on a weekly basis to the unemployed rolls, so if we made a prospective, that would save an awful lot of , ple the pain and suffering i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, we're looking to try and fix the problem. and i would also refer the gentleman to the fact that the emergency unemployment insurance that the gentleman speaks of was in place for the ngest time, i'm told, in history that it was in place for an emergency. as the gentleman well knows that we have in place six months of unemployment

insurance benefits for those who are out of work, and i know that those who are out of work beyond that who are deemed chronically unemployed want most is an opportunity to get back to work. that's where i believe we ought to focus our efforts and really help people get back in to a job so they can support themselves, their family and create a better future. so i hope the gentleman will join us in refocusing a way from accepting the status quo as the new norm and instead trying to enhance the prospects for the pursuit of happiness for the american people. and we are about an america that works for everybody, including those that are chronically unemployed. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. as he knows we have an agenda that does just that, it is called make it in america, expand manufacturing, give people the kind of jobs that have good benefits, have good security in the long term. there's no disagreement on that, mr. speaker.

the only -- the only disagreement seems to be while we are trying to get that done whether or not we try to assure that those who've fallen through the cracks do not find themselves in dire circumstances because we have eliminated the safety net that we constructed. and i would say to the gentleman, this is the longest time in history -- and we are going to hear a lot of information from members of the ways and means committee -- longest time in history that we've had this level of long-term unemployment. one of the reasons for that is obviously the dislocations in the marketplace and that we experienced the deepest recession that anybody, maybe ralph hall is an exception, that anybody in this auto body has experienced. -- in this body has experienced. in other words, we had the deepest recession that we had in the last administration that carried over into this administration was the deep

depression, and you have to be 90 years or older to have really remembered and experienced that. . there's a lot of pape out there and all i'm saying we agreeing, there is no disagreement. we want to get people back to work. as i told you and he we haven't done it as vigorously and that's as much my fault as anybody. i want to do that. you're focused on your skills act. clearly we want to make sure people have the skills to get employment. but i would hope that we could look at, assuming the senate passes this bill, to give relief to some 2.8 million people who are in dire straits, increasing by 72,000 a week, get them some support while we are trying and hopefully together to create the kinds of jobs and skills necessary to get them out of the hole that they are in. f i might note there are 193

democrats who have signed a discharge petition to bring the unemployment insurance to the floor. , i might do one other issue last week we had the sustainable growth rate. we extended it. we worked together to get that done. without going into it at length, i know the gentleman and i have had discussions about the sustainable growth rate, the so-called doc fix. we put a temporary patch on it. that was in my opinion the wrong thing to do. it was the right thing to do temporarily, but it was the wrong thing to do. the gentleman knows that fixing the sustainable growth rate is now from a scoreable standpoint less expensive to do than it's been in over five years. i would hope that, mr. leader, working together we could address this issue at some time before this congress adjourns

sine die. we need to fix this and fix it permanently. yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, we, too, would like to see the s.g.r. overhaul replaced with something that works. our physicians caucus on the majority side of the aisle has put a lot of work into this issue together with the ways and means committee and energy and commerce committee, have come up with a plan. as the gentleman knows that has bipartisan support. the problem is how to pay for it. as i think the gentleman would agree, we can't go and continue to incur costs without finding out ways to pay for it. that seems to continue to vex many of the problems around here is trying to discover bipartisan pay fors. and we made a commitment to continue to work with those members who are most engaged in this issue, and look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to try and find those pay fors so we can put in place

a long-term plan to give some certainty to our providers under medicare. yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i look forward to working with him. i would observe as he well knows and i have discussed with the speaker, the pay fors cled -- included in the temporary patch were as illusory as any other we could find. we simply accelerated dollars. we didn't pay for it. we simply put the debt off a month or he so and collected the money early and pretended that that was going to pay for it. whether that's any more real than doing any of the other options that have been suggested i think is questionable, but i look forward to working with the gentleman. because i mentioned it every time but i want to mention it in slightly different context, will i bring up commep immigration reform again -- comprehensive immigration reform again. majority leader agrees broken system, we all agree, we ought to move forward.

but we are going to be considering the budget. the budget we don't think is paid for. we'll have a discussion about that as we go down. we think it increases the deficits. not balanced in 10 years, but that aside the comprehensive immigration reform c.b.o. released its score on our bill, h.r. 15, which we think is a bipartisan bill. found that it would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades. including $200 billion over the first 10 years. therefore comprehensive immigration reform in our opinion is not only the right thing to do, it is economically the smart thing to do. that is in the context of a bill that was brought to the floor this week that increases the deficit by nearly $74 billion dealing with the a.c.a. it's a bit ironic during a time of enormous deficit that is we have been ulling willing to --

unwilling to bring to the floor a bill that is scored by the c.b.o. as close to $1 trillion positive reduction of our deficit in the coming 20 years. so i would hope that we could look at that, as i say it's not only the right thing to do, but it's supported across the board. the bill that the senate passed by a 68-32 margin. supported by the chamber of commerce. supported by the afl-cio. supported by growers, farmers, ag interests, as well as farm workers. supported by the faith community across the board, and supported by 70-plus percent of the american people. you would think in the context of that broad base of support that we could bring a bill which has such positive effects for human beings for individuals for our country as well as a positive economic effect.

i would hope very sincerely that once we get past the budget and come back after the easter break that we address comprehensive immigration reform. i yield to my friend if he he has any comments. i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, as he he knows, both speaker, i, and others have said we reject a comprehensive approach taken by the senate, and also as the gentleman correctly states, we are in favor of trying to fix a very broken, antiquated legal immigration system, as well trying to do something to stop illegal immigration. we just had an issue about the president's insistence on first of all saying it's his way or the highway. and secondly, the gentleman and i have talked before about the growing frustration that many americans have as well as members on our side of the aisle about the seeming disregard for the law by this administration

in selectively implementing laws that have passed. spectly as it relates to -- specifically as it relates to the affordable care act. how would one know provision that is would be upheld, implemented, executed in whole or not given the situation surrounding the a.c.a.? those are the kinds of challenges we face. and would also note to the gentleman that the kind of thing that he refers to, comprehensive immigration, we reject that notion that the senate bill, and we reject comprehensive efforts that have been undertaken over the last several years because they haven't worked so well. instead we should be looking to try to do the things that we agree on. what about border security? border security itself. if we can agree to say that's going to be our position, we are not negotiating on comprehensive bill that we've got to take care of that. what about the kids? the gentleman knows i'm very

focused on trying to do something that we can agree on, but without saying that that has to be a precursor to something that the president insists or otherwise we can't even have the discussion. so again we've got a lot of issues regards to immigration. and i would say to the gentleman i understand his frustration. i think that we have plenty of people who are also frustrated given how things have gone with this white house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i want to say onboarder security, h.r. 15, which we refer to as comprehensive bill, as you know included the border security provision passed out of the homeland security committee, chaired by your republican chairman, passed out on a voice vote, essentially unanimously, is included in our bill. on the border security issue we apparently have a very broad based agreement on that issue. the gentleman says you want to

do it individually. the gentleman knows that the judiciary committee has passed out individual, discreet bills dealing with discreet parts of the immigration issue, which you say is a broken system, bring out discreetly those bills. the bill that the homeland security reported out unanimously has not been brought to the floor. the four bills that have been reported out of the judiciary committee have not been brought out to the floor. they were passed months and months and months ago so that if you don't want to to a comprehensive -- that's the view of the majority leader, mr. speaker, then i would suggest to the majority leader that he bring out discreet bills, individual bills, not comprehensive, and see if we can deal with those. i will tell you our disappointment also is that it was not overwhelm the senate bill that was rejected, but the speaker put out some principles with respect to comprehensive immigration -- immigration

reform, i won't call it comprehensive, put out some principles, we received those positively. we thought that was a positive step. unfortunately, those, the speaker's proposals, were rejected, apparently, by a very large number of your party in and outside this institution, and as a result six days after he issued the principles, he said that they were not going to be pursued. yes, we were frustrated and disappointed with that because we thought the speaker had taken a positive step forward. i don't know whether the majority leader was, mr. speaker, part of the tsh-of those principles, but in any event, we accepted them as good faith efforts to come to an agreement. we were prepared to pursue discussions on those principles. unfortunately, as i say, the speaker withdrew them. mr. speaker, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time unless the majority le

>> next a house oversight hearing on the implementation of state health exchanges. after that, a house hearing on passport fraud. >> we are also seeing long lines of people up to today, this moment, and across afghanistan of people who are waiting to get 22 milliond, despite voter cards floating around in the country with 11 million to 12 million eligible voters, there are long lines of men and women in kabul and other cities who want to have access to a voter card, which is an indication of the enthusiasm

among the population. ." judge theld not afghan elections by the same standards we judge our own. we have had 200 years of democratic evolution. this is a democracy in its infancy. if this election does produce a credible result, it will be the first peaceful handoff of power in afghan history. we want to be careful not to rush to judgment ahead of the afghan people. make,their judgment to whether the ultimate outcome is legitimate and credible. i do not think we want to be second-guessing that issue at every step along the way. >> the absence of the international observers or what a draw down is in the number of observers that will be present will have a psychological effect on the afghans. it will have an impact on how the international community

views it. so the reduction in the number is unfortunate. i am not trying to gloss over that fact, but the truth is it is not going to make a huge difference. there are enough international observers there to do their job here is thatstory this is in afghan election being undertaken pursuant to afghan institutions and afghan observers are really going to be the first-line of defense in ensuring a good election. c-span, withnd on the afghanistan presidential election saturday, a look at what to expect saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. tv, saturday morning at 10:00, panels on gun control, the presidency, fracking, civil rights and politics from this year's annapolis festival. at 11:00, talk to michael lewis. latest looks at how wall

street bankers have redo the system in their favor. sunday at noon, it u.s. military policy in the mideast. your chance to talk to a former assistant defense secretary and author bing west. it is all live on c-span two. tv, aerica history visit to the reconstructed 18th-century building where general george washington bid farewell to his officers sunday at 6:00 p.m. on c-span 3. on thursday, house oversight and government reform subcommittee hearing focused on state health insurance exchanges. witnesses included insurance exchange officials from hawaii, massachusetts, maryland, minnesota, california, and oregon. the hearing came three days after open enrollment ended. this is 2.5 hours. >> the committee will come to

order. by statinge to begin the mission statement. secure to fundamental rentals. americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. we will work in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people. this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. good morning, everyone. this is a conversation about the affordable care act and about the state exchanges. four years ago, the president health care law was passed. he promised the people they would be able to keep the coverage. reality is setting in. americans have received cancellation notices from their insurance companies.

premiums for family coverage have increased in many areas of the country. this week, the bureau of economic analysis reported that health care spending hit a 10-year high. we were told obamacare would be good for the nation's economy. in order to minimize the negative exposure, employers were forced to lay off some workers and reduce some full-time workers to part-time. the cbo estimated that obamacare would reduce employment by 2.5%. it increases federal spending when the federal government continues to run a massive deficit. there are 20 new taxes and significant cuts to the medicare advantage program. 80% of the people who were uninsured are still uninsured today. the administration has

implemented changes. in response to public anger, the administration allowed insurers to renew non-grandfathered policies for an additional year. the administration set a dangerous precedent by going around congress to rewrite parts of the law. the obama administration's rewriting of the law has introduced greater uncertainty in the market and may lead to higher premiums in 2015 and beyond. one of the largest insurance companies participating in the exchanges predicted double-digit

premium increases in 2015. analysis predicted that premiums will continue to increase. there are many issues we can and will explore in the days ahead, the topics of today's hearing are state exchanges. representatives from those states are here today. they were forced to use an error ridden website. states have worked incredibly hard and we are grateful to your service, you are struggling with some of the federal regulations and some of the delays that are coming down as well. most of the problems with the website raised several questions. how is it possible after spending hundreds of millions of dollars that somebody different

exchanges have difficult time putting together a website? what was the effect in delaying guidance on the construction of the state exchanges? where was federal oversight of the projects? how could so many state exchanges have such a difficulty all of the same time? how many more taxpayer dollars will be requested? congress has an important oversight role. i appreciate you coming in being a part of this conversation. >> thanks to all of the witnesses who have traveled long distances to be with us today.

now that we have surpassed the goal for enrollment with more than 7 million americans enrolled, republicans are as determined today as ever to try and rip it apart. 7 million americans must be wrong. the latest enrollment numbers prove that there is a genuine demand amongst the american people for affordable health care. the 7 million does not include enrollment searches that took place in the 15 states including california running their own exchanges. republicans will not be focusing on these successes or conceding that their predictions thus far have been as reliable as a fortune teller at a carnival. many republicans have voiced their certainty that the aca would fail. they said the 7 million goal was impossible.

today, it is the committee's 26th hearing on the aca. this week on the floor, we voted for the 52nd time to repeal it. like all historic and transformative pieces of legislation, the rollout has been challenging and far from smooth. republicans have contended from the beginning that there is no meaningful role for the federal government in health care. let's remember how the market has handled health care in the past. the market allowed insurers to rescind your coverage if you got deny you coverage if you had a pre-existing condition. let's remember how the market determined premiums. before the aca, with the exception of the recession, premiums grew by double digits year after year.

since the law has gone into effect, we have seen dramatic declines. i ask you to look at this chart. i agree with my colleagues on the other side that the aca should be the subject of scrutiny by congress and the oversight of this committee. >> the consistently partisan approach has been all about tearing the program down, not fixing it. the preparation for this hearing provided the latest example how this committee seeks to undermine the administration's efforts to implement the law. executive director of the massachusetts health insurance exchange says, massachusetts has experienced its own website issues.

upon hearing about the change in witnesses, the chairman of the committee threatened to issue a subpoena. i would like to apologize on behalf of this committee to ms. yang for the efforts to bully you into testifying today. what this committee should be focusing on is what we should do in the future to contain costs. a truly balanced hearing would've looked at more than just one story of state east exchange success. if someone from kentucky's exchange had been invited to testify, i'm sure they would've wanted to tell the committee that her limoneira analyses found that approximately 75% of

the enrollees were previously uninsured before signing up through the exchange, and that 49% of their enrollees are under the age of 35, or that by the end of the enrollment. , over 370,000 kentucky citizens now have health insurance that did not have it before. to that end, i am glad to have peter lee, the executive director of the california exchange am a cover california, here to testify as minority witness and to bring some good news and balance to this discussion. at the end of march 31, over 1.2 million californians have signed up for health insurance through the exchange. this number greatly surpassed california baseline projections of 580,000.

the enhanced projection was 830,000 for the entire open enrollment. . a foreign is medicaid program, medi-cal, and rolled approximately 1.9 3 million and an additional 800,000 were found likely eligible. the springs a total of all californians and rolled through medi-cal and the exchange to almost 4 million people. insurance companies in california are reporting that 85% of the enrollees have paid their first months premium. california has refused to accept the exchanges current success are now continually updating policy such as efforts to increase enrollment in the latino community. we look forward to hearing more from you today about the improvements of california plans to make and how you can help other states. mr. chairman, i value our relationship. we have common interests that we have discussed many times. i know we can put our heads together and come up with new

topics that conduct real oversight. i sent a letter to chairman i said yesterday to hold a hearing on the alleged fraud perpetrated by health management associates, a for-profit hospital chain that allegedly ripped off taxpayers for more than $600 million. that should be the work of this committee. i look forward to hearing the testimony of all witnesses present today and thank you for being here. >> i would like to recommend -- recognize the chairman for his opening statement. >> i would like my opening remarks to be put in the record. let's remember, all faults -- all the false claims of been made about the aca, it is good to go back and put context on this. if you like your plan you can keep it, false. if you like your doctor you can keep them, false. premiums will go down, false. premiums will go down an average of $2500, the it ministration said. false.

the website will work, false. the website is secure, false. we've had countless hearings to spell all these claims made by the administration. now we will hear about the dismal performance of the state exchanges. again, underscoring how poorly this law has operated, how bad it is and why we need to change it. i just want to thank you for putting this hearing together. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. more important, i look forward to asking questions of our witnesses from the six state exchanges and the overall impact this law has had on the american people. with that i yield back. >> mr. cartwright, for an opening statement. >> thank you chairman langford and chairman jordan. this marks the 26th hearing this committee has held on the aca. over the course of 25 hearings, you'd think every member on this committee on both sides of the aisle would have and working tirelessly to guarantee that each and every one of their

constituents had access to affordable health care. you'd also think that these hearings would have consisted of a bipartisan effort to find ways to fix healthcare.gov, and that actual oversight would eventually take place. this is the oversight committee. it saddens me to say that in 25 hearings none of this actually happened. i'm afraid that today will not be any different. this committee and throughout this congress, health care has become a divisive, partisan issue, instead of offering solutions to ensure the constituents have access, this house has instead held 54 votes to repeal the affordable care act. some of my colleagues have also run misleading and often times out right false advertisements designed to frighten their constituents instead of educating them on the realities

of the apa. -- the aca. i'm glad that democrats have held over 400 events in the district at home in order to educate the constituency on the aca. i have had five of them myself in my district. i would also like to commend my fellow democrats, ensuring that their constituents are afforded the same kind of information. this hearing has been called in order to examine the state health insurance exchanges under the aca.

california has one of the most successful state exchanges with more than one million individuals having signed up for private health insurance plans through its exchange. other states such as new york, rhode island and connecticut have also experienced success with implementing their state exchanges. i'm grateful that mr. peter lee is here with us today to speak regarding california's state exchange and provide much-needed balance to this hearing today. i do wish that new york, rhode island and connecticut were also included today, so we could hear about their best practices.

the high demand for the quality affordable health care available under the affordable care act is real. it is evident by the recently released enrollment figures showing 7.1 million people have signed up for the private health insurance plans easing both the federal and state exchanges, beating both administrations own goal and popular expectations. if the market demand isn't enough, the health-care bill is more popular than ever. about half of all americans now support the law, despite the misinformation being disseminated over the last four

>> i like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. issa. >> i want to thank you for the work you've done, mr. langford, the details of these laws in healthcare.gov and in the overall legislation. i ask unanimous consent that my entire opening statement be placed in the record. >> it is important as a californian to have california representative here. the best and the worst will be seen in looking at the largest eight in the union. -- the largest state in the union. we often turn divisive, partisan legislation into divisive, partisan oversight. mr cartwright, mr. spear have made that clear by talking about republicans this and republicans that. i called, or authorize many of those hearings they alluded to. i am probably did it and i'm

only sorry we didn't do more and sooner. ultimately, about half of america's federal spending will be related to health care, medicare, medicaid, medicaid to eligibles for our seniors and obviously the growth related to subsidizing the affordable care act. they represent the largest single bulk of the budget today, and that over than $1 trillion is an area over we have no real control over the rise of those costs unless we implement changes that drive the cost of delivery down. long before president obama became a senator, we had problems with health care. i think republicans and democrats need to recognize that medicare and medicaid have been part of the problem, not just part of the solution. just a few days ago by voice vote, almost a cowardly act in many ways, we did what was

called the doc fix. it is based on a decade of old mandates that somehow we were going to lower costs through some congressional magic and fiat. every year we recognize that it does not work, and that if we don't suddenly come up with billions of dollars of new money, our doctors will be underpaid by about 25% of what apparently we believe is fair. i use that as an example of a clinton era, republican house and senate attempt to regulate health care. this committee has a solid responsibility to do in real facts and real costs and real savings. that is not been the case for people on both sides of the aisle for decades. the affordable care act is well intended, i believe. but it has had many flaws.

one that we will see today is fairly straightforward. instead of doing a single website in which everyone fed in, spending $700 million, $800 million, one alien dollars, $2 billion, $2 billion, some enormous amount of money to create a network, what we did is issue out large grants. in the case of california, the number i have in front of me is one billion -- is $1.6 billion. let's understand something here today, whether you voted for the aca or you didn't, redundant programs throughout most of 50 states that issued hundreds of millions of dollars per state to do the same thing again and

again, sometimes with success, or the case of maryland, i believe today, some would say failure on the website. that alone was billions of dollars of unreasonable, unrest -- unnecessary, redundant in the planning. for the states all come together and use a common platform, a common software, was common sense. to divide it into contracts into which each state may or may not have chosen the same good vendor, or in some cases the same bad vendor that the affordable care act federally used, is self evident today. let's get past the petty arguing about who voted for it or against it, whether we voted to repeal it or change it. republicans and democratic members are in fact today regularly talking about necessary change. i know the 7 million figure is big as of yesterday. i know as a republican i'm told to say that very clearly that figure represents a great many

people who lost a plan and in fact simply picked up and got the 7 million. mr. lee will undoubtedly, quite frankly, have to tell us that because california mandated to get onto the exchange, that you get off of programs that was necessary and delivered cancellation of all kinds of programs in california, because vendors had to choose whether to keep their old program or participate in the exchange. i'm not holding anyone accountable. it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. but the fact is, we have not driven down the cost of health care to the individual, except when the taxpayer picks up the tab. all of us today should begin looking not just at mistakes like 30 some different websites all paid for with federal dollars, all essentially asking many of the same vendors to simply duplicate the software,

but bill us twice, three times, four times, for reinventing it. we also should look at the question of since we have not succeeded in the past and driving down the cost of health care through cms's efforts, rather repeatedly have simply said we will pay less and cost shift as the aca is implemented and more and more people are under a federally subsidized program, where do we cost shift to? we are running out of people we can cost shift to, which means by definition, everything we do will be something we have to pay for. mr. chairman, this is long, and i apologize for going over. but i, like you, am passionate about efficiency. not just affordable care act, but all the federal spending has to really be looked at. i have taken note of the fact that corruption by vendors using

federal dollars is rampant. i believe that we do need to go after it. i look forward to holding a hearing in which we look at both sides. venders who sought to enrich themselves by getting more than they deserved and government oversight agencies that let it happen until it child up to hundreds of millions of dollars. mr. cartwright, i want to thank you for something you did that you may have forgotten. you voted for a bipartisan basis for a major change in how we procure i.t.. when that becomes past, senator udall has a companion bill, and that becomes passed, we will become more efficient on a bipartisan basis in this committee. so i know we start off on a partisan basis, hopefully we can

witch the tone to realize that all living with increasing health care cost and whether we voted for affordable care or not, we have a major role to try to drive down the future increases in health care if be competitive around the world in commerce. so i thank you, mr. chairman, i your indulgence. >> i recognize the ranking committee, the full mr. cummings, and if you would please -- i'm sorry, the representative from maryland. >> you just moved me clear across the country. >> that's quite a shift. just shifted your time zones, i apologize. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and today is april 3rd, just three days after the deadline for americans up for health insurance under the aaffordable care act. happened in the the six months, since