to be thought for profit. i don't know that it's been an occurrence throughout our history, but maybe it has. but i will say one thing, it is long past the time where we start to bring accountability and change to the way america contractors do business for this country. i can tell you this, in the private sector if i've got a contractor that owes me money, he ain't getting another contract. i mean, that's just the way it is. and i cannot believe, and i don't know what happened to the system that would allow justification for somebody, number one, to tell you you ain't getting the information, and that's the way it is, and we're still doing business with the person. it is incredible. ..

which don't need to have any discipline and our requirements process because we can always get more money and the corollary to that is that the contractors are also considered to be a free resources cash, so we never have to factor into our planning -- >> with the resources in the budget -- >> they are not required, the government itself is constrained by what is called fet, full term equivalent. so the number of government employees is capped so you can keep putting missions on in many

cases these are new missions the agencies are taking on the didn't have anybody to do it so let's hire a contractor and by the way we don't have to count that anywhere. the money we spend or the people we hire. >> i think it was senator mccaskill said the money spent was wasted. is that for the whole of war effort? >> the figure is between 30 to 60 billion. the argument we would make many of us is it is closer to 60 but even if it was 30 we are talking out of 206 billion. >> gotcha. okay, so retroactive accountability did not have the ability to look back? but yet i heard catherine or one of you say things got better because the german question time moved forward. do you think if we look back the waste was even higher than what it is over the period that you looked at?

>> i wouldn't say that, senator. i think there was improvement. there's no doubt. one of the reasons being when i was in the department and was the beginning of the iraq war we let contracts called on definitize, that is a fancy word meaning we don't have the specifics. and of course we've improved on that with time. but another area we did not and the fundamental problem is what my co-chairman just talked about. we didn't have the people to go out there hardly because they didn't want to go out there and i can tell horror stories about that one and so you had a situation where it was contractors by default. if you don't have your civil servants ready to go to the theater and you can't force them to go, military people go in the civil servants, some do, some don't. to give you an example of that, we were out in afghanistan and we were talking to people from the agricultural department. it turned out that the agriculture department could not fill its a lot of people to go

to afghanistan. we are not talking about thousands, we are talking dozens come still couldn't fill the allotment and those who went came from the foreign agricultural service many of whom had never seen a farm in their life. so that's an example. >> okay. you talked about, katherine, in your testimony you talked about the waste and fraud, waste in particular may even be higher if the host governments can't. were you able to do any projections on that? quite frankly when i was in afghanistan they didn't look like they were rolling in dough and so when that turns around and the troops can pull out, i don't anticipate these projects to go forward. do you do any projections on how much money that might be? >> we don't have comprehensive numbers on that. i can tell you the special the inspector general for the afghan reconstruction came before us and said the entire $11 billion we're spending on the national

afghan police program is at risk. that is just one program and won a number but that is clearly -- we were -- we issued a special report on the sustainability because we were so concerned not only the projects already started that couldn't be sustained but we were thinking about starting new projects that couldn't be sustained. >> okay. >> go ahead. >> we started out, and robert henke was making this point to us and got us focused on this. he said it's clear we have to oversee contractors better. we are not doing a proper job. and then we began if we can't see contractors better, then maybe we shouldn't be trying to do too many contracts. and it even got to the point as we have been working on this that we think we are trying to just do too much. we are just trying to do too much with the gross domestic product of afghanistan hovering around a billion dollars.

we got about $24 billion in the government, and the economy now. we've totally distorted the marketplace. >> yeah. >> one little quick point, we were doing a wonderful agricultural program that befit the culture and people come and then we had to spend money by the end of the budget year and we came in with 300 billion -- million, excuse me, to try to redo this program. >> look, out of time. my last question was going to be what do we do about this? i mean, you guys have recommendations about holding contractors available, the government for most competition. but when we are putting people involved in agriculture -- and that's something i'm involved in -- that don't know jack about agriculture, and expect to teach people who need to learn about agriculture to support themselves and they've got no way, no chance of being able to communicate any kind of information, because they don't have it in their head to start out with. who takes the calls on that? is this the head of the state

department, is this the head of our military -- i mean, where is -- not too cold. but where does the buck stop all this stuff? we could be funded all. i'm not sure that's the right method to use. but maybe it is. >> let me just quickly say we recommend some key positions. i mean, to head the national secure council decided to do things and not consider cost, that is why we want a dual headed position. someone at omb. we recommended, and senator levin, this is obviously very controversial but we think their needs to be a.j. ten. we have so many contractors as part of the military effort and there is no coordination as the joint chiefs of staff to deal with that issue. >> i've got to -- is it incumbent upon the joint chiefs to be able to consider costs when they are doing their job? now understand it's the protection of the country, but

if -- ayaan, the head of the department of the agriculture could say you know, it's my job to make sure we have the security so i'm going to spend every dollar that i've got. i mean, really. isn't it -- >> yes. >> isn't it incumbent? i understand that it isn't it incumbent on the people they're not to have a cop sitting in the room making sure they are following the rules? >> we recommend somebody as the assistant secretary level and above the key agencies including the aid, which would be the place the woodbury together with agriculture would worry about the kinds of programs you were talking about. somebody specifically in charge of contingency contracting issues. if you don't get the leadership of the top that is not going to follow. >> i just want to thank you guys for all your work. i very much appreciate it. and i met senator mccaskill and probably everybody that sits at this table, we have a big problem we've got to deal with. we are talking about cutting programs and people need to pay for this kind of garbage. thank you very much.

>> thank you, senator tester. sadr colburn. >> for the first time in my life and going to be called to the previous question. [laughter] >> akaka you're just beginning. >> i would like to offer my sincere thanks for your efforts on the commission's. often times the amount of effort that goes into that is not appreciated and the amount of time that is spent. so offering my thanks for it. i have a couple of questions. are we going to have a second round? i want to talk about a couple things. i'm a big fan of oig. i think generally they do a super job. in afghanistan is been a disaster. and i'm worried about one of your recommendations and that's the head of this new ig. simply because in lots of other areas where we have like a special ig force-iraq we got some good data l of there. a lot of what you know we

learned through stewart bolin and a lot of his efforts. but i'm worried about creating another one when we are not managing in afghanistan the ones we have. and so, it is fraught with some difficulty because we are not -- we are not holding somebody to accountability and we haven't. our last ig in my opinion was incompetent, not the one that took general fields place but general fields actions didn't measure up at all at any level in the standard of that. so why worry about that and i would like for you to just comment on why you made that recommendation and how that contrast with holding the institutions we have, the special ig from afghanistan and for iraq and what was done and then i'm going to share my observations having been three times to afghanistan and what i saw change especially in the last two years especially since she came on because there is a

difference with effective management. what you comment on that recommendation? >> i was the inspector general of this department at the beginning of the bush administration and i was the first inspector general of the department of homeland security sali was among the commissioners who first focused on that recommendation. and i am speaking for myself i speak for the commission i think when i say that we completely -- i agree with you said i think stuart berlin with whom i served in the bush administration and the forehand and a texas state government has done an exemplary job and set the job very high for the kind of accountability that we should all the man with regard to these war theaters. i also agree with you that to put it charitably, cigar by way of contrast has been slow off the mark. there's no doubt about it. but it seems to me the contrast between the two proves the point manly we shouldn't leave of two -- knowing we are going to be involved with every like it or not or admit or not in the contingency going forward -- that we have that the exception of the contingency someone who is adequately trained, adequately staffed -- and we are

talking about, as you know, and expandable office that would not have a huge staff how permanently, but rather would be able to scale and scale down as the circumstances require. of course come in under our recommendation they would go a ways away isn't as if there would be a third inspector general, there would be a standing one that would work in concert with the statutory inspector general and gao. the final thing i would say about it is this recommendation is not intended to in any way denigrate from the work of the statutory inspector general, but as you know they are each limited in that their limited to the jurisdiction of the agency, and a specialist actors general, why they have the agency wide jurisdiction are limited timberlake and with regard to the subject matter. >> thank you. one of my observations when you go into theater as a member of congress is to get the briefing, and all the different groups or their. my first trip about 80% of them couldn't answer the questions, the people sitting at the table. much like -- i am talking about

people responsible for the area. and that changed a little bit. but the first time that i went back, that the i actually knew what he was talking about and knew what they were doing and they were deployed and they had to be oklahoma national guard because they were farmers from oklahoma, part of the guard that are actually farmers. there just wasn't enough of them and they were not in their long enough to make the continuity in what we do is important as well, but specifically want to compliment the head of the usaid. the point i would make is something we ought to be demanding because the problems you're describing didn't just happen over there. it happens every day here. we know it. you talk about contacting problems. my friend, the chairman knows we have big contract and problems on military projects, not -- have nothing to do with our efforts in afghanistan or iraq. but the difference is the

director of usaid demands metrics now it is known going in if you can't give me metrics we are not going to continue the program. and so one thing i didn't see in your recommendation was in the contracting to actually have a metric requirement of performance on everything we contracts for that would have presumed that you know with your body and so if you can't have ventured forth if you don't know what you're watching and i would like your comment on that because i see a big difference i could give u.s. aid for six years and i want to tell you i'm in love with the director because what i see him giving is effective management that makes the u.s. taxpayers' dollars a further and much more effective in the dollars. when we met with him privately as one of the most impressive meetings when he came and testified before us after omb

decides what she can say is the staff decide what he can say publicly is not as helpful. one of the things the would be wonderful is to have the candid mess that he presented to us in meetings you may have with him. if we in government for a little more candid it's not the fault of anyone in government now that contracting is bad. it goes way back and people are trying to improve it but we need to be honest with each other and admit that we've got a long way to go. >> let me deal with the metrics issue, senator. what she is getting right isn't metric. the dod will for us to believe good resilience of metrics at you. the issue is the right metrics. and shall understands and his people wonder since there are metrics in net metrics. so it isn't a matter of saying we need metrics. everybody who's on the contract will float metrics that you.

it's understanding the right ones. and what he's doing is fundamentally changing the culture of the place. >> i can get a lot of contracts in afghanistan that have no metrics on them to respect that is worse of course. he's changing the culture so they think the right way about these things. and one of the things -- one of our colleagues who couldn't manage to get here today has constantly emphasized we've got to change the culture, whether it is in dod, the commanders on the field, aid, state, what have you come in all the way they think about contracting. >> i'm out of time. thank you. >> thank you, colburn. senator levin. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me thank senators mccaskill and senator webb for their efforts to bring you folks into existence and their leadership on this is critically important. senator mccaskill came to this body determined that she was going to focus on oversight. she's done exactly that. it's been an invaluable to us. your work is very, very

important. i commend you on it. your willingness to serve -- one of the things you point out is the overall reliance on private security contractors in iraq and afghanistan. that is not a new point. that is a point which has been very dramatically present for some time. last saw timber the senate of the armed services committee released a report based on a yearlong investigation of the role in the oversight of private security contractors in afghanistan. we concluded that the proliferation of private security personnel in afghanistan is inconsistent with our strategy. afghan war lords and straw men acting as force providers to private security contractors of acted against u.s. interests and against afghan interests and widespread failures to adequately fed, train and supervise armed security personnel pose risks to the u.s. and coalition troops as well as the afghan civilians.

i assume the commission is familiar with that report. first of all i am wondering whether you agree with the conclusions of the report. but secondly, before i ask you questions about what legislation you're recommending following your report and interested as to your reaction to what legislation we have recently adopted, what recommendations which recently made to see where that falls short and then i'm going to ask what additional legislation if any. but first are you familiar with those recommendations and if so, do you agree with the recommendations i've just read? >> senator, i am familiar with that report. the commission is familiar with that report. i want to say our own report -- you in fact pass the ball along, and further investigations have been carrying -- have been going more and more deeply into it. we noted that our private

security in afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoff to the taliban. our report has the first official statement that it's the second largest source of money for the taliban. >> after drugs. >> after drugs, that's right. >> that's similar to our fight but here's what followed our report. the department of defense is published a number of task forces directed the remedial action be taken. and so the question is have those task forces been effective, are the operative of general petraeus himself told me about this importance of this issue. now he's kind of the most recent offer of the counter insurgency strategy and i just am wondering are you familiar with those task forces, are they effective, are the operative? >> well, one of them according to public sources came up with a

figure of $360 million being paid to the taliban, so they are at least grappling with the issue. >> did you have a chance to interview those folks? >> i interviewed a group of analysts who sort of work for them or with them, and there is one useful thing that's being done although it's not considered to be enough to control the problem. there is a type of vetting using intelligence information, which is that least going to keep the bad guys from being a direct contractors to us. that is obviously only a portion of the problem. >> we were briefed in afghanistan about this, some of it we can't discuss here. let me say -- and i believe -- i was with the co-chairman shays out there and they are clearly getting their arms around the problem. getting your arms around the problem isn't necessarily solving it. and a lot of this is still clearly going on, and it's going to take some work because, again, a lot of it has to do

with what you heard earlier, visibility in the subcontract. >> i agree with that very much. as a matter of fact, in fiscal year 2008, the defense authorization bill at we had a section called section 862. and what is required was government-wide regulations to be issued on the selection, training, the cooking and conduct of contractor personnel performing private security functions and iraq and afghanistan. so that was in fiscal year 08 offer my station. and i am wondering whether you can tell us whether the federal agencies have complied with the requirements of the section 862. >> i can. they've issued the guidance of the instructions and for the public comment the difference as you are well aware is the execution of that, there is a big difference between what the policy says and what being executed nine levels below on

the field. also notably, i believe that section 862 meek six of two commission and the state department in the country whether they are following those recommendations. and because of the technicalities i believe in the wall, i believe the state department would have a different view as to whether that applies to them. >> can you give us a recommendation or have you given a recommendation on that section as to any need to strengthen it? is that one of your recommendations? >> it's not specifically in the report. we can certainly discuss that with you. >> if you have enough days left to do that. >> yes. >> -- would be helpful to do that. >> center, one of the things from the defense authorization bill to require a definition of the term inherently governmental. two weeks ago when be published their new definition. long story short, it lists now for the first time the security

function under the long list of what functions are determined to be inherently governmental. >> long overdue. >> i think i have time for one more question before my time is up. we have a provision in the 07 defense authorization bill which required the department of defense to assign a senior executive to lead the program management and contingency contract in efforts during military operations. it to identify, quote, que deplorable cadre of experts with the appropriate tools and authority, end of "to staff the efforts to take specific steps to plan, train and prepare for such contingency contract. and i'm wondering whether or not that -- whether the department of defense has implemented the requirement of that section. >> i don't know. >> i would say we found the lack of program management to be a

continuing problem. >> the way the department is done is it has some individuals who have responsibility for this in general, in policy-making. in osd. that is different to the estimate is. >> it's very different. >> it is sickening its specific people. >> we did not find somebody who was so designated which is why we made the recommendation that you need somebody coming and it has to be somebody at the assistant secretary level. we think it has to be somebody senate-confirmed. schenectady alaska department of defense why they haven't complied with section 233 of the 2007 act? was that question asked, do you know? >> they've taken a number of steps in totality there are not enough. >> okay we will ask. that's for sure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator carper is gone. let's do a second round of six minutes. it's a second round.

i raise the question at the end of my first round of questions which is our contractors cheaper as presumably that is one reason why contractors are called on to do these jobs. in fact, the commission in its final report asked the question and offers the following answer. it depends. and because it depends on, continuing the quote, av factor many of them under the direct government control, the consideration of cost cannot be the driving factor in determining whether the contract or what to contract. >> senator? >> they are cheaper if you use them efficiently. they are cheaper if you use 3-cd when you only need three. they are cheaper when you hire 15 to do the work of trees. they are cheaper when you don't have a contingency and therefore you don't need several servants to be on the payroll. so they can be much cheaper, and

it's one reason why we use them and they can provide outstanding work. you just have to make sure you use them when you need them and you don't use too many of them and then when you don't need them you no longer have them. >> so the key here is how you manage them. >> more than that, senator. >> you want to take issue with the chairman? [laughter] >> i never did. eat the crumbs off this table. >> man. all right. what i was going to do is played out in addition to that there's another factor and it's one we talked about earlier. one of the reasons that they are cheaper. obviously local national is going to be cheaper. but then that is where so much of the corruption problems come plus very often we found in we've reported on this these people are exploited. this is the abuse side of the equation. we talked about waste and fraud. this is the abuse side so it is both of my esteemed co-chairmen

-- >> you mean exploited by us? >> by their own contractors that hire them and so, those guys will be paid next to nothing can to force contractors are cheaper so it's both of the circumstances of the environment in which they work which is what my co-chairman talked about, and the nature of the contract themselves for people doing them. >> so part of this, congressman, if all i understand what you're saying is how these people are managed. it's making the complicated matters simple but part of what you are saying is it can be cheaper if they are well managed. >> absolutely. what is really important is that we have experienced people that know how to see -- know how to oversee contractors even when we are not using them so that when we'd need to use them we know how to use them well. >> okay. let me get to that. i mentioned in my opening

statement about how some of this, you know, it is déjà vu all over again and how do we stop it. you probably know this. in 2007, this committee reported a contacting reform bill and one of its provisions which ended up being passed into law in 2008 as part of the armed services national defense authorization act required the ed administrator for the gsa to establish a contingency contract and/or whose members would be acquisition professionals from across the government to deploy the contingencies such as iraq or afghanistan or a major disasters such as hurricane katrina. it's an interesting history here which is that this contingency contract in court nominally has been stood up the only got nine

volunteers malkoff. and now you have come along and i welcome it of course the recommendation number two that the agency should develop a deployable condra for the acquisition management and contractor oversight to talk to me a little about this because this is one of the great lessons of hurricane katrina and why we have been doing so much better in responding to natural disasters since then also we have met katrina was catastrophic and because fema and the department of homeland security developed contingency plans of people and plans, so how do we do this with regard to this particular matter because these are contingencies and as compared to the ongoing contract in which and the department of homeland security to the islamic

we explored this issue in one of our hearings because our thought was this sounds like a good solution to some of the problems that we were identifying incoming and the executive branch witness came back and said well, it really isn't appropriate for an overseas contingency. and this really isn't going to answer the question. and we had the scrs, which was also the representative from the state department there, which was also to be a deplorable civilian based cadre who could actually go over and do the work cannot adjust the acquisition work force to supervise, but those to do the work. the agency's -- the other agencies involved are not forced to put anyone up and don't. >> mr. henke, did you to that? >> yes, sir, if i might. we had a great example of that issue. the fundamental principle is if you're going to have contractors carrying out parts of the foreign policy work where appropriate, you better have a vigorous government oversight. an example, military as tell

which is a joint contract in command in iraq and afghanistan. that's a good step forward. it's about 400 people with a brigadier general in charge of it. they realize general petraeus comes in and realizing he wants more contracting oversight, so he goes back to the service and says army, navy and air force, said the more contracting officers. they say we are tapped out. we don't have enough to read we've deployed them six times and can't break the force. so they try to get -- number one the failed on getting more military volunteers were not enough. number two, they ask for civilian volunteers. they can't find enough. they wound up staffing of the contract in command with contractors to provide oversight of the contracting. >> it's crazy and unacceptable. so i'm just going to finally in this line of questioning let's go forward to, three, four years. just as all of us want, we have wound down and our involvement in iraq and afghanistan, and

maybe there is a continuing mutual defense strategic framework agreement. but we don't have many people there. and then some other contingency, some of their crisis occurs and we are required to deploy the troops in all that they need to support them. so what do we want in place at that time to make sure in that new contingency wherever it is, we don't make the same horrific mistakes and waste of money as we have repeatedly in the previous contingencies'? >> may i start? >> yes search to the estimate having the deplorable cauvery of professionals as important, no question about it but it's only part of the equation. and my colleague, ms. schinasi, began to mention this and we said it explicitly, but quite equally important it is critical the government had a choice. and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable organic capacity on

the part of the three agencies to reform them themselves so the next time there's a contingency the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in house and the determination can be made whether it is more effective to do it either way, whether it is cheaper to do it either way as we said at the inception the government doesn't have an option, contractors are the default because this is the only option. >> is this something we need to legislate on or something you are going to talk to the executive branch about putting? >> we need both. but first in the quadrennial review they've got enough with service to the contracting. it was hardly mentioned. half of the great expenditure is not any more. it's on services and we have to get people to wake up to that. you need the jade ten. in the military they treat contracting seriously. you need the key management people. the assistant directors ditties to be in all the different departments thinking about

contingency. you need to have a cadre of people who can oversee contractors and a country of people that can go in to do the work of contractors. if you do those things and have real competition we won't have the same problems that we have had. >> my time is up. i hear you that we should be working on the legislation to implement what you are about, and i can assure you senator mccaskill and the subcommittee when you go out of business will try to take up the oversight of what you started. senator mccaskill, you our next. >> thank you. i think also the place we have to keep this up i don't think we can underestimate and i think most of the members will agree with me the culture of the contract in, and i honestly believe that at the war college contract and has to be one of

the core competencies and i honestly believe that our flag officers it is anecdotal that this is true. it actually happens. a general said to be when one of my contract and oversight trips i wanted ice cream in the mess hall yesterday and i didn't care what it cost. they see their mission as a military mission and contracting is not something that the military leaders have seen as part of their mission, and there was probably when most of them were trained and efficient what they would be doing a leader in their career they didn't realize to what extent the military would be relying on contract in. and so i think we've got to spend some time questioning in the armed services committee senator webb and senator collins, senator lieberman, me, senator levin we are all members of the committee and if we don't continue to pound the leadership of the military about

contracting, we are going to expect more of the same. let me ask you a couple things can get first, let me ask it seems to me on the core -- by the way to follow-up on your question, omb is supposed to be standing of the contingency corps. that is what our legislation directs, and they have fallen down in terms of doing that. but what i am wondering about is should we be looking at the guard and reserves in this regard? you know, sure what we talk about we need citizens that can be deployed when necessary. we have got a lot of men and women serving in our reserve and serving in the national guard that have the core competencies as it relates to contract in an oversight. should we not be trying to work with the guard and the reserve to try to identify certain units of the guard and reserve that recruit and retain and maintain

a level of competency in terms of being a deployable during the contingencies as members of the guard and reserves because these are folks some of them may work as accountants in their jobs at de serve as civilians. it is a civilian court that can wear the uniform and have that kind of stick in a contingency that maybe would bring more respect to this kind of work. any thoughts on that? >> some of the success stories that we heard in a theater of the interagency kuhl lubber initial on the projects and how things worked really well together often had a guard reserve member as part of that gain was because of the domestic experience, if you will come devotee of brought to that that may -- made the project successful. but it was almost by happenstance. there was no planning for it. there was no identification issue of what are the skills we need from the guard to bring to the agricultural product in

afghanistan but where that did happen, we heard many examples of successful projects on the small level. >> it's also important that the same approach -- and you can't use the guard and the same way -- is taking place at the state and a lady and we heard about a a ebit as you see they are going to be taking over a lot of the contract and what we cannot afford to let happen is the dod queens of its act as it were the other agencies do not command one of the concerns i personally have discussed you've got to give the people to go out there. it's not enough to rely on volunteers. if you're going to rely on volunteers you are always going to have a problem. >> let me switch because when you brought up relates to this sustainability to be as we transition back to the state aid

from defense we have created some precedents in this committee that are unprecedented in the military history, and one of them is the notion we now have the military with a reconstruction fund. that has never happened before in the history of america. for the first time this year and the defense budget, there is afghanistan reconstruction. i'm not talking about search funds. i'm not talking about the funds it is like they have more often to the military is going to build things. and that is where the whole sustainability peace comes in. if the military is making the decision about when to build things, i believe that's why power plants will happen likes kabul. i need recommendations that we could put in legislation. what should the requirement be around the sustainability? what kind of process should we

force in place that they have to -- they are claiming now they are doing the sustainability analysis. i don't know if you saw any evidence of that. we have looked and can find no evidence of real analysis on the sustainability if the military says they have it somewhere they can get it to my office anywhere they would like but i do not believe system of the analysis is going on in earnest and most of the decisions being made. i need guidance on should we be passing it off to the military in these contingencies to build things ever and pass it back to aid come and don't we lose some of the oversight sustainability as we do those kind of things? and how do we get at this issue that counter insurgency means we build the health centers and power plants and highways even if the security and sustainability are now those issues are completely unlikely to ever have to be able to occur. >> senator mccaskill we deal with that in two ways.

the first is to talk about pushing development, traditional development projects and the key u.s. 80 on the counter insurgency timeline. it just hasn't worked. so i think that your concerns are inappropriate in terms of who is it that should be doing projects and what is their mind set in terms of the time frame for that. the second is we have made recommendations although we don't have the metrics about the sustainability we have made recommendations in the special reports contained in the back of this report that says cancel the project if you can't demonstrate that we're going to be sustainable, and again, you would have to come up with senator coburn's net tricks about how we are going to do that but if you can demonstrate that cancel. >> should we put something in the law that says you can't go forward unless there is a written documentation about the sustainability analysis? are we -- this will drive you crazy because they are seeing welcome of the whole duty of the counter insurgency is how quickly we can move, which i

have watched -- asking questions about 2007i have watched every year how it has gotten bigger and we started out with breaking windows and storefronts and that's the first year we are going to fix the broken windows. the next year we are going to have a wing on to the hospital or we are building highways and now we have a 400 million-dollar front. >> nobody wants to take ownership and that is one of the reasons why we think we need to see that structure in place in the military, usaid and state as well. >> there is an element at aid that we discussed that's underrepresented and it's a small office called office of transition initiative and actually it's fascinating to read the entire office has only a think six government personnel. everyone feels is an individual consultant or contractor, whatever they want to call them. those are the only people that

are geared to the kind of things you are talking about. and it seems -- this is my personal view. what they ought to do is create something that is to say you can go all the way to the top and get your budget money but he won't compete with the dominant culture which is long term development but you will have people who now have a prospect the of moving up the ladder and therefore will stay. what we found in afghanistan was really remarkable. young people actually young women going out into these danger zones but then we are told well, you will do this for three years but then you can't come in because your contract is up so people knew what was going on. >> that's very weird. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator coburn. >> thank you. i think the commissioner mentioned the culture changes. the senator from misery and myself demanded the culture

change and i don't know if we have gotten it or if you've done more follow-up hearings but we have had a change in the top but what we found was no truth of it experience. they didn't have any formerly trained auditors it was a culture that goes with in the agency but you never have outside training or outside experience in terms of auditing and in terms of what you recommended. any other things he would recommend for the -- dcaa and water they doing in terms of what your observations were in your study? >> it's too bad the co-chairman is in here because he would love to speak on this issue. the one thing we did mention this if you have a 600 million-dollar backlog of bills paid but not audited, think of the records people have to keep and we pay them to keep those records. we pay tens of millions of dollars for people to keep records that we are then going

to audit six or seven years later. the memory about them is going to be -- and so, one, the need for people. they need as senator mccaskill points out and you point out well-trained people but the need more people. they clearly need more people to get at the backlog. >> one other question and then i will end, mr. chairman, is three or four years ago i was on the louis berger corporation for the incompetency. did you find out why some again did find $70 million still be able to contract? >> we looked into that. >> can you give a plausible common sense explanations of the average american can understand when somebody has actually cheated this and then find we would continue to use that when they have demonstrated that they are not competent, and number two, they actually over bill? >> i would give a three word

answer from an answer in a few words is very good criminal defense lawyers for the company is how they are able to they worked out a deal with aid, that is louis berger's criminal defense workers worked out with aid that they promised they would be good and have a monitor look them over and make sure they are improving and in return you would agree they wouldn't get one day suspension you might say why would aid make this deal? they love what they call their development partners. they love them too much to let go of them. they didn't want to do without not without him for a day. they didn't want to do without contracting the new contracts for one day. so the crucial opportunity to send the signal was -- with

questions on aid at two different hearings we raised this issue and they stood by and the technique worked out with the civil defense lawyers, the type of plea agreement that was done unfortunately looks like it is going to be a model for the future. >> so why would we as a congressman told whoever made that decision, usaid accountable for the american people? >> i think the very least you want to call them in for a hearing and question them quite extensively. that's how he would hold them accountable. >> by the way, the former finance minister of afghanistan who still advises the president and is in charge of a variety of things goes absolutely ballistic when you mention lewis perjure for that reason so not only is it a matter of cheating american taxpayers, it is a matter of undermining our credibility with the government we have to work with. >> did you see any other

examples similar to that with other contractors we could learn from? who should have been disbarred or disbanded that weren't? >> that was the extreme example. louis berger is the biggest defroster in the contingency area. nobody got up to the members of the criminal fraud that they did. having said that, what we found is that there's a great difficulty bringing a suspension debarment cases against companies for what happens in afghanistan because it's hard to get witnesses together, people rotate out, there are people from other countries who are a part of the allied effort who you can't possibly hold them and so forth and so what we did is we put some recommendations from making it possible just on

contingencies to do the debarment. the reason this shoshoni even more recently than the report of the sort of test case to see whether you could do a successful the suspension debarment through the normal full-scale trial in the united states, full-scale here in the united states i forget what the name is a hint to of ended up virtually in a win by the company. so, you do have to make it easier to do these proceedings or they won't happen >> so that is a recommendation we should be doing? >> is one of the written recommendations in the report. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator coburn and to the commission members. congressman? >> i would just allow me to thank senator mccaskill and senator webb on behalf of the full committee and senator collins and to you, senator lieberman because you have shown

tremendous interest through the course of our nearly two and a half plus years and i would say that all of us would tell you it was a privilege to have this opportunity, and we really appreciate your interest. it's nice to be on this side and be on the friendly side with you, senator mccaskill. >> that's a very gracious of you, thanks for your service. i recall that the beginning that senator mccaskill said that your services were being sought after and she was very glad that you agreed to take this on knowing that the commission expires in a week or so and i hope you can find a way to continue to keep busy and perhaps the involved in public service. >> thank you. [laughter] >> i thank all the members of the commission very much for your public service. we will call now the representatives of the defense department and the state department.

nearly 100,000 americans are hospitalized each year due to foodborne illnesses. the agriculture department wants to prevent those illnesses with

better safety inspections. dr. elizabeth hagan, the undersecretary for food safety explained the new inspection process. this is an hour.d [inaudible conversations] ank y >> good morning and thank you all for coming to our exchange. as the name applies it really is an exchange of ideas. we are going to hear from dr. hagen today and then we wilm hear your questions.uestio when you do ask questions please identify yourself and your your organization. we are honored today that the dr. elizabeth hagen is here isod the undersecretary u.s. departmf of foodas sworn in in august of 2010, and she oversees the policies and programs of the food safety inspection service, the health regulatory part of usda. she's advanced a science base public health agenda there, and that's really important, and she's directed outbreaking

consumer complaint investigations overseeing risk assessments and regulatory programs. as you know, food safety's in the news all the time. yesterday, the c brings c announced at least 13 people died from eating contaminated cantaloupes, and it was traced back to colorado. her agency does not deal specifically with that, but more on meat issues. there's a number of meat issues as well. the usda recalled 40,000 pounds of ground beef because of possible e. coli contamination. there's the recall of turkey this summer. we had exchange with dr. michael taylor from the fda. this is something we have interest in and you do as well. thank you, all, for coming. again, if you have questions, identify yourself and your organization, and if you're tweeting from this event, our

tash tack is ogilvy exchange. i'll turn it over. >> thank you. it's nice to see you, tony, right up in the front row. [laughter] do i talk into the mic or step back? okay. we'll do slides this morning. this is fun because i don't normally do slides when i'm out doing speeches, but when we looked at the attendance, it's a mixed group of attendees in terms of perspectives and understanding of food safety regulation here in the united states, so i hope this is not too simplistic for all of you or really for any of you, but i hoped to walk through the basics and see where the conversations takes us if that's okay with everybody. okay, so, i don't normally do slides, i have to figure out how to do this at the same time. all right. good. so the first question is why do we care about this?

why do we have a number of agencies involved in the regulation of food, safety of food in the country? well, because this is serious, serious business. the cdc estimated last year over 48 million americans get sick every year from foodborne illness. one in every six americans in this room could get sick this year from the food they eat. it causes over 128,000 hospitalizations killing over 3,000 people every year. for some foodborne illnesses, those the most vulnerable among us are the most vulnerable to food like elderly. this is something that we need to do belter on and we are constantly striving to do better on. the cost estimates range. i'm there's some high as $150

billion, some other estimates are lower, but regardless, it's the costs that are in the billions here in terms of health care costs, lost time at work, lost wages, just general societal costs. this deserves our attention and best efforts. most importantly, it's preventable. these are preventable illnesses. we need to be doing better. we need to be doing something about this. so people often ask me what's the single most challenging thing about making food safer? i don't know that there is a single challenge. i think this is very complex when we look at what's in front of us now in 2011, so i just wanted to list a couple of things here, and i think these apply really to all the products that are under regulation by the government, but especially those we regulate at the food and safety inspection service. i guess the same is said for fresh produce. these are raw agricultural

products by and large. when you look at what happens when the meat or poultry production system, i mean, live animals on one side of the system, and you have ham bergeres and chicken nuggets and soup go out on the other side of the system. that's a significant challenge to reduce risk on live animals and come up with safe products in the end. there's a markettedly increased demand. there's a lot of people to feed in the country, over 300 million, and we feed people all over the world, and people want things in different varieties year round and to be cheap and safe. there's a markettedly increased demand for the food products that we regulate. changes in production supply change and distribution. well, there was a time when supply chains only crossed county lines, but now they cross oceans and continents. this is a significant change over the last 20-50 year, and it's more complex to trace

things back and have control over what's going into the products. there's just a changing biology for human beings and animals. some of the organisms we see oh typical stereotypes we now see being greater threats are different than they were years ago. we have to be on alert all the time. we pay attention to chemical hazards, and we have novel vehicles. there's e. coli in cookie doug, years ago, that was not an issue. there's a risk in types of foods that's a surprise to most people to see so many illnesses related to peanut butter. we do live in a post-9/11 world, so we have to think of the increased risk of potential contamination. we've done a lot of work on that front in terms of our food defense programs.

as i talked about earlier, changing consumers' expectations and demands. looking at our products -- so people want ground beef, but it has to be 97% lean or 93% lean or 80% lean, all different formulations, and, again, thatpect .. the products are all safe. they want access year round. we want strawberries in january, so there's supply chains to have available at all times. there's different demands than we had in years past. final finally, the at-risk population. young children, that's not an increasing population u but certainly we have an aging population, we have more people living longer because of medical interventions. we have people receiving transplants, people are living entire lives with hiv/aids, and

they are at most risk for these illnesses. we need to pay attention to that. what are we doing aught -- about it? for the past 15-plus years or so, our agency has been evolving really from an inspection agency that started back in 1906 after the jungle was written to a public health agency and understanding the reason we inspect all of these probings is because we want to keep people safe from harm. we've been on that path for some time now, and under this administration, our efforts have only been strengthened. a couple words about what the food safety and inspection service does, and then i'll give a quick comparison with fda. we are the agency that falls under my missionary, the office of food safety at usda. what do we do? we protect public health by ensuring the safety and proper

labeling of the commercial meat, powell ri, and egg -- poultry, and egg product supply. we are a lot of people. we're inspectors, scientists, veterinarians, policymakers, and administrative professionals. we are in front line inspection work. our inspectors and plant personnel are in more than 6200 food establishments every single day. we ensure the safe processing of over 150 million head of livestock every year and over 9 billion birds. that's a lot of product that is passing through our hands and passing through the inspection system. in addition to the presence and inspection work we do, we have other functions like outbreak response. we work closely with state and local public health authorities and with the center for disease control and with fda when we have something that crosses jurisdictions. we have a big enforcement role.

we do laboratory testing, three laboratories that test thousands and thousands of samples per year. as i mentioned, we do a lot of work in food defense and food safety education is one of the big priorities. just to contrast, i'm not from the food and drug administration, so i won't say too much. just to remind folks in the room, the food and drug administration is responsible for the safety of produce, dairy, seafood, and many other foods. in terms of thinking about food safety, who comes in at what point along the way, ated food and drug administration, they are responsible for animal drugs and feed. a few words about the modernization act, historic piece of legislation you're all aware of, this really -- even though it doesn't apply to usda per se, it's a step forward for the community and everybody who cares about a safe food supply and wants to keep moving forward. a couple key pieces of the act,

it does give the fda mandate for prevention, greater oversight of imimportanted food, mandatory recall authority, and requires they enhance collaboration with various public health agencies. as i said, we're not directly impacted by food casted modernization act, but there's many pieces of it requiring consultation with the secretary and with some of our programs, and we have had a very good working relationship with fda about this. they have used us heavily in a consul at a timive role. -- consulting role. here's a side by side of who does what. taking on the regulation of cat fish thanks to a provision in the 2008 farm bill, proposed 5 rule on that the end of last year, and we're still analyzing comments on that. there's a split egg jurisdiction. we're in every plant every

single day. by law in any establishment that slaughters, we have to be present during the entire operation. if it's one shift, it's eight hours, two shirts, we're there for 16 hours. in processing establishments, we're there once during every shift. fsis does not have on-site jury diction, but there's the animal health service that is do a lot of work on the farms. we do a lot of safety education and we partnered on really great efforts in the last couple years. so i wanted to talk a little bit how we currently collaborate with other key players in the food safety system and those who track food born disease. it's the presence of the food safety working group. the president formed this group in the first three months of coming into office in 2009, and of the charge to us was a good

one to improve the food safety system. there was no proceeding outcomes when that charge was made. at the time, i was still with the agency with the opportunity to be a part of the working group from the beginning, 10 i can speak a little about what happened at the beginning and where we are now. we workedhearted in the first couple of months, and in july of 2009, we presented an initial report with our core principles and key findings and what was going to guide all agencies involved in the next couple of years. the first priority is that we need too prioritize prevention. that comes first and foremost. it may seem obvious, but articulating it matters a lot. we have to enhance surveillance and enforcement, and third, we have to improve response and recovery. it's not just response in the case of outbreaks or negative events. we need to recover as well, and we need to be able to give consumers good information about what products are imp kateed wharks are not imp kateed, and,

you know, when they can get back to the normal consuming patterns. another important example of our collaboration is food net. this project had been has been around since the mid-1990s, a big collaboration support for anyone who works in the prevention of foodborne disease. they give us our annual report card. when looking where to take the trends from, how do we know how we're doing? we look at these results every year. it's a collaboration between the usda, centers for disease control, and all the state health departments that take part this it. food net including about ten state health departments, actually win local city level, los angeles county, and it covers about 15% of the u.s. population, and we feel it is a representative catchman area. we look to them every year to tell us what's happening with key food born pathogens and look

at trends year to year. fda was the original founding partners and continues to be supportive in terms of funding and involved and engaged in every working group that food net has. healthy people 2010, 2020. we're now in the 2020 phase of this. it's an important collaboration as well. we set objectives, and there's a section on foodborne disease objectives, and we at the administration co-own the objectives. we are co-accountable for achieving those objectives. obviously, outbreak response is a place where we collaborate hsm. we stand to improve here and we are looking for ways to improve here. finally, attribution, this is one of the biggest challenges in working with food born disease and food safety and prevention. figuring out exactly what proportion of which illnesses are attributable to what products is important

particularly for policymakers when we think where the resources need to go. it sounds easy and count up the number of people who get sick, ask what made them sick, and you have attribution, but it's challenging. it's one the biggest challenges we've had. recognizing how important it is and what a challenge it is, and that's not simple. we've engaged in a particular collaboration called the inner agency food safety analytics collaboration, and the first, i would say half dozen projects or so all have to do with attribution, so this is a pretty unique thing we're doing together with our partners. excuse me. so, as we've been looking at how to do this at usda, the lens in which we need to view this, how do we approach this, we've kept the three priorities 234 mind for ourselves. prevention, prevention, prevention.

it's what we're most focused on. anything new from the agency has to keep people from getting sick or in the case of labeling, allow people to make their best informed choices when buying food for their families. we look a lot at the tools. if e we want to -- if we want to prevent illnesses, what tools need to be in the inspector's hands? how do you make sure new technologies and innovations move forward at the pace she should be? what tools do consumers need to have? what information do they need to have to take steps to keep themselves as safe as possible? so looking at prevention, we look at tools necessary to get there, and most importantly, we're thinking about and talking about an engaging people all the time. again, this sounds like something that should be obvious, but until you articulate it and say this is important, this is one of our utmost priorities, folks don't always understand it or believe

it. the people part of this is really two-fold. it's remembering always that there are real people behind the statistics, that these are families whose lives have been destroyed forever because of single celled organisms, and remembering these are not just numbers but real people impacted every day and connecting those stories with our people because our people really believe in what they do. a lot of our inspectors, you know, live in these communities, grew up in them, live in rural communities, and they are very invested in what they do, but getting 10,000 people engaged and completely invested is something that takes work, and so i think that's been a really important part of what we've been doing is talking about the real people out there impacted by our work every day, how important it is, and trying to connect our own people with the people that we protect, so we believe that we are an agency whose policies are based in science, and we have always executed them largely through inspection, and we remain an

agency that executed them through inspection. excuse me. so, we're not just talking about all of this, all 6 these steps to take. we're actually doing this, putting these steps into action, and these are the things we're doing. as i mentioned, prevention is where it starts. it's the question we ask over and over again. are the things we do preventing people from getting sick? we're emphasizing very heavily our ability to collect data, amize it, and use it. finally, we look at having a true form to fork effort. we know where our jurisdiction begins and where it ends. we're not looking for new jurisdiction, but we feel strongly that if we're really going to talk about how you make food safer, we have to talk about how you make food safer from start to finish. pathogens, chemicals, these things that make people sick, they doarpt pay attention to jurisdiction or operate in silos, and we shouldn't be

operating in them either. so i wanted to tell you a coupful specific things that -- a couple of specific things that we've been up to right now in case you're unaware and provide some starting places for questions i'm sure. as we've looked at -- as i said, implementing prevention based policies. i want to look in the production environment. this is the slaughter house door, and it ends here why food a districted, but we look up and downstream. what are we doing within the box of the activity where the employees are, where the work goes on, and where we appropriated to do our work. i broke it down into beef, powell ri, and -- poultry and ready to eat because that's the simple way to do it. we are looking at changes to the testing programs. we understand and agree we cannot test our way into food safety. it's really important. testing is a way to know for the

industry to know if the programs and policies they have in place for food safety are actually working to make food safer, and it's a way for us to know, so we have been looking at, you know, whether our testing programs and not only the methods themselves, but the algorithms we have are designed to do what we need them to do in this day and age. particularly with e. coli and contamination rates 245 are driven down so low and rates cut in half since we made it in ground beef, but we have to be able to detelgt and protect it and protect people. we're looking at how to improve testing programs. we're looking how to improve our policies. this is a big challenge for anybody who works in food safety. certainly in outbreaks, we want to trace back as quickly as possible to stop more illnesses from occurring, but we have to

trace back when people are not sick so we have the regulatory testing programs in place. we have multiple hurdles in place. if we find a p 3r0b some -- problem someplace down the line, certainly, if we can get -- the closer we back to the source of the problem, the more people we prevent getting sick in the first place. this is challenges. look at ground beef. that's made from multiple sources and they have multiple sources, and there's a lot of challenges associated with this, but it's something we need to be better at. it's something that secretary vilsack has charged us to be better at. pushing prevention upstream further in the process. everybody agrees you can't test your way into food safety in the in. it's all important, but the better we are at preventing contamination in the first place further upstream in the process, the better off we're all going to be. we took a huge step forward on september 13th, just a couple weeks ago when we announced the now policy.

non-0157s text. these are all in the same family as e. coli with the ability to make people very, very sick, have the ability to kill people, and they all have a predilection for very young children with attack rate and illness severity. 100,000 people a year get sick with these organisms. we think the policies in place for 0157 have been effective in controlling organisms, there's not an explicit policy in the control in the beef supply. there's a new policy, a pro-active approach designed to keep people from getting sick. we will begin a testing program at fsis in march of 2012, and the test results themselves are important because if we find more product unsafe, 245 product is diverted from commerce, but what they do with the testing results are important. this is a major step forward in

the safety of the beef supply, and we look forward to implementing it later, the beginning of the new year. so -- excuse me -- i'm sorry. next up i have poultry safety. a couple of things that are important to talk about here. in march of this year, we published new performance standards for what we call broilers. these are young chickens, whole birds, and turkeys. the performance standards for salmonella have not been updated in a very long time and no performance standards for others. it matters. with an expectation, there's a standard and the industry strives to achieve that standard, people are safer. performance standards matter and putting out these tough new performance standards is extremely important. our calculations are once implemented, we'll reduce salmonella by 25,000 a year just by implementation of the

performance standards. we think that's preventative public health policy at its best. another thing we're very engaged in, and i'd say the entire food safety community including folks who are more involved on the tracking and surveillance and really trying to understand this continued rise in human salmonella. despite all good efforts made, and when you look at the numbers in terms of boiler contamination rates, the numbers we track, the volume adjusted amount positive, there's a tremendous improvement in numbers. we've gone from 16% five years ago to less than 5%. again, this is not a true prevalence. it's important i say it's not a prevalence study skinned to determine pref -- prevalence, but it's the data we track. there's the new egg roll. there's a lot of new efforts made in driving down contamination of food products in the production environment, but we have salmonella and human illness rates going in the wrong

direction and everybody is trying to figure that out. is 1 that we're not -- is it not poultry and something else? something that we're missing? are we sampling in the wrong place to determine what's really going on? this is something food net is interested in as a group trying to really dig into the salmonella data, figure out what's driving that, what are the things we do now with a chicken parts baseline knowing that people don't buy whole birds to the extent they used to and they buy chicken parts, so we're veryings very interested to see what that data tells us if there's a higher rate of contamination in the chicken parts and whole birds, might that, you know, incentivize us to do something differently. in the wake of the recent large outbreak and recall of poultry and sometime before that, we need to look at the ground poultry segment of the industry

specifically and what to do that. i think we're going to see significance in the steps forward and this recall shook people up and got the attention of people and the industry is looking now at the steps it can be taking, best practices to be established, or if they are already established, how can they be shared? you'll see steps forward from the agency on ground poultry as well. just on ready to eat, one thing up here. this has been a success story too in terms of contamination rates from lis tear ya to ready to eat products. it's been a steady state of decline when you look at the curve and it goes like this after the list dlisteria rule was implemented. there's meats sliced and packaged in the production environment and sealed up there and those that are purchased at

the grocery store in terms of ability to cause illness and to cause harm, so we worked clog closely with the fda and academia, and we're engaged in a study looking at what happens in the retail environment, what are the factors that drive recontamination or continued growth of the retail environment and what's done to mitigate them? i mean, does everybody wear safety boots in the deli? different things to be done? that's one of the things we have been working on for some time, and very answer, to see the results of that. i mentioned the analysis -- excuse me -- for somewhere about six months now, we have been in the process of implementing a new data management and process decision making tool. one of the things we started to do with to stream line the hundreds of data streams and

system we have into a more comprehensive data system. they are not all part of it, but it's significant streamlining. it's designed to give us near realtime ability to look at the data we collect in the 6200-plus establishments every day. we feed it back to the front line work force, analysts at head quarters and identify trends and anomalies before they put the public at risk. this is something that we're very excited about, taking us longer to implement this than we had originally planned, but we're very invested in getting 2 right rather than implementing it quickly. finally, leading the true farm to fork effort, as i mentioned before, we think we have to be looking at food safety all the way through. we are not looking to go on the farm. we're not looking to regulate producers, but everything that happens on the farm impacts what we do. it impacts the amount of risk to be handled throughout the system, and so we are, we know that we have a huge stake in

improving or finding avenue to improve preharvest food safety. we've done a couple things already. in 2010, i think, we released the e. coli guidance for beef slaughter establishments and summarizes what's out there in technologies that they want to consider from the producers they buy from. we charged the national advisory committee on meat and poultry inspection -- excuse me -- to look at the issue as well. what we have been engaged in is this, i guess sort of grass roots type of discussions with producers, with pack #ers, with scientists. we have a huge research portfolio at the usda on pre-harvest food safety. how can we be helpful and bring people together? we're not looking to go on the farm and regulate or doing anything there, but we have to sponsor the discussion to make people realize they have a stake

in this. i would say that most of the producers we've talked to are more than willing to participate in some type of pre-harvest food safety initiative. there's constraints. we want the technologies that we're encouraging them or asking them to employ make food safer in the various producer environments, and we want to make sure that, you know, that the costs are manageable as well. we had a good dialogue over the last year on this issue. we're looking forward to a public -- i think the data is up there. my chief of staff is nodding her head. we have a register notice to publish any day on this on november 9. we want to bring people together, people who raise animals, the meatpackers, consumers, retail, everybody to talk about how can we be useful? how can government be useful on this? how can we move this forward? what types of things are helpful? we have this significant one-health effort imoing on at

the department -- going on at the department. i'm the co-chair of the group just looking at how health and environments come together, and pre-harvest food safety is something to pay attention to in that setting. so we talked about what happens before that box we live in and i want to talk about what happens afterwards. i just want to say, again, that we are always working. our primary responsibility is to be sure food is as safe as possible before it ever reaches consumers. that is what we're doing every day, all 10,000 of us. no question about it. that's what industry, i believe, is striving for as well. we know that the system is not perfect. we know that there's inherent risk. we know there's still additional steps to be taken in the hands of food preparers to increase the safety of the products they put on their tables. we have been dedicated to the effort for a long time. there's an entire food safety education staff at usda that

does really terrific work. there's so many resources available. check out information on our website or foodsafety.gov website. there's work sheets for every circumstance you can imagine, cooking for groups, power outages, tailgating. we do them in english, spanish, american sign language, podcast, tweet. how many twitter followers do we have now? >> [inaudible] >> hundreds of thousands. that's awesome. i don't tweet because i don't know how, but the agency tweets, and people follow us. are you followers of ours on twitter? yes? yeah. we're doing everything we can. we introduced a monal app this year -- mobile app this year. karen's been on the website for a long time. she'll answer food safety question. there's a food safety app for blackberries and iphones because people don't often have food safety questions in prompt

of their -- in front of the computers, but they are at the store or somewhere else. ask her, hey, can i eat the pizza i left out last night? there's over 100 responses to -- 1500 responses to questions people ask. we answer the questions if can and we give people places to go. we are doing these things, getting better at pushing information out. we rely on people knowing what we regulation, where the website is, and what page they have to go to. there's a complete change there. getting the information out in a modern, 21st century way. one the big commitments this year is a full-on public service advertising campaign. the food safe families campaign was done in partnership with the ad council, the folks who brought you many, many, many legendary figures like snooky

the bear, this is your brain on drugs. we partnered with the ad council this year. there's panel of stake holders from the industry, academia, and we wanted to breakthrough the apathy. we know people heard this before. they know they say they do these things, wash hands, use a meat thermometer, but we know that in practice people don't necessarily really do these things, and is it because they don't get that one in six americans get sick? they don't get that their child could have their lives impacted forever if they get sick? is it that? is it just about raising awareness? is it about practicality? what is it? we wanted to do something different and catch people's attention. we decided to go with the four messages that have traditionally been used which is to clean. the clean to separate to cook and to chill. we wanted to do something different to grab people's attention. i brought -- we're hoping this

is going to work. i'm told is works. david's saying it's working. i don't know if you saw ads on tv. they released in june. we're trying now to do radio and print. we brought of couple along today. every time we see one, we're like, yay! everyone gets excited. [laughter] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> david was going to share one more with us.

>> two outs, runner on third -- [inaudible] >> one in six americans get sick from food poise ping this year. keep your family safer. check the steps at foodsafety.gov. >> this is a sampling of what we do. we are trying to drive traffic to the foodsafety.gov website that has every piece of consumer information education that you want when it comes to food safety, and we reached a lot of people already. we know more people are looking. for instance, there was a 700%

increase to the web scythe in the first -- website in the first week it launched. there's people looking through the website, and we know numbers are important. we reached 20 million people with the launch of the campaign. numbers are important, but whether people change behavior is what's most important. we have to measure what we're doing, and we have baseline data that we're compiling and tracking. it's very helpful to have groups that do annual health and food survey on how many people use meat there thermometers. we need to track how we do and if we're impacting people's behavior with this campaign. we're very excited about what we do, and i think we've wanted and needed this kind of national level exposure and attention to food safety for a very long time. finally, what would a presentation be without a plan. i won't talk the plan in detail,

but we just recently released this, and i put it up here only because it's important that people understand we are not just talking about these things and not just kind of pulling miscellaneous policy ideas out of the air because they seem like a good idea. it's a strategy. we know where we are going and what to achieve. we're going to hold ourselves accountable for getting there. this particular strategic plan was written for us in a very different kind of way because strategic plans are dry and boring lengthy documents that sit in binders on shelf ofs and people don't look at them after they initially see them. we want people to understand what we're saying and back to the idea we're 10,000 people to be fully invested and engaged in doing this work for american consumers, and this is what it means in your job every day. this is what we want to accomplish, and you should have a direct line of sight between the work you do every day and the objectives this agency is trying to achieve.

it's up there, and it's available -- on the website now, i think, yeah? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. if anybody wants to look at it. i did want to mention that's where we are right now. we are a public health regulatory agency. it is our sole responsibility to protect consumers from harm in everything that we're doing every day moves us a little bit closer to achieving that goal. so i think i'll leave it there. >> anyone with questions, wait for the microphone. c-span is taping this. give your name and affiliation. >> hi, i'm pam from "flavor" magazine. on the matter of labeling. labeling lets people make the best most informed choices. i'm relatively new at this, but what i understand labeling on poultry and eggs, free range,

little about that label. can you talk about your view of that label in particular and whether it gives consumers the information they need to know? i think it creates 234 their mind an idea of chickens running on a green hillside, and that's not the case. >> well, i will, without skirting the issue too much, i'll say that a lot of labeling programs like that are -- do not happen through our agency. those are certifications or determinations that are made elsewhere. i believe free range falls under that category. our focus has been on do labels tell consumers what they need to know? in places where we make the differences ated foot safety and inspection service, we take steps forwards. for example, one of the things we did end of last year was to revive a very old rule that had been stagnating for some time about the labeling of single

ingredient products so whole cuts of meat, chicken breasts, steaks, roast, chops, people are consciousness of what they are buying and how they put meals together now. starting in january of next year, people know the same nutrition fact, content, in these products like every other food they buy at the store. we think it's important when products have been enhanced or injected with sodium or other solutions or things like that, that will alter their nutritional content and value. it's important that people know that and be able to make those choices. for us, it's not about good or bad. there's room for all of these products onts market, but we're focused orphan trying to make sure people have as much information as possible. >> ellen ferguson, "congressional quarterly." two questions. one, i understand the new rule proposed on the 6th, won't take

affect for a year; is that correct? >> march of 2012, 10 it's about -- so it's about six months from now. >> why is that? two, how is your agency affected by the budget, your 2011 budget and how do you think you'll be affected by 20 # 12, and will you will able to carry out and take care of the additional? >> to the first question, the reason for the delay is we have to -- the industry, the portion of the industry wants to adopt testing itself, and i should make clear this is a requirement of the agency. the industry may or may not choose to adopt those testing programs themselves. they need to be able to get things in place and get things up to speed. the test kits for these organisms have been in development i believe for some time. since test kit manufacturers were aware that the agency might move in this direction, but we have to make sure that the technology exists for companies to be able to take the steps that they need to take, and the

other issue is our international partners. there are always issues coming up in terms of -- we operate through equivalency in terms of imported food safety. people that exports products in the united states have to meet equivalent requirements to those that we have here note united states. so there are products that can be, dprins, produced -- for instance, produced before the requirements were in place and could be on the water before they were implemented. we allow for time there to be sure this makes food safer and we want the industry to consider what steps to take in implementing the program, we want them to have the time to do that. to the question about the budget, i would say, you know, i don't have a first of all, and i don't know what's going to happen with the budge. i don't think anybody in the room is certain what's going to happen to anybody's budget for that matter, but what i've told the agency over and over again is that we need to keep our

values and our priorities up prompt, and our priority and our responsibility is to protect the consumers from harm, and we need to figure out how to do that, and whatever budget climate that we are in, but there's no question that there are going to be challenges. at fsis, as i mentioned in the presentation, we have to be present in every meat and poultry plant in order for the plants to be able to operate, and so that's a significant piece of information. i have heard and read people speculate about whether there's enough inspectors to keep food safe. we have to have enough inspectors to keep food safe, so i don't -- i can't say for sure how we'll be impacted. we have certainly been taking steps for the last year or more. the administrator and i, to make sure that we are, you know, reducing duplication where it may exist, taken a look at lots of positions at headquarters,

and we've done a lot of things in terms of process improvement, to make sure we are as lean as possible, but our absolute priority is to continue to protect american consumers regardless of what circumstances we find ourselves in. >> hi, i'm coleman with capitol hill news and congressmen #* -- comem tear. thank you for this forum. it's terrific. two questions for you. you mentioned that post 9/11 you implemented a food dpefs system. i wonder if you can elaborate on that. you also mentioned that you've been stengthenned by the current administration, and i'd like you to tell us how. thank you. >> sure. i would say there's a couple things about the food defense. there's an entire office that handles food defense that's undergone name changes over the year, but we have emergency preparedness and response professionals who now lead all of our efforts, and so we're

thinking about where the as a vulnerabilities are and work closely with law enforcement to participate things and prepare for events that may occur. we have encouraged establishments to have food defense plans, not just food safety plans, but defense plans as well. there's a strategic objective in the strategic plan about food defense plans. it's just, you know, a combination of awareness, being on the alert, looking at what products are the most vulnerable and putting, you know, steps in place to reduce the risk as much as possible and ready to move if we have, if we ever experience that type of event. the food emergency response network is a laboratory network that is co-managed, co-led by the food and drug administration, and the food safety inspection service, a network of state laboratories working closely with us through

the years and cooperate #* -- cooperative agreements to be trained and have the capacity to look for threat agents that we might not be able to look for in sort of normal public health labs or in regular food testing labs. we've taken 5 lot of steps there. something to be individual leapt about all the time. i would say to the second question, how have we been strengthened by the administration? well, we have a president who said to us very early on, this is important. this is really important. as i side, no predetermined outcome, but there needs to be steps taken to improve safety of the food supply and improve confidence consumers have in the safety of the food supply. i think it starts at the top. you know, it always starts at the top. tone starts at the top. you got marching orders by the president to do things differently, come together and figure out, you know, to bring ourselves 20 a place where we have parody a not one-half of

the system with authorities that the other half doesn't have. the administration at the white house has been extremely supportive us. i'm fortunate to work for a secretary who is out front about this in the beginning co-chairing the food safety working group, and he takes this very seriously. he's been a real supporter of the things we'vemented to do, so i think there's -- we've wanted to do, so i think there's just a tone and attitude that just matters. this is one of the most basic things we can be and should be doing for the american people which is improving the food safety plan. >> good morning. >> morning. >> thank you for the talk. i'm martin with the humane society of the united states. in better economic times, there were not sufficient inspectors out there. can you talk about any sort of technology or technological initiatives that you're exploring to use technology to augment the capacity for inspection.

>> well, let me make sure i understand. they're not a sufficient number of food inspectors out there? >> border control or people inspecting ports at the homeland security, it's a staggering challenge, and i'm just wondering if there are ways that you're exploring technology like video surveillance to try to improve the -- >> right. yeah, so thanks for the question. a few things. we are actually at a historically low vacancy rate for personnel, and that includes veterinarians because of efforts we made. there's a recognition government-wide of the fact that we needed to have more public health veterinarians in particular in the federal work force, 10 we stepped up recruitment and retention efforts on that front and filling inspector vacancy is a huge challenge. again, we are a little bit different situation than fda in

that we are required by law to have people in plants every single day, and we have to staff the plants so they operate and we can perform our mandated functions. we're always looking, you know, looking for ways to keep the vacancy rates down because we have to and because it's also the right thing to do for our employees, but your question about video monitoring -- excuse me -- we have released earlier this year some guidelines about the use of video surveillance equipment, and so this does not replace inspection in any way, shape, or form, particularly are humane handling of animals, but we put out guidelines so industry understood how we expect them to use video monitoring, but also to make that clear that this was not going to -- having a camera in the pens does not replace having a vet out there. we can use that, the videotape,

we can use information we get from the videotape in terms of looking at records and things like that, so, yeah, always exploring new technologies, but it's clear in the statutes that we need to have people there, people on the line. we think the model works. there's a lot of questions over the years about car cues by car cues inspection. the laws were written a long time august, but the system works. if nothing else, having people in the plant every single day holds industry accountable in a way that's very important. the people are never going to get replaced. >> good morning. i'm alexander from russian division international. thank you very much for your presentation. i have a question based on my personal experience before my work in the united states. i lived and worked in the united kingdom. model is the same situation, maybe more often topics of food safety are in the british headline news, but the thing that i couldn't see in the

country and the wonderful years that i live here, it's a jmf, genetically modified food. i'm wondering maybe you in the united states have another criteria system, another entity that's addressing the problem. all food in the united states more clean from genes than in the united kingdom. i don't see this as a topic at all. maybe i'm wrong, but it's a huge topic in the united kingdom, but absolutely no news here in this country. is it because of clean food or another criteria system? >> i think it's just because the newspapers you're reading. i think there's a lot of attention to the issue of genetically modified food here in the united states. the main focus really is i think on whether they should be labeled in all cases or not.

that seems to be the significant concern. that debate continuing on. there are folks who feel strongly they should be labeled. again, people are interested than ever in what goes into their food, what is not in the food, how it was raised, what conditions the animals were raised under. there's a debate about that, and i don't think the issue has been settled. >> hi, i'm maria halles with the american observer, and thank you very much forever your presentation -- thank you very much for your presentation today. my question is a follow-up. with respect to the debt situation and certainly you do not have a crystal ball. i don't think anyone has which makes a lot of us quite nervous, but be that as it may and because you are so very organized in your strategic planning, what plan do you have in effect should there be market

reductions in the budget? i heard you say that, you know, you need inspectors on site, but beyond that, do you have a plan? if so, what is -- what -- in that plan, what are the important matters in a very small brief statement, and what are some of the things that might go? >> well, it's an important question, and as i said before, we still have a job to do, and i believe that regardless of the state of the economy whether we're in a terrific place or in a terrible place, people need their food to be safe. it does not change. it's a constant. i think congress recognized that. we certainly, you know, we certainly have received less in their budgets and anticipate we'll receive less in the budgets in the coming year than we have before, but i think there is widespread reck necessary of the fact that people -- recognition of the fact that people still need safe food

regardless of what state that we're in. i think like everybody out there, we have to ask ourselves what are the things that we absolutely need to be doing, and what are our core functions, core mission, and are their -- that's the process we are involved in now at fsis and the department of agriculture, and i, you know, i speak -- i guess speaking for the government, that's what we're looking at. what is our core function? what are the most important things? what are the nice to-haves? that's the process we're engaged in now. we are certainly looking at, you know, the number of positions we have. we are not looking at reducing positions in the field because we simply can't. we're certainly looking at our headquarters' functions, where we can find efficiencies there. we're looking at every single aspect of the operations. we're looking at what to do in the laboratories.

one of the things that we're doing is trying too find ways to make sure that every single sample we take at the expense of the american taxpayers gives us as much nchtion as humanly -- information as humanly possible about the safety of that food. the system, where we align, for example, sample scheduling what people inspect in the labs from what's coming in from the field. we're looking at every single opportunity to find efficiencies, anticipating that budget times will be difficult going forward, and we're going to have to see what happens from there. >> we have time for two more questions. >> tony from food and water. good morning. >> good morning, tony. >> i like to sit up front also in church. [laughter] >> glad to hear you go to church, tony. >> the question i have is last night, the agency released an advised press release, the second recall.

with the editor's note that had confirm story information in terms of the specific type of salmonella. along with the anti by october ticks is that an ongoing situation with the agency, and did that press get out to the medical community? >> whether it's ongoing precedent, i don't know. whatever we have a public health alert with additional information after that goes out, we do generally update them, but i wouldn't say it's a new policy. ..

an enormous network of recipient. and all of this include all of the major professional organizations, medical organizations come at a tv stand and not if of the public department at the state and local level. i don't know we have found a way to access each and every position in the night states to make sure he or she gets theoups information, but we thought about those groups turned liste recalls notify ease over recent years to make sure the public health community gives thalit is so as practical positions. >> merrie claridge [laughter] i'm going to get to them here under the wire. >> [inaudible] groundst of all, you mentne alloperate and there might be upcoming regulations if you could elaborate on that. and second, if you know there is a big out right now just because the issue of listeria is in the

news and a lot of people don't know about it. if you can talk about what you guys have done over the last decade, the last most deadly outbreak was the listeria outbreak in a hot dog and possibly deli meat. >> thanks for your questions. good to finally see you in person. so, about the ground turkey. i'm not going to commit to any specific things that i will tell you the agency has come up with a plan of short-term, medium-term and sort of long-term items that we need to be looking at. the first thing that we did, the very first thing that we do is a recall. we make sure no more product is going out and products coming back that's the first step we take in these situations to prevent more people from getting sick. we have what we call an incident investigation team for several weeks, all tied disciplinary team that included policymakers and enforcement people, a field officer people looking at every single thing, every single piece of data and every component of the operation to find out what

we can learn about what happened in that particular plan and the next steps are to look at whether any of the practices that we might have found their might be generalized and whether there are steps we need to take in order to improve the safety across the industry. you'll see more from us on this issue but there are some short term and a very long term things we need to engage in. you're second question about listeria, forgive me i don't know of the year the final rule was published, but the agency took a different approach to the control of listeria and products with the publication of the final rule in the 2003 is that right? i don't even know. we basically tiered sampling set up the kind of risk-based sampling and risk-based approach to things depending what type of intervention companies we are

putting in place. so, some companies do what we call just sanitation's adjust the operations they have in place and try to demonstrate listeria control. some companies go and number of steps further and a couple of steps in the production environment and then the entire microbial that gets added before the product is packaged up. so this is just a different approach and basically we sample the company's according to the type of risk group we feel the fall into and we have a lot of collaboration with industry on dhaka rule we had a lot of collaboration with stakeholders from elsewhere, consumer groups and people on the hill, and i think that that was a success because the agency -- this is before i got there but i will go ahead and say we -- i think we involved of the people who were going to be impacted by this and really build a rule that was headed for success. as i said, we have seen a tremendous decrease in the contamination rate of products

that we regulate over the years. we are now at well over half of a percentage in terms of contamination rate and that's pretty significant. the issue with listeria is not so much that there are so many illnesses from it, and most people who get it will never even know they get it. most people who get listeria have a mild gastrointestinal illness that people who are particularly susceptible such as pregnant women, and the elderly can get really sick and the mortality rate is very, very significant. so that's why people often ask us why you have these policies focus on something that causes 15 or 1600 illnesses a year? because if you get it to have a good chance of becoming very ill or even dying if you are in a certain risk of a group so as a policy we have remained very important and we continue to look at these other factors, too. so when we learn about the difference between the prepackaged items and those that we see at retail, okay, what can we do? lubber the next steps we can to get retail?

what are the practices we can encouraged by that sector of the industry? >> thank you for coming. we appreciate you coming here and we will welcome you to the exchange. thank you. [applause]

they are naturally is it true you're out there may be telling you the truth, that is beyond that to prove it >> "washington journal" continues. with the co-ack authors of a new book, thomas friedman and michael mandelbaum, "that used to be us." you call this a wake-up call.

you address the wake-up call. guest: we argue that the reason this book has a backward- looking title but a four-looking book, we had a formula for success in this country and it has gotten away from the senate fundamental way. it was to educate our people, up to whatever the level of technology is, the cotton gin or the steam shot or the computer. send road,rastructure, helicopters. we had the world's most open immigration policy to attract energetic individuals. we had the most government- funded research. entrepreneurs could fall -- plucked off the flowers. that was our formula for success. it was backed hamilton and

lincoln. but at the last decade, a decade that we call the terrible twos, you see the arrows pointing down on all five cylinders of tarp formula. host: you decided to write a book and a pep talk. michael mandelbaum. guest: we are on a slow decline so this is a wake-up call. we got into this but it is also, and this is where we come to the pep talk, it also offers suggestions for how we get out of it. as tom said, we get out of it by going back to our traditions, how our values, our policies, things that we abandon or have forgotten of the last two decades. they hold the key to success in the future as they did in the past. we are optimistic, although

frustrated optimist. we outlined the reason for our frustrations, but the country is doing wrong, but also the reason for our optimism. host: let me go back to this success that the united states said. the first two things you talked about sound about -- sounded like a government stimulus, that the government has to get them up and off the ground. guest: yes and no. let's start with the broad view. we did not become the world's richest company or most powerful country by accident. we had the greatest public/private partnership in the world. we are capitalists. we believe in markets and innovation, but that is best exploited when you have the proper balance with the public's sight. when each is doing its part. i thought i was one lonely guy

and did this all my own. you did not do anything at all. did you build that train station of a subway on your run? did you create that market on your room? you want to have a balance between the two. that is what we are calling for. it has gotten out of balance. we talk about education or infrastructure. we haven't $2.2 trillion deficit in and for sure to spending. we could build better schools but we do not think that education is a government problem. we think it is of parenting problem. we think it is a teacher problem. we think it is a student problem. this actually requires collective action.

does not like world war ii or pearl harbor. it is happening. pearl harbor is happening but you cannot see it. host: you start a book out carping about china. -- talking about china. they have trillions of investment compared to our deficit, and they invest in their country. some of their industries are heavily subsidized by the government. why is it so different? guest: we compared it briefly to china for two reasons. a few of the things that china is doing are things that we ought to be doing. china is very good on infrastructure and we're not. by some estimates, we are $2.1 trillion in arrears in investing in infrastructure, and china has

the can-do spirit that we used to have in the united states. but we are clear that the key to american renewal is not to imitate china. china has plenty of problems. china will not have a smooth path upward. we need to not imitate china's economic or political system but get back to our own basic values in the best features of our own system. -- and the best features of our own system. we respect what china has done but we think that that china in the uc in the united states is really a comment on ourselves, looking at the mirror and not liking what we see. one of the themes of this book is to look in the mirror and not like everything that we say. we do need to change but not more like china. we need to be more like our own best selves. host: thomas friedman, let me get your response to this headline.

their currency manipulation bill, what do you make of that? guest: i am all for taking on china whether stealing american intellectual property or manipulating its currency. remember, when they overvalue their -- when they undervalue their currency, excuse me, they are subsidizing everything that they sell to us. for 10 issues are cheaper, your computer is cheaper. we do need to keep that in mind, but they are also taking american jobs. i just not think that is the only thing that will solve the problem. host: a lot of people calling in to you. a democratic collar in portland, oregon. -- caller in portland, oregon. caller: i heard him on another new show blaming baby boomers

for being an obstacle for the american dream. i wanted to say debt i'll live with and economists -- i live with an economist to as good a forecasting things like the housing boom and what that would cause. how that would affect our economy. when you said baby boomers were a problem today, i wanted to say that i get very angry and everyone -- every time someone blames me, a baby boomer, for causing this terrible thing. guest: let me defend, and myself. we're both baby boomers and we are very hard on ourselves, on our generation, because we have let things slide. we are the generation that has not squarely addressed the four

major challenges that we see facing the country and that really forms the spine of "that used to be us." we need the boomer is what we dominate the society and economy is and we have the responsibility to face up to these challenges. things at this live on our watch but we have it within our power to deal with these challenges and we can leave a better chance at -- country for the next generation. it is up to us to deal with the consequences of globalization is and the information technology revolution. it is up to us to deal with deficits and debt. it is up to us to deal with our pattern of energy consumption and its affect on the climate. but s a boomer, speaking as one who is just as guilty as anyone else, we cannot avoid responsibility for this slow decline. if you do not recognize our responsibility, we will not be of a change things or reverse the decline.

host: that is one of the four major challenges for america in your book. adapting did globalization, adjusting to his permission technology, coping with budget deficits, and climate threats as well. guest: what they all have in common is that they all unfold gradually. they are all products of our success. we invented the i.t. revolution, we had all this consumption which created all the debt, we created of world of such fast growth. they are products of our success. but we have faced them before. we have fixed social security, we got the deficit down, we had energy taxes. we have actually done all this before. that used to be us. the problem is that we are not doing it all. host: 8 tweet.

guest: very good question. if you look at growth in china since the 2008 crisis, you see a huge spurt in this kind of debt- driven growth. one enormous here and suddenly you see this happening, you have to ask a question, how efficient you think all of that money was spent in china? i think there is real reason to be concerned that the bubble there, of which we know is in real estate and could be in other things, but china has one advantage -- they have $3 trillion in the bank. we are driving around the world without a bumper. they have a bumper and a spare tire. they can avoid to be a little more like that and we are. guest: one of the major themes

of our book is the hyper connectivity of the world. we are all much more connected than ever before, even than five years ago when he wrote "of the world is flat." if and when china is in trouble, and there is a real danger of a real estate basel, that would be bad for china but we will not escape the effect. we should not be routine for a chinese collapse. oting for chinese collapse. caller: i watch thomas friedman on bloomberg and i kind of understand what he is saying. please do not cut me off. when it comes to the lending, the the last 30 years with the great divergence, and you depreciate the value of american citizens and property. when it comes to innovation, you

have not allow people from all sectors to comment. with all of the major funds cutting people off, there's no way that anyone can bring new ideas. finally, as a millennial, 25 years old, some of you need to hold fashion retire. this is in congress and in the nectar sector. we cannot keep on living off the old ideas. it is not the 1950's and 1970's. you guys need to get over the cold war. germany is about to save america and you're talking about what happened with hitler. guest: i am not sure that germany is about to save america but i welcome anyone who believes -- and we argue this in the book -- there is a new generation out there full of spirit and ideas, and the more they bring to the marketplace,

the better. steve jobs is also a baby boomer. he still has a few good ideas. host: michael mandelbaum, another tweet. guest: a very good question and we devote a lot of attention to that in the bow. there two things that we sing aloud, and one is the political system. it is broken. the two parties are more polarized than ever before, for reasons deeply rooted for decades and cannot be fixed easily. that means that they barely even speak to each other, let alone cooperate on the big things that we need to move the country forward. there's been a serious degradation of the political system and we do have ideas in the book for fixing it. second, our values have changed. what we emphasize is that there

has been a shift from all we call the sustainable values, values for the long term, to situational values, which said basically do whatever you can get away with at the moment. that is what led to the financial crisis. there is a problem with our politics but also with our values. it is a problem with us and that's why we say we have to get back to what we used to be. we have to remember what used to be us and go back to that. host: let me read one of the critical views of the book from david from. -- frum. guest: one of the things that everyone is looking for is the press the button, and we go back

to where we were. the reason there is no press here button is because we got here by getting away from our formula for success. the only way to get back is to get back to the formula for success. education, infrastructure comic imitation, incentivize, and government-funded research. i do not know how to be more specific than that. everyone wants a simple, quick answer. we are are there going to have a hard decade or a bad century. we're going to spend this next decade, and do what got us here, this formula for success, or we will have a bad century. there is no quick fix. there is no simple answer to this. do what we were -- getting back to the fundamentals. host: in history, when was the last time that we rolled up our sleeves and got back to work?

guest: we have the example of the greatest generation in world war ii and then we sacrifice during the cold war. we understood we had a major challenge, that it was long term, and we all had to contribute and make some sacrifices in order to prevail, and we did. but at the end of the cold war, as we say, we misread our circumstances. we thought that this was a great, historic victory and it surely was. but it was also something else. he created a world in which individual americans would be and are more challenged economically than ever before. it was not at time to roll up our sleeves and take up our shoes. it was time to redouble our efforts in education and research and infrastructure. we need to understand that we face a challenge in some ways just as great as the challenges that the greatest generation faced, but not so obvious but just as serious.

guest: let me make another point that we emphasize in the book, almost half of which is about education. why is that? as mike alluded to come something has happened in the last seven years and we have not been talking about it. we went from connected to hyper connected. in different talks, we say in the book, i wrote "the world is flat" in 2004. the world spend -- has become connected. when i read that, twitter did not exist, the cloud did not exist, clinton did not exist -- linkedin did not exist. skype was just a typo for most people. there is a camera in there, there is a camera man there, there was a cameraman there.

host: we may have been in a different study of them. guest: now there is a robotic camera and someone is that a toggle state. they have outsourced. here is what has happened in the last seven years, we argue. what blue-collar workers are feeling in the 1970's and 1980's, now white-collar will feel it. we've gone from the threat of cheap labor to the threat of cheap genius. it is a huge challenge. there is only one answer, education, infrastructure, rural and government infrastructure. it is getting back to basics. host: are you talking about high skilled immigrants? guest: anyone who wants to come here and work hard.

caller: i have a question. where did you get your research -- who did you speak to chris marker to just people of the government? and now like to make a comment so do not cut me off. mr. george soros has organizations, tend to 15 different names. every time that they are on, they do not say, well, we are funded by george soros. a multi billionaire in brazil right now investing in oil. host: betty, what are you referring to? caller: he supported obama. he funded obama for his election. host: a little bit off track. we will take the first part of it. who are your sources? guest: that is an interesting

question for weast talk to some government officials, members of congress, who were leaving congress and could speak freely. guest: all of the republicans. guest: in one chapter in particular, we talk to employers and ask them, what are you looking for in an employee? we talked to a white-collar law firm. we talked to an indian outsourcing firm, a call center. we talk to dupont, and to the largest green collar firm, the u.s. army. we talked to general martin dempsey, who is head of education for the u.s. army, and now is the head of the army and the chief military officer of united states. very interesting, becau thing. we're looking for people with critical skills and initiative and a good educational background. and when we find such people, we will give them an interview.

we will not necessarily hired them. first, they were all looking for the same kind of thing, white- collar, blue-collar, a green collar, you have to have advanced skills. and those skills show how difficult it is going to be to get and keep good jobs and how important it is to upgrade our system of education in order to train americans and prepare them for the jobs that we need. in answer to your question, we went out and talked to people who are doing the work of america every day. " we found was surprising and i think that people will find it interesting. guest: and just to the caller's question, this is a non-partisan vote. we do not have a candidate. we have an agenda for america. we are not funded by george soros or anybody else. we're quite self-initiated. host: jim hines as this tweet.

guest: it is certainly part of it. when the cold war ended, we unleased 1 billion people just like us. our dominance would naturally not be what it was. others were going to catch up. what we want to prevent is an absolute decline. we recognize that india will rise and china will rise. they are customers and collaborators and competitors. but we want to make sure we do not have an absolute decline at the same time. guest: if i could just add, to summon our view of this, change is inevitable. decline is not inevitable. we do not have to decline and we will not decline if we adapt successfully to the changes going on around us. and that -- we wrote this book to say what changes we need to make to make us successful

adaptation. host: thomas friedman we are talking wet and michael mandelbaum, co-authors of several successful books, including this one, "that used to be us." let's talk to dorothy, a democrat in baltimore, maryland. caller: this is great. this is wonderful what you're talking about. i do not know what is wrong with people now. some people want to go back to a horse and buggies, typewriters. you're right -- we need technology. i do not see how this is partisan. this is the future of our children and grandchildren. and obama has strive to priestess' the people. and they call them partisan. host: both of you talk about education in this book.

you use the advance -- the example of singapore. what is singapore doing right in education? guest: it is waking up every morning and asking one simple question, what world we living in? we are a little question. how we take advantage of those trends? no natural resources. the import sand, ok? they have to import their sand. and yet they have a better standard of living. a singapore economists said something that struck us. we feel every change increase in temperatures and we adjust. you live in a brick house with central heating. you're not feeling anything right now. they are so alive to what is going on with the i.t. revolution.

and they take education very seriously. on any given day in singapore, trust me, they are not talking about vaccines for whatever. on any given day, the entire singapore government can be thinking about how we better teach fractions to third graders. i exaggerate. but that is what they are thinking about every day. they start their day by thinking how do i take this crowbar and stick it into the wheel of the other party and other to bollocks them up for that next cycle on c-span or cnn and. that is how we start our day. it means you can never get optimal solutions. you only have suboptimal solutions. how long do we remain the greatest country when all we can do is produce about to pull out comes -- suboptimal outcomes? host: a headline about the

protests taking place in spain, israel, india, and it quotes by 27-year-old woman saying our generation feels that voting is worthless. guest: voting is not worthless if you have the right candidate for whom to vote. we have a chapter called "shock therapy," this says that in order to get the political system on stock, we need a shot from the outside. we put forward an independent candidate with a platform of responding seriously to the challenges that we face. but another point worth making -- we're not going to get out of this fix with one policy or congress or president or one presidential term. this is a long-term challenge. we have to understand our circumstances. we have to ask ourselves the question that tom post -- what world are we living in? we would be a lot better off at

the people in that building would ask themselves that question every day. but ultimately we each use them and therefore we have to ask ourselves that question. host: margaret from connecticut. caller: all like to ask about the policy of outsourcing. i saw on cnbc a documentary on the production of the boeing streamliner -- dreamliner. a senior that in 2001, engineer warned against outsourcing up to 70% of this project. he warned that things would not go well. it seemed that virtually everything happened as he predicted. they have several boeing upper management on the documentary. there were so many problems, they admitted damage to their reputation, they needed to build a plant costing $1 billion just

to solve the problems that came along, and like a said, a lot of parts to not work out coming from some entities -- different sources around the world. there were three years behind in the production. and japanese customers weren't happy about that. they got up to a 50% discount. they all seemed to say at this policy of outsourcing to not work. it seems it could produce good american jobs in manufacturing. if a company like boeing had a problem with outsourcing, what you think the future policy of outsourcing for corporations should be? guest: an important point and a good question. in the last decade, a lot of companies have experimented with outsourcing. some have found that it worked for them and they continue to do it. you're at all ipod is assembled in china and i do not think that that would change.

other companies have discovered it has not worked as well as they wanted. they are brought those jobs back. -- they have brought those jobs back. it will not be one size fits all. but the most important question we should focus on, and i am glad that you ask it, is another big shift in the globalization, the term made in america or germany or china is really on its way out. the new term in the business world is made in the world. made in the world. the head of the trade organization uses that. designing and here, manufacturing and in hong kong, that is over with. it is designed ever wear, made everywhere, sold everywhere. even at outsourcing is no longer -- we send it out and it comes back and, we have leapfrogged

that now. it is not outsourcing. it is made everywhere, designed everywhere, sold everywhere. host: a republican from texas. caller: thank you for c-span. i am tired of being treated like a blob of goop, only good as a monthly payment. my question is, is there enough to go around for everybody? can we work together as individuals and looking out for the success of each other? it is a waste of time to listen to some of the comments that i hear from the young people today. they are being distorted in the way that they can work together with each other. host: michael mandelbaum. guest: we need a minimal level

of cooperation to do what is necessary for our prosperity. we have to arrive at a formula for deficit reduction. otherwise, that deficit will be there for life. but everyone has to sacrifice, and neither of the political parties has the proper formula. there has to be reduction in spending including some modifications to our entitlement programs, sells a security and medicare. and anyone who says that you can never touch these programs is not being serious. but at the same time, we have to find more revenue, whether by modestly increasing marginal taxation rates, or as we believe, having wholesale tax reform and eliminate some loopholes and especially an energy tax which would the world of good. but we have to have more revenue, and anyone who says we can never raise taxes is not being serious. and in addition, and we make

this especially in "that used to be us," we have to spend more money on our historical formula. we have to invest in research and development and much more in infrastructure. we need cooperation, we need compromise on this issue and other issues. and if we do not get it, we will continue our decline. host: john is in massachusetts, an independent caller. caller: no one is blaming our politicians for anything. if you talk about that complicity of the politicians, who in this country has all these policies benefit? the rich and the corporation. the blue-collar worker and everyone else gets poorer and poorer. guest: a very poignant question

and a very serious question, one we deal with in the book. i wish we had a simple answer. i wish we had a pleasant answer. one chapter talks about this world, when you have access to all of the robots and software, and not just cheap labor, but cheap genius, fall whole global curve has risen. what is average before will not return average wages them. i now have a robot camera instead of a regular cameramen. as the caller indicated, it is putting huge stress on everybody. you might think, you are in new york times columnist. let me tell you about my life. i inherited james reston's

office at the "new york times," agreed journalists. people used to come to the office back in the 1960's and said, i wonder what my seven competitors will right. and he probably knew all seven. i did the same thing. i come to the office and ask, i wonder what my 70 million competitors are going to write today. how wonder what the people on twitter are going to write. if i write about india, i come in on sunday morning, you could have in front of you the " hindustan times," and we have but tweaked here -- we all have of our game. i wish there was an easy answer. polls are gone. in this world, there are many more opportunities and for people or entrepreneur, i can

start a multinational almost overnight with almost no capital. if i have a great idea, i can go to taiwan and get a cheap manufacture, cut amazon and get distribution, and get my accountant. those are all commodities. if i have an idea, i can do that. unfortunately the down side is that we all are going to have to be a little more entrepreneurial. michael and i are fuddy-duddies. we are retiring baby boomers. we had to find a job when we graduated from college. today they will have to invent a job. host: most of what you have written about in the past as foreign policy. had you come together and decide to write this book? how was it different from what you have done in the past? guest: we've been friends for 20

years and we talked frequently about foreign policy. but over the last couple of years, we discover that no matter the subject that our conversation began, it always came back to the condition of the united states. we concluded that the condition of the united states and the need for american renewal is the most important foreign-policy issue for the united states and the most international issue in the world. the world depends heavily on the united states. we are the 10th pole that holds up the tent of the international system. that kind of role that the united states plays in the world, we both believe, is unprecedentedly constructed. it requires a vibrant united states in order to sustain that role. if we do not solve our problems and meet our challenges, we will not have the resources or the political will to continue our global role, which means so much

for global stability and prosperity. when people say, why did you not write another book about our policy, our answer is that this book is about farm policy. host: thomas friedman, how does this differ from your past books? guest: i have never written another book with another person and i found it was quite fun. two heads are better than one. they're really help contribute to the book. we wrote it for the reasons that michael said, we discovered that america, its vigor and vitality, are really at the biggest questions of the world today. if we do not get this right, greta, your kids will not just grow up in a different america. they will grow and a different world. we have -- we are at an important juncture right now. host: from your book.

how you quantify 50%? guest: let's use a simple one that people are familiar with. the old debt and deficit fight. i'm not even sure that we reached 50% in the conclusion of that. we know what we need to do. we need some short-term stimulus and invest in infrastructure. we could easily dip into another recession. we need the short-term stimulus. the second thing that we need is long-term spending cuts. we have made promises to the next generation we cannot keep. and if you'd do just the stimulus and not a long-term fiscal work to get our budget in

balance, are you going -- i tell you what i will do with my stimulus. i will put it into gold. i will go into mattress' warehouse and buy a new mattress. i have no confidence to spend my stimulus except on cereal and milk. we need to do both together. in the long run, we also need to invest in those pillars of our success. we know that. but that, and amy dog's breakfast that came out of that budget debate. does anyone think -- they say in the middle east that that camera was up -- a camel was a horse designed by committee. it is not going to solve our problems. host: michael mandelbaum, a member of the tea party rights in the "usa today" editorial

pages that we will not back down. we were sent to washington to change the status quo. and that every federal dollar is worth fighting for. guest: we certainly need deficit reduction and spending cuts. to the extent that the tea party has put that on the national agenda, that is a good thing. the that's not the only thing we need to do. we won't be able to have a vigorous, vibe rant market economy which we need for prosperity without a safety net. it will be too risky and dangerous and people will simply refuse to sustain that system, so we've got to have revenue increases and what is necessary for our future prosperity as well. i don't know representative

walsh, and i haven't had a chance to read what he said, but i will respond in this way, he and all of his colleagues were sent to washington to solve the nation's problems, and their responsibility so identify their problems and find solutions to them, and so far each of the two parties has only found at best a partial solution, and that won't get it done. >> we're talking to thomas and michael mandelbaum. we're discussing their book "that used to be us." caller from cleveland, ohio? caller: yes. i live in cleveland. i'm a 70-year-old lifetime democrat. you guys can tout your book all you want, but you missed the point in your talks this morning. the main problem is exports.

we export millions and tons of raw materials, which takes minimal amount of people to get into the exports, and we import the finished products that are made by these raw materials that takes thousands and thousands and thousands of people. host: all right. so we're sending all the jobs overseas. guest: until last year we were the world's largest manufacturing power in terms of total value of manufacturing. just in this last 12 months china leapt ahead of us. but here's the problem. china exports the same dollar value we do roughly with 110 million people and we do it with about 11 million people. so we're high-end

manufacturing, but the -- we're super productive, but it's the opposite of what the caller is saying. we're designing the products here, the ipods and then we're having it assembled and manufactured abroad and there the caller has a point. how do we not just design things here but manufacture them at scale here? and that's something that will require a real strategy to do but we're not here exporting raw materials and importing the finished product. we're importing tennis shoes and t-shirt. they are importing technology and that. host: good morning in san diego. guest: isn't it early in san diego? what are you doing up so early,

honey? caller: my nights and days are turned around. anyway, we're the people on the street here, and i respect your education and what you're talking about tremendously. the problems we see here in our community, which you know, you hear about it across the country. we see people here who are unemployed, underemployed, but there's a cash flow here that's incredible. you go to the local market and you see individuals with lots of cash and they are doing a lot of the oh, housekeeping and what have you. and actually, i have a neighbor who is renting a house out, and there's like three families living in it now. and we were offered gee, we do carpentry and this and that, and they are a wonderful family that moved in, but what we see here is we see our education in the state of california has

plummeted to the bottom. we see people are pushed out of schools because of their age. they have aged out of the system. got to move them on. more children coming in. we see kids coming here from over the border, and i'm not knocking them, because they really attempt to get the education they need so that they can do for their families what the rest of us wanted to do years and years ago. host: so gloria, do you see an immigration problem? caller: i see that but also a huge welfare system that has gotten so out of control. we just had our tax dollars driven into our little sidewalks here so people are not tumbling out into the street. host: either one of you have a comment on that? guest: i'm a native californian and i grew up when california was the golden state and the things that have happened to california over the last four

decades are tragic, and one of the points we made in "that used to be us," california could be the future, the future of the whole country if we don't seriously start addressing our challenges. we have a jobs problem in our country. it's a short-term problem. we need hope to get people back to work but even as we have over 9% unemployed, we have jobs customers can't fill because they can't find people with the qualificationings for highly skilled jobs. the burden of that problem rests on our system of education. that's why a huge part of "that used to be us" is about our system of education. because that is the key to sour economic future. one of the points we make is that we've got to trays people who are at the lowest end of the educational achievement spectrum at least to the average. because these days, if you

don't have a good high school education, plus something else, vocationalnal or military or some college, you're not going to be able to make a living. that's the result of the global realization. the people the caller sees on the streets in san diego and that we see on the streets all over the country are people who don't have the education that's necessary really to survive in the 21st century, and that is a huge challenge for us. guest: unemployment for people with a college degree is significantly lower if -- education is still your best ticket out. host: fript michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm taking that book from a different perspective, "that used to be us." and we used to be our unto the lord, god, jesus, but now we've gotten away from that. you're talking about china. china is on top for a little

bit. but we'll get back to christ and god. we're not going to -- because god made -- and he tears them down. so the point of "that used to be us," we used to be a godly nation. we've gotten away from that. so bank on that. guest: well, we don't really say too much about religious faith. in fact we don't say anything about it in this book, and religious faith is an important thing and important in the united states. but i would mention one old saying in which most americans are familiar, which i think is relevant to the theme of this book and relevant to american renewel and that is god helps those who help themselves. host: the united nations meets again tie discuss the bid by palace for statehood. we're going to have live coverage of that starting at

:30 a.m. eastern time in about 20 minutes. tom, i wanted to get your thoughts on what palestinians are trying to do here? guest: they want to get recognized as an independent state and use that as a over there pressure into negotiations. i don't think it's going to work. i understand their frustration, why they are doing it. if there's one thing i have learned, it's that in any of these norningses, the person who wins and gets what they want is the person who has the israeli public on their side. because ultimately it's about israeli having to give something back. when anwar sadat got his republic on his side, he got the west bank in principle back. right now we have to look and

ask the question why is -- it has to do in part with the fact that israel did withdraw from gaza and got rockets in return and the is rail annual prime minister made sweeping offer to the palestinian leader mahmoud abbas. and really didn't get a vigorous response. it has to do a little bit with netanyahu with his draw backs, in my opinion considerable, they gave them things and the israelis only showed up at the last minute. the israeli sentiment is inin an effort. you can say netanyahu doesn't want to negotiate, but unless you can say they are really for a secure peace, i don't see anything happening. and there's a lot more israel could do, as i wrote this morning.

so i think israel should do another settlements freeze. test the palace. stpwhinet what's the span of a 10-month freeze if you can bring about a peace agreement? i think nothing is going to come out of this that's good, and that's sad. host: let's go to democratic caller in michigan. caller: good morning. the reason i was calling is i think that they need to hold these politicians accountable. let it be democrat or republicans to see what people is actually taking money from these lobbyists and selling america out. and i think that they really need to put politicians' feet to the fair to.

host: let's stick to the point. michael mandelbaum. we had in the first 45 minutes, we asked viewers how to fix washington. if you think it's broken, how do you fix it? one caller said you've got to get the money out of it. lobbyists have too much information. guest: money is a problem. lobbyists are too much of a problem. these trends have gone much further than ever before. but we have to be realistic. we're never going to exclude money from politics. we do have a proposal in the next to the last chapter and that is for an influential candidate running on the platform of radical centrism and proposinging solutions to the four major challenges we outline in "that used to be us." such a candidate would not be elected. but if that candidate did appreciably well as well has the they did in previous years,

that would send a signal in the two major parties and create incentives for both parties to move to the center and it would mean that whichever candidate was elected, would have a powerful incentive to adopt some of the program of the independent candidate nord get that candidate's voters in the next presidential election. we think in short that the political system needs some shock therapy and the proposal that we make is perhaps not the only proposal, and but we think one well worth considering is an independent candidate for president next year. >> you give me an insight sfwoof c-span program run every night. and looking at those who ran and lost but changed political history nonetheless. ross pro-, you referred to his bid in 196. george mcgovern and going back to henry clay. so fur interested in that.

tune in 8:00 p.m. friday night and go to journal@c-span.org you can find a the contender's series. and next republican in kyi. caller: goofpblgt i had 10 quick questions for your guests if they don't mind. i eye agree with the potential for entrepreneurship everywhere. but the first question was when they spoke about little to no availability of capital with entrepreneurship. what's the best way to go about that? and the second question is what are the three most importantly rules or guidelines or steps to entrepreneurship in their snn thank you. guest: well, it's a really good question. the point i was making to the caller, and we actually profile companies in the book who demonstrate this, that if you leverage global zphation i.t. now, you can actually access

talent and markets and suppliers more cheaply and easier than ever, but it's not free. people that start up things have having trouble to get access to capital to grow. that's something we need really be thinking about. i would be for a tax cut on capital gains saying if you fund a successful startup, you pay no capital gains. at the same time we have to remember we cannot bail our way out of this crisis. we have to invent our way out of this crisis ultimately. we have to invent zwhroobs make people more healthy, educated and comfortable and more scumplete host: wright today, every job requires an entrepreneur. what we can do and absolutely must do is knock down all hurdles that create

disincentive for business. >> yes. guest: that's true, and we say in our book, "that used to be us" we need more regulation. we surely needed more regulation of that in our book. it cost us $12 trillion of -- in wealth but we have a huge thicket of regulations that make it hard for people who want to start new businesses and we've got prune that away, because new businesses are where the jobs are going to come from. so we have to encourage entrepreneurship in every way we can. host:

the commission's final report in august the $60 billion in contract in waste and fraud. this part of the hearing is a little less than two hours.e to >> good afternoon. by the hearing will come to order. but me start by welcoming the r members of the commission on