>> and why we're here today is to talk about how we are doing in getting our men and women in uniform that opportunity.

i'm joined today by five outstanding individuals. let me just briefly read their bios. i've gotten down just a tad bit. jocelyn benson, which measure him so it all know who you are? is an associate professor at wayne state university, found other military spouses of michigan, founder and president of the michigan center for election law which host project to support transparency and integrity in elections. 2011 she was elected to serve with retired u.s. supreme court justice sandra day o'connor on the national board of directors. a nonprofit, great by justice o'connor to improve civics education throughout the country. she's a former member of the aba's election law develop and supervise to statewide nonpartisan election protection efforts in michigan, published the first major book on the role of secretary of state enforcing election and campaign laws, and

in 2010 was the michigan democratic party's candidate for secretary of state. she served as a law clerk to the honorable damon keith on the u.s. court of appeals sixth district. she earned her masters at oxford and her law degree at harvard. glad to have you here. obviously, very smart. bob kerrey. bob was appointed director of the federal voting assistance program in july of 2009. where's the rest of your bio here? prior to that he served as executive director of the national defense committee, a member of the board of directors of the overseas vote foundation. after graduating from university pennsylvania he was commission in the navy, served on destroyers, carriers and was a bombardier and navigator to two deployments, including 37 combat missions during desert storm. last active duty and 95, served

on the staff of two united states senators, served as a senior policy adviser to the secretary of energy, and since 9/11 has been recalled to active duty four times. bob, i want to thank you on behalf of all of us for your service to our country. thank you very much. >> my honor. >> tom tarantino. tom is the senior legislative associate of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america where he manages the legislative team and is responsible for executing their legislative goals, working with governments, congress, other decision-making bodies and, of course, veterans organizations. tom is a former army captain who left service in 2007 after 10 years in the service. he spent a year into play with the 11th cavalry in iraq. thank you for your service as well. hans von spakovsky --

>> that was close but not quite. [laughter] >> i actually practice that a couple times last night but it kept coming at the same way but you will correct me when your time comes. >> i have a tendency to do that. >> hans has a wide range of expertise and experience in civil rights, justice, immigration, including campaign finance reform, vodafone come enforcement of federal voting rights laws, election administration, living standards and on and on and on. he served on the virginia committee of the u.s. commission on civil rights. he's been published in countless national newspapers. he's been on countless radio and television shows or just testify before state legislators and congressional committees and made a multitude of presentations on this issue across the country. so for those of us have been in this business a while we all know of hans. candace wheeler. candace, how are you?

>> i'm fine, thank you. >> good. candace joined the national military family association government relations staff as the deputy director in june 2007. prior to that she served the organization in various capacities including chairman and ceo during which time she served as the association spokesman before congress, the department of defense. as her government relations director should dress the issues relevant to quality of life for families in uniform services including responsibility for absentee voting rights and a whole host of other responsibilities. she represents this association as a member of the alliance for military and overseas voting rights and serves on the advisory panel for military heroes initiative. she's also the co-chair of personnel committee for military coalition, which is comprised of 34 military and veterans in uniform service organizations representing 5.5 million

members. she was an air force spouse for 22 years, and knows firsthand the effect overseas assignments deployments and transitions have on military family. and we want to thank you for your service as well. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. now, couple things, this is a discussion amongst friends, and we do share a common interest. there may be some disagreements but we will keep those disagreements civil. would also remind you that we are on c-span, and i've been to enough of these to know that sometimes we revert to the acronym language which leads the book of the civilian population totally mystified. we may not want to use those acronyms as for the as if we're just talking amongst ourselves. and lastly, dean a preacher of the senate i know what a filibuster looks like, so we will try to avoid having a

filibuster on these issues. so let me begin that discussion. by first asking candace wheeler and tom tarantino i think robert it more directly the interests of the active military duty, how are we doing in getting our armed forces personnel the opportunity to participate in the voting process? >> i would say we are doing better than we have done in the past. we have seen a 20%, 27% rise in actually having more participation on the part of our military community, but we have also seen the fact that we still have very high numbers. i think it's around 29%, are not receiving their ballots in time to be able to get them back in order to vote. so there's still a problem with being disenfranchised, making sure we are cutting down on that

time, that states are sending them out on time and that our families still confront. one of the things i would point out that as military families, when we talk about absentee voting, they are not always voting from overseas. our families vote absentee from the states as we'll. many of them are living in shared households where the service member may vote in one state and the spouse may vote in another. so this issue is more complex than even a duty station overseas. >> i mean, it's certainly getting better. i room and 2004 i was an assistant voting officer and it was an absolutely ridiculous process. just because i personally a little more political thought want to make sure my soldiers had an opportunity to participate in the election. i literally had a binder that was about nine inches thick, and it took roughly an hour just to get one person registered to vote because you do go through, yet the general thing and you have to look at their state

level stuff and then had to figure out -- it took a lot of time. frankly, time i didn't have because i was getting ready to go to war. i think candace truly brought up an important point, that this isn't overseas voting there are clear issues with. the military replicates those issues and it's not just the fact that you are living the catch from what we call in the military your home of record. it's also, there are a lot of more concerned, a younger population that jenna has more voter turnout. in the military, while you're certain you're generally not that political. you have better things to do. election night 2004 i was watching election coverage. i was watching the villages i was invading iraq. i was busy. so i think one of the things we haven't quite figured out yet is, is low voter turnout because of structural problems to access? not saying we should fix those. i think we've gotten much better

especially in the last four or five years in fixing those, or is it because of culture, the question we have made able to figure out yet. and one of the things about this issue is it's not some you contract easily over two or three years. why? because elections, it's every two years but let's be honest, the ones that really count numbers are every four years because that's the one everyone is really paying attention. >> pay attention to also,. >> and we would like to. in reality we passed the move back in 2000 we've only had one trial run. is going to take a couple times before we actually figure out where the holes are. and unlike a lot of the policy work that candace and i do. we can implement a program and in about a year we can figure where the holes are and figure out how to fix it but it will take us a lot longer for this one. not only keep in mind that make the problem more difficult to

solve because technology and methods increase at a much faster rate than we can gather. >> fob, ivc referred from candace and tom. there's improvements that have been made. and are more improvements that need to be made that we're making progress but you're sort of got in charge of the. as you know i've read to all of your mature and all of the other material provided on the. as i their there is a 29% participation rate by uniform. so are you happy that we're making progress? are we making enough progress? are there fundamental impediments to making more progress? i know you have the numbers. what are the numbers and how do they look? >> i believe we are making progress. the issue is, is it sufficient? to some extent this become sort of an overall policy issue of what you want our program to be. if you wanted to be a get out the vote effort that's not what it is right and that's not what

it is by law. bylaw, the federal law says provide equal opportunities. and so right now when we look, we tried it is trying to say okay, military voter registration rate is lower than that of the general population. but is that indicative of the younger population or is that indicative of the structural issues? i believe it is both. part of it is both. and so what we've done is broken it down by age between 18-24, 25-29, and tried to figure out those fair. so what we found is for all the age cohorts except 18-24, military voter participation rate is higher. amongst the 18-24, it is still the. that's important because 60% of the military is under 29 does the trick of 20% of the general population isn't women years of age.

by 66% of the military is an old fort like me, older speed i don't like you can use that term on tv. >> i already did. but 53% of the general population is over 45 years of age and voter participation goes up with time to sew the other element though is exactly the dispersed nature of the military population. physics plays a part. a bag of mail containing ballots ways and takes up a certain amount of space, and at some point that last mile going after combat outpost, going out to the forward operating base, getting shipped overseas, that weight matters. it's replacing bullets, bandages, replacement troops. so the military command has to make a choice, which goes? that's what we're trying to focus as much also on the electronic delivery of these ballots in order to be able to take it out of equation and also to take out of the equation the timeline. when it takes 20 to 30 days to get overseas, we want to reduce

that to 20 or 30 milliseconds. so that's what we've been focusing our efforts, he is in taking what has traditionally a paper-based system through hierarchical command-and-control methods, having people when i was a voting -- i got up and read from the book and everyone fill it out with me going a long. we all send it in. what we've done now is with copied a lot of what ovf is done, but all of this stuff online so we've taken the entire voter registration process and reduced it to a five to 10 minute process where we are just asking to question. in order to be able to provide greater ability of state levels, in order to be able to have the online develop delivery of heavy voters have access to the online ballots, and that also to be able to provide greater electronic tools to be up to trade their officers, to be up to get the word out to folks in to be able to engage the voters

picks based on the methodology you use, we have made progress, substantial progress and we are moving in the right direction. this survey method you use has been used by the pentagon for how long? >> twenty-five, 30 years. they conducted a number of these surveys and are constantly refining it, and one of the advantages we have is -- >> you are confident the data is valid? >> i do. >> before we get into that, hans, i know, i know this was a softball to you. >> i hate to disagree about the people who know me know i tend to get in trouble when i say with a about things, a big no-no. >> it is a problem. >> look, bob and i are friends but the methodology, this whole idea that there's been a significant improvement, i'm sorry, but the evidence is just not there for that. and the survey that fpa uses,

it's been criticized by the gao, specifically because it was a survey. they send out like 123,000 survey forms. they got back 15,000. and unlike the david that the easy, election assistant commission puts together every year would actually call state officials and get the numbers from them of how many military overseas voters requested absentee talk of how many actions in the, how may they get in, this is just a survey of people. and what did gao say about the report? they said that the ap does not conduct a nonresponse biased analysis that omb says is a necessary step in determining whether certified bias, not conducting such an analysis limited reliability. i don't want to get into sophistical debate here because statistics is boring. but the point is anybody who doesn't surveys knows that

there's bias in who actually sends them back at how accurate the information is when it comes back. the other problem with the samples were that it didn't accurately reflect the overall military population. for example, 25% of the surveys they came back were completed by senior officers and their spouses, even though there are only about 12%. >> but in making that assertion, as i understand this, surveys are never perfect. >> i know that. but the point is -- >> wasn't it waited, didn't they wait that? >> gao says they didn't do it, okay? so i would, i would argue when we don't have significant evidence of improvement, in fact the other data for the eac doesn't and i'll tell you, one of the biggest problems we had, two years, was, i don't know if it's inattention or incompetence

by, for example, the department of justice, i'll give you, you a quick example of this. the move act was a law passed in a covert 2000 items both to really improve this. that was the law that, for example, put in the 45 day requirement that everybody agreed was needed for states to send out absentee ballots before the date. tod sent the request over to doj sang -- saying there is a waiver provision in the law. please send us the guidance because doj is the enforcer. please send us guidance on how you intend to enforce the law and what you think we should take into consideration in granting a waiver. doj never sent them any guidance, and never put out any guidance to the state about how they're going to enforce the law. contrast that with the 2010 would help america vote act passed when doj put up all kinds

of guidance on how was going to enforce the law. dod was supposed to designate, particular offices on installation to be basically the equivalent of voter registration agency, same way dmv offices are, the same with public assistance offices are. when did they do that? now remember the law was passed in october 2009. well, they did the designation on november 15, 2010, 2 weeks after the election. there's even a letter, i think it is march 2011 in which, to congress in which they said we still, not all the branches have done that. one of the key problems for overseas folks in the military is they move around so much. and so many of the ballots that get sent by election officials your overseas come back with bad

addresses. one of the ways to solve that is to make sure that the offices that are on every base, that process, people coming in who have been transferred, like in the navy, the fleet, fleet family services office, et cetera. when you get what they should have a checklist to get to go to different officers to take care of housing. well, on that checklist should be, one of the offices, whatever office takes care of payroll, what ever office takes care of housing, that should be the designated voter registration agency. so among the other forms you have to fill out our changes to your address of whatever you're registered or get registered. instead, dod didn't really do that. they picked miscellaneous offices on these bases, places where people don't necessarily go. and again, that's something that should've been done. the law needs to be done. >> hold that idea, because i

just want to highlight this. that everyone is kumbaya with regard to the data and then we'll come back to talk about that. joslyn, i saved you for this but because of both your current position and your background. when you look at what they have said, and you understand the situation from a practical standpoint. but i think you understand from a legal standpoint, too. so we have these laws. these laws have been enacted. the organic losses were supposed to provide this. are we doing this knowing what we, are we doing the job are supposed to do? is the job getting done that congress asked to get accomplished? if so, going back to hans' point, if not what do we need to do in your mind to change that or do we need to change the law? >> i appreciate that. i also want to say thank you to susan for this great gathering today. i appreciate heard, to serve with his very knowledgeable and his team to grow. i want to take this conversation in some ways away from specifics and down to really the levels of

voter with my own experience as a military spouse, with a has been station on an overseas base, and the expenses i've seen first and. i will come at this as someone with a professor, said he believes the way in which the infrastructure is built and the law is structured have an impact on who votes. we all know that but we also know that it's much more than that. they are our election administration issues. there are cultural issues, and there are nonprofit issues all of which can be improved. and i think we do ourselves a disservice if we just focus on what the federal government can and cannot do better. again, from the perspective of someone who has worked with, directly with voters overseas, on active duty, on bases, trying to get their ballot in, here's an anecdote, or a story that illustrates how this plays out at the local level.

let's say a soldier is sent overseas to an overseas base in germany or italy and arrived in september after labor day. you don't get your address right away, and so you can't necessarily request your absentee ballot to be sent to the address right away. let's say it sent off on a training mission, and an assignment. you leave the base and when you come back, let's say you come back to last week of october, the week before election day. under state and federal you can still request absentee ballot but that doesn't mean the election administrator at the local level is going to to to transmit that bought in an electronic way. and, in fact, in the story i experienced that didn't happen. about with sin and not sent electronically in the we specifically asked for to be sent electronically. it then arrived too late to get to get your ballot on time. even if it does arrive, let's say the monday before election day, you have to mail it back to you can return back electronically. and because of that, it has to

arrive at least in michigan, where i was based on it had to arrive by 8 p.m. on election day. so the practicalities of the federal system i believe there are improvements to i believe the move act was an improvement because it encourages states to electronically produced these ballots. there's practicalities that comes to minimize the impact of the federal law. that said, the federal voting assistance program has been very user-friendly. i've come as a continued to work to assist these voters, and one individual is my husband on this base, it's been great to go to the website. it's very clear, very user-friendly. but again that also misses a broader point which is the overall relevance of voting for the servicemembers overseas. and not just for them, for their spouses, many of whom are facing high levels of poverty, are on food stamps and have many other stresses, kids and all the rest that takes place, just as they

do in other communities of voting. and so in order to i think really talk about improving the system we need to take a holistic approach. we need administered to be better trained on compliance with the law. we need i think a stronger message on the local level of the importance of those election administrators in filing our voters but we also need i believe to build a stronger fiscal presence of the voting community on these bases. write net the information comes to us from television, the armed forces network, commercial e-mails that we get and banners and posters. there needs to be more servicemembers to service member conversations about voting, and in that regard my organization, the michigan center for election law, has developed one program to implement on the local level recognizing that in engaging voters and educating voters sometimes the best message

passionate that this is through people they trust. in michigan to then reach out to those serving actively, and encourage them to vote reaching out of facebook, reaching out through electronic means, talking about the issues encouraging them to vote. we are launching a program for 2012 and we hope that will be an effective way of encouraging the relevance of voting in addition to making the mechanics work better be make again, the term culture keeps coming up, that this may be isn't, with all due respect, the military may be isn't a culture which is totally embraced that whole idea of getting out though, maybe isn't the highest priority. the question we can talk about and i'm sure we continue to talk about is, is there a problem with the methodology, or are we really making progress in the culture that is rather tough? tom, you referenced that as well. this isn't like going down to

the church bazaar and saying here, this is something you to do. these are people that are in very stressful situations. >> i mean, look, i think it is her job as advocates to make the ability to vote as easy as possible but we can't make them vote. we tend to forget also, i think can't display at one of the most significant things we set. military voters are not necessary voting where they live. i did because i was a californian and i happened to be stationed in california. but if you're voting remotely, the elections are not about president, senator or congressman. those are three ballots on the ballot the ballot that issued about a page in half, two pages long. there are local initiatives, local races from all sorts of stuff. if you're not living in your hometown or your airy, you know exactly nothing about that. it is damn hard to find that in a show going to look for it. i'm 21 year old, e4, i'm worried about training myself so i don't

get myself killed next time i go overseas, and you know, it's not a presidential election, virtually no major media coverage. i'm living in kind of remote area and i don't know what proposition e. through 15 are. i'm going to give sobol and mib one person think i recognize because it's just not what i'm worried about. to the point about the duties implementation, i don't know. made i just been d.c. to london 13 months for implementation of the duty program is pretty damned impressive. [laughter] i don't know. i been doing this a little while and i helped pass bills that have some very serious programs that dod needed, things that are life changing, and if they get those implement in 13 months they did a damn metal. i mean, that's not -- >> it's a good thing and not an active duty anymore.

>> like i said, we've only had one interracial. let's not, yeah, let's not get that everyone feels just because we have tried this new thing at once. let's focus on how do we make it as easy as humanly possible for the people can choose to make an informed decision or not. that's about as simple as we need to a couple things i would add to the. first of all we do notice that our military servicemembers and our spouses do register to vote. in very high number to 85% for military service number, 83% for our spouses. so there is at least an engagement there to begin with. now, part of the process is the moving all the time. this happens within our military community, moving stateside, moving overseas, going back and forth. as tom pointed out as we are moving it's not the first thing on people's mind. you can't change and to get to your new duty station anyway. so as most of us don't know where we're going to be living in to we get there, find a

house, get settled, get on base, where ever we might be living. so you can't lead the discussion. you can't leave this to begin with and say okay this will be one of things to do before i go. you have to wait until you get there. once you're in your new duty station there's a lot of things going on that you're trying to get settled, get your kids in school, these are the folks is for family. but having said that i think part of problem when i see for families is that, as tom pointed out, trying to get into the local part of your elections, understand who to really vote for. because we want to be informed, we're not going to make an uninformed vote. so be able to push the information to us, being able to e-mail that to us so it's in front of us. i think that would help us a great deal. one of the problems we see with military families is that they want to know if they've gone through all of this, that not only is the vote received that it is counted. we don't have the assurances.

when you go into the voting place, you do the old-fashioned a the ballot and you fill it out and you put it in the slot. or you do the electronic one. now, do you know whether it has been counted? know, but your survey hopeful it is, that you're there in the polling place. but when you're somewhere else in another state or overseas and you fill out that ballot and you send it back in, you have no way of knowing whether it's been received. we can buy things online and we get a push immediately assess thank you for your purchase, and by the way, it will be sent in today's. if you send a ballot, why don't we have ways to build to let our voters know we have received it, thank you very much. accounting i think is a harder problem, at least let military families doubt that he received it, that their efforts are not endangered i think that will help with voter turnout for our

absentee vote as well, if they really think that it matters. >> thank you. bob, but you toggle the bit about the methodology, and then i know there's some questions out here. i'm sure there are some questions out here. will go to them and then i'll respond to this question. >> one of the big things about the military and overseas voters packed into those i was a good require the states to ask have a valid track for anyone to build to go and make sure their ballot had been received, they can see whether it's been counted or not because they separate the absentee ballots and identity before the two canvassing but at least they can go online. we link them to those state-by-state websites. vacancy is about has been received or not. if we could come up with slide number eight, talk about some of the methodology issues but i think there's an important element here, that this hypothesis that the data that states report to eac is sacrosanct and that a survey is

by the very nature of the survey is a statistical 7% in the waiting done is not. are we going to be able to bring that up at all? so we also did a survey of the local election officials. and in 2008, 20 would compare the response that those local election officials gave the fvap, the exact same question was also asked in 2008 and 2010. in 2008, 20% of the local election officials answered both our survey and there's. this is in the lower right hand corner. we found the answers that those same local officials get to the same question buried by 56,000. in 2010, the exact same question that were answered by 33% of the election officials the eac and us there he did by 54,000.

if we can go to the next slide, slide nine. so, there's an attitude that the eac and federal voting assistance program data is contradictory. it is not. it is complementary. if you look at the lower right hand corner, you see when we survey the local election officials we asked them how many ballots ditch every turn? it should be military ballots returned it and they said 118,002 us, they said 107,002 the election official bob probably within the margin of error. in the upper left hand corner you will see how many active duty military personnel said they voted, how many total voters. about a third of the military and about a third, three quarters, excuse me, three-fifths of the spouses actually voted in person of the voting place at the so you subtract that out. and then a number of these voters are actually within 50 miles of the home and so they're not counted as voters

because they are not absentee. but for whatever reason their absent. let's subtract out. we found about 37% of the military and upwards about 70% of the military spouses use states and local forms to request an absentee ballot but most states which do not allow you to decimate yourself as a military vote on the state and local form, subtract out. then you subtract out the federal rights and absentee ballots. can you come up with a total number of about 89,000. so from our perspective it's not that the eac data is in contradiction to the fvap data. it's that the eac data is a subset of the fvap data. so i think that's an important element. on the gao criticism of the 2000 a survey of our non-response bias, that was when i first things i instituted for the 2010 survey. what it determined was that are

statistical weighting methodology captures the non-response bias that would otherwise be inherent. when we talk of moving around a lot, this is why we truly believe that moving toward more electronic assess to ballot is so important. my time in the military, i have been recalled to active duty four times since 9/11, even those individual recalls either two or three addresses. but i've always had robert h. about kerry. go one step further, post the ballots online. if you post about online, anyone can access them at into. not just when he not just when he gets his e-mail address but whatever they want to hands our grant program in order to try to help states post these ballots online. as part of the -- we have stated that services need to place these in well trafficked areas. so like personal support

attachments, support centers. i was just that at the naval air station for reserve duty and those desperate outside the gate. fundamentally, you know, the department is inconsistent. we shouldn't be doing this at the installation low but we should do this at the unit lovebird data we do the rest of our administrative and training work. we should be doing this at the unit level. more efficiently with higher compliance and much cheaper by doing it at the unit level. by forcing this to happen at the installation level what we are essentially saying is okay, seaman smith, you just reported aboard your ship. now, there's 63 ships at naval station norfolk, and you're an 18 year old kid and you don't have a car. so you need to leadership which has a unit voting assistance officer on it, go down, catch the bus, travel a half hour to personal support attachments, go

in there, fill out the exact same form that your author would have been able to do on board ship, wait for the bus again, come back to the ship, meanwhile, your chief petty officer is seen where have you been? why aren't you working? i mean, this is just -- we're setting ourselves up for failure by forcing us to do all this at the installation level where we have 14,000 unit voting assistance officers already who i encourage them to say go to fvap.gov. you have a printer at the unit, go to -- >> we will call a cloture vote here in a minute you're okay, that's it. >> quick question. i think trucking rates of voter turnout is good but it's something we should do. but rates of voter turnout doesn't have to follow from ease of the program. it can be related. our plans do not necessary look

at voter turnout as your mentor, but actual implementation, use of voting. and so we also in our survey we asked how interested are you in voting, do you plan to vote, and they would correlate how they actually did vote. and were trying to find the comparable civilian measure. doing ask how did you find assistance. surprisingly we found the vast majority of, in spite of we have the vast majority of military personnel said they want to receive their ballot electronically. surprisingly a large portion of military person said they want to return the ballot by mail. >> johnson, i think you are green with a? >> yet, i'm a, but i would just add another element here. one, i think i attention on the state side of things and the actual election administration officials at the local local, and evaluating not just those service members attitudes with attitudes as well.

we've been told things in trying to vote such as i guess it just didn't work out for you this time. things like that, that are not the message perhaps. >> drew. >> but the second piece, i underscore the need for more permission about particular local temptation and state election campaigns and the method of providing that but also the physical presence on the base and the local level, not just of an individual but an actual kiosk or something of that source. in some view it would be great to have an actual polling place at the base we can actually go and cast your ballot so you count it as it was a drop in the mailbox or handing it to someone else. i think in some with our resistance to that is financial as well as local officials not fully embracing the concept. but i hope we can move in that direction because when you talk of increasing the relevance and meaning of voting, as you know when you're on the base your very disconnected from your

state and to actually feel like coaches like you feel like there's a presence of your country in a foreign country, the presence of your estate, a poll worker, a kiosk that in which you can return your boat i think can be a critical way. and enough the alabama secretary of state and others have explored that option and something i think think increase one's connectivity to the local process in addition to the benefits from the mechanical standpoint. >> let's get ready to ask audience participation take one of the things i noticed when identified some issues with regard to how we measure. we've identified that there needs to be more coordination with states under the move act. we have all got that. i guess what i am less interested in is focusing on our differences because i don't think they are as great as we think we they are, rather than arriving at a consensus to see how we resolve those differences and continue to improve what it is we need to continue to improve. so there's questions. >> i have a question.

>> can you ask a question? >> is it on? okay, i would like one or two sentence answer on this, from the panelists, or discussants if you have one. what could voting organizations, what could the people in this room do in the next 90 days to improve military voter participation in 2012? >> things. one, put on your website information about the local elections in your area. just basic information from judicial elections as far down the state as you go, accessible information from the federal level as possible, state information about the candidates, campaign, ballot questions but those are the things that are critical. then utilize social networks to use things like veteran to veteran connectivity to those serving abroad or overseas to encourage them to vote, and

enable the communication about the importance of the election. >> hans? >> i would come up with two things. one on the issue of convincing military folks overseas and their families, they need to vote. look, there are nonpartisan veteran groups like the veterans of foreign wars, who have access to military installations, and the rule that prevents them from being able to conduct voter registration drives, something the dod ought to relax. now, i'm not saying all groups should have access to these bases, but those veterans groups that have access should be able to come if they want to, do a voter registration drive. i don't see any reason why that should not be done. a second thing, from a legal standpoint, the one difference between, by the way i had a texas judge wants, we had a case was a just kept referring it to avocado --

[laughter] >> look on one of the things it does not have to which the voting rights act has, which national voter registration act has, is that those laws can be enforced by the justice department. the justice department isn't enforcing them, you have a private right of action. and unlike the other voting rights statute does not have a private right of action. i could talk up your for a long time about many mistakes doj made during the 2010 elections and things they didn't do, but the point is, private groups should be able to help members of the military said states in others when they don't apply with the law, and doj is sitting on its hands and not doing what it should do. there's actually, i say those images in the senate on this. but it hasn't gone anywhere. >> it's access and information. if you can't access the ability

to register for vote and information in your district in under 60 seconds, you fail because it ain't going to happen. so you have to get that information. and i think it's a great idea, voter registration drives on base. you should be able to access how you need to register go, not necessary go through the whole process, but how, and to what people are voting on at home. if it's over 60 seconds, i can say right now, especially those 18-24 year olds, ain't happening. i can order a pizza in 10 seconds from my phone right now. and get it delivered probably before we leave here. that's the level of customer service. you've got to understand that we, this younger generation, my generation, we access information differently. we expect the world to interact with us the way we interact with it. and if you're looking at your plans, think like that. you've got to think innovatively.

>> i think getting the balance to our military service members and their families in a timely manner. i tuesday with a 45 days in the move act, that a lot has been done to try to do that. but the problem is some of our lives are still not cleaned up so we send all of these out, they are still not being received by the military member or the spouse. more needs to be done to make sure that we really do have the correct address, the onus also needs to be on the service member and the family member to make sure that they are doing that when they move. but i think this is something also that our election officials can work to help as well, to make sure they have appropriate addresses, that we are getting these in our military and service families hands so that they can return them on time. ..

>> they don't need us anymore. second, the administration has endorsed private right of action and has, and, in fact, sent over legislation last session to congress specifically asking for that. third, the administration also asked that the -- with the move act, the allowance that ballots would be automatically transmitted for two election cycles was repealed. now it is simply for a single calendar year and only military

personnel. we believe it should be for both military and overseas persons and for a full election cycle. fourth, the overseas voting foundation working with the uniform law foundation on developing a standardized language across all of the states called the military, overseas voting reform act, and i think that could reduce that 9-inch binder down to, you know, ten pages. because the fact of the matter is within individual states you have different rules for different elections for the exact same form. so we need to get those things standardized. and you can talk to him the if you want help on that. >> next question. >> as a result of the 2010 census, the state legislatures are redrawing not only congressional redistricting lines, but also lines for the

state house and state senate. until those new lines are made certain and any litigation about that's resolved, how's the local election official going the mail out ballots? they don't know what ballot the voter's entitled to. is there a way to insure that litigation about redistricting or ballot access does not result in breaches of the 40-day rule with disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters? >> states can move back their elections. >> it ain't the answer to -- >> that's the presidential election. >> no. that's an issue that election officials and courts are ware of because, in fact, i mean, i was at the supreme court when texas was there recently, oral arguments about the litigation they have over their redistricting. and one of the issues that was discussed there was the long lead time now needed, um, to get ballots set and get them out at least 45 days before.

and that's why, for example, in that particular case right now be texas' primary is set for april 6th. they're still in court trying to get their redistricting plans done, so it's highly doubtful that they're going to have a primary on the 6th because they'll never be able to get that done. >> i'm getting the cane, but i want to make an observation before we close and that is there are some methodology problems here, some things we need today to get better, but can you imagine having this conversation four years ago? we can make this better, we are making it better, and i think that's what we really need to focus on in the 2012 time frame is making our military voters, increasing the ease with which they can participate in this fundamental right, so i want to thank you all for participating and thank you, susan, for having me. >> thank you. [applause]

>> in a few moments, canadian prime minister stephen harper takes questions from members of parliament. and in about 45 minutes, a hearing on the management of arlington national cemetery. we have several live events to tell you about this morning. the senate intelligence committee's annual hearing on global threats to the u.s. is on c-span at 10:00. witnesses are scheduled to include director of national intelligence james clapper, david petraeus, the head of the cia, the director of the defense intelligence agency, lieutenant general ronald burgess jr., fbi director robert mueller,

homeland security undersecretary caryn wagner, and matthew olsen. also at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3, the senate banking committee hears from richard cordray, the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. >> canadian lawmakers returned to the house of commons monday following their l holiday break. prime minister l stephen harper, the leader of the conservative party and his cabinet team answered several questions about the economy including proposed changes to canada's pension system. last week prime minister harper talked about canada's economy at the world economic forum in switzerland drawing criticism from opposition members. this 45-minute session of question period is courtesy of canada's cable public affairs channel. [applause] >> mr. speaker, canadians are bracing themselves for the deepest round of cuts.

cuts, services like the oas and the -- [inaudible] these cuts will hurt jobs and hurt our community. when will the prime minister -- [inaudible] on his next trip to switzerland or somewhere else in the world? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> translator: the honorable prime minister. >> well, mr. speaker, of course, this government received a mandate to gradually reduce our deficit to zero, we will do that while protecting the commitment to protect cherished programs. we will insure that our vital programs are sustainable for the long term and for future generations. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> translator: the prime minister went to switzerland to announce before the millionaires' club that the conservatives will take an axe to the security benefits. it's obscene and insulting for

seniors. instead of attacking poverty among seniors, the conservatives are attacking seniors themselves. why does the prime minister want to cut old age security benefits? tell us. [applause] >> translator: the right honorable prime minister. >> it's quite the contrary, mr. speaker. i am clear that we do not intend to cut the payments to seniors. on the contrary, we are going to protect our seniors at the same time, mr. speaker, we are making sure that the system, the retirement income system will remain sustainable for now and for the future. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: mr. speaker, i don't think that answered my question. we know full well that the next budget will be about choices. he could help seniors, he could strengthen the pension systems, but he prefers to continue to cut corporate taxes. he has billions for megaprisons

and f-35s that don't work. and the group that will be the first to pay for those choices will be our seniors. it's really lacking respect for our seniors who have given so much to canadians, mr. speaker. our seniors want to know why is this government targeting our seniors first? [applause] >> translator: order. the right honorable prime minister. [speaking french] >> translator: the leader is not listening to my answer. the reality is that we are not cutting programs for our seniors. on the contrary, we are going to reduce the deficit to zero as we campaign without cuts to our seniors. at the same time, mr. speaker, we are making sure that the system, the retirement income system, will remain sustainable for the next generations. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: but if he continues like that, mr.

speaker, it will be good-bye, charlie brown. that's sure, mr. speaker, because this government is more concerned with deals rather than seniors and their families. he has given generous tax cuts to major corporations that alrey taking in astronomical amounts of money, and the same government is telling seniors that there is no money left for them to be able to retire with dignity. seniors cannot trust this government. why are they offering more gifts to ceos and slamming the door on seniors and families? why? [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the honorable minister of state. >> translator: mr. speaker, that is completely false. what we will do is protect the retirement system that we have in place for our seniors, and our seniors built this great country. but we have to make sure that this system will be there for future generations, and we are

protecting -- and we will protect these future generations and this system. [applause] >> the minister's saying they're going to do to pensions what they did to service canada. this government is choosing to spend billions on a misguided prison agenda while planning to cut billions from old age security and the services canadians rely on. at the same time, a quarter of a million seniors in canada who live in poverty and hundreds of thousands of canadians' families are out of work, and they struggle just to get by. seniors can't trust this government. the prime minister was so concerned about cutting oas, why didn't he say anything about it during the election? why did he hide his agenda during the last election campaign? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> he has it all wrong. we are not cutting, what we are doing is we're going to preserve the retirement system that exists for canadians. seniors will not lose a penny.

but what we have to do, mr. speaker, is make sure, we have to make sure that going forward we do have a sustainable system. the old age security system isn't sustainable now, we're going to make it that for generations in the future. >> here, here. >> the honorable -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, in fact, the prime minister did address this question during the campaign. >> yep. >> the prime minister stated categorically during the leaders' debate as recently as november that this government was not going to be touching transfers to individuals and transfers to seniors. now -- he explicitly said that. now the minister comes up with a davos answer. there's an election answer, there's a davos answer. which is it, mr. speaker? is the prime minister committed to sustaining seniors, or is he committed to breaking his election promises and breaking faith with the people of canada? [cheers and applause] >> the right honorable prime minister.

>> of course, mr. speaker, government ran on very clear commitments, and we're acting on those commitments. that commitment is to reduce our budget gradually to zero, and that's been very clear. at the same time, mr. speaker, we do have the opportunity to look ahead, to look at the challenges that these programs face in the future and to make sure that these programs will be available and will be viable for the future generations that need them. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> the prime minister of canada can't have it both ways. he cannot go to the canadian people, and his minister of treasury board was saying on exactly the same day as the prime minister was giving his statement in davos, the president's -- [inaudible] board was reassuring everyone that there would be no cuts to the provinces and there would be no cuts to transfers to individual seniors. [applause] but the -- [inaudible] what the prime minister is saying and what we're hearing very clearly also from the minister of human resources is

the exact opposite. it's the davos renege, mr. speaker. it's the politics of deceit and abandonment. [cheers and applause] >> order. the right honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, the leader of the libbal party -- liberal party is challenged when it comes to listening to the answer. we've been very clear as we reduce the deficit, we're not cutting transfers to provinces or individuals. at the same time, mr. speaker, everybody understands there are demographic realities that do threaten the viability of these programs over the longer term. we will make sure these programs are funded and viable for the future general rations that -- generations that will need them. [applause] >> [inaudible] [speaking french] >> translator: i don't have a problem hearing the answers, mr. speaker, the problem is the answers change, it depends on where we are. if it's during an election, then there's lots of promises. the change, the demographic change is not something, mr.

speaker, that happened last week. in fact, the demographic change is a factor, was a factor during the election, and that is when the promises were made and not only from the prime minister, but from all the conservative party members who did exactly the same, made exactly the same problems. that's why we're talking about the politics of abandonment and deceit, mr. speaker. [applause] >> translator: the right honorable prime minister. >> translator: thank you, mr. speaker. we're talking about deceit, the liberal party which made record cuts in transfers to the provinces and individuals. for this government our commitment is clear, we are going to eliminate the deficit without cutting transfers to the provinces or individuals and at the same time, mr. speaker, we have a responsibility to futuregen eights. future generations to insure that the system will be viable for the system and that is what

we will do. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, the conservatives failed in their commitments, the 2004 health accords including expanding health care, reforming primary care and getting prescription drug cuts under control, and now the prime minister's made the situation even worse by telling the premiers he will unilateral ri reduce the canada health transfer. fixing our health care system must be done by collaborating with the provinces. that's what caid grabs expect. can be canadians expect. so why is this government slamming the door in their face? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i stated before, our government is commit today a universal, publicly-funded health care system. unlike the previous liberal government which gutted health care transfers, we have actually increased funding to record levels. we have also announced a long-term l, stable funding arrangement with the provinces and the territories that will see transfers reach historic levels of $40 billion by the end

of the decade. thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, they can't escape the reality that their take it or leave it ultimatum is in direct opposition to the principles of the canada health act. canadians are rightly worried that it will lead to greater privatization undermining the foundation of medicare. canadians don't want to see one health care system for the wealthy and one for everybody else, so i ask again, mr. speaker, why is this government abandoning it leadership role in health care and making canadians pay the price? what happened to their commitment to accountability? [applause] >> the honorable minister of health. >> thank you. mr. speaker, as indicated by the recent canadian institute of health information data, the federal transfers are projected to go faster than average provincial spending on health care. i will continue to work with my provincial and territorial colleagues to make sure that canada's health system's more sustainable and to improve accountability and to deliver better services to canadians.

thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> translator: the honorable member -- [inaudible] [speaking french] >> translator: mr. speaker, canadians are right to be scared about the upcoming budget because the announced cuts could be twice as high as expected. the president of the treasury board, a man known for his great transparency, talked about cuts in the order of $10%. that is $8 billion in public services that will disappear. this government simply does not understand the reality. blind cuts is not the answer. getting rid of good jobs is not the answer. reducing the quality of services is not the answer. why will this government make families and workers pay for six years of mismanagement by the conservatives? [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the honorable president of the treasury board. >> translator: mr. speaker, canadians gave us a solid, strong mandate to our government to make the decisions on behalf of all canadians. and to look at the situation --

remember, mr. speaker, that with that mandate as the prime minister has just said today, we have and are working on plan that will get us to balance within a reasonable period of time, a reasonable and fair plan for canadians as well as for this house to consider. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the honorable member -- [inaudible] mr. speaker, i have had not expected such an insip bid response. already, we can see the response having a negative impact on people. we can think of those who are involved in the endless red tape and the immigration system. people have to also wait weeks to get benefits. the members and government should understand that a false majority does not give them the right the cut the majority of programs. why is this government insisting on compensating major corporations that are already profitable that are not creating jobs here instead of protecting the services that people need?

[applause] >> the honorable president of the treasury board. >> translator: i have already said, mr. speaker, it's essential to have an action plan with regard to the cuts in order to improve the situation. with regard to the deficit, that is our plan, it's a plan that we talked about during the previous election campaign, and this was part of our 2011 budget. it's essential for this country to have an action plan -- >> jurisdiction. but jobs and growth, these plans are necessary, mr. speaker, but we'll do so in a reasonable and fair manner. [applause] >> the honorable -- [inaudible] >> this government has money for its friends but not for ordinary canadians. mr. speaker, while the prime minister is musing about cutting benefits to seniors, cuts to service canada have already been hurting seniors. some canadians are waiting six to eight months just to get their ccp or old age security. they don't have eight months' of savings in the bank, they can't pay for food, and they can't pay

for their medications. why does this government want to make the problems worse by cutting more services to canadians? ms. . >> the honorable -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, make sure that all canadians get the benefits to which they're entitle led in a very timely manner. now, it helps if people submit their applications, a, on time -- [inaudible] it also helps -- [inaudible] >> order. order. the minister has the floor. >> mr. speaker, it also helps if your employers do the same. we are working -- >> [inaudible] >> protests done as quickly as possible, that's why we brought in an additional 400 people to help that process along so that people do get the benefits they need and deserve. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> speaker, what's absolutely shameful is this government's cuts to services that canadians depend on. [applause] it's not just unemployed canadians and seniors that are hurting, it's canadian businesses as well.

service canada is unable to process labor market opinions in time for companies that need temporary foreign workers. many companies have to pay -- pay to have their application process twice or have to send their foreign workers home. why won't the government acknowledge the problems they are causing and reverse these cuts? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> translator: the honorable minister. >> the mvp was complaining we were allowing temporary foreign workers at all. what we're trying to do is protect the integrity of that system to make sure ha people who do come are not replacing canadians who could have those jobs instead. we're also trying to make sure that temporary foreign workers are coming for legitimate workers so that they're not going to be abused. we want to protect those workers and canadians, that's why we're making sure that we take the time to make sure the jobs are real, the applicants are real as well. [applause] >> mr. speaker, instead of working with the provinces to make our street streets and

communities safer, conservatives are forcing their ineffective and costly prisons agenda on canadians costing taxpayers, for example, $1 billion alone. why won't the government work with the provinces instead of downloading costs? don't they agree with the democrats ha pensions -- that pensions and service that canadians rely on every day have a higher priority than the billion being spent on the prisons agenda? [applause] >> the honorable minister of justice. >> so many inaccuracies, mr. speaker, that i don't where to begin. might as well begin from the beginning, $8.4 billion since we've taken office, mr. speaker. we all have a responsibility, mr. speaker, to stand up for victims, and that's contact ri what -- exactly what this government is doing, and we want the support of everyone. >> translator: the honorable member -- [inaudible] mr. speaker, this government doesn't care about canadian families or the provinces and

territories. for this government it's my way or the highway. it's clear that this government did not take advantage of the break to talk on the record with their authorities. if it had, it would understand quebecers object to the bill on crime. the government is pushing the bill for this inefficient prison system, um, to quebec. it will cost a lot for quebec. will the government finally work >> order. the honorable minister of justice. >> the honorable member is talking about the bill that targets drug dealers, drug traffickers, gangs and those who would molest and abuse, mr. speaker. that is focus of the bill. and as i pointed out before, more than $2.4 billion has been added to the transfers of the provinces, mr. speaker, so we're doing our part.

and i would remind the honorable member that it's victims who suffer the from crime. they pay the greatest price. they sometimes forget that. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> translator: mr. speaker, abolishing 190 language teacher positions at the canadian school of public service shows yet again that the conservative government has contempt for the french language. this closure adds to the long list of attacks against institutions such a the center for excellence and official languages. it's simply illogical. how can this government claim that all citizens will receive services in the official language of their choice if it eliminates teaching in french? [applause] >> translator: the honorable minister. [speaking french] >> translator: that's completely untrue, mr. speaker. there are a lot of programs through which to learn french or english, and that is part of our

responsibilities towards canadians. it's the same case today as it was before, mr. speaker. >> we have continued the liberal government practice of our predecessors of outsourcing that kind of language training to those who can provide it on an excellent basis to more people at less cost. [applause] >> the honorable member -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, last week conservatives threatened to pickpocket seniors by raising the old age pension qualifying age. this so-called cost-cutting measure was announced after they gave $6 billion to large corporations, $30 billion for untendered jets and another billion for fake lights and glow sticks. paying for these kinds of extravagant things on the backs of canada's seniors is ridiculous and shameful. seniors are going to be forced to line up at food banks and at soup kitchens, and we've all heard this story before. is that what the prime minister meant when he said he was going to change the face of canada?

shame on every one of you. >> the honorable minister of -- [inaudible] >> shame on the honorable member for fear mongering. [applause] [inaudible] we've made a commitment to canadians in the last election that we would look after -- [inaudible] that we would respect the current system. the canada pension plan is fullly viable, it's been actuarially evaluated, and it's viable. but our old age security system -- [inaudible] we want to make sure that for generations to come people can rely on the old age security system to help them out, so we're going to make changes, but it will not include cuts to people who are currently receiving those funds. [applause] >> [inaudible] [speaking french] >> translator: the on -- honorable member. mr. speaker, last week in davos, i would repeat the prime minister hinted about amending the pension plan and the old age security plan. the prime minister is ignoring

the needs of over half of all canadians who count on the federal plan. i'm asking the prime minister today what are his true intentions to the millions of canadians who depend solely on the government pension plan and the old age security? [applause] [speaking french] the honorable minster of human resources. >> then why did they vote against not once, but twice increasing the gis exemption? why did they vote against -- [inaudible] why, mr. speaker, did they vote against so many things that could help to bring so many seniors off the tax rolls and out of poverty? why? [applause] >> the honorable member -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, it was cruel for the conservatives to deny low-income seniors the family caregiver tax credit, it would

be hartless to force seniors onto provincial welfare rolls. the fact is, mr. speaker, that for canadian seniors 40% of the seniors receiving the oas make less than $20,000 per year. while other countries are trying to address the gap between rich and poor, why are the conservatives near canada making income equality worse? why the war on the poor, mr. speaker? [applause] >> the honorable minister of human resources. >> [inaudible] why is it the liberals voted against pension -- [inaudible] why is it that they voted against increasing the -- [inaudible] not once, but twice? why is it -- >> order. order. the honorable minister has the floor, and members will give her their attention. the honorable minister of human resources. >> mr. speaker, why is it that the liberals voted against the -- [inaudible]

that's the funding that goes to the poorest of our seniors. why did they vote against that too? [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: honorable member -- [inaudible] today we've learned that the australians are showing down the procurement of the f-35 fighter. the plane won't be delivered on time, project costs are exploding and technical problems are multiplying. i can tell you through experience that any soldier who's tasked with a mission has a plan b in case things don't pan out as planned, but this government does not even respect the basic principles taught to our soldiers. why is this minister still not producing a plan b? [applause] >> translator: the honorable associate minister of canadian defense. >> has flown f-18s for 30 years. we're working to replace our aging aircraft with new f-35s that will protect international stability for decades to come. mr. speaker, australia faces an

immediate challenge in replacing older aircraft much sooner as we have been doing. we will continue to closely monitor the international development of the f-35 and the capabilities for the canadian forces, mr. speaker. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the honorable member -- [inaudible] any minister fine with the f-35 is denying reality and showing irresponsible management. the u.s., the u.k. and australia are all in the process of reviewing their programs. a single problem with the f-35 would have encouraged me to have a plan b if i was in the minister's shoes, but this minister regardless of this slew of problems still doesn't have a plan b. i would like to know when the minister will get his head out of the clouds and finally table a plan b? the honorable associate minister. >> mr. speaker, i don't know where all this rhetoric comes from other than desperation. mr. speaker, our government is committed to getting the best equipment for our canadian

forces at the best price for canadians with the best benefits for canadian companies and canadian workers. canada's participation in the development of the f-35 along with our closest allies assures that the canadian forces will have the best equipment to achieve mission success, mr. speaker. [applause] >> the honorable member from -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, in spite of cost overruns and mounting technical problems, we left off in 2011 with the minister sticking to the same old story on the f-35. since then the u.s. has come to grips with reality. they have canceled 179 planes and have delayed production of the rest. the australians having already downsized their order once are thinking of doing it again. mr. speaker, with everyone else pulling the chute on this plane, will the minister tell us how much more the f-35s will now cost canadians? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, we are

monitoring the events very closely with all of our nation partners as well. and, mr. speaker, just as a sideline, the very member that just stood up back in december was with talking about some report that he read where there was supposed to be no training for f-pa 35 pilots, canadian pilot here. that, mr. speaker, referred to norway. the member does not even know what he's talking about. [applause] >> the honorable member -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, after six weeks away and in light of such significant changes, canadians were expecting the minister of to have something more to say on this issue. around the world countries are taking a realistic look at the f-35 and cutting back on their orders even in the u.s. now, i value hope and optimism, mr. speaker, but here we've crossed over to a world of fantasy. are the f-35s this government ordered somehow special? are they different from those being rejected by other

countries? how are our jets on track while the rest of the world's are falling off the rails? [applause] >> the honorable minister of security. >> mr. speaker, that member is absolutely wrong. the truth of the matter is that we welcomed the announcement by the united states which confirms their commitment to the multi-national joint strike fighter. canada remains committed to the development of the new state of the art aircraft that our brave men and women agree will give them the best probability of mission success in the 21st century. we continue to monitor the progress of the multi-national joint strike fighter program closely and exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayers' money, mr. speaker. [applause] >> honorable member from scarborough, spencer. >> mr. speaker, canadians are concerned about crime, and i have heard about my constituents regarding yesterday's verdict of

the honor killing. we know the sisters were killed because they were women, women who wanted nothing more than to live their lives according to canadian values, free from oppression and violence. as the justice said yesterday, it is difficult to conceive of a more heinous, despicable, onerous crime than killing your own children for no ore reason than -- other reason than some sense of honor. [inaudible] >> the honorable minister of justice. [applause] >> we have been very clear, so-called honor killings are barbaric and unacceptable and have no place in canada. >> here, here. [applause] protecting women and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence and to hold offenders accountable for their acts. in canada, mr. speaker, murder is murder regardless of the motive. our government has always focused primarily on the rights

of victims and not by the rationale offered by murderers. be you commit such terrible acts of violence in canada, you will face canadian justice. [applause] >> the honorable member from halifax. [speaking french] >> translator: according to the minister of natural resources, canadians who speak about their concerns in public, about the northern gateway pipeline are radicals. we're no longer in the 19th century. what's radical is not to be concerned about the environment. when is the minister going to stop assaulting canadians and first nations who want to protect the environment rather than being in line with the oil lobby? [applause] the honorable minister of natural resources. >> responsible environmental groups who contribute to the discussion of the use and developments of our national

resources. however, there are also some radical environmental groups that are opposed to any development of our resources. they are using the process to delay projects as long as possible with the objective of killing them. we want an independent review that will be open, and we'll do a scientific analysis that will hear all people. we have a legitimate view, but thousands of jobs are at stake, and the -- [inaudible] >> order. [applause] the honorable member for halifax. >> well, mr. speaker, we really do have a minister for the 19th century because the minister of natural resources fails to understand the impact of conservative inaction on jobs, on the environment and on future generations. instead what he does is he attacks people that actually care about the environment. >> here, here. >> and it makes me wonder if minister actually believes in climate change. so i guess my question to the

minister is, is he a believer or a denier? [applause] >> the honorable minister of natural resources. >> since we're into theology, i will tell this house that i believe that no project in canada should go ahead unless it's safe for canadians and safe for the environment. >> here, here. [applause] >> however, however, groups that are opposed to any development of hydrocarbons, groups that say that the oil sands which represent one-one thousandth of global emissions will result in the destruction of the planet, these groups are not related to science. these groups are radical. these groups fight against -- >> here, here. [applause] >> honorable member, the honorable member -- [inaudible]

>> mr. speaker, first nations have called on this government to address the impact of the proposed gateway pipeline on their rights and resources. pleaing for federal protection for aboriginal -- [inaudible] have fallen on deaf ears for decades. first nations impacted by oil development are tired of waiting for promised regulations, monostoring and health studies. mr. speaker, instead of pushing the speed dial on these megaprojects, why won't this government take action to defend aboriginal rights and titles? [applause] >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, under the federal framework for aboriginal economic development, our government is working in partnership with first nations' provincial and municipal governments and industrial developers to help first nation communities secure social and

economic development from the oil sands development. thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, perhaps the minister would like to come up with me and have that discussion. the government promised to expedite resolution of land claims and to deliver multiyear financing for first nation governance, expedited actions to address housing, infrastructure. first nations are tired of spending their money suing the government for failed delivery of commitments on treaty and law. mr. speaker, will the government deliver on these promises in this year's budget and in this year's legislative agenda? [applause] >> the honorable minister of aboriginal affairs. >> mr. speaker, we made great strides at the crown first nations gathering. [applause] our government is committed to moving beyond the constraints of

the indian act. for example, i was proud to announce last week the addition of 18 first nations to the first nations land management regime. [applause] >> here, here. >> and to sign the framework agreement for self-government negotiations with white cap dakota -- [inaudible] [applause] there's more to follow, mr. speaker. >> the honorable member from toronto. >> mr. speaker, that allows me to ask the prime minister with respect to the end bridge project and the communities affected by that project, i'd like to ask the prime minister, the national energy board review doesn't actually have complete jurisdiction with respect to first nations' issues. i'd like to ask the prime minister in particular, does he contemplate some additional process that will involve a direct crown first nations discussion with respect to the impact of this project on first nations? [applause] >> the right honorable president.

>> well, mr. speaker, the honorable leader of the liberal party should understand that consulting with aboriginal groups is a constitutional requirement. of course, that is part of any process. at the same time, mr. speaker, i have to reiterate what i've said to canadians before. it is vitally important to the national interests of this country that we are able to export our energy products to asia. and, obviously, that's something the government hopes will happen in the future. [applause] >> the honorable member -- [inaudible] [speaking french] >> translator: that is the government's position, that there's an obligation on the federal government to consult with aboriginal groups, but be that's true -- if that's true, i would like to ask the prime minister how is this position the same thing? how is it the same thing, what

we're seeing against the attack or on the attack, rather, on those who are against the minister? and the prime minister himself? i'm seeing two different approaches on behalf of the. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the right honorable prime minister. >> translator: mr. speaker, once again this is a constitutional obligation to consult with aboriginal groups and, obviously, the government is going to comply with that. at the same time, i've said several times it's essential for canada to sell our energy products to asia. and elsewhere in the world. so that we have better economic growth, and it's critical. it's important that the government have this position and that we are careful of all of these processes so we can -- [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: the situation is

an example of the ineffectiveness of conservatives in terms of jobs. when we -- we need to strengthen the investment canada act. millions -- or thousands, rather, of jobs have disappeared in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, and this government has done nothing. mr. speaker, will the conservatives continue to pretend that everything is fine? what are they waiting for to act and finally protect our quality jobs in canada? [applause] >> translator: the honorable minister of forestry. >> translator: first of all, the white birch conflict with their employers is a labor problem and hope that it will be solved among themselves. what we're doing now is mixing all of these things up. they're against all of foreign investment and moreover, when we presented our economic action plan in which there were significant investments, indeed, to improve innovation in canada, what did they do? they voted against it. so on that side of the house

they have no credibility when we are, indeed, talking about -- [inaudible] [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: mr. speaker, the situation is just as catastrophic in montreal. when the appliance maker -- [inaudible] canada announced the closing of its plant. the result is 700 quality jobs that have disappeared. the very day that announcement was made, the prime minister was in davos to brag about the strength of the canadian economy. mr. speaker, the same region was affected by the closing of the shell refinery. if prime minister finds that the economic situation of eastern montreal is so encouraging, why rather than davos did he not come to explain this to the workers who have just been laid off? [applause] >> translator: the honorable minister. [speaking french] >> translator: mr. speaker, it's quite incredible. i was talking about the economic action plan in which there were significant sums to increase -- [inaudible]

and when we talk about montreal, we are upset about the closing of this plant while at the same time we're opposed to the exploitation of our natural resources. so when the time comes to make investments in the provincial structure and education or, again, when we try to invest in the aerospace sector in montreal, what do they do? they vote against it, and then they try to come and tell us what to do. [applause] [speaking french] >> translator: thank you, mr. speaker. >> uncertainty. canadians are concerned about being able to save for their retirement. if ndp had their way, they would double ccp contributions meaning increase -- ms. -- [applause] >> order. i'd ask members to hold off on their applause until members finish -- the honorable member from winnipeg. >> this would mean, mr. speaker,

increased payroll taxes on small and medium-sized businesses. in this time of global economic uncertainty, imposing a tax on our key job creators is just irresponsible. could the minister of state for finance, please, tell this house what this government has done to help canadians better plan for their retirement? >> here, here. [applause] >> the honorable minister for finance. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my colleague from winnipeg. i know that she's been communicating with her constituents and helping them with some solutions on helping prepare for their retirement goals, mr. speaker. today in the house of commons we're debating a new piece of legislation, the full registered pension plan, mr. speaker. a very accessible plan, accessible to all canadians. businesses are looking forward to this, mr. speaker. they're looking forward to it because there's 60% of canadians today in the work force that are not, that do not have access to

that pension plan. we're providing that option and hope -- >> the honorable member from st. paul. >> mr. speaker, education is the potential ingredient for success -- essential ingredient for success. if federal government funds education for first nations' children on reserve, at two-thirds for children off reserve. first nations children deserve an equal chance. will the government commit to ending the unacceptable discrimination in the upcoming budget, or will first nations be forced to go to court to sue for equal funding as cindy blackstock has had to do for child welfare? [applause] >> the honorable minister -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, we'll continue to work proactively and collaboratively with first nations, provinces and the private sector to support programs and services to support student success, is access to jobs and strong, healthy

communities. it's too early to speculate about the budget, mr. speaker. that's a decision that will be forthcoming. thank you. >> [inaudible] [applause] >> mr. speaker, diesel got $5 million in tax breaks from this government through its generous corporate tax plan giveaway. after the photo op, they decided to cut workers' salaries in half, slash their benefits and threaten to ship canadian jobs overseas. mr. speaker, why is this government irresponsibly handing out billions in no strings attached tax giveaways and turning its back on workers in london, ontario? edn is the only producer of locomotives in this country. when this government step up to the plate in the interest of canadians and canadian workers? >> here, here! [applause] >> the honorable minister of -- [inaudible] >> this is a sad situation, but this is a labor dispute between

a private company and the union, mr. speaker. we've been briefed by local conservative mps on the situation, and we are all concerned about workers and their families. but let me tell you, mr. speaker, this matter is under the government's jurisdiction and so the government cannot interfere in that matter, mr. speaker. [applause] >> the honorable from st. johns. >> mr. speaker, last week the member from st. johns shocked the entire province by once again calling for an end to the sailing industry in canada. not only is it an insult to the families who depend on the hunt, also on the northern communities that depend on a sustainable and humane seal hunt. a photo op from the member if a seal -- in a seal vest does not fool anyone, mr. speaker. would the regional minister, please, explain to this house what our government is doing to defend canadian -- [inaudible] and the sealing industry? [applause] >> honorable minister.

[inaudible conversations] >> mr. speaker, last week the member -- [inaudible] with his comments. but i wasn't shocked. i know the member has been, has been an opponent of the sealing industry for years. one of the ndp -- [inaudible] our government stands up with the sealing industry at home and abroad, and yet, mr. speaker, i own my vest. plaintiff. [laughter] [applause] >> translator: the honorable member from -- [inaudible] [speaking french] >> translator: mr. speaker, the prime minister has repeated that he is supporting the democratic hopes of due news minneapolis, but this -- due in tuni, and ia, and now we've learned that canada wants to half of the

profits. this behavior is unacceptable. will the prime minister really want to come to benefit from a corrupt dictatorship? why don't we bring this money and give it back to tunisians to help them build their democracy? >> i've been very clear in reference to tunisia. we have stated quite cleary that we will be seizing the assets of those that are stolen from the people to insure that people, dictators will not steal from the people. the money will go back to the people, and it will be rightfully theirs. so in tunisia, mr. speaker, this government is working very hard to insure those monies stolen from the people of tunisia will be return today the people. >> here, here. [applause] >> translator: the honorable member -- [inaudible] mr. speaker, a few days ago the prime minister announced that an in-depth reform of the pension plan would from now on be one of his government's priorities.

we all know that coming from the mouth of this prime minister reform means drastic cuts. how can this government justify wanting to save on the backs of the most disadvantaged seniors where it has no problem buying jet fighters, finding money to celebrate the queen of england and reducing corporation taxes by billions of dollars a shot? >> translator: the honorable minister of human resources. >> translator: mr. speaker, it's not true at all. as i mentioned already earlier today our government will insure that seniors will keep all of the benefits that they receive. as seniors at this point in time. we are not cutting any. we are going to keep the system that we have today and for future generations as well. [applause] >> i would like to draw to the attention of honorable members the presence in the gallery of the honorable ted martin, minister of energy for alberta.

[applause] >> in a few moments, a hearing on the management of arlington national cemetery. and the senate's back in session at 10 eastern. today's agenda includes a voice vote on a motion to proceed to a bill that would bar congressional insider trading. we have several live events to tell you about this morning. the senate intelligence committee's annual hearing on global threats to the u.s. is on c-span at 10:00. witnesses are scheduled to include director of national intelligence, james clapper; david petraeus, the head of the cia; the director of the defense intelligence agency, lieutenant general ronald burgess jr.; fbi director robert mueller; homeland security undersecretary caryn wagner; and matthew olsen, the head of the national

counterterrorism center. also at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3, the senate banking committee hears from richard cordray, the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. by 2016 according to the imf, the world's leading economy will be a communist dictatorship. that's in five years' time. now, think about that. if imf is right, the guy you elect next november will be the last president of the united states to preside over the world's leading economy. >> columnist and author mark stein has published nine books. his latest, "after america," is a new york times bestseller. he also writes the happy warrior column for national review. and live sunday "in depth," your chance to call, e-mail and tweet with your questions live at noon eastern with booktv on c-span2. now, a hearing on the management of arlington national cemetery. witness withs include the army

inspector general and representatives of the government accountability office. this is a little less than an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> this hear willing now come to order. on july 29, 2010, almost l exactly 18 months ago, this subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the mismanagement of contracts at arlington national cemetery. the nation's most revered and sacred burr l y'all ground for veterans and their families. at the hearing we reviewed the findings of a june 2010 report by the army general which found hundreds of mistakes associated with graves and gross

mismanagement by the cemetery's leadership. the subcommittee also investigated how the mismanagement of contracts to implement a new automated system to manage burials contributed to those mistakes. the subcommittee found that the problems with graves was more extensive than previously acknowledged and that thousands of graves were potentially at risk of being unmarked, improperly marked or mislabeled on the cemetery's maps. the subcommittee's investigation also found that officials at the cemetery and at the army failed to conduct basic oversight. for example, arlington's former leadership approved projects to automate and digitize burial records which resulted in millions of dollars in contracts over a decade without producing one usable product. in addition, there have been no review or audit of the cemetery for over a decade prior to the inspector general's 2010 review.

in september 2010 as a result of the investigation of this committee, i introduced legislation to address those failures. the bill ultimately acquired 12 cosponsors, passed the senate and was signed into law in december of 2010. the law required two separate reports by the secretary of the army. the first provision required the secretary toererfy the identity -- to verify the identity, location and burial records of a grave site in arlington national cemetery and present plans for any errors found in the review. this report was submitted on december 22, 2011. the second provision requires the secretary of the army to submit an annual report for the next three years on execution of the secretary's june 2010 directive which changed the structure and authority of operations in arlington national cemetery. this first annual report was, in fact be, submitted september 2011. the law also required the

comptroller general to present a report to congress on the management and oversight of contracts at arlington national cemetery including a review of the feasibility and advisability of transferring to or sharing jurisdiction of army national cemeteries with the department of veterans affairs. this report was released in two parts on december 15, 2011. the finding of these reports and the way forward from here are the subject of today's hearing. we will hear from the army inspector general, gao, the government accountability office, and arlington national cemetery about what the army and the cemetery have done to try and remedy the failures of the past. we will also hear about what arlington and the army still need to do to insure that this never happens again. the reports provided to congress reveal that much work remains to be done. arlington must be put on a course that will insure no tragedy like the one we saw unfold in 2010 is ever again reported to veterans and their families. at the outset i want to commend

ms. con done and the staff at arlington for their efforts over the last 18 months. the corrections made by mr. hall man, the the members of the accountability task force and the cemetery's old guard among others institute a see change from what we saw under the cemetery's prior leadership. i would also like to recognize the army inspector general, both old and new. the original 2010 report issued under the leadership of general mccoy demonstrates the quality and independence we expect from the inspector general community. and i expect that general vangell will continue to hold others accountable in his new role as army inspector general. as i tell witnesses from gao at nearly every hearing, you are the unsung heros of the government for the work you do every day. nothing pains me more when people take political cheap shots at government workers, particularly because i am aware

of the work that is done at gao, the incredible savings that you produce for taxpayers in this country every day and the dedication with which you go about your work. and it's not like you're doing it for big bucks. as i tell during the september 2010 hearing, i said that i would continue my work on arlington until i was confident that all problems at the cemetery were fixed and that we could stand tall and assure the families of our veterans that they would never again need to wonder about the location of their loved one's remains. i look forward to continuing to work with all of you and my colleagues to make this goal a reality. i thank the witnesses for being here today, and i look forward to their testimony. senator tester, welcome. you're welcome to make any comments you'd like before we begin with the witnesses. >> i would love to, senator mccaskill, and thank you very much for leading the hearing and leading the charge to expose this issue.

i want to thank the witnesses ahead of time. you know, when the issue of mismarked graves and mismanagement at arlington came to light initially, i said it was a black eye that needed to be made right. simply put, our nation is entrusted with certain sacred responsibilities. it's not only about honoring and taking care of those who wear the uniform, it's about being there for the families during their time of loss. and when entrusted with the remains of their loved ones, it is incumbent upon this nation to carry out its responsibility with the utmost respect and dignity. on too many occasions in recent member whether it's the mismanagement at arlington or the mishandling of the remains of american troops at dover air force base, that responsibility has been woonded, and that trust has been broken. ms. condon, as the chairman said, i'm happy to have you here along with mr. hanlon. by all accounts, you've stepped up to the plate and instituted a

number of needed retomorrows, and i very much -- reforms, and i very much appreciate that. but as a recent gao report pointed out, we're not there yet. and when you're interested with sacred -- entrusted with sacred responsibilities, there is no margin for error. so this afternoon i look forward to your testimony and more forward to the discussion that will happen after that testimony. thanks, once again, thank you all for being here. >> thank you, senator tester. let me introduce the witnesses. our first witness is lieutenant general peter vangel. he was appoint today position on november be 14, 2011. as inspector general, he's responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by army officials. most recently, lieutenant general vangell served as the deputy commanding general of the third army united states army central in kuwait from september 2009 to september 2011. i can also probably talk to you about contracting, couldn't i,

over there? i know that's the center of most of the contracting in the contingencies. belva mcfarlane martin is with the u.s. government accountability office. she is responsible for a portfolio of major management public policy issues related to the protection of the nation's critical technologies including export controls, the defense industrial base, navy shipbuilding, defense acquisition work force and army modernization programs. brian lepore is the director of defense capabilities and management at the u.s. government accountability office. he directs audit and evaluation teams that review the department of defense support structure, programs for base closure and alignment, base operations including installation services, management of training ranges, infrastructure and privatization programs and facilities energy management. katherine condon is the director

of army national's program. as the executive director, ms. condon is responsible for both long-term planning and day-to-day administration of arlington national cemetery and the u.s. soldiers and airmen's home national cemetery. ms. condon has held several positions including as serving as u.s. army material command from 2006 to 2009. it is the custom of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses who appear before us, so if you don't mind, i would ask you to stand. do you swear that the testimony you'll give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. please, be seated. we will be using a timing system today. we would ask that your oral testimony be, it says no more than five minutes, i'm going to

say, you know, somewhere around five minutes. this is very important. if you need to go over two or three minutes, i don't think senator tester and i are going to mind. your written testimony will, obviously, be printed in the record in its entirety, and we will begin with lieutenant general peter vangell. am i saying your name right? >> you are, madam chair. vangell is fine. >> okay, great. you probably don't even pause. >> i will answer to just about anything as long as i know they're looking at me, madam chair. >> okay, sir. [laughter] thank you. >> madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and thank you for your input, support and guidance over the past 18 months. it has made a significant difference at arlington. since assuming the duties of the army inspector general in november, i have reviewed our previous inspections, i've met with the executive director, ms. condon, her team and other stakeholders who have been involved in correcting the detissue be says.

to fully appreciate the progress made, one only has to review the june 2010ig report which identified 61 deficiencies, among them being a deplorable organizational climate, archaic record keeping and automation systems, uncontrolled contracting and budgeting processes and significant problem with graveside accountability. in contrast, our 2011 ig report identified no deficiencies and noted significant progress at the cemetery largely due to the course set by the secretary of the army's directive 2010-04. the efforts of the executive director and her team and can the support from the department of the army staff. in short, the mismanagement and deficiencies reported to you in the june 2010 ig report have been relegated to the past, and arlington is transitioning from successful crisis management to sustained excellence. allow me to share just a few specifics. the previous insular environment that contributed to mismanagement and substandard performance at arlington no longer exists. the executive director has established a positive work

environment emphasizing cooperation, coordination and collaboration. work force surveys taken as part of the 2011 inspection reflected steadily improving morale, unity and organizational effectiveness. the cemetery now possesses an advanced, fully-functional information technology infrastructure supported by a service agreement with the army's information technology agency. arlington has leveraged the agency's consolidated customer service sector to respond to customer calls, thus improving customer service. a new computer application for digitizing burial records has been critical in establishing an accountability baseline for each grave site and inurnment niche. the team reviewed 25 contracts covering services, engineering and construction and found that these contracts are now properly aligns with contractors possessing the requisite skill sets to perform required work to

standard. new acquisitions are subjected to rigorous analysis, preaward compliance checks and compact packet reviews for quality assurance. while we still noted some errors in 2011, none were egregious, and the number was significantly less than 2010. arlington now works closely with the office of the administrative assistant and the assistant secretary of the army for financial management to insure improved oversight of the cemetery's budget formulation and execution. the transition to the general fund enterprise business system has provided full visibility and transparency of cemetery expenditures. finally, with respect to improvements, the executive director recently published a campaign plan which includes major efforts to complete grave site canned about, address long-term expansion of the cemetery and complete documentation of policies and period yours -- procedures. it assigns responsibilities, timelines and metrics to measure progress. with this encouraging news comes

the reality that there is still much more work to do. the 2011 army ig inspection report provided 53 recommendations for continued improvement at arlington. i'll highlight a few key actions. arlington's leadership in the department of the army must finish updating relevant policies and procedures. further, the arlington leadership must complete the documentation and validation of internal processes, procedures and controls. the recent work to establish the grave site accountability baseline must continue to resolve the nearly 50,000 cases that are still outstanding. effort must be exerted to establish a multiservice policy that standardizes required assets for full honors funerals and enables maximum utilization of finite resources of the cemetery. the executive director must coordinate with the army staff to establish enduring external oversight processes to prevent any reoccurrence of past

shortcomings. the department of the army must finalize and implement enduring organizational and support relationships for the national cemetery's program. and finally, the army must maintain the support and oversight that it has provided recently to it national cemeteries and apply lessons learned from arlington to all cemeteries under army control. in conclusion, arlington remains a priority for the secretary and for the army. a significant progress observed by the army ig validates the secretary's approach to creating the processes, systems and management ha we found to be lacking at arlington in 2010. this strategy, executed according to the executive director's campaign plan with the support of the army, the defense department, other principal agencies and congress, will set the conditions for continued improvement and, ultimately, sustained excellence. thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today, and i look forward to answering your questions and working with the committee in the future. >> thank you, lieutenant

general. ms. martin. >> madam chair, senator tester, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss gao's work at arlington. senator mccaskill, you alluded to legislation that became the mandate for gao to review contracting and management issues at the cemetery. those reviews found that arlington has taken significant actions to address its problems and that the path forward is for arlington to sustain progress through improved management and oversight. my colleague, mr. lepore, will discuss gao's work on management issues. on contracting gao identified 56 contracts over $100,000 that supported cemetery operations, construction and facility maintenance and new efforts to enhance i.t. systems for the automation of burial operations. arlington does not have it own

contracting authority, but relies on relationships with contracting offices to award and manage contracts on its behalf. these contracting authorities obligated roughly $35.2 million in support of the 56 contracts covered by our review. the army has taken a number of steps as the i.g. has alluded to since june 2010 at different levels to provide for more effective management and oversight of contracts including improving contracting practices, establishing new support relationships, formalizing policies and procedures and be increasing the use of dedicated contracting staff to manage and improve its acquisitions. however, gao found three areas at arlington where additional improvements are needed. first, maintaining complete data on contracts. second, defining responsibilities for contracting

support. and, third, determining contract staffing needs. i will briefly summarize key findings in these three areas. first, with respect to maintaining complete data we pulled together information on arlington contracts from various sources including support organizations. however, there were limitations with each of the sources. to be able to identify, to track and insure the effective management and oversight of its contracts, arlington leadership needs complete data on all contracts. second, with respect to support relationships the army has taken a number of positive tens to better -- steps to better align arlington contract support with the expertise of it partners. for example, arlington has agreements with the army information technology agency, ita, and the army analytics group to help manage its i.t. infrastructure.