>> and we're not talking about 25 or 30,000 prosthetics. we are talking about a much smaller group, and i think very least the government can do is make sure we're doing it right. and with that i will yield for the ranking member if he has additional questions. >> thank you very much. just two additional questions. my first is, does the va have an objective measure to evaluate the prosthetic outcome?

>> yes, sir, we do. our staffing when we first entered in this project we took the number of orders that were expected to come over to the acquisition and heavy workload factor model and we anticipated, or assumed, a number of people that would be required in procurement to staff that. turns out through the pilot that our staffing model was wrong and we are hiring additional people. unfortunately for dr. beck, money that people we are hiring in procurement are purchasing agents who are coming across a purchasing agent revealed to the contracting career field and will now be working procurement which is probably good for them because there's much more career opportunity as we say 1102 versus a purchasing agent, 1105. we are staffing to the level of a believe two to three complete orders per day. that's the metric, and we'll be

tracking those metrics to make sure we don't fall behind on those metrics. as i mentioned earlier, if we do start falling behind, if the unexpected has happened because we are approaching the fourth quarter as is traditionally the busiest time for contracting folks, we have the legacy system and those purchasing agents and prosthetics that we could fall back on. >> what about the individual veteran themselves as far as, are they really satisfied? if they don't come back, do you ever contact them to see why they haven't come back with the services they receive from the va? >> yes, sir. at all time to face to the veteran will remain prosthetics, the prosthetics office. they should have no interaction with the contracting folks whatsoever. as the ig mentioned it does come down to communication between the offices. we are setting a prosthetics sales where there are joint contract and the prosthetics people working together to make

sure we meet the needs of the veteran. again, but the prosthetics people, be the up front face to the veteran, identifying what they need, the requirement will come to contracting. we will get under 8123, a specific product, we will get that product for them and then the product will come back to the prosthetics people for that follow-up aspect with the veteran. and i'm sure that there are delays that the prosthetics folks will let us know and ensure that there's an issue. >> you're talking about delays in getting the limb. my question is, the veterans themselves, had begun an evaluation? is the customer, veteran, satisfied with the service? and if not, why not? or if they haven't come back, have you ever followed up with the veterans themselves to find out whether everything is satisfactory? >> i know in procurement we have not because we're just getting into this ballgame, but --

>> the, and prosthetics we've done a number of surveys over the years. some extensive ones were we have looked at using our va schaap type of surveys, overall customer service and veteran satisfaction with care as we did for medical centers. we have done to the specialized surveys over the years. we also did a gallup poll survey in 2009, which looked at evaluated what are amputees thought at that time. the ig has actually, inspector general and this most recent report, also provides is with veteran satisfaction data. we realize we need to do more in that area, and are now looking at a couple of options that we have. ones with, is a standardized

survey related to patient satisfaction that the committee on accreditation of rehab facilities uses. we intend to use that for our an education system of care. we will be able to use that veteran satisfaction survey and all of our an education care clinics. and we are also looking at other ways that we can assess veteran satisfaction. >> could you provide the committee with your latest survey for the veterans and their satisfaction? >> yes. >> my last question is, do you find it difficult, the special field, to find and hire, you know, qualified clinical personnel? [inaudible] >> we have done a lot of hiring in the field, the

rehabilitation, and for are the texts and process six '05 so years everything would add a lot of new providers, and providers who are highly experienced and very capable. for this profession as we have with is good therapy and occupational therapy and some of the higher read professions. the jobs are extremely competitive. we've done a couple of things in our system. one is our orthotics and prosthetics our hyper title 38 so we are able to recognize them for their clinical capabilities and advanced them based on that performance and pay scale. and i, so while it is a challenge, we've been able attract high quality providers and fill our position. i'm going to ask dr. miller who wish our lead prosthetic is to

give comments. thank you very much like me to testify today. i am an iraqi vet and i had the honor of serving both at walter reed army medical center, the chief of prosthetics there, before coming here in serving in the va. with regards to our workforce, the va is very competitive in the. we are able to attract and retain quite a few of the private sector orthotics and prosthetics. one reason is we'll offer the ability to treat and care for veterans, and that's the mission that enjoy and are wanting to do. we also offer training and education. we offer the accessibility the technology that the veteran receives. many times that technology is only available within dod. it ties it to those who do clinical care.

>> any additional questions? >> just i think a couple brief point. of the 600 vendors that you mentioned, are those, the contact with our veterans, are they independent of the va, or are they through the va? is it like sometimes happens that a patient will be contacted outside of the system and be convinced that maybe this product is something they ought to try? how did those 600 vendors have contact with our wounded warriors? >> the 600 contracted vendors our community partners, and so they are active within her own facilities. they attend clinics and to help in the prescription rationale of that item for that veteran.

and so they're involved extensively with us in the care. >> so they would not have an independent contact with the veterans of? >> yes, sir, they would. if the vendor was selected to provide that, the veterans and would typically go to their private facility and that the prosthesis fabricated, designed for them come independent of what's going on at the va medical center. >> okay. and do those vendors, are they just doing these prosthetics based to va specs, or do they did an independent? >> whenever a prescription is written for that, it's done to what we referred to as industry standards. so we contract with those providers that have accreditation and certification, just like the va providers do. >> for specific product of? >> that's correct. >> the other thing is, on the

surveys, part of what i think doesn't reflect the sentiments of the veteran base, and i say this from experience because we've had there in el paso, the veterans that are not getting either access to health care or are upset about something, they are very good about taking the surveys and sending them back in. it's been my experience, and i say this because i've had even some of the members of my family that have gotten of those surveys, and because they are satisfied they don't even return them. they just chuck them. so is there a way or a process that you factor that in, into that? in other words, if you send out 20,000 surveys, and you only get back 1000, because -- how, is there someway to factor factor

in those veterans that don't send it in because they are satisfied? these are multiple pages and they don't want to take the time, or can take the time to answer all those questions. and i think that really skews the results for the va facility. so is there some way that can be done? or is that being done? is that taken into consideration? >> that's a very challenging question, and i'm going to add to that a couple of ways. i think when any of us you surveys, or when we publish surveys, or when we read about surveys, we will very often see a statement about the response rate. because if the response rate is very low, if you send out 20,000 questionnaires and only 1000 people respond, then your questionnaire doesn't have a lot of validity because the number of people that you sample, then

i think that is a challenge in our gallup polls in every way we do surveys. so that was the first thing that we do. and i think our survey try to design service that would be easy so that people return them. and i think we, you know, need to do better with a. if we're developing outcome measures and satisfaction measures, we are very focused on making them short and easy for the clinician and for the veterans to fill out. and i think that is what we're trying to do as we address patient satisfaction, veteran satisfaction, it even outcome measures. >> because i think he just included postcard, that basically says i'm satisfied, i can't or don't want to go through the whole survey, count me unsatisfied, or somehow like that. because i believe that, the

results are being skewed because veterans don't want to go through the multiple pages. where was designing goes to be short as failing. i've gotten them myself and let me tell you, 16 pages is not short. >> no, i don't want to fill those out either. thank you. >> and thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. before we adjourn this afternoon searing i would just respectfully request that you would provide us, earlier dr. beck, you mention, their shared clinical practice guidelines. so much of the testimony we heard was saying the dod is taking the lead and prosthetic, and you are assuring us there some collaboration between dod and va. if you could provide for the committee, subcommittee i should say, all of the initiatives that they're going to ensure that the va at least is working with and trying to emulate and catch up to do these prosthetics programs. i think that would be helpful

for us. >> thank you, yes, we will do that. >> if there are not any further questions, i just want to thank this panel for your endurance. it's been a long time, and for your willingness to be. thank you, and thank the both of you, dr. miller and mr. doyle, for your service to this country. and before we adjourn this meeting this is always a good opportunity for the subcommittee to say thank you to all of the veterans, to the veteran service organizations, for your service and for your sacrifice to this country and the united states. it's the greatest country in history of the world and it is because of the service and the sacrifice of the men and women who serve this country and who have served this country. country. so thank you very much. with that i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials. without objection, so ordered. thank you again to all of our witnesses, to all of our participants in today's hearing and her audience members for joining in today's conversation.

the hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] now we'll hear oklahoma governor mary fallin deliver commencement remarks to students at oklahoma city university. she spoke for about 15 minutes.

>> thank you. what a wonderful honor, doctor henry. thank you so very much, president henry. i appreciate and accept this honor a doctorate with great pride and humility because it is truly an honor to be able to accept it from oklahoma city university, one of our greatest universities in the state of oklahoma. absolutely. [applause] but especially to be here upon the stage with some of oklahoma's top, brightest business leaders in the state, and certainly some of our best leaders in civic leadership in our states with gary, with cliff and with that and ray. i'm so honored to be able to receive this on the right doctor with such outstanding oklahoma role models. student, i hope you will emulate those things that these leaders have done for this university

and our city as you continued on. i have to tell you, you've done a great job, president henry, here at his university. this university is one are shining examples, one of our shining stars of success in higher education in the state of oklahoma. it's a great honor to be able to be here today to celebrate and to congratulate our outstanding the oklahoma city graduates, increasing the number of college graduates that would have in our state, so to all of our graduates, who received this excellent education from oklahoma city university, we are very proud of you. you have worked very hard to get to this moment. hopefully you can get a little bit of sleep, take a nice little summer break and get ready for what ever it is that you hope to continue to do with your life. i know there are many people here in this audience that have helped you get to this point today. and certainly we want to thank the outstanding staff, the outstanding faculty the board of trustees, certainly are

president, and what they've done to help you reach this success in your life. so let's give our faculty and our staff a round of applause and thank them, graduates. [applause] and, of course, you also have your family, your friends who joined you here today, your parents. we want to recognize and thank the parents and your family for the role they played also in supporting you along this path. let's give them a hand. [applause] now parents, to my parents were out there, you know that when someone typically graduates, have a castle they move from one side to the next, and a lot of times they further hats up in the air to celebrate, they finally completed this great milestone. when they graduate. so parents, i have something for you today. i want you to get out your

credit cards and your checkbooks, and you can throw those up in the air in front of your students, because the tuition is finally over, hopefully. [applause] but in all honesty it is truly a great honor to be with so many talented, impressive men and women who are graduating from this unique school, a school which mission focuses on not only the students intellectual ability but also their moral and spiritual development. and that's a tremendous accomplishment of this university. this university is actually one of our most unique and diverse universities in our state. it has a unique diverse group of students who attend here. most of you -- students from 41 different states and 56 foreign countries. that's quite remarkable.

[applause] but here's another great figure, in fact, about ocu. ocu has the highest number of national merit scholars this year ever. [applause] graduating from this university. national merit scholars. congratulations to all of you. and i know that you are all going to do some very exciting things. i've looked at where some of your graduates are going after they finish today with this degree. some are going to disney paris. [cheers and applause] some are going to become officers in the u.s. military. where's my military folks wax of. [applause] some are going on to attend prestigious graduate programs. some are going to eastman school of music. [cheers and applause] may be several. and some of your graduates are

also going to some of our top theological programs with full scholarships as they move on. and, of course, you some going to medical school. certainly law school, pharmacy school and many other programs. even like going to stay at the london school of economics. [cheers and applause] there they are. so you are truly a remarkable class but you're also our future leaders in our state. not only in business but certainly in civic citizen leadership, too. and we are very, very proud of you. i'm sure i don't have to die that by virtue of years being here today just completed one of the most important milestones in your lifetime that you will ever achieve. whether it is achieving financial success or personal self fulfillment of obtaining a college degree, it will be one of the greatest tools you'll ever have in your toolbox, your

ability to be able to better yourself and to reach success. adult with college degree, graduate degrees, typically are roughly twice as much as those with only high school degrees. and over a course of your lifetime, by having a college degree, you also will be talking about the potential to earn not just hundreds of thousands of dollars, but millions of dollars with this higher level of education. and, of course, as you continue to continue studies, some of you who may go on to masters or doctorate degrees, that also increases your potential in the business world. that's a compelling reason to earn a degree, a college education, but issues when the many reasons because in doing so, in earnings this degree, we are doing everything we can to help you be able to enter into a workforce that will provide you great opportunities to be

successful in life. that is one of the reasons why we've made such great emphasis this year in being able to increase the number of college degreed people in a great state. [inaudible] so we can continue to make sure that you get the very best education possible. so no one can have the economic value of obtaining a degree that you are receiving today, but a college degree is more than just a piece of paper that you are going to receive. it's also as i mentioned about higher wages and better jobs. but graduating from ocu makes you a part of a rich tradition in oakland. rich tradition of service, a rich tradition of success that will follow you for the rest of your lives. i am very proud of what you're doing here today, and very proud of the tools you've been given. and i'm confident that as you move forward from this day forward, that oklahoma is going to be a much better place.

now, i want to say that not only are you very fortunate to be graduating from a wonderful university, but you are also graduating at a very great time for the state of oklahoma. and i hope you have noticed this. today, obama actually ranks second in the nation in job creation. [applause] i know all of you will will be out there looking for jobs, so i hope you are blessed. we're set in the nation in job creation. that's a pretty good markopolos to be entering into. and ask if you look at oklahoma city, its number one in the nation for job creation based upon large metropolitan cities. so it's a great time for you to be graduating, and hopefully, hopefully most of you will be up to stay right here in oklahoma. a before and i just want to give you some words of advice of life lessons that i've learned throughout my career. one is that it is very important that you get back to your

community, that you are part of your community, part of that service to others, service above self. it is a very rewarding experience in life, that when you give to others and when you help make your state a better place to live. and second, there is no limit to what you can accomplish, no matter where you come from, though you are, what background you might have, and what your circumstances might be. i actually came from some very humble beginnings. i had some great opportunities to do some wonderful things and have some wonderful jobs and be able to serve oklahoma, but you see, my grandmother came to oklahoma in a covered wagon. i know that sounds kind of funny because we don't think about covered wagons these days, but she actually came to oklahoma five years after we had become a state, and she came here in 1912. she was seven years old, educating her with her family. they were eighth in her family.

and as my grandmother, i said why did you come to oklahoma? they came from tennessee. i said, did you come in with your family to buy a house or went home? did your dad take another job? what caused you to come to oklahoma? and my grandmother kind of laughed, and she said no, we came to oklahoma to find a better opportunity. to be able to support our family. and they actually didn't buy a house but they didn't rent a home. you didn't have a job per se. it actually came to oklahoma because, they were going to farm to farm picking cotton, living in this covered wagon but she told me many times they would sleep out on a pallet on the grass under the stars, her mom would cook outside. and he was just a remarkable thing to think about, how people used to live just 100 years ago in the state of oklahoma. i asked her if her parents and

she were able to go to high school and go on to college and get a better education. and she told me, unico only people with only people in our family, we had two horses, and my family moved a lot because they were always searching for work and trying to find better opportunities, so she said when i could go to school, i did. but it was a long walk and we only had the two horses, so she only completed the eighth grade in her education. but i want you to know something about her. she was one sharp lady. i mean, she was a first class lady, one that was always putting others about herself. and she always took care of herself, and she died when she was 98 years old, lived on her own all those many, many years. was a great cook, by the way. always highly respected her, and she was a great role model for me. and in this day when we think

about all we have, text messaging an e-mail and facebook and twitter and cell phones and certainly travel. you can do business globally around the world, and i think about just 100 years ago where my grandmother was, to the opportunities that i have today. her granddaughter to be the first woman governor of the state of oklahoma. it really does tell you how great oklahoma is. and so i hope that when you think about your future, that you know that no matter what your circumstance are, no matter where you come from, that you can be anything you want to be if you work hard, if you never give up, if you take risk, if you believe in service to you believe in service to others. and i will also tell you that life won't always go exactly the

way hope will but sometimes it will be some setbacks and some disappointments. but actually i hope you remember this, that setbacks are opportunities for comebacks. and when you do come back, when you have a setback, come back even stronger. do even better. don't let those things hold you back. and never stop learning. i learn every single day something else. that is important that helps me to do my job even better in our state. so receiving your degree is not only a milestone in your own career, but your degree also marks the end of a journey in your life. it also a beginning of another journey in your life. and now it's at the u.s. graduates to use the knowledge that you have received from oklahoma city university, a great university, to put that knowledge to work, to see whatever doors of opportunity might open up for you. and i know that through this

graduating class today, that oklahoma will be a greater state with even more hope and opportunity ahead. that blush and congratulations to all of our graduates. [applause] >> up next on c-span2, a bureau of labor statistics hearing on the way employment numbers are released to the public. the senate is back this point and will continue debate on the farm bill. they are often referred to as -- after having worked for almost two years, i can't think of a better name.

it is with the heartbeat of the people's bank executrix and general counsel of the congressional black caucus, angela ryan on the role of today's caucus. >> ensure that members of congress who are african-american can come together on issues that are plaguing the committee at large, issues that may be plaguing their districts where they can find commonality. so the county gather to discuss legislative solutions, legislative proposals to advance the causes of people who don't have a voice. >> more with angela rye son ed a dish and pacific on c-span. >> a witness from "bloomberg news" said it may go to court to stop a labeled -- labor department plan. what are the reasons for the proposed changes is to prevent stock traders from getting jobs numbers before everyone else. this portion of the house oversight committee hearing is two hours.

>> good morning. the oversight committee will come to order. we on the oversight committee exists to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them is well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because of taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. when president obama took office, he promised the american people to have a more

transparent administration, the most transparent administration in history. from that point on, this was a standard that the obama administration would be held to. almost four years later, more and more it seems that their own actions, the actions of this administration say just the opposite is true. the department, the is department of labor led by secretary hilda solis cup unilateral change the method by which the media accesses the bureau of labor statistics jobs data. this unprecedented action has serious freedom of the press implications. let there be no doubt we appreciate the need for simultaneous release of this sensitive information. but that has been accomplished for more than a generation to a procedure that was much more effective, as effective and more

acceptable to the media if so. the abrupt nature of this change, coupled with the absence of a clear explanation and a lack of public input raises key questions about who made this decision to implement this change and why. did the individual have the authority of law. as the committee has examined this, isn't the first time the issue has come up in asserting the labor department's reach into the bureau of labor statistics. you will recall the dol received 500 million stimulus funds to trade -- to train members for so-called green skills. but an audit by the inspector general found the program to be an utter failure and represented a tremendous loss to the taxpayer. this included training for occupations that are hardly green, such as welder, sheetmetal worker, and machine

operator. certainly those are jobs that may be needed, skills are valuable, but they are surely not all of the sudden green after hundreds of years of being around as a profession. aside from the excuse ways that perpetrate the department of labor, they have been using the guise of green jobs to justify ongoing funding of the presidency green agenda. however, the standard they had invented and includes counting as agreeing job institutions of welder, college professors are now green. environmental reporters are now green. policy experts in anything thank can be green. in fact, lobbyists can be green. now, i've been in washington for nearly 12 years. there's a lot of green with lobbyist. none of it should be counted as an environmentally green job.

there are 33, there are 33 times as many so-called green jobs in the septic tank -- you can't make these things up -- septic tank and portable toilets service industry as a the are in solar energy and utility areas to more than 160,000 of these green jobs are related to school bus drivers. using these tactics to manipulate the number to mislead the american people is nothing short of embarrassing and if the trail of the standards that president obama established for his administration. transparency begins with honesty. you cannot send out false propaganda and then say you are transparent. the truth is essential. the barest of the truth is essential, unfiltered if you're to be transparent. we all appreciate this administration has an opinion, and this chairman has an opinion

that is sometimes different. we are entitled to our opinions. we are not entitled to our facts. is it any wonder that much concerns, why there is such concern now that secretary solis is department wants to unilaterally change and control how the press receives jobs numbers from the bureau of labor statistics? of course when invited to appear today to explain why this change in freedom of the press would appear, secretary solis in no uncertain terms turn down all indications and offered us alternatives. we appreciate those who are here as alternatives. however, ultimately if you're the secretary of labor, the buck should stop with you. if it doesn't stop there, where it can be american, americans believe it stops? it doesn't stop at the white

house if the secretary a louse something to happen and then doesn't have an answer. we will hear more about that here today, and i hope it will send a clear message to the administration. without i recognize distinguished ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you for holding today's hearing. which appears to focus on two very different topics involving the department of labor and the bureau of labor statistics. the first topic is the integrity of the department of labor's jobs reporting. the department of labor strikes a balance between preventing the unauthorized release of key economic data and providing journalists access to that data a head of time so they can prepare their stories with context about the broader employment situation. this balance is very important. the media are the publics eyes and ears, so it is critical that they have the access necessary

to ensure that they have a thorough and accurate understanding so that they can place it in context. a leak of this data could have negative consequences. for example, in the hands of certain traders, early access to this data -- even if just by a few seconds -- could allow their powerful computer trading algorithms to manipulate markets and reap millions of dollars. that is why the department and other data reporting agencies employ procedures to prevent unauthorized releases. recently, the department of labor hired sandia national laboratories, which oversees the security of our nuclear arsenal, to evaluate whether changes were needed to meet the new security requirements of today's constantly changing technological environment. sandia found significant

vulnerabilities in the department's procedures and the recommended steps to mitigate those risks. sandia also warned that those seeking to break current security controls are profit driven, technically sophisticated individuals or organizations who may have considerable resources at their disposal. acting on sandia's recommendations, the department announced new controls on hardware and software in the lockup environment. in addition, the department has now to exclude specific firms that sought access to sell data to wall street traders a fraction of a second before other traders see it. initially, some in the media complained that the department proposed changes were too restrictive, and these companies appear to be the impetus for today's hearing.

over the past month, however, the department has worked with press outlets to accommodate their concerns while enhancing security. we anticipate that there will be additional announcements regarding these ongoing discussions. soon. the second topic of today's hearing appears to be how the department of labor calculates the number of green jobs in the united states economy. this is the third hearing regarding this topic, the third time in the department of labor officials have testified before us. last july, the brookings institution issued an important report on green jobs with the following findings. first, green jobs and for almost two put almost 2.7 million americans, more than the fossil fuel industry and twice the size of the bioscience sector. second, they said the green economy has expanded at greater

rates than the economy as a whole. they went on to say, the green economy offers considerable and more highly paid opportunities for low and middle skilled workers. and, finally, they said, the green economy is manufacturing and export intensive, both of which are critical for america's future. since this report was issued, the bureau of labor statistics estimated the number of green jobs was even higher reporting that over 3 million jobs have helped rebuild our economy. this new should be welcome by policymakers in congress to unfortunately this committee seems more intent on challenging the methodologies used by the bureau of labor statistics rather than helping put people back to work. i thank the witnesses for being here yet again today, and i look forward to your testimony. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.

i would take note that although the ranking member mentioned the dol report, indeed the report, or the sandia report has not been deemed available to us under any circumstances. so not withstand the gentleman's assertion, until the department of labor makes that report available to us, we will consider it to be a cya document. i hope the gentleman will join with me in issuing a subpoena if they won not deliver the document they allege is the impetus for this closing. >> i would be happy, glad, mr. chairman, to consult, be happy to talk about it. i certainly would join you. >> i thank the gentleman. members will have seven days in which to sub in opening statements the record will now recognize our first panel. mr. daniel moss, the executive editor for economics and international government at "bloomberg news."

welcome. mr. rob doherty is the general manager of, general manager united states for reuters news, also welcome. ms. lucy dalglish -- would you pronounce it? is the executive director at the reporters committee for freedom of the press, also welcome. dr. keith hall, former commissioner of bureau of labor statistics and is currently a senior fellow at the center. and last but not least, i will work hard on this one, ms. diana furchtgott-roth is the former chief economist of the united states department of labor, and a current fellow at the manhattan institute. welcome all. pursuant to our committee's rules, would you please rise and take the oath? and raise your right hands.

[witnesses were sworn in] >> let the record reflect that all answered in the affirmative, to the best of their ability. please be seated. now, many of you are returning to testify. a couple of you, it may be your first. we have members will becoming in and out. we estimate and about half an hour for your opening statements, so try to stay as close to five minutes as you can. we will have your entire opening statement, plus additional material you may wish to submit to support anything you say here today, included in the record. without objection. so you only need to summarize because for the record all that you submitted will be on the record. >> chairman isa, congressman

cummings, members of the committee, i think the committee for the opportunity to appear today and i want to express my particular appreciation to the committee for its engagement in this issue. "bloomberg news" provides data, news and analytics to decision makers and industry john finance. "bloomberg news" has delivered through the bloomberg professional service through television, radio, mobile, the internet, and the magazines. we are syndicated in hundreds of newspapers globally. we cover the world with more than 2000 reporters and editors in 146 euros in more than 70 countries. we are experts at public thing system sticks and disseminate market moving information. media stakeholders are making progress with the department of labor and arriving at a place that will not undermine the first amendment, will not reduce

transfers and accuracy of critical data, or create unacceptable cybersecurity risks. well no conclusive agreement has been reached, the movement that we have seen would not have been possible without engagement of members of this committee, and committees and members in both chambers of both parties. we are particularly thankful to senator blunt for his engagement. on april 10, without the notice and comment period dictated under the administrative procedures act, the dol announced a dramatic policy shift. a handful of reporters and editors would require to use only government -- government hardware, government lines, government notebooks from the use of modern news producing software with greater accuracy and context it provides would be prohibited. all transmissions would be via the internet, not through secure lunch to the department of labor would own and operate the line,

control internet access and control internet connections creating a single point of failure. because all news organizations which share the same infrastructure. although the policy change was unprecedented, it was presented as nonnegotiable. news organizations were required to remove their software, hardware and dedicated lines from the department by june 15. this proposal threatened the first amendment that government would literally own the reporters notebook, unlike any other federal agency. the department of labor is requiring that reporters write news articles on government owned and operated computers on a regular basis, which would give the government unfettered access to reporters notes and drafts. no information anywhere should have access to a reporter's thoughts, draft or notes as a condition for covering news.

let alone -- [inaudible] the proposal also dashed the unser, the order also threatened security, house, senate and the administration have riley spent a great deal of time attempting to address potential cybersecurity threats. protecting our financial markets from destruction by cyberattack has been a key part of that discussion. in the world in which we now live, the department of labor to deliberately force the transmission of data away from secure, dedicated lines, and instead mandate its transmission via the internet is inexplicable. the vulnerability of the internet to even accidental destruction is a large part of the reason why news organizations have invested in their own secure lines. the prospect of a deliberative destruction, potential market manipulation.

in august last year the department of labor's website went down following the release of the monthly unemployment rate situation. the unemployment rate was unavailable for an hour. at the april 10 order, mr. chairman, goes into effect, the result would be potentially catastrophic. this proposal will increase market vulnerability and volatility. and the modern era of computerized trading, people can see in nanoseconds. study of the 2010 flash crash illustrates how quickly small incidents can result in major disruptions. when the department of labor hosted a conference call on april 16, ostensibly to answer media questions on the new policy, i asked, what is the problem do you think, you imagine this will prevent? the department of labor's response was, i think we're going to move on. operator, will take the next

question. the alleged rationale for the new policy is gradually slipped out in drips and drafts. ultimately, relying on a report by sandia national laboratories which has not been publicly released. the dol has alleged new policy is nested because unauthorized people planted unauthorized equipment in departments communicate should closet. but this is an argument for enforcing existing policy, not imposing draconian new rules. the sandia report speaks of those who oppose the departments recommendations as adversaries. that's according to a summary, mr. chairman, which was on the. it notes that although they're willing to dance and potentially violate the rules, violence is unlikely as an operational method. does the department believe the media are adversaries? what rules are we likely to

break? what evidence or experience is such a statement based? india continues stating the apparent root cause for the issues driving this assessment is the possible presence of the algorithm at traders and/or their agents in the press lockup facility. has the lockup been infiltrated by hedge funds? the public, press and congress would be entitled to that information. is it that difficult to distinguish between an authentic news organizations and the hedge funds? most significantly, is the root cause of the issues driving this assessment is the possible presence of algorithmic traders, why not just expel them from the lockup? why threatened? in summary, mr. chairman, this proposal does undermine the first amendment. it reduces transparency. a potentially reduces the agassi of the data come increases market volatility.

given the dol's refusal to extend the current june 15 date for removing equipment, the calendar will dictate how short we will seek an injunction unless the competence of overall agreement is reached. and understanding has been reached amongst technical aspects of technical staff at labor. labor has to yet to get back to us on a number of issues including rules of the lockup. until an overall agreement is reached, the order stance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. doherty. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the new policies and procedures the labor department is glenn ford's press lockup's. minus rob doherty, i'm general manager in the united states for reuters which is the news division of thomson worked for coors is the large international

news agency in the world. we have more than 2000 full-time journalists into it appears around the world reporting in 20 linkages. globally our audience it was more than 1700 text media and over 630 declines. more than 400,000 financial professionals. on april 10, liberty barber notified our washington bureau chiefs in other news on decisions about major changes they plan for the operation lockup. and has covered is changing details. i won't repeat those. but needless to say, we were taken aback by the plan changes. they were dramatic, and as with any advanced notice and without no expiration of rationale. and important to us without any prior consultation with affected news organization. i want to be clear on this post their first weekly these lockups are extremely useful. because they provide journalists

time to better understand the information before sending it to the public. second, we fully acknowledge the responsibility of the department of labor to intimate lockup rules to guard against premature release of information. it isn't a good interest that the department is a. indeed, we believe the lockup procedures now in place are effective in preventing early release of labor department data but but despite that success the department plant announced in april would require us to use government equipment to do our work in a matter of routine, something we as an independent news organizations fundamentally opposed. additionally, the changes announced by the department in april would represent a major step backward technologically for news organizations and for the dissemination of critical data to recognize news channels. that would impair the ability of news organizations to provide such inspiration to the public and reliable, accurate and timely way and lead to confusion in the public and in the financial markets that rely on the department's data. to gauge the importance of the data to the public in general

and the markets in particular, one needs to look no further than last friday's unemployment report. years of development work have gone into automating our software to ensure it works with our proprietary editorial system and redundant documentation slide to speed the delivery of crucially important information to our millions of readers and subscribers across the globe. our software allows journalists efficiently and actually incorporate new material from department news releases, as well as provide historical data points that new material in context. this would be lost if the department, if lockup participants must use a department provide a standard configuration computer and the department provided internet service provider. and it would be lost without any assurance that the new procedures would materially decrease the probability of premature leaks. they can make and argue that it would increase the difficulties with the dissemination of the data. because of these concerns, we joined with three other news organizations, number, "the associated press" and dow jones,

and requesting a meeting with the white house to voice opposition to the april 10 announce the. we are also hoping to better understand the labor department's concern, to see if we could find a way the department could meet its responsibility to prevent early release updated without the draconian changes it was planning. we have now held a series of what i would describe as destructive meets with labor department officials and staff. those meetings have left us optimistic. while not perfect have not the status quo we would prefer, what anarchy represent a work conflict and allow news organizations to disseminate information quickly and reliably. but as it stands, we are not there yet. we still are hoping we can complete an agreement in time for the july 6 deadline set by labor. if not, we'll be asking the department for a short delay to allow any agreed to changes to be intimated in the least disruptive way possible. and i wonder as far as, as we discussed other issues and reach

on other issues, the time is really important for us but it's now june 6, as dan said they equipped source coming out on june 14 and 15th. the new procedure goes in place july 5 which by the witness events unemployment rate wish we usually watch. talk to our technical staff, they think it's barely possible to do this the right way to get ready for july 6. if we are to reach an agreement on the larger issues, technical issues, go forward, i hope the department would be willing to be flexible on the application. >> thank you again for your invitation to address the committee and for your continued interest in issue. i'll be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. ms. dalglish? >> thank you. chairman issa, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am lucy dalglish, executive director of the reporters committee for freedom of the press. for more than 40 years, the

reporters committee has provided free legal and advocacy services to protect the rights of journalists working where united states law cluster i'm happy to testify today on behalf of the sunshine in government initiative, of which the reporters committee is a member. sgi is a coalition of media associations promoting greater transparency in government. thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. we strongly object to the changes the united states department of labor announced less than two months ago. the department's approach as proposed in april makes the release of market moving information less reliable, less secure, more prone to errors and inaccuracies, and less equitable as it reaches the public. last month the sunshine in government initiative urged the labor department to suspend these changes, clarify the concerns with the current process and work with us to address those concerns.

since then, only your attention to this issue has helped bring about productive discussions between immediate entities and the labor department. quite honestly, we are bewildered by labor department announcement on april 10 without consulting with any of the media involved about these dramatic changes that will have a devastating impact on journalism's ability to inform the public and timely manner speaker with took the interest of this committee to spur what we understand to be protective -- -- as you know, mr. chairman, this information after 9/11 sgi has worked with you and others on capitol hill and across the executive branch to work through problems, and we remain committed to working with the department on this issue. but let me be clear, we do not wish for the labor department to maintain procedures that would advantage one media entity over another or make it easier to

break embargoes. we are hopeful that the labor department can address vulnerabilities in the current lockup procedures with ongoing dialogue. while these conversations continue, let me describe how the announced changes would undermine the integrity of the high profile economic indicators released to the public. ..

>> even attempting to duplicate these secure systems on government-owned computers would be costly to taxpayers. last, the department's new approach would make errors more likely. without their own equipment, preloaded spread sheets and custom software to adjust the data, journalists will have to rely on memory or handwritten notes. this dramatically increases the chance of errors. markets that measure time in microseconds surely will react to wrong data before any correction can be issued. no one begrudges the federal government for moving quickly if need be to address immediate security concerns, but the labor department should first explain its concerns and consider the perspectives of journalists and the public before making such a dramatic and permanent be procedural change. the media takes government interference with its work

product very seriously. so does the constitution. in fact, the first amendment obligates the government to allow journalists to operate independently from government control, requiring journalists to draft and publish stories using government-owned computers loaded with government-controlled software simply crosses a line the first amendment clearly drew to separate the press from the government. in conclusion, mr. chairman, we are committed to working with the this committee and the labor department to find a resolution that serves the public interest. thank you. >> and thank you. dr. hall? >> good morning, chairman issa and ranking member cummings. members of the committee. my name is keith hall, i'm a senior research fellow at george mason. most recently i was the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics from 2008 to 2012. in my testimony, i would like to talk about the role of disseminating economic data.

first of all, let me note that the bureau of labor statistics is an independent federal statistical agency, and as such it is tasked not only with collecting, compiling and producing economic data, but also with disseminating the data and explaining it to the public. there are a number of principles which any federal statistical agency follows. it's to disseminate data in both a transparent and independent manner with no bias of any type, they're also tasked with creating a level playing field for the release of data meaning that nobody has an advantage of getting the data early ahead of other people. in addition, they are, they are response responsible for the security of the data, and that's everywhere including inside the lock-up room. in fact, the bureau of labor statistics has the responsibility to decide whether or not to each have a data lockup. -- to even have a data

lockup. this is not the department of labor that i'm talking about. traditionally, news media were considered by statistical agencies as the most effective distributer of economic statistics to the public. wire services with the most practical and fairest distributer to media outlet, and for this reason press lockups were designed decades ago to provide the most important economic data to wire service reporters. wire service reporters would get to look at the data ahead of release time under lock-up conditions, they'd get to ask clarifying questions, write their stories on a typewriter, and when the release time came, reporters would all race to a bank of telephones and call in their stories. and that's, essentially, how the lockup runs today despite tremendous changes in technology. today now most new economic data's actually disseminated to the public through the statistical agency web site or by e-mail.

lockup continues for the most important economic data, but technology now has changed, and i think it's made it difficult to maintain adequate security inside the lockup. in particular, automatic computer trading now has made the els data, employment release data, extremely valuable, and fractions of a second makes a big difference in financial markets. also lockup participants may now have specialized computer equipment and software that links to automated trading models. when i was commissioner back in 2009, i read one particular article, and i'm going to quote from it. this caused me a great deal of concern. key economic indicators are released to financial markets through a small and exclusive group of accredited news agencies. a trading model can now read the specially-formatted data and enter into a trading position

immediately before the larger market has had time to read the release on news wire and digest its meaning. this, to me, raised concerns over whether or not we had a level playing field coming out of the lockup. and i have a number of recommendations on this, but let me also mention a second thing quickly as well. emerging technology constantly changes, and agencies like the els that are tasked with disseminating data need to be able to take advantage of new technology and new methods of disseminating data. for example, social media is a relatively new method of disseminating economic data, and other statistical agencies at the moment have free access to use social media. i believe bls should be allowed to freely use social media and any new method of dissemination without having to compromise its position as an independent, objective provider of data free from filtering by the office of

the secretary, free of bias in its presentation and be free from actual or perceived parts and intervention. that's my first be recommendation. second, with respect to press lockups, i have a number of things that i mention here that are just common sense and long overdue, having a lock-up agreement, having adequate control of the lock-up room. a number of those things need to be put in place right away. one of the things that i have a particular problem with is the journalists -- tv journalists are now actually allowed to leave the room and, in fact, go outside before the data is released to set up for cameras. i think that's a security concern. so i think that ought to end right away. most importantly, though, i think that the bureau of labor statistics should be given full oversight authority for conducting all its press lockups, developing and maintaining policy and procedures and have the authority to establish and implement credentialing and confidentiality protocols for

participating news organization employees. let me just say, to some degree this is the opinion of office of management and budget. at least, if you believe the omb statistical policy, omb federal statistical policy directors number 3 and 4 who make it clear, as i mentioned before, that it's bls' responsibility to determine whether or not there's a lockup and their responsibility to actually disseminate the data, and they're the ones who have responsible for the confidentiality. thank you. >> thank you. ms.-- >> yeah, ms. roth. >> you should just say diana. >> maybe after the hearing, thank you. >> thank you very much for inviting me to testify here today. i was asked to talk about green jobs, and it's a very topical time to be discussing green jobs because we just got the employment news on friday which showed that the number of jobs in the economy rose by only

69,000 following an increase of 77,000 in april. the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% and has been above 8% for well over three years. well, america might not be good at creating jobs, but it excels at relabeling jobs as green jobs. it's much easier to redefine an existing job as a new job, a green job. how many jobs has our government relabeled as green? the bureau of labor statistics decides which jobs are green and which are not, and they identified 3.1 million in 2010. the late itself year available in -- latest year available in a release in march 2012. americans may have toiled for decades at the same job unaware that a federal agency might someday designate their job green. i'd like to argue that we should focus on job creation, rather than green jobs. because we have over 12 million

unemployed. be our broadest rate of unemployment is 14.8%. if people want to buy green products such as priuses because the price of gasoline is high, they will do so. much emphasis on green has driven jobs overseas. just two examples, incandescent lightbulbs, the ban on the light bull be bs has resulted in the closure of those factories and the new cfls, the new flores sents are all made in china, so there are green jobs, but green jobs for china. many solar panels, wind turbines that are required by law are made overseas and in places such as china. coal is produced here, but we are increasingly not being allowed to use it. china is using our coal and produces less than 1% of its electricity from renewables.

so it makes these products with coal and then sends them to us which reduces our jobs. so bls decides which jobs are green, and sometimes these jobs qualify as tax subsidies. 20% of the highway trust fund is reserved for mass transit. tax subsidies are given to electric vehicles both for companies to produce them and for americans to buy them. bls has defined green jobs as, quote: jobs and businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources, unquote. or a in, quote: jobs in which workers' duties involve making their establishment's production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. so in order for a firm to be considered green, they have to meet one of five goals, namely

energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency, pollution reduction or removal, natural resources conservation and environmental compliance education, training and public awareness. so i was particularly interested when i came in today to see this cup here. now, this just is a cup, but on it it says we have the power to save energy. so this fits in with number five, environmental compliance, education, training and public awareness. so now people who produce these cups, they would be considered to have green jobs. but that habit meant a total in-- that hasn't moment a total increase in jobs in the economy, it's just a matter of relabeling. in agriculture, for example, one of the main categories of workers are 36,000 organic farmers and growers. and their workers are credited with accomplishing both natural

resource conservation and creating energy from renewable sources. is so when a farmer produces corn to eat, that's not counted as a green job. but when he produces corn for ethanol, that is counted as a green job. with farming it's possible to calculate the percentage of employment that's dedicated to ethanol or organic produce, but in other areas it's not is so clear. one example is woodchips used for biomass. how many workers are employed by the timber industry to create woodchips? woodchips are largely a by-product of milling, and milling is not considered a green job. yet according to a labor department definition, the 33,000 wood product manufacturing jobs are created called green because companies can sell the woodchips for biomass. i have many other examples in my testimony, but i see that my time has run out. thank you very much.

>> thank you. thank you all for your testimony. dr. hall, i'm going to begin with you. because you do see need for reform in the lockup, but what you said yrl is of concern to me -- earlier is of concern to me. the office of management and budget has a set of guidelines. it makes every effort to make sure that the bureau of labor statistics is independent. carl fillichio, do you know who he is? >> yes, i do. >> does he work for the bureau of labor statistics 1234? >> he works for the secretary of labor. >> so he is, in fact, a political appointee, nonconfirmed, and he's the person who came up with this policy, isn't he? >> yes, he is. >> okay. so they violated omb guidelines, it is being directed from the department of labor. this is, in fact, not the independent agency intentioned that you work for so long and hard, and you've been very candid with us in the past, you know? it's your job to count the green jobs you're told to count, so you accurately account for the

numbers. it's somebody else's decision about whether they're between or not under a definition, so -- they're green or not, so we've enjoyed your ohioanty. your honty here says it's supposed to be one way, it clearly budget, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> by the way, would you ever have thought that the department of labor would be or bureau of labor statistics would be to the left of brookings, able to come up with more green jobs even than one of the liberal think tanks? you need not answer that. mr. moss, you invested the in the lines, aren't you? >> yes. >> okay. so you did so or for two reasons. one was clearly to insure that your story didn't fail to go out, and i guess the second one is to make sure you got it out

at least as fast as anyone else, if not a few seconds faster, isn't that right? >> mr. chairman, we're not interested in getting it out faster than anybody else. >> but you at least want to tie the fastest. mr. doherty next to you is shaking his head, yes, so i'm assuming he wanted to. >> but, yeah, we have an interesting transmitting the information as instantaneously as the lock-up rules will allow. >> and mr. doherty, you also have an interest this absolutely, positively not being beat to the newsstand. >> i would repeat what dan said, we want to get the information out as quickly as we can to our climates within the rules of the lockup. >> and you're sort of representing -- dr. hall was very kind in saying that, one, most of the statistics just go out on the news wire. they're not important enough, so they go out. everybody gets them at the same time, and they look at them.

but the most important are subject to this lockup historically until today. let me ask you one question. if, in fact, the bureau of labor statistics simply started pumping this all out through their bear net, wouldn't -- their internet, wouldn't, in fact, it be worse for the most critical information because then the hedge fund with the best compute beer diagnosing what is very predictably exactly the same raw statistics would then make the decision on market interruptions and trade during those first few seconds? doesn't the plethora of different news organizations with different opinions report anything a different fashion reaching sometimes different conclusions on raw data actually negate the advantage of a hedge fund? because, ultimately, looking at any one of these services doesn't guarantee him anything, doesn't give him the raw information as much as it gives him somebody's opinion. and isn't a dozen or a hundred

opinions a better safeguard against a radical market move than a single piece of fact? >> mr. chairman, i really have to confess i don't know a lot about how hedge funds operate, but i can tell you that by having multiple news organizations in that lockup disseminating that information, i believe there are safeguards for the public, and i also believe that the independence of those news organizations is a benefit to the public rather than having the government just being the only source of the information as it gets out whether it be to the public or to, um, the hedge funds. i think there's value in having multiple news organizations digesting and dissemimating this argument. >> and to the new two news -- to the two news organizations here today, if you're giving a period of time to report what you're

given, aren't you, in fact, the arm of propaganda? the difference between propaganda and independent news, isn't it the value added your reporters can bring through the information they bring in that helps them take raw data and turn it into opinionated, factual news? >> well, mr. chairman, the advantage of the lockup as it's currently run at the department of labor and at commerce and agriculture and agencies disseminating statistics around the world is that it allows us to publish information with as much context and supporting data and as many be superlatives as we can. what we publish at 8:30 sharp goes beyond one headline and one number. we endeavor to tell the story both behind the number, on to tp of it and underneath it. >> and i would just add that one important part we didn't talk about in the april 10th order

that the labor put out although we are in talks about changing this is that there was no internet access at all. even in the half an hour or so that leads up to the, leads up to the lockup starting. that's important because it allows our journalists to do a variety of things. one of those is to see what's happening around the world and add that context in. even if it's breaking at the last minute, 7:45, if they're on the internet. with everything happening today in the eurozone, that sort of information can really provide context to the stories. >> thank you. recognize the ranking member for his questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me -- it's good to see you again, mr. hall. i want to make sure we're clear because sometimes i don't want the wrong, inaccurate information to be on the headlines tomorrow. um, the bureau of hay boar statistics -- labor sawtist ticks is a nonpartisan saw thetist call agency, is that right? >> that's right. >> the department to your

knowledge -- and when did you lee? when did you leave the department of hay boar -- >> january this year. >> yes. did the department of labor or any other entity within government that is focused on development and advancement of policy interfere with bls' development of the methodology for counting green jobs? >> no, they didn't. they were very good about letting us do our work and staying at arm's length. >> and as i listened to the testimony, clearly, i understand and sympathize with the news organizations. i understand exactly what you're saying. seems like we have a question here of balance. anything, anytime anything gets out of balance, you usually run into problem bees. but it appears to me our security procedures are not equal to what technology can be used to do with the data. seems like there's a, you know, i think mr. hall tribed the way -- described the way what happened, how the thing first came about 40 years ago?

and now technology has changed dramatically since then. would you agree with that, mr. hall? and then i'll go to you, mr. moss. >> congressman, the department of labor has a master switch that controls communications into and out of the room. no news headline or story can be published until the labor official literally flicks that master switch at 8:30. >> all right. mr. harvey, do you have a comment? >> that's absolutely true. one of my concerns came from an extraordinary number of incidents over the past few years that involve this sort of technology coming out and i do think that there is a need to sort of at a minimum really review the security in that lock-up room. >> congressman, i would add

that's why these discussions we were having with the labor department are focused on that. you know, they have needs, and as i said in my testimony, we understand they have the responsibility and right to set up lock-up rules, and i think our view would be that the april 10th announcement plan, whatever you want to call it, didn't strike that balance. and we're hoping to in these negotiations. >> yeah. and can be i'm hoping that that happens too, and i'm going to urge the secretary to try to move that along so that you all can come up with an agreement. because sometimes i think it's a matter of people sitting down and working out things. not everything has to be legislated. as a matter of fact, it moves a lot slower sometimes when you have to depend on the legislature. but according to a joint news statement issued on december 9th, 2008, by the then-commissioner of bureau statistics keith hall and the then-assistant secretary of labor for public affairs, quote: data from the november 2008 employment situation news report that was scheduled for release

friday, december 5th at 8:30 a.m., eastern standard sometime, was inadvertently transmitted from the lockup facility approximately 25 seconds early. quote: the news release states that a similar early transmittal occurred on december 3rd, 2008, involving the data on productivity and cost. the news release clarifies that a wire service, quote, a wire service bureau chief informed us that his outlet had ip add very tently released data there the lock-up facility early to subscribers in the quote, and the the president of labor confirmed this claim. finally, the early transmissions were accidental and followed a recent technical change in hardware configuration. dr. hall, you were commissioner of the the president of labor statistics at that time, the time these leaks occurred s that right? >> that's correct. >> what can you tell us specifically about how that occurred, and particularly how were the leaks accidental, and what circumstances allowed such

accidental leaks to take place? >> as i recall, the news agency was allowed access to the room without any bls technicians, and they replaced a cable from their computer to that box. it turns out that cable ip add very tently -- inadvertently bibe passed security on the box -- bypassed security on the box. they were just trying to increase connectivity, i suppose. so since then we've tried very hard to -- we'd still like why it was one of my proposals, to not let people into the room and mess with the equipment without a technician there so that sort of thing doesn't happen. >> and were those leaks, i mean, were they detected at the time they occurred? >> they were not. >> mr. doherty, you write in your testimony reuters takes embargoes very seriously, and we have always attempted to comply with the department's lock-up

procedures, but our company after a hardware reconfiguration did inadvertently uncover a defect in the department's equipment that resulted in two unintentional early releases of data from our machines and the labor lockup in late 2008. what can you add to what mr. hall said about how the leak occurred? also your statement in the case, quote: a defect in the department's equipment resulted in two unintentional early releases, end of quote, was the fault in the matter with the department or with your firm? >> it was my understand, and i wasn't part of this at the time, but my understanding is we perhaps shared. we did reconfigure our hardware. my understanding is that the way that interface with the lock box and how that was -- [inaudible] the department led to the inadvertent releases. fsa and mr. hall said the first release wasn't detected by anyone, wasn't detected by us.

the second we realized and immediately became, immediately made that known to the department. we worked with them to figure out what the problem was, a fix was implemented, and as i say in my testimony, we're aware of no other issues in the three-and-a-half years since. and, you know, the department has 8-10 lockups a month, so that would be roughly 350 lockups since there was that problem. >> one last question. dr. hall, as a former commissioner of the bls do you believe that steps announced to improve the security of economic data during the prerelease embargo period are necessary? >> i think most of them are necessary. the one aspect would be replacing the equipment. that's a pretty dramatic step. i do think that was worth considering, and and i do think that is a possible solution. i also think it's a possible solution to release the data on the web site and then open up a lock-up room so it runs a little

bit behind the web site so people get to write their stories and get it out, but there won't be quite such a rush to move trading there inside the lock-up room. i'm not sure for sure i think it's something that should be done. i do think it should be considered and discussed. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. and just for the record, when these lapses occurred, who was president of the united states? >> um, i believe it was during the obama administration, but we did have a lapse -- to be fair -- >> no, november 2008 -- >> oh, 2008. i'm sorry. it was 2008, yeah, that was -- >> okay. i just want to make sure that we understand this is so long ago that president bush is responsible for the leak, and yet three-and-a-half years later we've got a fix proposed. i guess that's quick and dramatic action. dr. dejewish lay is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you holding the hearing on this topic right now.

as everyone is well aware, this is an election year, and i don't think anyone who follows statistics opportunity raze that the number one issue -- doesn't realize that the number one issue facing our country is jobs and the economy, and that's who people are looking to. i think this hearing is very timely. the one thing the american people do agree on is that congress is not doing a very good job, and i think their trust factor for congress is very low. so the one thing that they should get are the facts on these numbers. i often wonder why we focus so much on unemployment numbers rather than employment numbers, and i just wonder if anybody on the panel would have a comment why we don't look at employment numbers, the number of people actually employed? >> congressman, that is an argument for allowing the news organizations to publish as much context, as much full information at 8:30 sharp as possible.

congressman, mr. chairman, representative cummings, if i may return to a point that dr. hall made. he was talking about unauthorized -- >> mr. moss, we'll get back to that. i actually do have a line of questioning for all of you. >> excuse me. >> okay. so anyway, i just think there's such a disparity in unemployment numbers, or there's 8.2, who's unemployed, underemployed, and when we're talking about people making a decision as to who should lead this country, we should provide the facts to them. mr. positive, i will ask you this. on a scale of 1-10, how would you relate the department of labor's transparency in conducting the change to its lock-up policy. >> congressman, i would just say it leaves a lot to be desired. the department has relied on a report that's not been made

available. >> mr. doherty, what would you rate that? >> again, i think going backward, based on what we've been able to achieve by having discussions that we in the media have had with the labor department, i think everybody would have been better served if those discussions had taken place prior to april 10th as opposed to what was put out on april 10th. >> okay. again, with the uncertainty facing our country and the importance for, you know, this transparency is and these numbers, the national lab that was asked to review the department of data's security procedure, mr. moss or, actually, mr. doherty, is it correct that the department of labor is justifying the change to the lock-up procedure by citing the findings of this national lab report? >> yes. >> okay. have you seen a full copy of that report? >> i have not. >> all right. to your knowledge, has anyone outside the department seen a

full copy of that report? >> i don't know, sir. >> okay. in an executive summary, the report implies that organizations or news organizations like yourselves are adversaries to the president of labor -- to the department of labor. do you believe you are adversaries to the department? >> i do not, sir. >> nor do i. >> okay. are you personally aware of any security deficiencies with the department's lock-up procedures? >> congressman, this brings me back to a point i wanted to make in response to dr. hall, if i may. >> yes, sir. >> dr. hall referred to one of the problems being unauthorized access to the room. that is an argument for the enforcement of an existing policy, not the replacement of that policy with something very draconian. access to the room is supposed to take place with a technically-proficient department of labor official.

we're comfortable with that. >> ms. gal english, the department of -- ms. dalglish, the department's policy would require reporters to use government-open od software, hardware and wiring. is this action permissible under the first amendment? >> doctor, i don't believe so. and i think it raises substantial first amendment problems. as you know, the first amendment is designed to allow the press to operate independently. when you're using government-owned hard ware and software and you have no control over what it does and you have no knowledge of, perhaps, in an extreme circumstance you don't know what they're able to monitor from your work. you don't know what they're taking, you don't know what they're putting into it, you have no control what goes out. i think it's a very frightening

prospect. >> to your knowledge, do any other government agencies require reporters to use equipment, tools owned by the government? >> i can't think of one off the top of my head. possible, but i'm not aware of one. >> okay. so in your opinion, this government ownership could be problematic for freedom of the press? >> for freedom of the press, and for the public's right to get independently-gathered and digested and disseminated information. >> thank you. dr. hall, as you probably know, the current head of the office of public affairs, mr. fillichio, has not been confirmed by the senate as he is technically a senior adviser. do you recall if during the bush administration that position was occupied by someone who was senate confirmed? >> yes, i believe it was. >> okay. then, dr. hall, driven the importance of these numbers -- given the importance of these

numbers as i've talked about earlier, both economically and politically, do you think it's right that the process for the release is being overseen by a nonconfirmed political appointee? >> no, i don't, and i think the most important thing is that bls has the responsibility for the security of the lock-up room and for disseminating data with a level playing field, yet they don't have the authority to make changes because they don't run the lock up room. >> thank you. and i thank you all for being here today. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. with that we go to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for fife minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to our panel for being here today. i especially want to well -- welcome dr. hall from the great george mason university in month virginia, in my district, so we're delighted to have you here. maybe, dr. hall, i could given with you. i'm looking at the -- i'm listening to your testimony, and i can infer from what you're

saying when you talked about how originally this process was established, the lockup, and the control of data and reporters waiting at their trusty typewriter to get it out. i think you were leading us to believe that technology maybe has passed us by and, um, i'm looking at -- just as legitimately, i think, ms. dalglish has warned us about, gee, even with the best of as well ass, government -- intentions, government insisting on government-controls computers compromises the first amendment rights of the fourth estate, government also has a legitimate concern, after all, you know, the media are profit-making entities. that have motives that go beyond just the first amendment sometimes. and i'm reading from the executive summary of the sandia report, and it says although dol

operations bls and oba personnel are doing due diligence in their efforts to monitor the press lock-up facility, their efforts are complicated by the presence of non-doli.t. equipment and communications lines in this facility. the opaque nature of this equipment is a major impediment to insuring that embargoed data are not released prior to authorization. in your opinion be, dr. hall, from your experience, is that a legitimate concern? >> yes, it is. >> so we have to balance that with the legitimate first amendment concerns we've heard here from the three witnesses on your right. >> absolutely. >> and might that be the motivation of the department of labor in these new regulations, i mean, i will withhold judgment as to whether they went too far or whether better notification could have been given and whether the press should have been brought in earlier to dialogue about that, but that

might have been their motivation, not the boot of goth on the necks -- of government on the necks of the media trying to strangle the first amendment. >> in fact, i absolutely support generally the recommendations. the only thing about the i.t. equipment i think is worth considering having government equipment in there, but i think it probably should be studied a bit more. i happen to think there's a bigger policy issue here for the federal statistical agencies. they need to decide whether or not it's allowable, it's advisable to have trading come out of lockups. and i think that question needs to be -- >> do we even need a hockup? i mean, given technology, why have a lockup at all? there's no first amendment right, i might add, to being in a lockup. >> no, that's right. >> why have one at all? why not just post something on the web at 8:30, and everybody can have at it? >> no, no, absolutely. i think, i think the issue at least for bls is we want to disseminate the data, and we want to give people a chance to write accurate stories and be

able to ask questions and get those stories right. that was the original idea of the lockup. but you're absolutely right. in fact, like i said, most of the economic today is, in fact, just put up -- >> i think the inference to be drawn from your testimony is that's where you were leading us, from that typewriter to today's tsa-moving, 24/7 news world with the technology advancing. might the government have another concern, and that is that leaks or unfair advantage to somebody in terms of information is enormous power. i'm looking at a letter, for example, that was submitted by the republican ranking member of our counterpart committee in the senate, senator collins of maine, writing to secretary solis expressing concern about the unusual trading activity reported in the wall street journal just prior to the release of the unemployment data in the month of may. is that also a legitimate concern of government that, gee, we don't want to somehow give an

unfair advantage to somebody that might move markets fairly or unfairly and do damage in a broader economic sphere and favor one entity over another? does the government have a legitimate concern about that? >> absolutely. and that's one of the principles for a statistical agency is to help do it best to create a level playing field and not have that happen. >> final question. we heard the testimony of your seat mate there on the left, ms. furchtgott-roth. when you were at bls, did you see untoward and capricious interference by the department of labor forcing you to redefine existing jobs arbitrarily as green? >> not at all. >> not at all? i thank you. my time is up. >> thank you. we thousand go to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gouty, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield my time to the chairman who is so well verse inside all the issues related to this hearing. >> you're too kind.

you're going to go a long way on this committee. [laughter] ms. if you can got roth -- furchtgott-roth, i don't think i heard you say this was about interference, i heard your statement -- and we have a second panel -- had to do with the fact that a stamm number of what dr. hall put out as 3.1 million green jobs are, in fact, jobs that have been around for generations, isn't that true? i mean, septic tank, you know, cleaners, n., are not a new profession, is that right? >> yes. in fact, the federal definition of green jobs was under title x was signed into law by president george bush which gave bls the instruction to do this. but nevertheless, it does result in relabeling of jobs. as someone who's putting in a row-flow tie let, for example, a green job. a regular toilet is not a green

job. what we need to be focusing on the just creating jobs. this is not something we should be worrying about. >> dr. hall, i think the reason there's controversy about the green jobs is, in fact, a lot of them came out of, quote, stimulus money, and the claim that stimulus was working included the claim of those green jobs. wouldn't you agree that as an observer, that that was a lot of where your information got used? >> it seems that way, yes. >> okay. so one of my questions and probably the most important question is, if i relabeled all of these jobs since most of them such as diesel repair person repairing a mass transit bus be, since that was a green job 50 years ago, wouldn't it be fairer if we wanted to gets a rassi that we would go back all those generations and simply have this rise and fall of as close as we could the same job year-over-year? so wouldn't we have found as a result that at the beginning of this recession we lost green jobs? >> absolutely, it's quite

possible. you know, a new day -- data series doesn't tell you about the past. >> so, if you will, the propaganda value or the disingenuous part of green jobs is we're not talking about the fact that between jobs undoubtedly -- since it includes welders and, you know, like i say, people that empty septic tanks and people who mill wood -- since there were jobs lost in those areas, we lost those jobs, and then we got them back. so when you score 3.1 million new jobs, some of those are jobs that undoubtedly were lost and then reclaimed. >> oh, absolutely. >> thank you. mr. roth, i'm going to return to a line because this is the committee of transparency, and it's the reason that we will continue having not only these hearings, but we'll continue to push to not have the kind of behavior, and i can't remember what the gentleman from virginia used in relation to boot, but his allegation. but the press historically gets

treatedded one way -- treated one way. when the press gets changed to another by and you feel it impinges on your freedoms, isn't that, in fact, at the core of where the press must push back and force government to justify two things? one, the need to do it and, two, pursuant to the first amendment the right to do it? in this case, haven't they failed both tests? they failed to give you the specific need for of why they needed to do it, and they certainly have not shown where the specifics of forcing you to use government equipment, government lines, bring in no key to bees, etc., etc. -- fobs, etc., etc. , and then, of course, have the access to your typed material on your computer so they can look at your material later if they choose to, hasn't that, in fact, crossed that first amendment question as well as not stating the need? >> well, mr. chairman, the dol in its discussions with the media has highlighted the need

for security. we understand that. it's our belief based on some of the proposals we discussed with the dol that the stated concerns about security can be addressed, and the media's first amendment rights protected. we've had some productive discussions. there are some areas where we're close. we're not there yet. mr. chairman -- >> yes, of course. >> my two quick points in response to congressman connolly's thoughts -- >> of course. >> firstly, regarding dr. hall's response to your question, sir, he said that some efforts had been complicated by non-department of labor lines. again, that is an argument for enforcing the existing policy. the other point i would make, sir, and, mr. chairman, is that under the proposals that we are currently negotiating with the department of labor, department of labor technical staff will be able to install equipment that

is owned by the news organizations. >> if i can ask unanimous concept for -- consent for just one more question because mr. doherty -- thank you. mr. doherty, you've been more involved in the negotiations. at a minimum, wouldn't the government be able to specify, quote-unquote, and approve equipment coming into the lock area rather than, say, as sandia apparently says in this confidential finding that they can't know? in fact, isn't it something where part of the negotiation could be that they will approve and specify in advance any equipment coming in? doesn't the government effectively have that ability to negotiate what comes into their room, thus never being vised that they didn't know what you were using? >> yes, and that is part of our discussion. >> thank you. with that, we go to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tyranny, for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony

this morning. i want to follow up on something mr. connolly was follow being up on. there's an op-ed by a former journalist named larry elken. he says outfits such as bloomberg, dow jones and reuters compete fiercely for subscribers. so, mr. doherty and mr. moss, who receives the first access to report on employment data from your outlets? is it the general public, or is it subscribers to the service that you offer? >> subscribers to the bloomberg professional service are included in the public, sir. >> thank you. mr. doherty? >> same with us, sir. and it should be noticed that when everything goes out at 8:30, at the same time, so whether it's a story, table or data, it all leaves the lockup at 8:30 or whenever the department of labor pushes that switch. >> are there any incentives for some people at least to try to get that data out a split second earlier than their petters? seems there's a lot of money moving around.

if somebody could do that, there'd be a certain advantage to that. >> congressman, right now the department of labor has master switch -- in no, no, i understand that. what i'm asking the more general question, you know, is there a real concern that if somebody were to get that information out quicker than others, they would have an unfair advantage? >> would my colleague yield? >> yes. >> i'd just point out that mr. doherty testified a little earlier, quote: we want to get that information out a as fast as possible to our clients, unquote. >> of course. that's the point i'm trying to make. there is an advantage of getting it out quickly. if you get it out quicker than your competitor, a good thing for you. >> absolutely. but as i said earlier as well in that earlier response, everything that we do needs to be done within the rules. >> right. obviously. >> so as i stated a couple times -- >> i think one of the important points mr. connolly made is the department of labor is not under any obligation to provide prereleased access at all,

correct? there's no requirement that the department of labor issue that information prematurely or earlier than one fell swoop -- >> that's correct. but as we said earlier -- >> i think they do that because they think there's a value in force therring improved public -- fostering improved public understanding of the data and there's a value of having accuracy for initial commentary, and that, i think, you folks agree with, right? >> congressman, if i may? >> briefly, please. >> our attorneys have looked into this question because it's something that the dol has brought up in our discussions. it's our belief that once an agency establishes a policy that effects the substantive right -- in this instance, the first amendment -- an agency cannot arbitrarily change that without due process of a proper notice and comment period. >> that's not the question. the question was whether they were under any initial obligation to share it at all. they could go through the due process and come back to the point that they're just going to

issue it once, and everybody's going to get it, and that's it without any prerelease information. i don't think there's any disagreement with your lawyers or other lawyers on that. but you're looking to strike a balance, one that allows or for securing it so nobody gets an unfair advantage and more accuracy in your initial commentary. you've been working towards that with the department, have you not? >> we have, sir. the discussions have been productive. >> exactly. i guess that's my next point is that i think you've indicated that you've held a series of constructive meetings, mr. doherty, and you were left optimistic that you're going to be able to agree on procedures and policies, is that right? >> we are, sir. >> even as you prepare the testimony today, the media and public interest groups appear to be making progress, do you agree? >> we have made progress. >> so the current status is that you're almost there. have you got an agreement in principle? >> i'm not sure i'd say we're almost -- well, i think we're

getting close on some issues, sir. >> have you agreed to still allow you to choose your own hard a ware and software? >> those are amongst the proposals we've made. >> okay. and the department would still control the physical access to the hardware? >> they would install it and manage it. >> okay. and if that agreement were to go into effect, would that allow you to continue to prepare your news reports and statistical data appropriately? would that be a direction in which you want to move? >> there is no, sir, at the moment there is no formal, comprehensive agreement -- >> but there's one that you're working on. >> if we were to work toward and arrive at something -- >> but how close are you? how close are you? >> on the technical issues? >> uh-huh. >> i'm told we're close. there are some issues that dol has said they'll get back to the news services on. we are awaiting dol comments on rules of the lockup. >> and are you feeling good, all

parties working in if good faith? >> i do believe everyone's working in the good faith. >> good. okay, thank you. yield back, mr. chair. be. >> i guess i'll go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. could you yield to me for just one second? >> certainly. go ahead, chair. >> mr. ross, mr. doherty, were those discussions fruitful during the period prior to this committee taking a direct interest in it? were you having the same level of discord where you were resolving that a arbitrary rule perhaps wasn't going to be the final judgment? >> congressman, it's my understanding that the interest of the committee has been vital in that process. >> thank you. mr. kelly. >> i thank you, chairman. one of the things i've been looking at, i try to look at the statistics, and i know that what i did previously, it was in the automobile business, and we always looked at markets that were available to us, and we kind of looked at the

definitions, then we looked at the statistics, be i they only -- but they only mattered if they actually had some type of credibility. and my questions come on the green jobs energy, or initiative. and i'm trying to understand. and, dr. hall, does bls not count blue collar or white collar jobs? the bls was asked to begin counting green jobs. do you believe they were asked to begin counting green jobs for political reasons? >> um, i think it was for policy reasons. i think there was a good deal of interest in green owpgs, and i think there was -- occupations, and i think there was clearly going to be some policy, at least policy debates on the issue. >> and i understand that. so in order to give credibility to the policy, then we had to come up with metrics that made sense. so when you talk about green jobs that were created, do you think we've actually done a great job with that? has it been a positive roi? >> i think part of the issue was

that bls was not trying to fit into a particular policy, it didn't have policies in mind, and they took two approaches looking at green industries and green occupations. i think part of the problem is those two things get mixed. but what they were trying to do was trying to be helpful. trying to make a fairly broad definition so that people could use this data, people could make up their own definitions of green jobs and use the day to to piece together their own definitions and use that for policy. >> i understand that. but whenever you change the definition of what a person's doing and you game it or shade it so that the answer that you're looking for can be supported by day that that you -- data that you very carefully craft to come up with the answer that you wallet, and that's the problem i have with this. if we're really looking to develop policies or develop the future of the country and say, boy, a great jobs market out there and a guy that drove a bus

before, if he went from driving a regular fuel bus to a propane bus, we created a green job. we didn't create a job, we just shifted a person from one category to another, and i think for people like me, i think you want to see some type of positive return on your investment. and be i get the feeling that a lot of that we're looking at was a policy that while it was well intended hasn't really created the jobs that the administration thought it would create. i have no problem with that. i've made a lot of mistakes in my life. the only thing is, i just didn't keep on that path. and the reason i couldn't do it was because i was using my own money. this is very bothersome to me. tell me, how do you get from one position to another position and say, well, this supports what it is we're doing? that's, i think, the problem that the american people have with this. because if we're truly talking about creating jobs, if we're talking about making an environment that's more, more conducive to creating jobs, this doesn't do it.

>> right. well, i think, i think the first thing i'd like to say is one of the things i learned quickly when i was at the pure low of labor statistics is you can produce the best data you want, the best data you can and explain it, but you can't control how people use the data. they're going the use it however they want to use it s. that's just true with all bls data. and, in fact, my big be goal was that we at least make sure that when people use the data, they know when they're using it wrong even if they go ahead and use it wrong to begin with. so that's sort of not, that's sort of an impossible thing for bls to sort of control. >> ms. roth, how do you feel about that? >> first of all, i'm an economist, so i don't feel. [laughter] but looking at the -- >> well, let me put it this way, as an american taxpayer -- because that's what we all are. regardless of whether you're sitting up here or down there, we're responsible to pay all these bills as hard working

american taxpayers. i feel at times that we are so separated from reality in this town, i need to know, okay, you use whatever term you want to use, but what is the result of this? do we have any positive answers? >> no. i think the whole concept doesn't make sense. for example, in the transportation area, buses and trains are green jobs. these are not green jobs, but sometimes it takes more sense to take a taxi rather than build an expensive rail line, so there isn't any point in adding these together. or science museums, for example, vis-a-vis another kind of museum. a science museum is a green job, another kind of museum isn't a green job. the american people want just jobs, i don't think they mind if they're green. with unemployment over 12 million, with the unemployment rate above 8% for over three years in a row, we just need lots of regular jobs. and we shouldn't worry about whether they're green, blue, red, whatever.

>> yeah. well, we're looking for red, white and blue jobs, doesn't have to be any other color than that, and i appreciate your answers. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. with that, we go to the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with dr. hall. doctor, can you describe the work that went into the developing the bls' methodology for counting green jobs and what were the expert sources the bls consulted when developing this methodology for counting green jobs? >> sure. first, let me say that the folks at bls are experts in conducting surveys and collecting data. they're not experts on what's green and what's not green. so bls spent a good deal of time talking with federal agencies who are involved with green things, i guess, spent some time looking at how some of the states have defined green jobs

and found how they were finding it useful. and with the private sector. so the idea was to sort of try to vet ideas on what should or shouldn't be included in green jobs and come up with a definition that was sort of, that had some logic to it. but i will say, though, one thing that's pretty clear is there's no one definition. right? there's clearly an arbitrariness to it at some point. and i thought it was important be, and i think we did, we erred a little bit on the side of broader because our goal was to be useful to people. we weren't thinking of ourselves as being the definitive folks who determine what's green and what's not green. >> and let's be clear that the department of labor statistics is a nonpartisan statistical agency. did the department of labor or any other entity within government that is focused on the development and advancement