worst part about this glamorization. so i actually prefer, and i write about it in my blog, i do not even mention the names. i think it is an unspeakable crime and therefore we shouldn't speak their names. in fact, to give an example, there was an individual in norway who loves the attention. very much a narcissist and he wanted the attention. so when he went to court for his first arraignment, the media was ready to show it all on television and the judge said no media allowed. he did not get the attention he wanted and he was actually looking forward to going to court and have everyone take his picture and the judge denied him that opportunity. comparing that to colorado, james holmes, when he made his first court appearance, he had

this quaint look, orange jumpsuit, orange hair. every channel was there and it was an hour of nothing happening. he did not say anything. so when you think about why do we do that, i know why we do it, because people tune in. so they are giving people what they want to see. but i think that's the worst part of it. as far as encouraging others to kill, there is an element, but it is a small one. the bigger part of the problem is the offensiveness, the negativity of that. you have, for example, an academy award-winning actress

for playing a florida serial killer. or years before, mark harmon who at that time was the leading man of hollywood and he played bundy. what right do murderers have to have some famous actor or actress play them in the movie. i do not mind of movies about crimes as long as the killer is like a very small part of it and you don't have a star play the role. >> go-ahead. >> my question is along the same lines. he said not to make those who are committing mass shootings, can you argue that the way the media betrays -- the hype that

they play around this stuff is somewhat positive -- it makes people aware, it makes people take initiative to change things, for example? last year there was a video that went viral on youtube about the guy that was taking charge in uganda. and i had never heard about that. all of my friends were talking about it and nobody knew about this. and now all of these celebrities are starting charities and i know that there is controversy on where that money was going. but my point is there a way to make the shooters aware of what is going on? >> one of the positive things is all the people wanting to donate.

a lot of good can come out of publicity. but you just have to take the killer out of the picture. that's the problem. so i think giving a good example, i did a study with my colleague of people magazine. we looked at every cover from the 70s up to a few years ago. when they first started, it was all about people who did good things. they had people and politicians who did the right thing. medical discoveries, astronauts who did great things, here it is. and over time it started to get very negative. after a while, the majority of the covers were criminals, jeffrey dahmer was on the cover three times.

he was also in the most intriguing 100 people of the century. he does not belong in a list like that. and one of the people went on a shooting rampage at an elementary school in illinois. a guy named jamie wilson who was a fan who kept clippings about her and did exactly what she did when the police went to his apartment and searched it, they found people magazine covers and all sorts of stuff like that. in more recent years people have changed. they curtail putting bad people on the cover. sometimes they put the victims on the cover so that is a

positive change. that is a situation where the media really has to has to take the initiative in the have to draw the line and say people might be more likely if they put the picture on the cover we can still write about the crime or the case. the cops and the heroes. the killer is in the story, but let's not make him the feature or focus. >> hello, usually after a school setting, we hear from gun-control advocates and experts in psychology in response to certain things. very rarely does the media focus on educators. so i'm wondering what do you feel the goal of educators and school professionals should be

in situations like this. and then also coming up with a solution and what do you think it is likely to be. >> what kind of education? >> schoolteachers? >> i really mean anyone involved in the profession. >> okay, i think you do. watching the news coverage, there were a number of individuals i saw, people involved with teachers unions and they do have a perspective. for example, the issue about arming teachers, it's something that the teachers do not want. just recently there was a hearing where some bigshot teachers union said they didn't want teachers to have guns.

it's the people in the state capitals that think that it is a good idea. so you're actually right that sometimes those who are making the most noise know the least and those who know the most are silent. so i agree with you. >> i agree with most of your arguments tonight. one argument that i am concerned with, the discussion about concealed weapons is not being an effective deterrent. two things come to mind. one is, as i recall from your article, a person in a situation like this would be so nervous and panic stricken it strikes me

as that may be true the other hand, there's a probability of him being successful. and maybe he would argue that i would take that chance against a certainty there are multiple crimes with the possibility that maybe somebody among them that might carry a gun. and it might be effective. the second point is there are certain counties in this country which protect conceal and carry laws which people permit and a lot of people do in these areas, they carry concealed weapons. i'm wondering if there has been any data or statistics done on the incidence of violent crimes or mass killings, in those areas that permit concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which have

some of the strictest gun laws in the country. so can we see any kind of statistical relationship between the number of people in an area that would be carrying concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which no one is permitted to carry a concealed weapon? >> okay, let me deal with the first one first. let's fletcher lined. >> okay. i had to deal with carry and conceal weapons in environments. >> okay, there was a terrific show. it was either dateline or 2020. they took a bunch of students who had training in guns and basically gave them fake guns

and at some point, someone was going to come in with a gun and start shooting. not a real gun, of course and they would record a response and record what happened. a lot of people in the class would have been killed, not by the shooter, but by other people who also held up their guns. one of the problems is it is hard to tell the good guy from the bad guys. you have the bad guys, who was wearing blue jeans and all the good light who have blue jeans and backpacks and guns.

i kind of worry when they are turning around. 98% of the people out there who might have guns are trustworthy. >> we have three more questions and then we are wrapping up. >> you talked about this at the end of your speech. how did the united states deal with other countries? is there something about our culture that allows them to encourage this behavior? the european countries, asian countries, you know, oster elliott. they have had mass murders two.

we have a cornerstone market in the united states, not a monopoly, but more than our share and we also have more than our share with homicide generally. so really has to do with elevation with greater burden. and people who have said that guns are the problem. i'm not sure that it is the problem. our rate of homicide without guns, it is higher than most of the rates of homicide overall. it is not just the fact that we have deadly weapons accessible. you know, it is a very complicated issue as to why the united states is more violent and has a lot to do with demographic issues. ..

is her greatest let me say one more thing. we have seen it equips our community. 30 or 40 years ago if your neighbor was out of a job you would go over there with the tuna casserole and offer whatever you can do to help. nowadays you don't even know who

your neighbor is much less knows they are unemployed and that is the problem in the community. lots of people feel isolated and lots of people are alone in the rest of us without reaching out to help them, we don't know them and they are strangers. >> i actually have the same question and she coordinated it better but i'm wondering in europe there are less guns and in fact to account for the lower rate of violence. >> well, there are some countries where there are fewer guns and by the way they do, they still do have mass murders. they had won a year and a half ago. a taxi driver went on a spree killing but there are some countries in europe where lots of people hunt. so it's a mixed bag.

>> as you said before there's been a lot of talk in the media about assault weapons and what role they play in violent crimes. personally i'm a bit unclear about what exactly an assault weapon is and how it's different from a semiautomatic or other firearms and rote role it plays not just en masse shootings but violent crimes in general? >> an assault weapon is what you define as an assault weapon. it's not like an official category of assault weapons. if you look back at the assault weapon legislation we have in the 90s, they have had to do with a certain number of attachments. magazine size and so forth. people basically think an assault weapon is something that looks like an assault weapon but there is no clear definition of one. let's also understand that not

in terms of mass murder but crimes in general a very small percentage of crimes are committed with assault weapons. with new assault weapons ban about 2% here that doesn't mean we should have it but let me say one more thing. if i have time. we are almost out of time. sandy hook, awful. it's the worst you can imagine. in 1989 we had an elementary school where five were killed and 29 were wounded. stockton california. people don't remember it largely because the victims were poor and they were southeast asians. it wasn't quite like the upper-middle-class community of newtown connecticut which is like anywhere in america but after that case president bush decided that the chinese made

ak-47's and we just can't have that ms. country. what he did was he passed, enacted a ban on the importation of foreign made semiautomatic weapons. and you know what happened? they cheered, more business for them. >> at northeast university in the 70s i took to co-op jobs over in ireland and england, and there were no guns in society over there when i was working on those jobs. so they lose it or nine people a month to violence that we lose 900 to 1000 people a month to violence in this country. now i was just driving along the other day and listening to an interview with jack straw the former homeland secretary in

britain on the same issue and i was reminded, he made a comment that the idea that someone in britain would carry a weapon for personal defense is inconceivable. a lot of our immigrants and i come from massachusetts, came from england. how can we be so different from britain is my question. >> is not just the availability of weapons that be have, 300 million weapons in circulation and great britain ,-com,-com ma there are some weapons but very few. it's also the attitudes. i mean the passion americans have for guns and the second amendment is quite foreign to many people in europe that don't quite understand why my cold dead hands, fingers, what is the phrase? just don't take away my guns and

is the last thing i want to do. i think it's not just the none but what guns mean to us. too many americans. it's very different in other countries. >> they would never think of the idea of self-defense because they don't have that fear. that is what i'm trying to deal with here and figure out. >> if we had a crime rate that was extremely low perhaps people would be less apt to feel the need to arm themselves. but i am not sure. it goes back to this idea of people don't have this attachment or affinity with all their neighbors. even if we had a low crime rate there would be lots of people say -- is a need my gun because

there a lot of people out there in america who i don't trust and i think that's probably different in european countries. thank you for coming. nice to see you. >> elizabethtown college and the peace college who are dedicated to peace and nonviolence as part of her mission as the president stated at the beginning of his comments, and i think we did a great job tonight gathering together as a community around a very difficult issue. will you join me in thanking professor fox one more time? [applause] >> there is an informal reception. please join me to my left and have a good evening.

former prime minister belgian discusses the economic future of the european union. mr. verhofstadt addressed

europe's fiscal problems and called for a change to the governing system. he currently serves the harlemite. the daily news and jupiter david from monitoring the discussion. >> thank you very much. you said it shall be a short introduction but with a politician you never know how short the introduction can be. i will do my best and first of all ladies and gentlemen it's not the first time i have come to washington to give an introduction about the e.u. crisis, the crisis of the european union and what can we learn from the united states? i think six years ago at that moment prime minister of belgium about the same topic though not such a prestigious institution as brookings. today i am in quite a different

context i should say because compared to six years ago the european union is in the midst of a serious crisis and i shall not give you a whole overview of everything that has happened in the last few years in europe. you have certainly followed the greek crisis and the portuguese financial crisis and the irish crisis and also in the same year the problems in madrid spain, problems in italy. so we have to recognize that since the outbreak of the financial crisis of 2008 eight we are in the midst of a number of problems and the question that i want to raise with you this morning is what went wrong in the european union and? what is the reason there is a

crisis in the european union and? it has happened in other parts of the world as well. why what is happening exactly in the union? and what is going wrong? i put this question as a european to convince somebody is in a federal europe because as many of you will know, there were so many people in europe that believed it is the existence of the union itself that is the problem. and certainly not the solution to our crisis. they would draw the retreat behind the national borders as was the case in the 19th century in the world of of

old-style powers and old-style nationstates and affect many of these people don't understand that this world is not any longer exist and the 19th century is clearly behind us. i am always saying president obama cannot deal with climate change and trade with china and any single european country to achieve this on its own and moreover i'm always giving the example of what she'll be at the g8 in 2040 or something like that, the g8 shall shall be thee us-japan china india brazil russia and i've given six names now and the last indonesia and mexico and one single european country. nevertheless i think that the challenges are huge and the

societies are at stake, our principles, a way of life that counts in this world of tomorrow and i think it's certainly necessary that the two big continental locks europe and the u.s. are working together. one seventh of the world population, still 50% of the world's gdp and two continents that share the same freedom. but let me return to my initial question. what went really wrong in the european union? well, i think mainly finally talk about her problems we have to talk about the eurozone. establishing this eurozone a number of fundamental mistakes. we created as you know a monetary union and at that moment an economic union, fiscal

union at banking union and today we'll know it's impossible that the single guarantee with 17 different governments and 17 different economic strategies that it simply cannot work. i am always saying maybe the state can exist without a currency and there are number of examples of that but there was never a currency and there is no currency in the world without the state. the state authority on the economic financial and political conditions to sustain the currency. nevertheless the european decision-makers years ago talked exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. they talked that it was possible to introduce the euro without the necessary means and all these necessary means and dues should become spontaneously reality. in a nutshell they told that it

was possible to have a single currency, the euro based on especially to specific rules, two basic rules. the first and you know them, no public debt higher than 60% and secondly no fiscal deficits higher than 3%. don't get me wrong, these rules rules -- but the founding fathers of the eurozone made a mistake not to foresee in my opinion a public authority at the eurozone level to impose that. a public authority strong enough to prevent member states from breaching them. a public authority with the necessary means to sanction them and to penalize the system. in my opinion certainly in politics a very naïve opinion.

that was not the only mistake. every time the stock markets are going up, many in the european union believe the crisis is over and i think it's sufficient to see the effect in italy to realize this is completely wrong. it's enough that a single election goes badly for the markets to react immediately but the number of devastating consequences across the union. we have followed that 24 hours. 1% more than just before the election and with contagion to other markets to spain and so on. the crisis around the euro, the euro crisis crisis is not overran this crisis in my

opinion, that's my message for today that this crisis needs a structural solution because the meeting since the outbreak of the crisis in december the european heads of state and government have in fact in my opinion not been able to agree to do such a structural solution. moreover in my opinion because they are intact and able to do so and not made to do so, the european council is in the middle now of the decision making inside the european union is in fact in my opinion not made to govern europe or manage the euro area. moreover i think the european council will present the general interest of the european union

the amalgamated interest of individual members states. if i can make this comparison is if the united states wants to be run by the 50 state governments. imagine that, no american administration. none at all, even capitol hill. you have the 50 governors alone coming together, five or six times a year that have to provide the policies for the united states. what do we do to make the dollar more sustainable and all this by unanimity. you know better than i do i think that unanimity is certainly not the best way to govern the country. and even less a consonant and a

lesson understood by your founding fathers over 200 years ago. unanimity kills any real capacity to make real change. besides this an effective way of governance and the lack of real sanctions to ensure fiscal discipline would we have also made if i can kind of a get a complete analysis a third fundamental mistake. when we launched the euro i called it the other side of the coin. if fiscal discipline is one side of the coin you need the other side as solidarity. without solidarity the monetary union simply cannot exist and isn't that the essence of the monetary community and it's clear that such a form of solidarity can take different forms. it can be the monetary fund. it can be by way of a partial

mutant mutualization of debts for sovereign bonds the way hamilton did it. or finally it can also be done by the federal budget. the budget that can finance government policies for that currency. the main problem in europe is that none of this success in europe. besides to limited rescue funds and you know them, the european financial stability facility which is a temporary rescue fund that has been created in 2010 and besides the more permanent stability mechanism, follow-up at the esf and besides that there is in fact nothing at all. what you have is a budget of 1%

anonymous european budget with 1% compared to 34% in the u.s. and not always easy but it's not the 1%. moreover the lack of real independent revenue inside the union a hostage from the member states. we all know if you want to tackle the problems in the european union we need a bigger budget and direct income for the union so that the union itself decides on what needs to be funded so that you can also establish what is normal, what is the evidence in a true democracy a link between the citizens and/or public authority in your country. so that it can see what they

paid for and it can be a federal federal -- here in the u.s. and the financial transaction. you need some real direct funding of your federal authority to be credible and to be effective. they union that does not work well because of an effective governance is not only an institutional issue but an institutional problem. in fact people and economies suffer the most from it and let me give you one example. i'm very convinced about it. have the european leaders for example decided in december of 2092 -- they should have established for example a new surveillance mechanism of that legit in a change for greater

financial support, i think we would not be in the crisis we are today in europe and also i think many millions of people would not have suffered. but because we have given the impression that we would kick out one of the members of the monetary union -- so the price of inaction and because of an effect it institutions in the european union is for the moment very high. too high in my opinion and what it does for example for the moment in italy with half the population voting for two populist parties. that is what happened. one party, the party of berlusconi created the mess i should say and the other populist party that is simply opposed to politics, opposed to the system. or if you want another example

extreme populace outside of fascist body submerged for the moment. so my clear message of the day is we must change drastically the way we govern europe. we must in my opinion the fast as possible introduce what i call the federal way because federalists guarantee not only the respective differences, provides also mechanisms for making decisions by the majorit, ensuring effectiveness and transparency. then the question is, what does it mean for the european union since a change in the federal system? in my opinion therefore building blocks. first of all the establishment of true european government.

it should be infected drastically reformed european commission. secondly what you need is a true european treasury with the treasury minister at his hands. federal democratic control with the european senate a second chamber working together with the european parliament. and forth, also a common european bond market and to start with what we call the collective redemption fund which is the idea to mutualize debts at the 50% mark ii create a market of 3 trillion euro and that would be a real game-changer. in short when i give you the four building blocks and you are american and say yeah that's exactly what we did in the 18th century more or less, and you started with the declaration

of independence and in 1781 with the articles of the confederation still based on unanimity and then in 1787 with the convention of philadelphia in which the articles of the confederation were fundamentally changed in a real federation with article vii stipulating an approval by nine of the 13 states was not sufficient to approve the constitution and bring it into force. and then 1790 the european union the first half of the treasury will introduce treasury certificates with thomas jefferson that also -- because it had been created in that deal at that moment and then it's only later in 1792 that the

single currency was established and only in 1930 the federal reserve system emerged. so historically it is quite clear. we do exactly opposite. we start with a single currency and then we say we have a problem. they don't happen economic union and the banking union is not there and we have no sanctions. there is a difference with what has happened here. so ladies and gentlemen, i think that we need to make this new federal system in europe. and also for our american counterparts because only the unified europe based on the example of american counterparts can be a long-term reliable partner for europe.

it is a choice between the disjointed efforts of 27 small states or a single solid department and i think in a globalizing world of tomorrow in the interest of the united states is to work with a single solid partner at the other side of the atlantic ocean and not 27 different member states. i think also that this cooperation can ensure that it becomes the benchmark across the world. that is the reason -- and that is my solution. i strongly support the free trade agreement between the u.s. and it's clearly in the interest of oath. it would lead to an increase of 100 billion euros and a gdp of the european union to approximately the same figure, the 90 billion in the u.s. and

lead to an increase of exports of hope continents, essex and an 8% increase so i think we have interests first first of all for the debt reform of the european union and as fast as possible this trade agreement and cooperation between the two blocs. into and ladies and gentlemen i want to end with a quote of what you do otherwise in washington with a quote of george washington because he was not only her first president but was also a european visionary. he wrote in a letter 200 years ago to his european friend the markey of lafayette, the following sentence. it's interesting to repeat it for you. i am a citizen. i'm a citizen of the greatest

republic of my time. i see the human race united like a huge family. we have made sewing of liberty which will spring across the whole world. and one day on the model of the united states of america a united states of europe will calm into being. a united states of europe will legislate for all its nationalities. you can say that he was well ahead of his time, george washington even by today's standards. certainly when i'm comparing him with the prime minister of written mr. cameron he is way ahead. but george washington was convinced that no matter what the europeans will come together and perform this united states. let's be honest, this was thinking outside the box and i can say that certainly in the 18th century.

few would have thought that there was a chance for that to happen. there are also people who so in fact viewed the united states as the source of inspiration. the united states of america has opted for more cooperation come more federalism and having done so not only is survived but flourished as never before. the same is necessary for europe certainly in the globalized world. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> prime minister thank you for your very lucid and candid remarks and on behalf of what

happens in washington d.c. thank you too for your count them and suggesting there are any lessons for europe to learn from american governance. we think we are setting world records of dysfunctionality here it is impressive to hear that anyone thinks we have anything positive to offer. you stated very emphatically and very clearly the requirements for successful monetary union, common government, a common treasury, fiscal policy and banking policy. none of those were in place as you said when the euro was launched. in that case was it not reckless and irresponsible to launch the euro? this is like is it not, this is not like saying i want to go to see and i know i will need water, food fuel and maps. i have no water food and fuel are maps.

>> i agree with you but you have to understand why it has been established. it was not a financial process. it was a political project. eighth here political approach after the fall of the soviet union, a deal was made between france and germany, between francois mitterand and you remember under western leaders in western european leaders that i was to create two democratic germanys at that moment. mitterand played a long time with the idea. i think it was a stupid idea but at that time it was in the air. finally mitterand understood that it was impossible to go against this trend of unification of germany and he

asked for a prize in the price was okay i shall ask for a common currency and then to establish real germany in them middle of the monetary union so never again never again germany can break away from the system. that is the reason why we created it. we introduce the euro and it has been prepared in a public way. there was success and most of the counties but the problems emerged immediately in the sense that if you don't have an economic system with a number of rules it is not sufficient. this may be sufficient in a time of economic growth and the beginning of 2007. there were five, six,, seven years no problems and no interest-rate in the european union. everybody benefiting from that

and then came the financial crisis. a financial crisis that emerged and that created not only a problem but a debt problem in a number of countries. because it is the main reason of this increasing debt since 2007 in the european union like was also the case in the u.s.. and so at that moment what you see is that you don't have your fiscal union and you don't have your economic union. the only thing you have our rules for not been applied by the countries in 2003 and 2004. the first two members of the eurozone would apply the fiscal deficit rule of 3% on france and germany and they are saying yeah but there are exceptional circumstances on the monetary issues there are always exceptional circumstances and so we cannot apply them. that created in fact a sentiment

not only that this was not real builds on sound policies and sound economic and fiscal union. and then you have in 2009 what happened which is very simple to explain because the public finances were already very bad i should say for years and years but what happened was the rating agencies downgraded it. at that moment it was a real problem and at the same time the european central bank announced an exit strategy that you should no longer accept triple bank as collateral. everyone had his portfolio that the longer could they use it and they sold it and the crisis in fact was born. spin the euro may not have been an economic project in its

possession but had economic consequences from inception. those consequences had been caused catastrophic and the worst to strike the european economy. millions of people out of work and millions of people losing assets and those consequences showed up immediately. as you say those low low-interest rates created a tremendous incentive for people in the southern part of the continent to borrow and it created an incentive for people in northern europe to export from the beginning. france sought share of world trade collapse from the beginning germany saw its share of world trade rise mostly at the expense of france. now we see a continent with unemployment rates at great depression level across the bottom half. it's a calamity. it's a catastrophe. people are turning on their political leaders and those

political leaders are saying, what did we do? why are you planning us? should now we begin with accountability and responsibility and say the euro was a terrible mistake and at this point we have only bad options. the people who created this mistake need to be held to account. >> first of all thinking like that about europe, every poll on the hero, in greece, spain italy or portugal has a convincing 70/70 5% failure for the euro. greek citizens say if i lose tomorrow the euro can we go back to the old policies of our predecessors you know what it was. it was every two years eight evaluation of the leader to

regain competitiveness because of a lack of free form in the country. and who is paying the villa in the devaluation? the normal citizen who is in fact losing power and that was happening every two years. that is a reason because it's very -- there's a contradiction. they are always difficult with what is your basking at the same time do you want to continue and does it say yes i want to continue with the single currency? the problem isn't the euro itself. the problem is a lack of form and a number of countries. take france for example of the european union. and what is helping now is that the euro can create a pressure to all these countries to reform and to do what is necessary. not to do with it in the past because that is no longer possible.

was the euro a good initiative politically? certainly it was not well prepared as we discussed already but a number of countries have an enormous advantage, countries like belgium my country or the netherlands and certainly in germany but also a number of other countries. all monetary forms were abolished. i can give you three or four countries, not my country but the netherlands. the netherlands because there was an election six or seven months ago in which a political party said we want to get rid of this euro. we want to get out of the eurozone. he lost one third of the electorate. why? if you know something about figures and so one, some people say too much and there were

analyses showing from all financial institutions, showing that if the debt should go outside the u.s. this is some there should be an economic downgrade three times bigger that had on the effect of the dutch economy. why? because it's an export -- country. >> speak to us it seems that europe is built something like the doomsday machine from doctors change love, a giant explosive mass under the continent that will kill you all if you get rid of it quickly but it is killing you all slowly and it's true. it used to be in italy people would lose two or three or five or 6% of their purchasing power per year now been employed lose 100% of their purchasing power all at once and not just for one year but year after year after year and we are now closing on half a decade of mass

unemployment. 50% for young people in spain and greece. people in spain we are seeing the beginnings of immigration. it's true, the dutch and the belgians and the germans have profited hugely in their suggestion for the way to solve the problems is that all the people are suffering must change. all the people that have benefited get to stay the way they are. >> that is the other side of the coin is that the policies and the opinion and that is absolute necessary. when i was young i started with the fiscal deficit to 60% of the general government and with a the 137% debt-to-gdp so we know what we are talking about and how to manage it. fiscal discipline is absolutely necessary for growth in the long

term but if for the moment, you two only fiscal discipline and they don't organize solidarity, growth and investment in a certain way at the european level you have the mess we have today in and the problems we have today with massive unemployment in portugal and spain as you indicated. that is the problem. that is that the european leaders see the fiscal discipline as one huge principle to have a sustainable union. they don't for the moment and have to recognize the other side of the coin and this is solidarity and it means in my opinion or european bond barkers are than me but with -- mutualization and why? and you can create a market. you can attract savings.

you can launch investment in europe, what we desperately need. let me give an example to show you what the problem is. an example of a small country and are not talking about spain or italy. i'm talking about big country that is nearly compliant. less than 60% debt and they comply with the stability. they have faith fiscal deficit of -- but there are many more problems in other countries. they are paying 5.66% was their last financing cost for the government. and they put it in dollar amounts. otherwise they had to pay more than 5.66%. so a country fully complying and nearly complying with the stability.

why? a small model. who is interested? slovenian bonds of some type? i don't think so because it's a small market but no liquidity. it's a basic possible that all these leaders in europe have forgotten. and bond markets its liquidity that counts. the higher the liquidity the lower the rates. ..

despite difficile problems, no investor does. >> no investor does with the japanese government could making in in that unisys government could make dollars, but they cannot make kirov's. that is what they're being punished for. your have -- the vision you present is one the people of being punished. the you worry about what that means for the stability of european democracy? we have seen on the fringes of europe some countries backsliding away from the locker see. the patients of the spanish people is almost superhuman.

there are limits to everything. italy has had a protest. it seems so far to be not a protest for content, but expression of repudiation of political leaders, and who can blame them? and think this, not only the euro crisis, but political and not purely financial and economic. you have to make an analysis. a good conclusion. a good conclusion from that. it goes back to nation states. could your -- to your back to 17 different markers, 17 nations with their own currency with their own, i don't think so, and the globalized world of tomorrow yet to further integration into everything emissary. and for example, that means they

have to oblige, for example, countries like italy to change the labor market because of they don't change live market is an increase their rate the puts pressure on the euro. the fact of the law. there's no obligation. you have a common currency, a common destiny a map and a common air. the question yes, we know what the problems are. watch for rego. i think it's wrong charas to make. you go further it was a normal way of thinking. this sense. that was not the same conflict

and to have consequences. for example, come to five california goes bankrupt is not that the holes and is collapsing a small economy hollywood that 2 percent of the european gdp. all system is in shock. >> when you attack iraq going forward, what that would mean if you were really to do it, the hamiltonian project, that will mean that taxpayers in belgium, the netherlands -- netherlands and germany, we accept the front -- foliate spots -- fully responsible for the pensions of multiple countries and will pay if need be. responsible for all their obligations, and not tighten matt government debt of this social welfare system of kentucky and texas.

is there any sign that your taxpayers sikkim yes, we agree to pay the pensions and health care. if they won't, then your fiscal system won't exist and therefore it bought the affair. >> they're paying now for it. that is what is happening. your fiscal transfers are 2% of european gdp. we move around a starkly by 20%. and it is vast. kentucky would not have security and medicare and medicaid on its own. is pay for their will of connecticut and california. >> well, if i can come back the low bit to the pure financial problems. there we're paying. the taxpayers of belgium and the netherlands and germany are

paying. because of this rescue fund we then give sustained will lower interest rates to these countries. but i am saying is that there may be more intelligent ways to do it. by neutralization of debt. then you pay less interest. now we doing is that we are asking money from taxpayers and they pay this high interest rate, mainly outside the european union. i think that is a more logical way to solve the problem. mutualized, and that you pay less interest than italian bonds, spanish bonds because there mutualize. so they receive less interest and costs less taxpayers' money. and said, if you develop with

federal budget of a certain size you have problematic transfers of people against it in any way. they knew very well the question was very simple. do you agree, yes or no. i can tell you, very bad. because they don't work. there's always something. tension. never paid for that. most of them are not true or not completely true, but that was the image. no, no. we go for it. a certain part. we shall do it because we gain from all of this. so you cannot explain it to two people. you can i explain that it is not in their interest that the euro

appears and their is a massive spike because their market is your market. the dutch are exporting to what degree to italy, spain. you have to see the citizens of germany, for example. you're talking about an enormous game of the euro for guarantee. it is true, germany has to balance trade with crease before the introduction of the euro. now we have an enormous surface in the trade balance. they knew it. then destroy the system. the disarray also the engine of our rise. so, yes. there's nothing free in the world. if you want to gain you have to build a more on air transfers. >> i will not turn to the offense for questions. the last one that we have, 25

minutes before the next apartment. >> hi. i am a correspondent for an austrian newspaper. don't we, in fact, already have that source of treasury in europe? and ecb president to says he will do whatever it takes to keep things going. whether we simply double command some point after the german election we might get parsed to agree and could even face an italian problematic situation because currently it is so small. i don't really feel where it comes from. >> let me first still say that the italian debt is 2 trillion.

you have not enough for that. secondly, esm is a difficult system. criticized the rescue front, when you take taxpayer money and give them to a country to pay and high interest rate you pay the interest rate of 5% or 6% or 7% because of the crisis. in use of the system, collective redemption fund or u.s. bonds were sent to -- system, the hamilton way, you don't pay five, six, or 7%. you pay two and a half, 3%. maybe a little bit more. depending upon where you say with the -- pair with the germans. it is a far more -- i should say

-- cost-effective system to deal with your problems. a collective redemption from where we talk about the debts above 60% which is the reason why think so far this system is simply a rescue fund. the gsm, we shall see heliports because every time when they're is a country that is opposed to something they come back. the governmental. so they need the unanimity. secondly, we cannot continue. absolutely necessary. the measures had been proposed on the sixth of september. but my theory is that it has the only taken pressure read from the market but also taken pressure way from the politicians to do what is

necessary because he shelled by and whenever quantity. this is with the 0mb mainly is doing. if it is used, it is ineffective as a system and is not sustainable long term. the only sustainable system and the long term as the neutralization of common bond profit that lowers interest rates. >> take questions in bulk. said there is one in the back corner. the ambassador. and then i will direct you to it. tooele takeover year after that. >> c t r. two questions. one economic and more foreign policy related. would you agree that american

observers that sort of say i told you so, say the urban counterparts to these days, easily reminded by you of the decade the benefits of first the customs union and the free trade union, the central market, and the single market and abroad and by benefits for years and years. then i would like to ask you another question. lately you have seen european countries, including a round and in britain -- in -- someone successfully or even very successfully to observers here, certainly my former colleagues at the state department's . after the libya operation you these options as being positive options on the table.

presumably you are in favor of combining forces. could you say something about that for us? >> thank you. so honored to be represented. i would like to come back to a question, the day that is related to democracy. we have cresses in europe. it seems to mid-strange ideas and economic ideas but also the unraveling of the checks and balances of some countries, and i want you to address this. i do not think that you can do with the economic crisis and then move on and deal with the deficit of democracy second because we might have a major, major issue. it is no secret, my own country, hungry, is backsliding with the checks and balances and some

people look to vladimir pier and excited about the alternative. that is a pretty scary thing. when you to answer that. >> on the first question i am very much in favor on details of a more integrated europe. only on the monetary issues, but also on foreign policy. what has been called afterwards the cynical. where real announced a couple of government policies on the sense , a common european headquarters, for example, to

lounge our operations when we have military operations still outside the european union, it is in my opinion one of the prairies in the coming year. also, for reasons of public finance in his what europeans, 27 states. forty and 45 percent of the american military, that's a lot of money. you can say 40-45 percent of the american expenditure, but that is a lot of money. not only we can do tim percent of the operations of the american army. if i do my mathematics could the emmy's where 45 percent less protected than the american -- as normal because you 27 times the same thing. the transport, intelligence.

you name it. twenty-seven times the name -- 27 times the time. so defense is definitely the key . it can help to reduce the system and at the same time to create. how to have a common foreign policy. you need diplomacy and commonality. they are obliged. the number of european councils. i raised the question. in barcelona, a spanish presidency. and i ask, should we not discuss a possible invasion of the u.s. and what of position. that was the question.

i think it is interesting because we do not agree. we don't agree. it is not necessary. one minute. that is the foreign policy of the u.n. issue. still a huge issue of the invasion. if you want to change says you need the ensign's because if he had the proper instrument then you are obliged to do so. it very much in favor to go in depth in that direction. maybe you can show prayer we do nothing at all. we are not capable to develop a policy. and then deficit and democracy. it's true. we have a whole system of volumes, even a procedure how we

have to tackle problems with a lack of democracy inside the union, inside the political treaty. to high of eight trust sold before the union in fact got full system melodies come a full system majority before you can denounce. we have to develop as fast as possible and that we need to have the kurds tackle them. if their is a problem we have an intergovernmental system and you know how it is working. i explained it. if you have these going to get a you know how it's working.

a deal on the budget. helpful state and government. you need a system based on the government and an elected parliament, as senate who is the scenting the state, and a half to have the full power to not only govern but all sorts of sanction. not fulfilling their obligations. and enough to have the states and governments. >> thank you very much. petersen with the national economic. i very much weight on your strong democracy before federal europe. my question is how would you

concretely try today to convene a relevant group of people who would restore that pace? >> thank you very much. the primary vote -- the prime minister's native city. is a pleasure to see you here. it is great to have you in washington. i want to follow up on the question of legitimacy. if you look at the u.k. now, they chose this policy. it seems to me one of your pals in natives past and again, does not matter what the italians you in the election. it will have to continue with the reforms.

i wonder when it comes let jesse, is inosilicates somehow their remains may sleep -- mainly that people see that our government chose. >> that is mainly a problem. a loose coordination of economic policy. the other policy is the have a big budget. 24 percent. these are the basis for your currency. you do not have them. 39 percent is going tennessee cultural policy. if you agree to the amount beyond the policy it is 067. that is the reason we need full discipline, and we need to carry the same direction.

if you can pass a big budget he don't need to have the stability pact through in the same way as we have now. a loose coordination of economic policy is not work. we shall become the most competitive force by which the world objective the bins market. forget it. as out working and all. and then the next day you go forever. convergence policy is in my opinion used up. the two years inside.

there is now a two ways not to narrow, of real multiplier. at the same time. social. the right side is to guarantee your competitiveness. a multi way of defining minimum and maximum volumes. every economy inside europe has to follow the path. it begins use right or wrong. the left side, the right hon -- right side. coming from the other side, i should say, that that happens now. the convergence of the european economy. and it's necessary. you use for that. he need to do that. the responsibility of the

democratic level which is still in the nation state for the implementation. and what is the democratic response ability, that is only in appearance. the european parliament. i was elected. 600,000 votes in the last election. and now since conscription. [inaudible] my constituency. and i -- the problem is we have to decide what this is. iranians are just a number. a lot of humanity it does not think so, but a lot is not finished. so that said we need to change the system so that there is

meaningful equality. ..

>> and if a politician can create this opinion, it is very important in this environment for today. people -- a number of people say this is what we need to do. otherwise it is not possible. many people say, let's hope that the crisis needs to be mulled over. we have to retrieve this and protect ourselves in a

globalized war. and i think there was a case to make in 2000 working with success to say exactly the opposite. there must be national sovereignty in europe. [inaudible] we have to be engaged to this world changing, it changes completely every day. we have to compete, china included. twenty different languages, for different religions, and then we still are thinking in terms of this, and i think we can

understand not. >> thank you. i had a question on britain's ties. referring to what extent are you talking about the wittiness of the state to allow us to renegotiate the current negotiations. and how costly might this be? >> it is an individual legislation. if you do that, you have 27 different memberships and that doesn't work. sixteen and 17, 25 and the 27th.

we have is really important. i was speaking this morning about the special regimes and what is going on. the administration understands that that is a problem. we need to have a conversation about the treaty. 100,015. that will be after the next european election. we hope that this conversation can do is create a love for the

union ended is the case in the 1700s. we lost the island at that time. we said yes to this great the same thing has to happen in europe to make things clear and to stop this system that cannot work. >> we think you so much for your kindness and candor. >> we have a civil war starting and we thank you. >> ahead of the congressional budget office talked about the

federal deficit on monday and the choices facing the united states. you can watch all of the event at c-span.org. >> it is very difficult to see how we can ultimately put to death on a sustainable path without cutting services and raising taxes. a wide section of americans consider themselves to be middle class. it can be very difficult to see

how it is achieved without making changes in those benefits on those services. in 2012 government spending was about 2% of gdp higher than it was on average over the last few years. everything else that has been put together, it has been average over the past 40 years. everything together, social security, medicare and medicaid. of course medicare provides

benefits to older americans and medicaid focuses on low-income people and about two thirds of the money was for the care of older were blind or disabled americans. many of them are not always poor. they become poorer in old age or due to high medical expenses. given where the growth has been and how those programs are dominating the budget today, it's hard to see the unsustainable path without tapping those programs. >> the cbo director spoke on monday. you can view all of his remarks

on c-span.org. coming up on the next "washington journal", tim murphy of pennsylvania talks about legislative efforts to bridge gaps in federal mental health programs. then jim himes of connecticut on the economic impact of sequestration and negotiations between democrats in the publicans on the budget. later, robert levinson for bloomberg government examines defense contract spending by congressional districts. "washington journal" takes your calls and e-mails and tweets at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> you're watching c-span2 at politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch public events and on the weekend booktv. you can get our schedules on her website and you can join in the conversation on social media

sites. >> a panel of energy department officials testify about nuclear security. this house panel examines the situation in washington dc. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome to the security administration panel. i would like to recognize our ranking member, mr. cooper, my friend and colleague for many years. i look forward to working closely with him over the next two years to carry out this important work. mr. wilson of south carolina,

mr. bernstein of oklahoma and mr. johnson of georgia, mr. carson and indiana and i look forward to working with all of you. the subcommittee has a responsibility for many big critical and important issues and we are going to get into them right now. at this point, the facts have not been well established, and many say the intrusion was completely unacceptable. corrective actions were taken by the nsa and doe. it is focused on the broader implications of the incident including organizational leadership that enabled it to occur i am deeply concerned that

we have been identifying the same problems for more than a decade. the advisory board said it has a security at its worst. highlighting a string of recurring security problems in 1990, it was described as a diff dysfunctional bureaucracy that is incapable of reforming itself. a few years after congress created this, in an effort to address these concerns, another study by the commission on science and security from the same problem. an independent study of security conducted by the admiral made very similar findings many

continued to exist because the lack of excessive bureaucracy and organizational stovepipes. lack of collaboration is cumbersome. the exact same fundamental problems are occurring. there is also a problem of accountability is the exact opposite of the problem in 2007 and 2008. the demonstration of accountability with seniormost

leadership is my example of a system of the firm accountability and it should be everyone's pretty first panel of witnesses would help us explore what changes are needed to explore something that should not happen again. they are the author of broader security issues at dod. the witnesses are the former air force assistant chief of staff and brigadier general of national security general of national security. it is a labor and we do appreciate it. i have a longer version that i will make off the record.

with that, i would like to return my friend and colleague from tennessee. mr. jim cooper for any. i would just like to ask that my statement be. >> it will be submitted for the record we will begin the five-minute round of questions and have a panel after that. i will start with general

alston. dod security review has been called a considerable body of work that has been done over the past decade. in particular, you mentioned it would be done by the admiral in 2005. you heard hurt me in my opening statement mention a few others. there are many more. howdy are fanning findings and recommendations include the findings of the most recent reports? >> your microphone needs to be turned on, please. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the question. i would say that the most disturbing thing that mr. augustine and i have found was the recurring evidence of

problems and when you take a close look at the work that he did, i counted about a 111 recommendations that the department of energy showed us. they were in the matrix. without doing an exhaustive detailed cross check of what the admiral found, i would take issue with a variety of those in terms of the help of those particular findings. since 2005, there has been, and there is a lot of time over the course of eight years, i cannot say that i had any evidence reaching back to this. so i do not know how fresh the management of the findings wise. but just a few of them that point towards culture and things

that we found to be a legacy of challenges, struggling to succeed in an atmosphere of conflicting viewpoints, had courses versus the field, site office versus contractor and union versus management and non-nsa elements and the department of energy. there has been recurring challenges as field offices would need to upgrade security. we had a lack of discipline as well in terms of having a broad and strategic vision for what the overall security requirements and standards should be and a sensitivity to elevate the unique features as opposed to having standardized common security requirements being the principal focus in having to defend wanting to be different. but discipline and strong central management of that,

folks could develop and deploy systems that might not be as fully vetted and ready as they need to be. >> why do you think this culture was allowed to continue? it did happen over years. were there any consequences? with a lapsed back into this culture? was there never any consequence? >> we find it difficult to track authority of the chain of command to find unambiguous certainty that somebody was in charge of one element of security or another. because that seemed ambiguous and because there was a prevailing notion that it was a hands-off surveillance mantra, that the sites had over time

enjoyed being distanced from the headquarters. sort of being alone and unafraid and we didn't like interference in headquarters. but when it came to security, i think there are benefits to having good central management. it may not be true to science, but i do believe it's true for security. >> do you believe that if there had been somebody at the top of the command chain that was responsible for the findings in any of the earlier studies in a significant way ,-com,-com ma that it would help to eliminate that culture of continuous? >> sir, that would be one action that could be taken. but that that action alone, i do not think it would necessarily have resulted in the changes that have occurred.

a very epic failure and i was there for the next three years working that particular problem. life was different. the entire air force had to rally around and not a security problem but an enterprise failure. because we look at this and largest context, i believe that after spending nine months working the problem to no one's satisfaction, but it certainly was an accountability by secretary gates which has focused on before and this is absolutely true. >> thank you very much. the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are lots of issues here, too much red tape and bureaucracy, but i think that

one thing is clear and that is what do we have for taxpayer dollars. we are spending like a billion dollars a year just in protection of facilities. it is about 4000 workers and professionals. that would be $175,000 compensation for each guard. that is a lot. a lot of folks back home would ask that we have paid all these people, but did we get any security in return. the focus of today's hearing is what we have discovered wasn't even proved, much less terrorist

proof. senators call for this facility, we just spend $150 million per year protecting the one area, yet we could not catch to 70-year-olds and an 80-year-old they breached the perimeter. and as the chairman has correctly pointed out. it is hard to see find that anyone was punished except the lowest level card and it seems like this is a fairway to treat a security lapse of this type. time is of the essence and i would just like to encourage you to help us understand this. but the bottom line is taxpayers need to get results for their dollars. right now in the doe, it does not seem that we are getting those results. i know that time is short, you are welcome to comment.

>> sir, i think that you have talked about several of the high points. security from our perspective has been a challenge for at least the last decade. this is a continuing problem. if i could respond subsequently to the chairman, we have found that there has been a lack of sustained effort to cure a problem. it has been a short-term fix and the effort evaporates over time. secondly, if i can, security cannot be a sideline, it has to be integrated into the very essence of the department facilities in the has to be an

integrated approach from the get go to the end, rather than a separate function. so i believe that those are two highlights. the issue you have highlighted about cost, that is a great deal. >> no telling how many hundreds of millions of dollars for why 12 didn't work. excellent readings, this is astonishing. especially in such a secured insulation. >> thank you, chairman, i yield back the balance of my time to we now recognize mr. frank's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here.

you know, i do not want to mischaracterize my friends comments about the 80-year-old non. i understand that she was quite spry for eight years old. [laughter] and that she was going through the town. when you make the comparison about causing $175,000 per yearyear, i'm afraid the connections and the parallels are a little frightening for someone like myself. we are wondering if we're not all may be a little overpaid. it's easy for us, as i just did, to make jokes about this kind of thing and step back from the holier than thou position. it's easy from this perspective to say how could this ever happened. in a sense, that is our job. to try to exert some oversight.

hopefully we will change a culture that has made a particular error here in a better direction. and i know that if we really are honest with ourselves and we look at this from a larger perspective, history has been pretty unkind to those that have tried to maintain security. if we had done that well decades ago when we first janus technology, it never would've been a cold war. this is a story showing that we had to drop one of our atomic bombs off the coast, and i think it is still there. these are not as unprecedented as they seem. but because they are so serious, it appears that we have to back up and ask ourselves that why is it the hallmark for us to let

these kinds of things be so easily secured when the implications are so profound. i would like to ask a question for these members. trying to help our civilians and our military apparatus. when it comes to new technology and weapons that have these implications is it a systemic issue, what would you say? sir, i can tell you that it

doesn't implicate security, but it looks at it as a whole commission that it is a very profound silence. security is now perceived as, you know, we have to go through the hurt right now and security is perceived as sapping strength and competing with science and other priorities within the department. i think we still have a long way to go in a pervasive culture where every last person is working with the department of energy and see security and safety as a mission and not separate things that we need to

tend to. but rather have a common view that is essential to everyday success. >> i would echo what he just said, and i think that is the primary thing that we have to do, work on the culture. rather than repeat that, i think it is an issue that must be addressed and i think the next thing that we have to think about is the authority. we have to be very clear on who is responsible for what. once we do those two things throughout the chain of command, then we can hold people accountable. but one of the things that has been struggled with is the defining of the roles and responsibilities and giving the appropriate authority to execute those responsibilities. and that has been a long-standing issue that we really need to straighten out to

create that accountability and ownership of that. >> sir, maybe this is too far down in the weeds, but if there was, in addition to what has already been said, it goes on what the general just referred to, we need to be sure that employees of all levels are empowered to raise serious issues and that there is a process in place to ensure that the issues are, in fact, addressed. that implies in terms of safety and security, and certainly was a root cause problem that we found with regard to issues and security generally throughout the department of energy. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the gentleman for five minutes. >> i would like to ask the

witnesses to take a minute and a half and talk about where we are today. what has been done along the lines, if you know to carry out the recommendations that have been made? >> we will start with the general. >> before i left i can tell you that there was structural changes occurring within the security organizations. so they were in the process of implementing the recommendations to stand up and it would help ensure standardization across the field. we are working on criteria and so personal changes that had occurred in order to bring in what i call we need to seek out

the individuals and that was ongoing. basically all the recommendations i had were being enacted at the time. >> with regards to the recommendations we have also issued reports we intend to go back and look at the process and

determine whether it has been referred to as this. >> one is a point in the future? >> is a high priority for us. because obviously, security is essential in a nuclear weapons environment. >> the recommendations that we were exposed to, they were not even part of what the secretary had given us. >> let me go back. one of the oversight and review organizations is you. it would seem that holding

people accountable is what you guys do. i am concerned about your response at some point in the future, i would like a more precise answer. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> okay, mr. nugent has represented for five minutes. >> mr. friedman, just a follow-up on this in the questions, you do the inspection , you prepare a report, you send it to the powers to be and they are the ones that have to make things accountable, am i correct? you hold them accountable or do they hold your rank-and-file accountable? >> ultimately it is the secretary's responsibility to hold the board responsible.

>> a couple of group commanders were helpful. following the installation of the new secretary and chief of staff, another was a further detailed review and i'm not privy to exactly what the actions were. from a distance, i understand that general schwartz evaluates how to do accountability in these circumstances taking into stock not just the unauthorized movement of nuclear weapons, but also involving components that

personally dealt with the general officers in ways that i'm not personally privy to. >> you know, and experience, somebody has to be accountable. typically when you discipline the lower ranks, there are other folks. all three of you have mentioned that it's a culture of failed leadership within the nsa and doe that relate to security. >> if you were in charge, how do you fix that specifically from the perspective of the ig? where does the ball finally and? >> well, as i alluded to, congressman, security cannot be

treated as a stepchild, a sideshow. it has to be integrated from the outset. that is one of the key issues that we have found. you can call that a cultural issue, perhaps that is correct. i think i would refer to it as a top issue. it must go down from the highest levels of the department and permeate and people have to be held accountable. i know that could sound like a textbook kind of lesson, but that is what needs to be done and there needs to be a commitment to begin that process. and sustainability is really the issue. we are on the path now, we have information and changes have been made. changes have been made and the question is will be sustainable going forward.

>> it really is buying from leadership. you can change systems and policies, but if there is no one there to actually make sure that the rank-and-file are following the policies and procedures, nothing gets done. from a positive standpoint. when you talk about it,, at the end of the day, how does doe hold the upper level administrators accountable for the security that is in this administration. how do you suggest that happen? >> well, i think that the administrator reports for the secretary must set the tone and make sure that the subordinates certainly understand the

emphasis and he can come back and receive conservation that security has been treated as a priority. >> i would like to thank the officer for their testimony. the direction of what the issues are and more importantly, identifying the people that actually have to make it happen, obviously. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you know, it is astounding to me that we are not talking about equipment, we are talking about nuclear materials and i keep hearing this about it being the culture and we need to have more responsibility. when the secretary of the air

force got everyone's attention, we have to go to those levels of responsibilities and make sure that everyone understands. it has to be a part of the system. that is just me. mr. wilson, you are recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you all for being here today. i am an alumnus of the department of energy, so i appreciate your important position. for both of you, you have a hands-on approach to oversight. can you explain why this contributed to the security failure, and where did this approach come from and what has been done to fix this beginning with the general? >> well, this is your eyes on, hands off, interpreted in a security community, federal

personnel were not willing to interact with the contractor and executing security duties. in many cases, they were not even allowed to interact with the contractor as they accomplished those duties. what it evolved to is a federal hands-off policy. that said i cannot tell the contractor what to do. i can give general direction but the federal personnel then failed to give additional directives that said anything about how.

i'm going to come up with i confused the contract to execute those duties. what it does is let the contractors decide what will be evaluated. >> i appreciate you raising that concern. [inaudible] i have had opportunities to visit so many times and it see the extraordinary personal seen

as positive. it is startling to me that something like this could occur. >> i associate myself with the general's remarks. she characterized it perfectly. if i could take a minute and describe specifics in our original findings, there were very expensive equipment that was inoperable for up to six months. just the backlog of repairs have never been addressed. they did not feel that they were empowered because of eyes on and hands-off. they didn't feel that they they were empowered to force the contractor to reprioritize maintenance work that was being done to make sure detection equipment could be part of this. it was a part of the primitive

defense mechanism and that is an example of empowering these individuals to ensure that if they have a problem like that, they can bring it up to the contractor and ensure that the issue is addressed. and number two, if it's not addressed, they can go to the administrator's attribute actions are taken. >> it is vital, there is no excuse, as far as i am concerned. and not treated as a critical priority to get it back online i

appreciate your efforts to do this. >> i want to thank all of you for serving and helping our country. we can all jump in on this question. the general, i want to ask you a two-part question. when there was the unauthorized transfer of nuclear weapons, the air force really drill down and saw this as a broad issue that had to be addressed. even going so far as to reemphasize the importance of the nuclear mission in the air force all the way back to the air force.

>> the conventional operations of warfare were elevated in their priority in terms of the way the air force resources are and the tempo and the deployments and the pricey place that was a deemphasis in the media nuclear part of our capabilities. we have lost the focus because of other competing priorities. when we look at the conventional education and our ncos and officers, we assess that there

are nonexistent elements of nuclear in those programs so that a broad sense was painted across all of this as opposed to just those who have nuclear mission responsibilities today. we do not want to cashier or turn into just the nuclear operators. everyone needs to understand the larger context that we are dealing with. the whole service was energized in this epic failure and we

considered it a mission failure at historic levels for us. we looked at it that way. we didn't necessarily find a pervasive evaluation, this was mission failure that could be a wake-up call across the enterprise. we did not witness this to say, truly, how can we ventilate the deficiencies of their? i believe that that work took place. i just think that the self-critical capacity can be improved in the department of energy to make that assessment broad and legit.

>> there were structural flaws in the organization and the assessment model. which is why i recommended a new assessment model to reach out beyond y12 to all of the other organizations. because it does affect all age. >> again, i agree with my colleague at the table. i would say that one of the more important recommendations, which actually sounds may be unimportant, is the lessons learned from y12 was a tremendous wake-up call because as mr. cooper described, the three intruders, they could have

been three people who were armed in a different way. we are in a mode of preventing this sort of thing from happening again. >> we have learned some real lessons the thing that i want to assure is that this committee is not going to let this go.

the doe is going to fix this problem going forward in a meaningful way. until they do that, we are going to make them wish that they had. this is not going away. the ranking member, does he have a more comments? >> i want to thank our witnesses for their time and energy and attention. we appreciate you and we will go into recess now for our votes and bring our second panel backup after the vote. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

naud >> i called us back to order.cov i apologize for the delay and i thank our panelists for hangingl around. i do want to thank you for your time and energy in the i know it takes a lot of time and effort. thank you for that. what i like to do, full statements have been submitted for the record. i would like to ask each one of you to take aboutfo a minute to talk about the content of your opening statement. minut >> we havee the secretary and te principal deputy administrator for nsa.y. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cooper, members

of the subcommittee, we are grateful for the invitation to appear before you today to provide actions the department has taken will take for the nuclear weapons in the wake of the y12 incident. we recognize the important oversight. the secretary and i recognize what led to this point and we have acted to identify and address the issue. since the incident, several major actions have taken place to improve security immediately into the long-term.e the protective force contractor wasm. terminated and the new contractor has been selected to provide an opportunity for a new leadership and provide securityo culture. contractor management and

removing them from their position, the department, chief of health and safety andity security inspection of this operation, as well as directed by the secretary and conducting a follow-up review in april. the secretary also directed hhse to conduct extent of all no category one across the board to se cridentify security issues and follow-up with full securityvie. inspections to assure effective security measures are being implemented at those sites.to and we want to identify causes i followed by a report.d at the a former deputy administrator viewing the federalkn have

organizational structure of the model and you have heard about a recommendations, which we are implementing, so we can talk further about that. finally we had an independent you have group, all of them have distinguished long careers and each one provided thoughtful advice on the security structure, specifically all category one facilities and we are now discussing their advice on how to improve security atit. e enterprise.ntir in conclusion, a series ofally changes that i have described today have been made to providec effective security and acrosss the complex. we are working on the changes a this and all of ouran facilitie. our management principles holdey this as vital and urgent and nowhere is that more true than here. the security is in support offai

the nation.ission is it is unacceptable and serves aa an important wake-up call for an entire complex. the department is taking aggressive action to ensure thea reliability of our nuclear security programs and will continue to do so and in thatcin effort, thet department and the active administrator will talkgh about the committee. >> thank you, sir. c >> the department of energy -- you have talked about it. you talk about this being sta unacceptable.

>> what is different in this line up the chain of command? >> at the time of the implementation, mr. chairman, there were two separate ones at the site.eparat >> once the contractor notifies the department of anything, good or bad, the change will be modified. the way that it is structured, i will go right to the point that you have. one of the things that was foun, in the report is that there wash a lack of clarity. but the organization for nuclear security was exercising someay line management at the site.

we must go down from the administrator through the infrastructuree operations offr [inaudible] [inaudible] the role is to developmu the pln n e evaluation was no longerstao done by the feds, which was created in the review too close to the situation between the people between the contractor and the fed. we really have clear to cut it and there was also confusion was nreated by having these twositue separate contracts at the site and we immediately folded theact

security under this. >> if we were to have another incident, who would be the ultimate person responsible for security? >> it goes straight from that person to the senior contractor. >> that was not the case when it occurred? >> there was confusion because there was directives that wereti coming out of this that could'vo been confusing in terms of accountability in thethe s herepective of the people at the site.that were >> the contractor being terminated, which it was about to expire anyway, you mentioned

they were not fired. whic why were they not fired? >> the person we hadxp to do ise hold people accountable. we did that at the headquarters and the top three officials were responsible for nuclear security and removed from those positions. the top two relevant officials were removed.ee rponsib >> this is a nuclear facility. >> that is true, sir. there are disciplinary actions that have been underway and wedl have due process and various procedural safeguards that occu? and those are being pursued. but the important thing is to get those people out entirely and in addition, we have ensured that people at the contractose a level knew that they have lost had lost our confidence and the top two officials responsiblee

were also removed. >> you heard me earlier talking about secretary gates. secretary of the air force, theo chief of staff ofp the air for and i thought that was a model. you disagree that should be the model and how we respond toabour serious security violations? chi >> i certainly agree, mr. chairman. accountability is absolutely thh crucial. i am not completely convinced of the details. i have the highest regard for secretary gates. but i think the principle he described in terms ofrious accountability is very much one we share.cruc >> i would hope so. i would hope the reflect those going forward because that is gae kind of action that sends a clear message that lapse inon security will not be tolerated. the other factor is this is in relation to those who should've

known what was happening. the folks at the top of the fooc chain. with that, turning to the0 ye ranking member. the folks at the t tank you, mr. chairman. chablcome the witnesses and i'm sorry that we have to be here.as [inaudible] ne he was still able to receive 60e of his awards. >> mr. ranking member -- >> i think it is very fair question to pursue how we, i'm g mr. rure this in terms of compensation. that is a fair point. the only amount that was available for security was zeroed out. so that was removed. the way that they got to thiso e was by taking all of that and

then going beyond that. there are other things happening in terms of how things work. the way that this is structured, we did what we could to take away what needed to be and i was anh that was a series of subsequent choices and incidents.availabl .. that was something we followed up in subsequent incidents as well, seeking to go back because we agree the american people should not be paying for underperformance when it comes to security. >> how much do you expect to call back? >> the numbers that you cited there, there is an episode for the contract. >> i thought you said there were further efforts? >> there was a 10 million-dollar

fee in the complex. >> immediately prior to the incident, your agency, in its wisdom, had given not an excellent rating for the safeguards and security work. he received the full 51 million-dollar incentive fees in fiscal year 2011, even though as has been testified to, it took months and months to do repairs. why did they get their entire incentive fee via this? >> this is exactly one of the deficiencies in the structure that receives the incident. the report makes clear a tendency to have their view, but have this evaluation on paper review. separating that roll out and putting it into the headquarters

would hopefully corrected. we did not see things in advance as we should have. obviously, had we, we would have replaced the cameras as we should have. i'm hoping, and i believe that the cultural changes that we are going to institute will prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. >> with all due respect, it doesn't sound to me like you're taking responsibility. aren't you the deputy secretary, having been the deputy secretary for some time? >> yes, sir. from the moment i heard about this incident, i have been doing everything i can in every dimension to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. >> i do feel deeply responsible. >> you have been doing everything you can. question to my colleague, it was cemented five months after the hearing testimony? >> you needlessly duplicated one question twice. it doesn't look like much effort

was put into this. i know that this is just an exchange of paper. but i feel like you are taking responsibility? >> yes, i do. i take responsibility for everything that happens in the department. >> hazard pay been reduced? are you threatened in any way? what sanctions have you faced? >> mr. congressman, i am doing everything i can to address the problem. i will do that as long as i'm in this position. i will be open to make sure that nothing like this can never happen again. >> meanwhile, your department is spending about a billion dollars a year hiring 4000 guard personnel and in some places it

is a contract, other places it is a subcontract. it seems to be no rhyme or reason. if you divide the salary component of that, 700 million, that is $175,000. where's the money going, what results are we getting for this? >> my guess is that the guards are not being paid nearly that much. >> who is making the difference? >> congressman, i do not have that exact calculation. there are a number of physical assets in terms of facilities with thick walls and various permit or fences and security systems. all this of this requires an investment. to be clear, the money itself is not going to solve the problem if we don't have the clarity and the lines of responsibility and the authorities that go with it and a cultural shift that was required go with it.

it is not a problem that will be solved. the dollars are very important. we need to get all assets, but that is only part of the problem. i am not suggesting spending more money, but i'm asking about the value that the taxpayer about for this outlay. this is according to your own idea of money spent on employee compensation. >> we have large quantities of plutonium and uranium, that material is very well defended. it is of absolute paramount. >> how can you possibly say that? >> congressman, the episode that occurred, as we have repeatedly testified in a prior hearing, it is absolutely unacceptable. it is a wake-up call. >> so how can you say was well

defended? it was not well defended. that is why we are having this hearing. >> congressman, what i'm trying to say is that there are a number of additional layers of security. it is unacceptable that it penetrated the perimeter fence. that is unacceptable, it would take appropriate actions to look at these layers. including military style forces, various physical impediments, and i can assure you that there are many more layers that are defending that very sensitive material. >> so we really have nothing to worry about? there were many more layers of security left and it was fine? >> congressman, that is not what i am saying. secretary chu and i have been consistent. this was unacceptable. and it is shocking is a breach of the security that we thought was in place. that being said, your specific question went to the actual material itself. i am only saying that it is

quite the opposite. to say that we do have additional measures of protection that are needed. it is unacceptable and we have to make sure that that part gets fixed as well. >> still does not sound like he's taking responsibility. >> i would like to be very clear. i accept responsibility for this. >> what punishment have you suffered for a? >> other than attending mishearing? >> i am working on this problem, sir, as hard as i can. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes mr. turner of ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i would like to thank you for your effort to try to address this. i happen to know that you are a very hands-on secretary. you and i have worked together

and i was very impressed by the fact that you do rise to a very hands-on level. that is why i think this whole problem, it leaves most of us wondering where are we and i'm going to ask a couple questions. the level of oversight where we have concerns is what i want to frame. a broad base of questions. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> congressman, it depends --

>> it doesn't depend. it ever encompasses the scope of possibilities. is there ever a situation? >> it could, yes. >> okay. in taking that broad statement, we have acknowledged that there is a situation where a failure could result in termination due to performance. i will ask you the next step of that. i am not just asking your opinion because you are in the chain of command here. so would one of those situations beware all of the safeguards are down? where someone could get all the way into one of our buildings and nobody does? let me be clear. we had a breach where people actually died all the land. all the way to the building. that is what i'm saying. is there ever a situation where

no one penetrated this breach, but the safeguards were down it would've permitted a? that is what i would have considered. >> what i cannot do is answer a hypothetical. to it's not a hypothetical. it's very clear. you have a job that has no margin to protect these facilities. we only can talk about these situations through the application technology operated by people. and the people are subject to their performance as to whether or not it works. so if someone is not performing, even if there is not a breach, if the system is down and someone could get all the way into the building. is that enough for them to be terminated due to performance? this committee things that we have an agency that has the

responsibility for protecting this facility and we have a system where those in charge think that you don't even have to do your job to keep your job, then we don't have something that is working. if the system goes down or someone could go in and touched the touch the side of a building and no one does, due to the performance, is that the type of performance that results in termination? >> i can tell you that has resulted in removal from positions. >> the answer is yes? >> removal from positions what we did. >> that gets into a level. >> you are testifying before the committee today that if the entire security system of our nuclear infrastructure facilities went down and the perimeter of the building that allowed someone to go in and it was a result of their performance. >> i did not say that, sir. >> please tell me opposite. it has to be true the result of

someone losing their job. if not, we need to pass a law and stop oversight. because if you don't have performance to be able to protect the facility, then we don't really have protection. we do not have security. is it a terminal offense? >> you and i are both lawyers and you're asking me technical legal questions and i want to make sure that i understand. >> if you don't have clarity, the committee meets with something in the next piece of legislation that makes it clear that due to the performance of individuals, that the security system would be an offense resulting in termination. that is certainly what the american public. >> congressman, as i told the chairman and as i told you, we are always ready to work with you and this committee to make sure that we have the right kind of laws in place. i am not trying to be evasive.

there may be a very simple answer, but i am not acting as a lawyer. >> i was asking you the scope of responsibility and authority questioned. [talking over each other] >> to that level, we want to know if this has to do with the determination. >> i yield back. >> mr. secretary, is the due process we are talking about the union contract? >> i'm talking about the procedure process that and a federal employee is entitled to. >> they can have that in response to the termination, can't they? >> you terminate them and they get the process to appeal it. >> it just seems to me like you are claiming that they have a right to go through all of this before you can terminate them. >> what we can do and what we did do, mr. chairman, was

removed these people from the responsibility for anything having to do with security, immediately pending what further disciplinary action was available. the action is subject to due process. >> i think the due process wouldn't let navy to you will get into a nuclear facility. we now recognize mr. wilson's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i share this with the former and current chairman. it seems to me that with the breaches that occurred, there should have been termination shifting persons around. it really doesn't achieve the level of accountability for something that is important. i have the perception of having actually worked here and by working here i actually had a good feeling about the permit manner of security, the persons

who are monitoring and indeed, those acting, and i felt secure and i know that the people who work there, lived there, raised their families there, they fill secure. but i am concerned about studies that there is a culture that has not stressed security. so how can we reassure people who live in these communities that do realize that they are a culture and have a lack of security and it needs to be addressed. >> that is a great question, congressman. you can reassure them by saying that the top three security officials at the headquarters were removed from their positions and the two top officials were removed and the contractor that actually has the professional force was terminated at the management and operations facility. they were also retired and taken

out of the picture. everyone in the chain of command from individual responders and the senior officials responsible we have undertaken the organizational and structural changes, we have replaced all the cameras, the wire around the facility. all of the improvements, all of the things that we should have known about what found out about the unfortunate and terrible incident. >> mr. mueller? >> i would agree that the deputy secretary has said that first and foremost, culture is going to be affected by leadership and their attitudes toward security and safety and everything else that we do. we are working very hard and have been making serious changes

to direct this and address it. especially with everything else we do. >> i am equally concerned. there used to be a lot of reliance on self-assessment that the overseers are depending upon us. is that being changed? >> that is being addressed. i think that does contribute to the problems. per the recommendations, we believe that it starts with the basements of the assessment, instead of having that ss in the field where there is a possibility of it being too close, that function includes the headquarters organization and that is going to be further subject to overview for the safety and security office. >> ms. miller? >> i would like to emphasize

that we have the sites directly reporting to the administrator. in this way, we expect security as well as other things. but mainly security to be a clear line of accountability from the administration to the site manager as the implementers of the policy that the security policy organization that the deputy secretary was referring to, those policies in order that they are issued, which is their responsibility, it is also their responsibility to assess the performance of this in implementing those it is just as clear that the line of accountability for implementing it goes directly to the administrator. >> related to that, there was a recommendation that headquarters staff visits the sites and rotates between them. is that being done?

>> headquarters staff is now both in the implementing side as well as the policy and assessment side. regularly scheduled, as well as the rotations, we have put this in and we are very conscious of the fact that people staying in one place for too long may lead to people becoming complacent. >> i think you both. i know that when the staff visits, it creates an extraordinary level of attention and i thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. frank is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, i would like to get a few questions in here if i could. i have had the opportunity to see hearings on this before. i have probably expressed a commensurate level of this and i

don't seek to remind anyone of the materials that are kept in these facilities that are highly and technically challenged to create and weaponize, it is a much lesser difficulty and the implications are profound. i think everyone knows that. one question that i would quickly like to ask. seems like the contractors that have reported these lapses in the safety precautions were treated differently than those who ignore the warnings. is that your perspective? >> i am not sure. >> it seems to be on the ground contractors that were there, i am told there was that there was a significant reporting on their behalf prior to these incidents, saying that we had technical

>> yes, sir. some of those deficiencies have been noted in earlier reports that it's true. >> yet they were, they were handled pretty roughly, it sounds like. i believe that they are. i would like to get to another thing. the previous panel emphasized the line of responsibility. i think that's something that is almost ubiquitous throughout the entire thing. it appears that this has not been addressed effectively because the doe continues to have an oversight office under hhs and it now has a split security between policy and oversight and programming execution. i'm just wondering how to these

ensure there is an accountability for making sure the security program is properly executed at the sites? >> okay. let me just say very quickly that both involved have had their leadership removed. so they both have the appropriate accountability price. and on the second one it is a very good question. we believe that part of the problem here, as the general pointed out was that there was this confusion. the clarity down to the infrastructure operations, that is the one i mentioned. they are responsible for execution. they had to take away the interference which was coming out of the na 70 nuclear security organization and that is all inside to have a further

check. it is to have a check on the check outside it of this administration. >> is it your testimony that the line of responsibility, any ambiguities have been dealt with? >> we are in the process of implementing the recommendations and i would like to come back to this committee when i can tell you more. >> that seems a little similar to this whole discussion. >> we agreed. >> shifting gears quickly, i will ask you because we are running out of time, when you think about these breaches of securities in the future, i am just wondering one specific question. there is a significant increase across the world with intentional electromagnetic

interference, these device capabilities, which seems to me to really put the facilities at risk. and even further, the potential of the major event, either geomagnetic or otherwise. can you tell me, are we protecting the critical defense apparatus against these three things? >> congressmen, i am well aware of your thought on this challenge. what i am here to tell you is that we are addressing the threats which don't, as you know, the fact everyone, but far beyond that. we would love to work more

closely with you on the subject, the executive orders, and the presidential directive that was just part of this problem. it is something that is a problem that will take a lot of work to get to a safe place. >> okay, thank you, mr. chairman. >> sir, i would like to clarify. he stated that you are in the process of implementing this study and findings. that is not at doe. woody doing at doe to deal with the problems? >> it actually goes well beyond and will require various parts of this which has technical capacity to deal with this issue. >> i'm talking about the earlier issue dealing with the chain of command, a report by the

contractor. >> mr. chairman, those issues are among those that have been addressed by what we call the three wise men. we are having internal discussions precisely on this question of how to make sure that the larger organization works effectively in ensuring the same kind of oversight. as you know, mr. chairman, there is some material that is outside of the situation and we have to make sure it is protected. there was some confusion between all the directives that were departmental wide, and the recommendation of general simmonds. we need to be clear of those that are binding and anything beyond that would require a way

to augment or strengthen and should not be meant to confuse or distract the overall directive of the whole department. >> you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the testimony to both of you have given. i was reading your testimony as well. although you have explained verbally the organizational structure, it is not clear to me exactly how that organizational structure is actually in place. therefore, i would appreciate it if you could delegate to our committee staff a detailed organizational chart along with the accompanied job descriptions. >> i am happy to do it, sir. i believe that would be helpful for me to understand the words that you have said and how it

works out. how works from the previous questions asked. it is within the department and the organizational structure there. if you would do that. >> we would be happy to provide it. >> i would like to understand more completely your testimony. and i think you. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. why do you think it is? you heard an earlier panel. why do you think it is that these long-standing, well documented deficiencies of this particular facility, they were allowed to go on for so long. anything that is? >> the things that we have found since the episode, mr. chairman, even though some of these things were noticed, the internal reporting chain was broken.

that was the phrase used in some reviews. you can rest assured that if we had known was actually -- >> you were not aware of any of those studies from 2002 until 2005? >> well, i was talking about the studies over 10 years and the most recent. >> after the episode, i became aware. >> i'm aware that you are aware of it. >> this is one of the ones that you are referring to. i helped former senator baker look at the episode at los alamos and i was aware that the thing that we found there was the same kind of security mission and it was a source of