not just the classic one as well. through the foundation we have hired a top flight madison avenue marketing firm. gray advertising. they do the e-trade baby, if you're familiar with that. they had a super bowl avid on it. these guys are great. we have hired them. with not appropriated money. it's philanthropic support to basically build a campaign for the naicialt parks for 2016 to raise awareness. to connect kids, to reach communities that unaware, to increase visitation. all of those things that are sort of part and parcel to who with we are. we are in the research phase right now. ..

year, predicting that there might be a troubled year from the budgetary standpoint, we put in a lot of controls on parks. we imposed hiring restrictions, travel restrictions. ultimately put in a hiring freeze. and so as a result, we have about 121300 positions, permanent positions that are not

filled right now. 1300 permanent positions that are not filled and we are not going to let them sell 900 right now plus a thousand seasonal said we have said they will not be able to hire a thousand and that has a net of fact that ripples across the system from the reduced prowling as you certainly saw at yellowstone and que semidey reduced maintenance, shorter hours and facilities, fewer interpreters, programs and tonnes stations would be closed, restrooms may be closed, she were law enforcement rangers, longer lead times and response and all those kind of things are happening this summer in every parking system. >> thank you mr. chairman.

this is always good to see you on a bipartisan basis we just appreciate the care and professionalism in the way you do your job and a long time ago i had the opportunity to work with you and you're the regional director of the pacific westberry on the uss you did an unbelievable job helping us to get that of an operational. you were a big part of making that happen. i want to ask a question that turned into a little bit larger question on the one and i want to thank you. i know you are in serious negotiations right now with formation about the operation of the chickasaw national recreation, the core of which my colleagues know was given to the united states by the tribe itself to protect the unique set that has been added over the years and they've been developing quite a complex cultural center in the park

service the of a hotel, their own craft center, they are working on their vision of the center and so you know, they are anxious to operate the park themselves. they do operate a state car which is one of the areas brought during the removal process and the texas border they found. but we all want to ask is the status of the negotiations and the discussions of concern. there is a lot of money to be saved and put more resources into the facility to get into the federal system because

they've seen chyba the investments that have really benefiting the population so a decade ago than it is today because of the commitments that the scene. and then finally, if you could talk finally have a couple of examples of things like this that have happened and one of the possibility is going forward of having these joint management sorts of arrangements between tribes and the federal government areas that are very important to the tribes. >> of this is something that strikes to. some of the most extraordinary opportunities of the tribes. i've lived in a native village for five years in alaska, and i think that the opportunity to partner with tribes across the

system they have a deep association with these lands, great cultural connections and stories it's far better to have the tribes share of those stories they must share them for the tribe in my view. so, across the system i will start there and then i will get down specifically to chickasaw that for instance we are currently working in the bad lands with the okinawa nation to look at returning who just tried to become tried to national park. we've been working through the management planning process for that. again, those lands that were original tribal land is taken away used as a bombing range practice over world war ii and then instead of going back to the tried they were given to the park service. they should be returned to the tribe, but managed as a national park. we have been working very closely with them and ultimately that is going to have to come here for the legislation for

that to actually work we can't do that administratively. in other places across the nation, we are working for the kuhl management agreements and the tribe is returning to the land and providing interpretation, cultural assessments, working side by side on the archaeological sites, and we are elevating their story in places like lewis and clark. specifically the chickasaw nation and the national recreation area we then as you know enclose conversations with a former governor and with tom johnson tried for funding agreement i think it is a very good start also we think that the working together in the visitor center that they just developed it makes a whole lot more sense than us building a new visitors' center even though we had one on the books.

>> we would love to find a way unless you could use it for the other pressing needs that you have. again they really want to do this. >> that is our instruction of the stuff and the regional level to sit down and hammer out this funding agreement and go from there. >> i appreciate the effort obviously in this particular case because near and dear to my heart but beyond that, i just appreciate the whole attitude and looking for these kind of opportunities because i think they are out there and more and more tribes have the wherewithal to and certainly your attitude is exceptionally helpful, so it is much, much appreciated. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your visit to maine and the national issues we've been looking at in particular your strong supporter of arcadia

so i guess i need you to see some of the same things again that you've been previously talking about given the sequester and some of the previous cuts there's a lot of concerns in the national park which literally see millions of visitors as a huge economic engine for the surrounding area and all of the things you've already talked about. they are doing the opening for a month, there will be fewer staff, reduced hours of the visitor center and at the beginning of the testimony i'm just interested to hear when they asked me particularly the surrounding businesses in the loop of the park service is planning when they asked me is it going to get back to the normal level, are we going to be all to have the staffing that we anticipated or have had in the past to run at a level that we can handle the number of visitors as you know they have to come across a tiny little causeway and then there is an island and its difficult population moving, it's difficult, it goes from a

relatively quiet winter fishing towns to more people than most people would see in a day in new york city. so just to give them a little hope i need some sense -- >> that's why i'm here. of the budget at acadia took it as a 400,000-dollar hit. you know, one important component of the challenges that most of our parks operate somewhere between an 85 to 95% six cost on an annual basis and that means that is your permanent salary is coming your supplies and materials, your utilities come in your fleet to come and then that 15 to 5% as your discretionary operation where you higher receivables and bring back your subject to furloughs, that's where you really operate for the summer

and arcadia is obviously a seasonal, primarily seasonal operation that provides extraordinary economic benefits to that the area and a very important the local businesses that drive off of the tourism trade and come to acadia and we know that very well. the challenge of course we have to give 400,000-dollar cut halfway through the year so everything from reduced hours and maintenance and reduced visitor center hours and reduced programs are having to be a sort. and i guess that's why in many ways we are here as you look to the 14 budget restoring operations is really a critical component and what provides that direct front visitor access. and i want to make a really important point that, you know, the appropriations for the national park service is an investment. in my view not to be too parochial here but it puts that

investment at the local community level directly into those communities and for every dollar you put into that community there is $10 returned and in many of these places they live and breathe on the shoulder seasons. if they can make any profit it is on the shoulders and that is what we are having to do is to cut back on the shoulders on the operations later into october and earlier into the spurring we are having to delay openings and hirings and still provide the best possible service in the season but those cuts on the edges are really significant. i can wait for the second round but adding to the ace of species list i'm curious how you are dealing with the more tropical waters. >> we have teams out. the lionfish have really innovative hour warm water

systems moving certainly at the coast. we basically have to kill her launch site policy for both hour own staff and our recreational divers. they are an incredible veracious feeder and we are going to be working with them forever. but we try to protect our most critical areas like the marine reserves from the lionfish. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i too love our national parks. this is a fun hearing just because everybody is interested in the same issue and it's something that most of our constituents cared deeply about. i feel like it's important to bring up the issue that we have been working on in my neck of the woods to demonstrate there are areas of improvement that need to be worked through. you met with me yesterday and we

talked a few times over the last year about the national park and i think it's important for the committee to be aware for the vancouver national park in this an urban park i remember going there as a child to visit the different park service activities and it's a huge part of our communities. it's right on the river across from portland and its in downtown vancouver along i5 which is like 95 over here. the portland international airport has its own runaway on the park and there are the lines that go by so this is on the urban park. it's not your semidey but we love it for what it is. the way that it's worked so far, some of the buildings are owned, it is all owned, some of it is managed by the city.

until recently, the army had a barrick as well that was turned over to the parks as a part of the process, but the officers' row which is where my district office sets and is managed by the city and its from the bottom line of the secretary so you can't change anything which is fine but then there are sections run by the park service and we have some challenges on local level with personalities. there is a cooperative agreement we have as you and secretary salazar talked about a public-private partnership that especially at this time when money is scarce we value, you value it it's an opportunity for the public to invest money in a community and be a part of this treasure. it's not just a park service separate thing. it's very intertwined. and for whatever reason -- and this is an agreement that's been

going for 15 or 20 years the land for the trust the manager was originally part of the city given the park service in this cooperative deal came about and it's been working beautifully they've been raising money to keep the museum opened, the work with the park service it's just been an ideal. i got involved in a year ago we started having challenges about. the day before it happened, my office got handed over a letter from the park service that said we are terminating the contract and ejecting the trust and we of controversy which has led to be heading the bill to transfer that little piece of land that was owned in the city and back to this city so that we could continue to have the museum opened. i guess the one thing that we've talked about a lot, your goal is to have it back open and operating. my goal is we are on the same

page. the one thing that concerned me is i feel like we have agreed, and i know that you got involved immediately and you talked to the folks on the ground, and i don't know about the give regional director, but i know the director, the superintendent, you got involved and said you all have limited amount of time, i believe the time frame was 30 days to work this out. was that something -- i guess william curious about did they report back to you on that because there has been a disconnect on what you're doing on the ground and what you are telling them to do. and i am not sure how to present that in the future if that makes sense. i guess i'm curious do they get permission for you to terminate that cooperative agreement or was that not something that they ran up the flagpole so to speak?

>> they do what i tell them. [laughter] >> but then there's reality. >> then there's the reality. the reality of the situation as we have been directly involved. the challenge is we are one-party come to number three party agreement, and so, you know, the museum is at the open, but it's not being run by the trust and it doesn't have the access made the exhibits are removed by the trust and put in storage and even though they belong to the city the trust hasn't been willing to give them back, so we are stuck with essentially a relatively empty building that we are open and it's for the special uses and a variety of the spark debate the park service management of its missing the execs. it's missing the dhaka said that the trust have. as you all know the winning teams have a bad season and that is sort of what we've got right

now, some difference of opinion about how the museum should operate, and i think that we can find common ground as we mentioned yesterday we are bringing in a mediator and to get this worked on the ground. i think that you are absolutely right that these kind of public, because you have to public's. you have the partnerships. they are absolutely the wave of the future. i think we've got some great examples where the park service is actually pretty good at this when you look across the system at golden gate. we've done this well but there is a difference of opinion and in this case the difference of opinion is around large events and i think we can work that out. we have the right team on the ground to make that work.

>> thank you so much. >> it is as it was set before a very exciting meeting because we think you for the work you've done for what our community and the sparks and treasures to maintain them and keep them going. the aftermath of hurricane sandy has left many people repairing what is there and we know you are doing that and everybody is participating and the question is what i've been asked by a lot of local officials is there a possibility or are there plans to share with us not only repairs and some of the place is

also to begin to prepare for the possibility of another hurricane sandy strengthening the environment if you will to deal with this over the future. >> this is sort of the core of the response and recovery to hurricane sandy. i serve as the secretary of interior task force under the direction of the secretary donovan so building could be called resilience into the systems is going to be the cornerstone and all of them are committed to that as we apply our farms. the national park service in particular has the funds that were provided from the supplemental from the congress. the first is in the recovery side, which is going back to reopening the statue of liberty and ellis island, rebuilding the

box and access the boardwalks with gateway and all of those things of the damaged by hurricane sandy process ensures the would persist in the next storm event because we obviously will have another of these sometime in our lifetime as well as climate change predictions showed a sea level rise, so there are new base run elevation maps and we are recommending for our own selves that the flood maps would be applied to the infrastructure and for the critical infrastructure we are going for the fees if you talk about a utility system or a security system at the statue of liberty, we want to build that at enough of the height a future

hurricane sandy would persist and we could get it back open because as you know we've had a statute close now since the hurricane and we do plan to open it on the fourth of july and have the security back up and running again. but all of the reinvestment on ellis island they all went under water, under salt water. the water line is basically at the ceiling of the basement. all of that has to be moved up. it all has to be brought out of the basement and put at higher levels than the buildings because in anticipation of these future events. so, the second tranche of money that we have is in the mitigation side and there's always the gray infrastructure. the green infrastructure are the fields and the wetlands that really can provide greater protection to the communities

along the coast lines and we are working with the other federal agencies the army corps of engineers, fish and wildlife service, state parks to do we really good job of investing in the right place and the right kind of sort of green infrastructure that can really protect these communities. >> thank you for that. the hurricanes and the situation is one we cannot say it often enough. we in new york were used to understanding that we were a target for terrorists and september 11th proved that or that we have made sure that it doesn't happen again. but we see these kinds of situations happening in other places and we expect a snow storm may be here and there but this was totally different, and it's made us open our eyes to understanding what other colleagues go through, so we appreciate that.

let me very briefly just touch on another subject and then i will stop. you mentioned it, and it was asked as a part of the question the importance to deal with the history of our country, and i know that you have done a lot and we certainly did something in california but in the budget cuts come in. are any of these new additions in danger of not being dealt with properly because of the budget cuts? >> the new editions -- we will get an addition and we celebrate that and then is there a problem later on? >> there is a request in the budget for the operations at each of these sites including chavez, harriet tubman, fort monroe, charles young and first state. they do not have appropriations right now, so basically we are

working and supporting them through partnerships or through philanthropy and it would be our hope that upon your consideration of these 14 package that these new units would be funded at some the sluve ball. >> let me ask a general question. as i sit and listen to all of this on the sequestration and the additional cuts the senate put on top of that traditional 1% that actually went after the operating budgets which caused some of the problems here i don't see this changing real quickly. what are we going to the long-term interest to fund the national parks with what i think everybody believes it is inappropriate level to take care of as i said america's best ideas. i understand there is a group of interested stakeholders that has met recently that's looked at

the way is to try to create additional outside ways to raise money and then as i said in my opening statement, i understand the authority fees expire this year and needs to be free authorized and charged on the appropriate level of fees and this goes into the question of how much it parks budget is supported by the fis, the entrance fees and then we have some parts they can't charge entrance fees and how much of the fees generated by a particular part stay at that part and so forth and i guess the question is are we looking outside of the box we are going to try to address this in the future because i don't see the budget situation changing rapidly. >> thank you for that question mr. chairman i agree with you 100%. let me take the question first and foremost. the fee does expire in 14, and

we really need that three authorized and restarted. if we had the opportunity we would make the adjustments to that view legislation. but at a minimum it needs to be extended. >> how much revenue do we get all of that? >> about 150 or 160 million in the collection fees. they are 2.1 billion with collect 51 million out of that. the money under the feet of legislation is restricted to certain activities and we focused on projects it's been a great assistance and backlog, and printing facilities we have and substituted that for operations except in very few areas so they do need to be

extended. we are evaluating the increase of some fees'. when i first came in as the director in 2009i put a moratorium on the increase is because we sort of pushed the american public as far as we could get and we were starting to get some pushback on the fee increases and a hour tax dollars and support these incredible places but they are willing to pay. park service's have been collecting fees for almost 100 years in the national parks and the public as long as you show them that there is enough benefit they do not object. but we can reevaluate some of that. i treated in active duty military pass and handed out 130,000 of them to active duty military and their families to get into parks for free and we thought that might have essey impact and they've actually gone not it's actually net growth.

a couple of weeks ago there was a gathering at a bipartisan policy council of a large array of park supporters or hospitality associations or tourism sectors, friends groups or philanthropic support foundation and the produced 17 white papers on different funding scenarios on how we could approach bringing and monitor prieta dollars in different ways, different partnerships. we saw the papers in the first time basically at that event and i have tasked bruce and his team to evaluate all of those but which ones really could produce an additional source of revenue

to the legislative philanthropic partner. they right now raise about 20 million a year ago they did a pretty strong left for the flight 93 and raised more than that for that one project. i think the potential for them to be raising is an order of magnitude over that and that is part of the overall campaign for the philanthropic support i think some of that is going to come through corporate sponsorships to it some of the individual plant and foundations we need to elevate their profile and that's going to be part of it. some of these ideas i think that we have to look at very, very closely and very strongly, and we are willing to consider them because i agree with you. i do believe there is inherent federal taxpayer responsibility to these places to basically

operate them, but then as some of our supporters in the past said its that bright line of excellence that next phase that we can expand the system. the budget does have a line in the request to extend the program for another year. >> i show your pessimism, mr. chairman, we will find out in a few months whether there's any possibility of what they call a big deal, but if the past is any prolonged it's not going to happen so we have to find other means of paying for the

upkeep and the preservation of our national parks and heritage areas. i hope that we will reevaluate the fees and the get concessions we are going to get bombarded by raising the possibility, but that is human nature. they want everything they can for free, most people as long as the programs that don't affect their lives they don't mind using taxes as long as it's not their taxes and that continued attitude has brought us to where we are today. i think that we ought to look at whether the use of natural

resources on the publicly owned lands is appropriately compensated to the government whether it is drilling or mining. we know mining is a fraction of the firms and they pay virtually nothing for the extraction. the people on the public land versus what would be in the private sector. and i think that we need to take a close look at concessions because they are monopolies within the firm's. so i hope we would do that. we are not going to get support for that but it's the only thing we can do otherwise we are going to see it continued deterioration of some of america's most precious assets.

while i am on this kick of criticizing the temmins pcs, which is basically the problem, i see all of my colleagues on the oversight of the left how did that get there in the first place? >> i don't know how we got into the population and then of course they have the potential for spreading it, but i don't know that it's -- okay, so they are at least spreading at, but not necessarily introducing it. we have a serious problem and i don't know whether it is a

serious problem in places like me and i suspect minnesota. this vegetation that gets into our funds and leaks i don't know if it survives refers but -- we have got serious problems and maine and it just takes over. largely it is just carelessness, i think primarily and they go into a relatively small bodies of water and the zoom around and they cut out and get out and go to the next pond and spread that and it's a serious problem. do you see that much in the park service?

>> it is a constant visual but we have to maintain about protecting these systems. one of the best hedges it is of concern to the estimate what we asked two things quickly. you have a yellowstone bison management plan. the health inspection service needs to have a policy that works in the regulation, but the plan envisions 3,000 wild bison and it was developed more than a dozen years ago is it still

appropriate and relevant today? >> i think that we are on the verge actually of a breakthrough they are recognizing their tribes in the west that would like to have by sen and the culture to the facilities and structure to manage bison herds of. we want to maintain a heard in the 3,000 population class but they could be up to 5,000 so we need to be able to use those. the bison coming out of the park being quarantined, those tested and are positive and would go to the house and are tested would be quarantined for period and

tested in partnership with the state's and then ultimately transferred to the tribes. we have done some of that already in the reservation, and it's been very successful and i think the concept is to line up all the agencies of the state in particular to support that in terms of their transport. everybody agreed that they have gone to the quarantine and they are testing the triet landing is on their reservations or on the bison range. >> it's wonderful that you are doing that. we strongly support it and we recognize. >> they are not particularly friendly animals, they are wonderful, great species but not particularly from to humans and i don't blame them off for the

focus has been in the western areas in the public lands but we want more prisons and urban areas from the political standpoint if not from the economic standpoint you finally put some money and of the urban park and other recreation recovery program to revitalize i want to keep him interested to see if he's trying to keep this.

what is his name? what do you call him? >> it's the bronx river and we clean the that and his comeback for the first time. >> it's wonderful. >> on a serious note, the new york city seal has the dever on it because that is when they started out to be for the colony and so on so they came back and it became a whole issue. it's become a scene in the community where the cleanup of the river and coming back has been just a whole new life of festivals and all kind of things going. >> 100 years ago and he would have been named victor.

>> so you get the point it is a big deal for the river. can you just say a word about what we are giving in urban areas to spread some of the natural resources wealth around the country. >> well, one thing is the national park service is was very, very involved in the last two decades in the restoration of the river, and so we do have our work in the urban areas. i have created a center for sort of innovation around urban parks , and they were specifically looking at the role that we play in urban parks. that's where the people are. we are 60, 70% urban as american

people. there are concerns about that in terms of our responsibilities because we are losing the connection to the outdoors. you know, i will suggest we've got this great experiment going on right now. prince william forest park is about 30 minutes south of here. that was built to bring urban kids to the outdoors in the 30's. we have a group this month bringing kids from the area, urban kids to extend over my denise cattern campus and it can be transformed of experiences. succumb urban parks are the essentials threshold to experience for the urban communities it's kind of interesting the park service routes as you indicated are sort of in the wild areas and that is where innovation started in the park service about conservation

and historic preservation. we are now bringing that to the urban environment. and the investment which is we think really, really important is to help all of the urban park families really use those assets to connect people to help them not only reconnect to the doors, but to have a great life. parks are essentials to that. we know that, you can certainly see it across the country so even here in the district and the anacostia river restoring access, more access to the potomac in new york and the work at the gateway, connecting of all of the city parks as well as the parks in the gateway and fort vancouver. [laughter] it is a great urban park.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> i appreciate your comment on that. it's something i agree with entirely if you are going to reconnect to the of course you need these urban parks and we have a tendency sometimes in the west to forget that because we kind of live and the urban park out there. >> thank you mr. chairman. i respect the challenges you have in trying to manage the environment. one of the things i have noticed though in the years in the growth of the phenomena i understand as you are bringing down your employee levels you probably want to utilize mardy employees less effectively put on the other hand, as you know, per unit of employee that brings that cost up substantially and i don't know how it is really in your responsibility, but i have seen this throughout the department of defense which

increases the cost substantially, and obviously the issue of senior employees, would it be helpful to have a program to encourage early retirement for folks that have already qualified for retirement? in order to effectively bring down the cost of operation and bring it on to the employees that obviously are at a lower number? programs like that so you can have tools to manage the number that you have i suspect is the largest percentage of cost. the park service is a unique organization in that most of them like me are full career in the park service did i am well past my retirement eligibility and that's true throughout the organization. >> for those that want to

voluntarily. >> i'm not talking about the mandatory hushovd. generally we've been using that in the private sector for some time. >> if this continues, then getting the authority for basically feeling out authority is a good idea to estimate how about the utilization of overtime? >> i really don't have an idea in terms of ot utilization. >> historic we we have not been a high overtime user until an emergency occurs and then you find the emergency law and order. >> there are other federal agencies that use overtime as a matter of course. that's not the case in your agency.

>> i'm going to take this in a little different direction first. especially as tight as a budget as this is and having to make decisions and i can see where this is going to be at the bottom of the decision level. and that this some of the interpretive work that you have done and that you have lent support to with some of the international exchanges that have taken place in the past. i will give two examples of two wonderful things that i thought in the national park in tanzania and that the park superintendent maybe there was one other employee in the area, but he had the experience of coming over here and working in our park service and was very proud of that and was taking the best of

practices inlet was a very difficult situation in the amount of support he had from his government and dealing with just all kinds of things. but this exchange was a win-win for conservation around the world come and it was for soft power from the united states because when people asked about his training and he was in the village and what he had displayed when he walked into his office was the best the united states has to offer and reaching out and building long sustainable relationships and friendships on a person-to-person level. at another place where i saw the park service, and this was actually our government learning from the park service was when the normandy interpretation center was opened. beautiful facility that how do you tell the story? and so, when when our international battlefield the

greatest generation was the park service the turned to. now these would be programs after you do life health and safety come after you do your backlog to come after you do so many things that we have asked you to do when you are trying to do it with a short amount of dollars that i could see would be taken off the table, and i know part of the fund the chairman and his committee have been instrumental in keeping it that in the international conservation force for which we work with. can you kind of tell me maybe what we are about to lose and once it's gone sometimes you can never give it back.

>> thank you for that question. then national park service office of international affairs is to be employees total -- three employees total. our international assistance program is funded predominantly by usaid state department or the interested country. we really don't count, you know, reducing 5% or zero really doesn't make much. we don't have much of an international program, which is unfortunate in my view because i think it is incredibly important soft diplomacy, and that the state department has always turned to us to provide assistance that when they can find it to send our employees to assist particularly the developing countries looking to diversify their economies.

look at coaster week and their incredible successful national park program. they built that. the u.s. park service. that was our effort to train them on how to manage and protect their systems through tourism, interpretation, and now it is an enjoyable part of their economy. we are assisting south korea, colombia, a number of african countries, and we work in partnership, but it's all through basically no park service funding other than we are paying our staff. it's been a park service employee at normandy probably since the beginning we've had someone there to help that and we do that right now. that is helping with the interpretation at normandy. yes, park service is viewed internationally as the leader in this field. and they would love to see more of us.

but, for instance, i've had to curtail essentially all international travel for the rest of this year except for a very few instances where they were being paid or committed to provide that assistance and for the rest of the fiscal year because of sequestration to it i do worry about it because the international parks community really does want to see us there. they really enjoy our participation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, and thinking about the dollar issue, that is the number one thing we are hearing about is all the different directors or the secretaries are coming before the committee to the it's the one thing i've heard about a person's i came to congress, partially because most of my region is not have the government, it's not have the

military, it's small and medium-sized business, and they've been -- we have double-digit unemployment almost since the whole thing crashed. we are creeping that now barely creeping up, and not everywhere is double digit. so making do with less is not just here by us. as i think about them sitting in these chairs i wonder how they would respond to some of these conversations. but as i am sitting here i am wondering what can we do, what would you if you could eliminate from your responsibility that we are requiring you to do that will allow you to -- if we talk about flexibility but what allowed you to better deutsch of commesso for example i have educators who come in and say if you are not going to fully fund the this program or this program, take some of the band-aids off so that we can best hit the mission. are there areas within national

parks that will allow you to better fulfill the mission in this time? do you get what i'm asking? >> i get what you are asking. there are some in the 14 budget there are some things that we've asked to be eliminated but of course everybody has a constituency, and in these times we have to have a sort of triage affect on what we do. it's hard for me to pinpoint anything i would make a significant difference in our budget. most of these are more small items. >> maybe not even on the programmatic with and on the operating, i don't know, process fees' or requirements or -- >> we do have as part of our 2016 of the authorizing side some proposals that we would love the congress to entertain.

one is sort of more liberal authority to enter into agreements that can allow better public-private partnerships than we have had in the past. i think the -- >> would that be like trying to get that land back to the nation which will take an active, aggressive? >> i don't know if this would apply the tracks but it's more about being able to move money more easily to other organizations and make the next funding to the complete project in the way federal dollars can be used solely of a project we want to do we almost have to literally say you build that half of the building and we will build this half and it makes it complicated it's not the most

efficient leverage. we have organizations say they want to raise a certain amount of money and philanthropic the end if you could put up the match, we put in -- tannin under secretary kempthorne in 2006 for a proposal for matching funds for the our sentinelle and at $200 million worth of pledges from the organization's that put the match if we have a matching capacity in the organization and we were not able to achieve that. this committee gave us 25 million i think in the challenge cost shared program. that kind of opportunity can leverage a lot of sight dollars more than we have been able to today. the other thing i would suggest in that opening is we are a perpetuity organization on the annual appropriation, so we go up and down with the process and that has a direct impact on the

public pure. would be great to have that level but some weigh everything from concept to the two-year appropriation has been put on the table. that you're not -- one of our problems is we spend most of our money in the last three months of the year because that's when the summer is operating. if we had a two-year appropriation that might work. the second is an endowment. we don't have an endowment. if you look at in the other major institution that has a long-term responsibility like the university they have an endowment and we would love to be able to work with you to find a way to begin building a long-term sort of endowment for the national park service that what sort of helps you little out of these ebbs and flows. >> thank you. >> slightly different but i appreciate everything i have been hearing and learning this morning. we have a chance to talk a little bit today with our now

former secretary salazar. it's nice meeting with him. but a little bit about the overall department, the opportunities and interest in some of the things that you are doing on climate change and the way those things affect. ..

as you know, my district has a lot of cost l area, and -- coastal area, and there's nothing that is not attached to something else. i went on a tear yesterday about what is going on in the lobster population because of ocean warming, and lobster is a significant resource in our state. it's also significant to the culture of our state and economically. i'm sure many of the visitors come because they want to eat a lobster or see a fishing boat or get on the boat. it's a tight identity with our state. so the problems we're experiencing now with dramatic changes in water temperature, the damage it's doing to the sell fish population. and then in other regions of the world, i mentioned line fish earlier. i'm interested in some of the more southern parks already tremendous damage happened to the coral population and you

open your eyes and see these changes happening much more rapidly than we thought. you have to -- you have park areas in the ocean. you come close to the ocean. a lot of other things. so without taking up too much time, i'm happy to learn more about it in the future. i would like to touch on a little where is the money going? what else can be doing? how big do you see the impact on operations of things we don't understand that well? >> thank you for the question. i think climate change is an extraordinary challenge to the national park service on a variety of areas. coastal environment particularly in terms of sea level rise, storm search, the kinds of event we saw with hurricane sandy. we -- we have a great number of coastal parks barrier islands, places like a candidate -- with we have marine environments, and gulf padre island and gulf

islands and obviously our coastal in the pacific. and there are cultural resources there as well as natural resource fort jefferson on the end of the dry or it, the florida key is getting hammered by sea level rise and storm surge. i have tasked our parks with sort of three -- four category of focus for climate change. one is science, parks a great laboratory to see what is happening. we have long-term monitor programs in places monitoring the changes in climate change. the second, mitigation. that is our own carbon footprint. the park service need to be an exsemiparticular. bio fuel, use of solar, lead certification in building resign, reducing our fleet. all of those things we are all

over that. i have a big detailed plan about that. we're actually not only achieving the federal goals we are exceeding them in most categories. i'm going flip these for a second. the third is communication. the park service has a unique role, i think in the american public and the world public about the way we talk about things. we talk about agreology, we talk about history. we can talk about climate change. without being, you know, pointing fingers and blame. clinically this is why the scientists show the glaciers are melting and those kinds of things. fourth adaptation. how do we adapt to the changes from climate change? and simple terms, as i told my coastal parks, what is uphill? because it's you know what is going to be the next wetland? can you get to it? is it protected? is it -- will it convert? you know, what is the next salt marsh?

what is the next, you know, sea grass bed that will be important for fisheries and, you know, when the ocean rises, is it protected and available? because that's the way we have to be thinking about about all of these. it's been one of the leader on this. and for instance, they have a parking lot that is, you know, been used by the public to get to the beach. we think it's great. it was heavily intaked by hurricane sandy as we're replacing it we're putting it the -- the bed will be ground up seashells as instead of asphalt. as it washes out, which it will, you are putting natural system to the environment. fighting exotic, building resilience, look for alternative, comanagement among adjacent lands, because we are beginning to understand the next places for the next has been habitat is not on us but adjacent. there are requests in the 2014

budget for climate change for participation in the landscape conservation cooperative which were created by the. there was ocean and coastal storage ship in here as well. there's also a piece we're working with u.s. gs on cardon sequestration. what role do we play in renovation and restoration how can play to overall carbon sequestration? it's a big challenge. [inaudible] >> thanks. >> put that in the record. that was an extraordinarily reflective response. and i'm glad you brought it out to the record. excellent. >> excuse me. >> the only positive use of the sequestration word that ever happens around here. [laughter] that's right. thank you, mr. chairman before i ask my last question. let me do something i only do in

the committee. praise the chairman and the ranking member for the fact that i always either profoundly or -- remind people they two distincts i represent. one in the bronx, and one in puerto rico where i was born. they're a territory and don't have a voting member of congress and so on. this committee was the first one, to the credit of jim especially and the ranking member who went out to listen to the message and try to ask agencies to be fair to the territories and inclusive. now you your department -- your agency has been fair. but always keep an eye out for -- [inaudible] the castle. it's not a castle. on so on because you have been good in the past, and we appreciate that. >> thank you, sir. >> my last question, has to do with the land of water conservation fund which i

support. i was troubled to see that the president's budget cuts by 11%. but i did see that you have $10 million going in to a parks and recreation, which is good. but as a appropriate as we also see, at least i speak for myself that there are some changes there in the approach and that always makes it a little nervous. could you spend a few moments to explain the thinking on the funding and activities for the coming year and explain any changes in your priority ease special -- especially with the legislative proposal you have included. >> okay. thank you for that question. >> before you leave today, the chairman wants to know where we can get a uniform like yours. [laughter] >> yeah. i want to bet. >> we'll wait and see what you provide in the 2014 budget. [laughter] >> tell you you don't -- [inaudible] [laughter]

you are right the proposal in the 2014 budget is different than what you've seen in the past. let me explain, as i see it's three or four components. one is that i think for the first time in my career, the four federal land management agencies that benefit from the land water conservation fund, the u.s. forest service, the fish and wildlife service and parks service are working collaboratively in, you know, the ecosystem scale. so we have all sort of pitched in a component of our allocation and said what ecosystem can we really invest in that will make them sustainable in the long-term? and probably the best example we have is -- which is sort of the glacier rocky mountain front system. and we actually believe within this fiscal 2014 and 2015 it will be ecologically sustainable

forever. through conservation easement on ranches, through key acquisition in term of sustainable forestry. and protection of river system and corp. do corridor for wolves and bears and other species that system will persist. we want to be able to do that and others. that's new, that's different. that's required all of us to give some of our core which is holdings. and that's hard because we have a lot of needs to acquire our park inholdings. and because it's usually the fish and wildlife service that have the authority to buy land outside of park. we don't have that authority. we can only buy lands inside park. the second piece we have our core and that is in the budget. that is focused on acquisition of inholdings and hardship that

individuals of willing sellers inside the boundary of national park. we have a longer list of that. the third is u par. that's different. we have never done that before -- we haven't done it in a long time. we had an urban component to our program. it's been predominantly the state side of the conservation grant. we had to carve it out, unfortunately. the last piece is the proposal from the administration to have a mandatory account. that's seeking through the authorizing side, you know, keep in mind that lwcf is the revenue from the outer continental shelf oil leasing and the request of the administration is to begin to develop ultimately to reach full funding through mandatory accounts. >> that's a great explanation. we still don't know if we get the badge or not. [laughter] >> thank you so much. thank you for your service. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you for being here today. thank you for the job you do. you have one of the significant

responsibilities in government taking care of the ground jewels i think the american people really support. we are in a -- as you well know, difficult budget situation. and given the allocations that -- or the budgets that we're passed in both house and senate. we have some challenges and frankly, what our committee is going have some discussions about is are we going continue to do try and do everything that we do? and do it in a half -- that's the wrong word. less than optimal way. [laughter] or are we going say with a we're going to do. we're going do well. there are things we're not going do anymore. and that's not only within an agency. i'm not suggesting that we're not going come out and say let's not have a national park anymore or blm anymore or fish and wildlife service anymore. when you look through the budget there's a ton of smaller

agencies that do important things. but so you to ask yourself, at least we are, whether we're going try to do everything. the thing that makes it really hard is when you watch on the news at night, some report of gsa holding a convention in las vegas and everybody will call you on the phone say see, you're not getting a the the government and that stuff. we need cut further. i don't want to see any agency under the jurisdiction of this budget on the news facing those situations. because it makes it almost impossible for us to do our job then. but it's going to be difficult decisions ahead. we are going have to have, as i ask the last question, i ask we're going to have thoughts outside the box how are we going do this in the future? but you have committee here that is supportive of what you do. we appreciate the work that you and your fine staff that is here today do also plus also the park

employees across the country. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. [inaudible conversations] the head of the drug enforcement testified on capitol hill about the dea budget for next year. congressman frank wolf of virginia asked her what the federal government is doing about state laws legalizing marijuana. here's that exchange. >>let take states already passed medical marijuana. okay. >> right. >> we see an influence of mexican marijuana, especially out west with the dispensaries. we -- a lot of people are saying let's experiment with this. we don't need to experiment with it. we know what happened with medical marijuana in these states. use grew overnight. i was a special agent in charge

in los angeles. overnight dispensary more dispensaries than starbucks, and it's gotten to the point so out of hand that cities and municipality in southern california are banning dispensary in coming to their areas because they saw what happened. they saw the influence of more crime in that area, you know, face it. do a little surveillance like we do on some of the dispensaries, you'll see that the primary patients of the dispensary are males from, you know, ages 18 to 26, and there's a lot of apparent sick people out there. so we are concerned about -- we already know the experiment. we already saw the netherlands is the perfect example. you know, they went to the

coffee shop and all of that, they're trying to put the gene any back in the bottle. didn't work for them. >> want answer is yes. some of the marijuana in cases like that, where it's legalized will be the mexican cartel's who have been involved in pretty heinous crimes. people's lives have been taken will ultimately be -- the other question i want to ask you, then, if you can just educate and, and i see our good friend from c-span is here. if you would tell what you would say to a mom or a dad or maybe a governor or state legislator or a member of congress what is the problem with marijuana? the administrator said there's not a problem. they legalize it in colorado. they legalized it in -- tell us -- tell us as a parent, as a grandfather of 16.

tell us, tell us what -- or tell mr. and mrs. that are listening to you. what is the problem with marijuana? >> talking to a parent, i would say, you know, they're going listen what your message is. and so as a parent, your message needs to be that you need to talk to them about drugs and . >> why. >> and what you can do is tell them marijuana is the most prevalent drug that teens use. marijuana has shown the latest study, that i'm so concerned about is a marijuana user that starts at about age 13, by the time they're, i think, in their 20s they have been testing to show about 8% drop in iq. >> 8% drop in iq. -- . >> i don't know any other drug

that has shown a study like that. >> put that in the record. >> be glad to give you that. i'm worried about figures from colorado just since medical marijuana became legal there. the increases in car accidents and fatal car accidents. i've got some figures i can give you on that. >> there will be an increase in car accidents -- . >> increase in car accidents is got to be a major concern. in fact, a driver who has used marijuana is twice as likely to have a crash than someone that didn't. there are a lot of statistics out there because people have looked a the the science, and the science tell us that marijuana belongs in schedule one. it's high potential for abuse, more teens enter drug treatment for marijuana addiction than

other illegal drugs and alcohol. it's a fact. there's been no recognized medical use and treatment in the u.s., and that's been determined by the fda on these -- on research that's been done. and there's a lack of acceptance safety property call for use of the drug even under medical super vision. the reason we're worried about this with young people, a connection between skit schizophrenia, psychosis and it's the young marijuana user. they have studies now, we didn't have the studies ten years ago. they have studies, they looked a the the science, and this is a dangerous drug. the message that the kids are going to get in social media, the message that kids are going get on television, on the radio, in their songs, with their

peers, is that it's a harmless drug. so as parents, the parents needs to say here are the facts. or here is where you can go to get the facts. >> is it a gateway drug? is there a connection between using this and going on? >> there's absolutely a connection between marijuana use, especially early marijuana use, now they even see it connection between marijuana use and likelihood of the kid being addicted to tobacco. but they also will show these connections between drug use starts early with marijuana, and the moving on to the other drugs. there have been studies for years on that. >> you can see this entire hearing with the dea administrator michele lee right now on c-span2 more on the obama administration's proposed budget

for 2014. with a look at proposed changes to social security and medicare. >> senior director of economic policy project at the bipartisan policy center. thank you for being here this morning. president obama unveiled his 2014 budget this week. when we look at social security and medicare, called entitlement. is the obama budget this year very different than the past budget? >> guest: not in health care programs like medicare and medicaid. i think he deserves a great deal of credit for attempting to take on what's been called the -- politics namely social security. there's something called a consumer price index, and accurate measurement called the changed cpi. what that mean; however, instead of getting the 2.2 increase in social security check or retirement check from the federal government. you might only get 1.9% increase. we tried this twenty five years

ago in 1986, it probably cost the republicans of the united states the election and hasn't been tried since. he deserves great credit if for nothing else but the single act of touching the. >> host: if you would like to talk with steve bell here are the numbers. our independent callers 202-585-3882. medicare or social security recipient you can give us your call on own line 202-585-288. social security medicare, the white house has proponent begin curving long-term driver of the deficit. but g.o.p. calls the move too small. before we dig to the more details of that. let's stay on the cpi for one more moment. is there a broad understanding what it is. and how it affects people's

lives? >> guest: no. that's i mentioned twenty five years and hasn't been tried in literally a quarter of century. here's the way it usually works. if inflation measured by the normal cpi3%, then retiree, federal retiree, social security recipient and others increase of 3% for that year in their check. if -- if you measure it more accurately. that's what they are try dog they might only get 2.7%. it's an increase. it's not as large increase as they otherwise might have gotten. open the tax side it does the same thing. it means you probably pay if you a middle class family $10 a month more in taxes. this is a very small proposal compare to the size of the debt crisis we face, by the way. this whole thing is only about $3 40 billion over ten years. and at the end of ten years we have about $26 trillion in

federal debt. so it's symbolic, it's extremely important symbolically. >> host: let's look at comments that president obama made in the rose garden on wednesday when he introduced the 2014 budget. >> both parties, for example, agree that the rising cost is the single biggest driver of our long-term deficit. and the truth is, for those like me who deeply believe in our social insurance programs, think it's one of the core things that our government needs to do. if we want to keep medicare working as well as it has, if we want to preserve the ironclad guarantee that medicare represents, we're going have make changes. they don't have to be drastic ones. and instead of making drastic ones later, what we should be doing is making some management ones now. the reforms i'm proposing will strengthen medicare for future

generations without undermining that ironclad guarantee that medicare represents. we'll reduce our government's medicare bills by finding new ways to reduce the cost of health care. not by shifting the cost to seniors or the poor or families with disabilities. they are reforms that keep the promise we have made to our seniors basic security that is rock solid and dependable and there for you when you need it. that's what my budget represents. >> host: president obama speaking on wednesday. steve bell? >> guest: well, he is doing something that very few politicians are willing to do in any party. he's willing to admit we cannot keep social security's promise nor can you keep medicare's promise if we keep the programs precisely as they are now. and it's very difficult for program that's been around since 1964 in the case of medicare for politicians to have to say, of both parties, oops, i made a

promise to you i can't keep. the president's recommendations would add about four years to what i will call solvent sei for medicare. that's not quite the right word. it means you get the medicare payment on time in full and be taken care of the promise the president mentioned. but for people who say there can't be any changes in medicare, what you have to understand is there. if medicare continues as it is, in four years, it won't be able to do what you want to it do inspect is a characteristic case -- classic case in many budget political world. do you want to forego future investment and education and infrastructure things like that in order to have present consumption? sadly enough, more elderly vote much more and higher concentrations than people between 18 or 21 and 30. so the right now we spend about $7 of the federal budget on the elderly for every $1 we spend on

people 18 and under. so it's -- we have to decide as a nation whether we want to continue to invest for the future. which is where the cuts for so the called sequestration have gone. or whether we want to continue down a path we cannot sustain and keep pretending. and the president deserves credit for the what he said why said both parties recognize that the primary driver of our deficit and long-term debt problem are health programs. >> host: let's go to the phones and hear from steve. in illinois, a republican. hi, steve. >> caller: hello. >> host: good morning. >> caller: good morning. first of all, what year is social security estimated to run out? can i ask that gentleman the question? >> host: sure. right now to run out meaning they can't pay -- what they owe

on time and in full is about fifteen years -- seventeen years from now. i haven't seen the latest report. it come out -- approximately it was 2030, or 2031. >> caller: now are there any proposal that both sides agree upon, for instance, means testing or raising the age, i mean, instead of this changed cpi thing. it seems to be -- an issue with a lot of people from what i've read. >> guest: you're right. it's an issue with a great many people in 1983, you know, it seems like a long time agent. we did significant changes to social security the so called commission. we did change the age we phased in a higher age before retirement. we did make some other changes that gave it another thirty years of solventy. we did it because it was about a

year away from not being able to pay the bills on time and full. we may need, i hate to say it, a panic like that again. raising the age, raising the minimum age from 62 to 64 or 65, those are controversial. but there have been structure changes suggested. what the president is suggesting is really a technical change important. what is he himself adds insufficient. >> host: we see from u.s.a. today federal budget proposal and how republicans in the house, democrats in the senate and the president are approaching issues like medicare and social security. as we look at the house passed budget authored by congressman paul ryan, it would restructure medicare to a premium supported system for beneficiary under 55. future seniors given a federal "sun" subsidize to buy health insurance on the private market. the senate bill calls for $26 5 billion in savings for medicare

that keeps program intact and doesn't affect beneficiary and the president calls for $400 billion in savings and the program by eliminating waste and abuse that keeps the current structure intact. the white house said it would save $12 3 bel by the next decade. steve bell, what does the waste and abuse that the white house is talking about? >> guest: well, i'll tell you a secret. when i was chief of staff, the senate budget committee in 1981, the numbers didn't add up. we were trying to pass the reagan budget. and so we had a function, this is highly technical, there's a function where we put things we don't know what we're talking about. we put $44 billion of savings in there. we called it waste, fraud, and abuse. the history book said the magics a asterisk. there's a lot of waste and fraud and abuse in medicare and

medicaid. everyone knows that. cms knows that. they tried hard to get rid of it. it's extremely difficult. there are more doctors, more clinics, more nurses and hospitals than there are people watching them or governorring them. so i think was, fraud, and abuse exists and extremely difficult. i think probably the president just, like we were thirty years ago, was overly optimistic about how much can be in a short term cutout. >> host: let's go to the new jersey and hear from mark on social security and medicare. high, mark. >> caller: hi. how are you? >> host: good. >> caller: hello to you, steve. one thing i noticed quick, my insurance supplement for medicare has gone up over the years and, you know, the cost of living is not kept with that. and in the past the cost of living hasn't kept with up the

cost of living increase hasn't kept up with you know what we really need today. and i've heard that the -- chris brown that social security other program you tune in to you gate different thing. it's good it to thirty years. i have to used va. they can't an appointment. i have to use medicare. >> guest: right. >> caller: when i use medicare, you know, i'm basically covered. i have to pay more to the supplement insurer just to keep pace with this now. before you go, i want to talk about, you know, increasing or the cpi index or changing things. we'll fall behind. here we are now they're going it cut us back even more. so, you know, i'm on a fixed income like thousand of people are with the va. i'm on a fixed income with the, you know, my social security. so now you change things around

and i keep, you know, behind, you know, even further and further. >> host: let's get a response to steve bell. >> guest: that's a very good point. the average middle income -- qm we have two 100% disabled veteranned. there have been changes in that and my stepfather called my complaining. he's a 100% disabled after thirty one years in the army and said how come this went up $80? and the answer is i don't know. because that was the truth. but when i checked, it was part of what a change in the relationship between medicare and tricare for life. i had no idea it had occurred. there is no doubt that for people used va -- i think we all know this. the va is terribly behind. if you go medicare, it costs you more. and for a person who is using

these as the only retirement income they have, let's say the military retirement, let's say you have tricare for life, and let's say you have access to other pensions. you really are in most places just getting by. so i'm not trying to be cavalier about what this means, one thing about the premium support id that paul ryan has is that he would phase it in and anybody 55 and older would not be effected. one problem that is with some of the suggestions that others have made is they would cut quote, unquote, reduce rate in medicare and social security immediately for current beneficiaries. that's always been a point of contention in budget circle whether that gives enough time for people like this gentleman from new jersey to adjust. i think that's a legitimate question. > host: let's hear from

another recipient of medicare. this one in montana. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i have calm of questions. the first one i would like to ask about is we often hear briefly, that a lot of different government agencies take money out of the social security fund and leave behind iou. so i would like to know what agencies that they are and why are they not made to pay that money back? we have to make due and pay our bills so they should put the money back in so we can be more solvent. the thing about the medicare, i just want to briefly and social security when i turn 65 and have -- i got -- [inaudible] in order to get it back. they took money out of my social security check that is not all that large. and i didn't have enough money to pay my rent after they do

that. it took me three months to get it straightened out so i at least get back to be able to cover my very basic needs. so i would like those two issues addressed. >> guest: as far as the social security what is called an intergovernmental transfer, you are required to make social security -- there's a trust fund it has right now about $2.5 trillion in what i'm going to call a surplus. that's all accounted for. the money will be spent out to people who are present and future beneficiary over the next twenty five to thirty years. they pay the money back. the second question really speaks to a demographic problem, and it's this. the fastest growing cohort of people in this country are over the age of 65. when you start social security,

the average male in it country died about 67 or 68. he was on social security for about two and a half or three years. we had 16 people working, paying fica taxes for everyone retiring. now we have three people working for everyone retiree and the average male lives in this country is expected to live in this country probably until 77 or 78. that number is increasing. and that's why when someone tells you it's a demographic problem. it's problem you like to have. people living longer and healthier lives. it puts a tremendous strain on people who right now are in the 60s, 7:or 80 what it means. the intawrk getting overwhelmed. whether it's a veteran's affairs, whether it's the center for medical services cms, whether it is other places that we turn to unless we actually

put more resources -- you can't have it in the demographic change we're going through right now without strain on the retirement program, the health program, and on the government supervisors. >> host: u.s. "today" shows us the plans for social security under the various budgets. the house passed budget and -- no specific recommendation then we see the president's budget as you mentioned, steve bell, it calls for using a new measure of inflation cpi to calculate cost of living adjustment for beneficiaries with exceptions for the most vulnerable. estimated to save $23 0 billion in the ten-year budget window from smaller annual increases. kenny tweets and said no cut to medicare or social security

period. and another follower on twitter said now obama deserves great credit for taking on entitlement but republicans were hated for even bringing it up. >> >> guest: of course. it's the china -- nixon goes to china syndrome. if a democrat had wanted to have talk with china, we would have yelled and screamed weak on national defense. it's going have to take the lead on entitlement for that very reason. if paul ryan suggested we would have touched social security we would have been stoned. the spt getting enough from doing it for the own party and others. there is a point here that is important. i'm not sure if either party in either chamber has a majority to

in fact do the change cpi. i know, people have talked about it, but listen to the mixed response from republican house. he said it's a terrible thing you're touching social security. oh my gosh within it's terrible. a republican. the majority -- the speaker of the house said, well, wait a minute. i kind of disagree. i know you think this is an important step forward. remembering he negotiated on the cpi with the president less than 18 months ago. so this is been a bit of a bomb shell which is not only divided party but -- the republican coalition. >> the next caller in kent, washington state. joshua independent. go ahead. >> caller: hi. how is going? >> host: good. >> caller: i'm in my younger 30s one thing i realize is that a lot of stuff is being taken away from younger generation's

future. one thing that, you know, things change in life as far as budgets and what we go through as far as, you know, in wars providing more money toward things that we take care of ore countries. but one thing i have noticed was that, you know, we spend a lot of money as far as america to help out other countries. but other countries, it seems like, i could be wrong, not provide that to america. but we provide to them. and, you know, where is it all come around? somehow it going to benefit the next younger generation? because it seems like we're being left out. >> well, there's no doubt. younger generations in the federal budget over the last ten or fifteen years have been left out, to use that phrase. and as far as how much money we spend in other countries, i

don't think any country comes close to how much america gives both to multinational organizations and direct aid and certainly no country provides the military kind of forces that we do in our own expense. there's no doubt about that. -- can we afford to cut defense spending? which is our biggest source of foreign aid, if you want to look at it that way. as as much propose by people. even the president propose the $100 billion in defense cuts. and bob gates and leon panetta and chuck hague l said we can't provide the security for america that we need if you do that to us. it really is a difficult problem -- you can't forecast what is going to happen. when is the next 9/11?

when is the next somalia? what is -- there's uncertainty. and very dangerous world is bombing the pentagon. they have the same problem; however, the bucket of the united states has. they are spending more and more people retired or try care for life. they increase spending for the employees or if you want to call uniform military employees. they -- the same way the federal budget is. the joke is -- it's not much a joke. we'll have the best trained senior officer in the history of the modern world with the most sophisticated weapon but only one everything will be paid out to people who served before. that's the cost bluntly of an all-volunteer army. i'm not saying we have one. you have to assume that you're going to have to increase

benefits and pay if you want to have people put the life on the line. >> host: where the money is raised you can see it comes from individual income taxes, social security taxes, corporate taxes, medicare, and other taxes. and then where it goes. defense spending $6 18 billion, not defense discretionary $6 24 billion, and then mandatory spending $3.8 trillion. social security medicare, medicaid, and other mandatory programs. >> guest: well, there's another thing that ought to be noted here. as we pull out of afghanistan and reduce our comi. in the middle east. everyone thinks there's a peace dividend. i went to vietnam and i saw the peace dividend evaporate. the notion that because we're going get out of some hot spot

in the world will lead to some nirvana of new money for social programs. it's just that. it's a "fantasy." that money is going to be spent and probably -- [inaudible] so yes, we spend a lot of money on defense, but i will tell you if interest rates go back to where they have been historically, five years from now we spend more on paying interest than defense. >> host: steve bell with. let hear from kathy in virginia. independent caller on medicare. hi, kathy. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. >> host: of course. >> caller: i would like to ask the guest a question. until the area where we live, the members hospitals and doctors officer are refusing to accept our medicare cards. can you explain to me why they're able to do this? why we if we don't have the supplemental we have to pay the full amount.

>> host: yes, ma'am, i can. this is in grave danger of going forward. many doctors, because what they believe to be the underpayment by medicare for services rendered, simply are refusing to take new medicare patients. this is going -- this is a very serious problem because most of the recommendations by the president will reduce payments to providers whether they're individual providers, whether they're hospital, long-term care facilities. doctors have a choice at that point, nothing requires them to be in medicare. and so they will, in many cases, do exactly what this lady said the folks in her neighborhood are doing. they're not taking medicare patients. there is something called a con see area-kind of doctor. it's for wealthy people. you pay your doctor, let's say, in new york city $10,000 and he promises or she promises not to

take more than 300 patients. if you don't pay that $10,000 he or she won't accept you a patient. it's leading to, what i fear, is a real gap between the care that very wealgt can get and the care the rest of the people can get response this turning down of medicare is a serious ongoing problem, in my view. >> host: changed cpi is a little more than wealth distribution taking social security from those contributed that those that did not. what you think. >>. >> i'm not sure i understand the question. but let me see if i can do. yes, pay people to social security. and everyone receiving it will receive vastly more money than he or she put in to it. thirty years from now that won't be the case. people putting in to it now give less under current law. the question is equity.

and do you want to save it all the money that is going to be spent over where we are now medicare and medicaid and social security? not to -- by education, science research. this is a nasty and difficult policy question. and the reason that congress hasn't acted decisively is very simple. the heavy equity on both sides. politicians don't like things, they like -- not things that 50/49. >>let here from mike in somerset, kentucky. >> caller: good morning. >> host: turn down your tv and give us your question. >> caller: i would like that comment on the social security. i feel like the only thing we need to is lift the cap on social security and medicare and it would be solved. i -- [inaudible]

everything i make and self-employed and happy for thirty years. and i pay on everything i make. why shouldn't everybody may pay on everything they make. i believe that would solve the problem. >> host: okay. >> guest: actually, this is my own view not the view of bipartisan policy center or anybody else. for twenty five years now i wonder why we don't move the cap on social security. right now, somewhere around $1 10,000 or 112,000. if you make more you don't pay the fee can. if you take the cap off and everybody, no matter how much adjusted gross north carolina had to pay. there's no doubt we get the seventhty five year solvent sei. the cap is off for medicare. and that was almost an emergency measure. because we were running out of money and had to do that. there's no doubt social security is easily solved. if you take and say whatever you

make you pay the fica tax on whether you make $25,000 or $25 million a year. so far that hasn't combined much traction although it seems to me such a logical thing to do. >> we use medicare to lead the rest of health care. medicare cuts back, medicare makes changes, and structure reforms in that compels changes perhaps in the general health care policy of the country. the problem here isn't just medicare structure. the problem is health care costs. as we get older, we are facing a nasty thing. it was once said if you had something called compound

interest, it was the eighth wonder of the modern world. that's right if it's working for you. it's working against us right now. not only did we have more elderly. each of the medical procedures they undergo cost more year over year in health inflation. we're getting a double whammy. that's really serious problem. move away from strictly fee-for-service and move in to some things that many people on both sides of the aisle suggested accountable care organizations and stuff like that. you probably would reduce the rate of health care inflation which obviously would help the medicare situation.

>> caller: i have a couple of questions that i would like to ask about medicare and social security. [inaudible] own disability. several people go on disability and they get able to go back to work to make -- determined to get the check. and there's wise -- [inaudible] wives able to work, but she gets a check. you put your finger on one of the most distressing things that happened. that is the explosion in disability. finding out who is legitimately on and should receive disability

insurance fraud has been extremely difficult. but you're right. if we can only get disability insurance for those that truly needed it, we probably would find that program much more solvent. it's not solvent now. and probably find fewer people on disability. remember this, we're getting older. it's natural that more disability insurance will be aflied for as we get older. as someone once said, getting older is not for sissy. . >> host: questions open twitter. lift the cap that will be a fix. if you personally like to see or rather if your group would like that see social security and medicare privatized. the bipartisan policy center and gray sei wants to know about the funding. >> our funding? for the bipartisan policy center. we're a non-profit. we have individuals who give us money, thank goodness. we're continually scraping.

it's an appeal -- you take it it for an appeal everyone who reaches for the support. 051c3. we have a bunch of cricketer mostly foundation that give us money from various places. >> host: gene wants to know more about the center. formedly not to be nonpartisan but bipartisan. that's a legitimate argue. there is common ground which we agree. we go not call for privatization in in medicare. i don't know very much groups

who are in favor of privatization. and diana a democrat. >> caller: hi. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i was sitting here thinking how much i can squeeze in. i'm sure it's not as much as i would like to say. i'm on social security and medicare. i would like say we had an increase on the medicare payment and that the tiny little bit of cost of living we don't get that all the time. it looks like we are getting this we do seldom don't realize if a little money in the bank at all we're not getting any interest and taking out for the huge payment that our legislature and the insurance company bring in our home --

don't have to pay flood insurance -- [inaudible] [inaudible] i have to pay for all the stuff. that's one thing. i have a grandchildren, i have a daughter and son going to be in to medicare. i think all of she's perspective about this. we have a lot, you know, to think about. but actually why didn't have to do that. they paid a hospital from any of these surgeries or tremendous amounts of money which is hurt medicare for years now. my husband are given treatments. i can't believe some of the amount of monies that medicare

was paying for this. >> host: yes. idiana bringing up a couple of different issues here. >> guest: she's a perfect example about generation tension. she said her children are about ready to go on medicare. she has grandchildren. most of the rest of the country is hurting if. that's the point the lady made which is very important. low interest rates are great. but it's a tough issue with equity on both sides. he tweets in and said the program are meant for people who need them. social security should not be a retirement program for everybody.

we are where we are. >> host: economic policy senior director at the bipartisan policy center. thank you for sharing your perspective. >> on the next "washington journal" talk show host armstrong williams on the republican party outreach to minority voters. also karen wise of bloomberg business on student loan rates which are set to double on july 1st. and a conversation with pediatrician on new data showing 11% of school-aged children have been diagnosed diagnosed with attention deficit hyper activity disorder. it's live every day at 7:00a.m. eastern on c-span. online exchanges for individuals and businesses to buy health insurance are set to begin open enrollment on october 1st. today on capitol hill a republican member of congress questioned health and human

services kathleen inteel yous whether it will happen on time. what i see as deadline after deadline missed if says if the agency is disarray trying to meet october 1st deadline that the final market rules and regulation was missed, the payment notice rule was missed. the business rules for information two month delay. the option for small business. you avoid the basic health care plan for -- and these laser have real impact. real people are concerned about these delays. and the failure by the agency to meet these deadlines raises real

concerns. my question is, go you have a plan b.? do you have contingency if the exchanges are not ready up and running with the fully informed public of october 1st? >> as i answered before, congressman, we will be open for open enrollment october 1st of 2013 and we'll be enrolling americans across the country january 1st, 2014. >> so at this point, you have no discussion within the agency on contingency plans? >> well, have lots of con sing sei plans. >> for not meeting the october first. >> no we are determined an on track. >> you can assure the committee will will be no further deadlines missed, no further delays and the implementation exchanges? >> we are on track to meet the october 1st deadline. >> the question again, i think we