managers and the sector -- sectors are critical to planning and operation. >> good information quickly shared. >> yes, mr. chairman, from the city's perspective since he already addressed to the research and better climate research and more direct climate research, i think for purposes those of us on the ground finding ways to make what is becoming the ever-increasing financial burden more tolerable his first and foremost, in our mind looking at billions of dollars that will have to be invested. communities have to build projects that aren't growth driven toward decaying infrastructure coming out of nowhere in order for whole communities to survive.

there needs to be a greater dialogue about how we do that and how we fund those efforts. >> we will call the innovative financing. >> absolutely. the energy water nexus and there is opportunity there. >> car in the. >> we does not -- we do not make recommendations. >> i appreciate that and i should have revised the way i ask the question that based on the literature is there something of a consensus there might be one area, not opinion that that with the body of the evidence that you review on the ongoing basis, one approach that may seem to have a consensus with the support with purposes to

answer this question? >> there was a document produced delivered to congress in 2000 produced by the national drug policy commission and they identified a number of recommendations one of which helped to have other recommendations of that document is from 2000. it would be helpful to have information about what happened in 2012 with the data collected but right now we don't have any information regarding what happened 2012 with efforts under way but it is limited at this time. >> based on the literature you say there'd be interest not for the opinion that what happens in 2012 to get more detail about that? >> the number of people i spoke to they said i was the first person to do the

comprehensive look at what happened. >> i got it. dr. murkowski? [laughter] >> you elevate me i am trying -- starting to feel like the energy geek and i so wish that more colleagues were here with us today. we talk so much in this committee of the energy potential we pass the hydropower bill earlier this week. you and i are working nuclear issues come interest of geothermal and talk about tracking. everything we do in the energy sector comes back to water when i first got on this committee 10 years ago i was chairman of the water and power subcommittee coming from alaska with an abundance of water, i had no

real appreciation for some of the water fights and in that committee i learned whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. i've learned that more and what i appreciate what we have with the challenges because we keep using the word nexus' but these are inextricably tight and i have mentioned to you the importance of water from a geopolitical global perspective, if we get ourselves into the next big bad war i am not convinced it is over war but i am more convinced it is over water because through water we can control so much of what we do with other parts of the world whether energy or otherwise. i am fascinated with some of the discussion here this morning, very thoughtful contribution from each of

you. dr. weber i appreciate the way you outline from a federal perspective there should be greater engagement i clearly believe that. thaw and seen a lot with what is going on in with energy reliability and we see the shift from coal to natural gas because of what is going on in the market but also the obligatory perspective. then you have a great unknowns when it comes to the impact of the drought will mean on the water resources kidding impact from nuclear to hydro to what we do with accessing natural gas through fracking so we appreciate that

7 percent of energy production comes from hydro. if you were to suggest because of droughts we see a reduction there how does that affect the reliability particularly if you are in an area with hydro and coal in we have a prolonged period of drought impacting hydro or any other aspect i think this is something we need to better understand and we really need to coordinating and collaborating. my direction here and i will throw out to all of you but my and standing is we have a number of agencies that have

responsibility for managing specific access of, aspects of the energy water nexus' but these agencies don't this is fairly strategically collaborate or consistently collaborate on these issues. how can we do a better job there and how do we do that given so much of the energy policy with water is developed at the regional or the state level or local level. how do we do of better job that goes on at these different levels to recognize we have agencies that are three lead -- theoretically task to be

managing this are we doing what we need to do? and if not, what do we need to do better? i will throw it out and we can start with you, a commissioner. give me your thoughts. >> i think this is the theme in the last hearing the accord nation to move some of these for word but to give the example of hydropower i think we're moving in a better direction and there is a lot of work to be done the example i will give we entered in a 2010 department of interior car of engineers department of energy and we are cognizant to be a feel-good document may try to put it into practice so we aligned r&d investment join the with

the doe recommendation to facilitate pilot projects and new technologies with hydropower we have 16 projects in various phases of implementation and the bottom line is never less water than we need and that is what that is focused on. we have also entered into the optimization program starting to implement this fiscal year two or 3% gains of efficiency is something that we can use with the corps of engineer facilities so largest hydropower producer in the also look at basement wide solutions to shore up the reliability of hydropower to may be looked at resolving environmental issues and away the you can increase or generate capacity.

so working at that level we can work on the technology side to create opportunities to work with the private sector but with water supply it is not a resource at this federally controlled we tried to work through the studies program to engage all the key players from the water rena. >> you should be in charge of that. >> i know if any one entity can be in charge of that with water resources quite frankly. it crosses state lines most are multiple states so it is not any one state and there are federal interest but not federal water rights that make up the majority of our resources in the basin we have to work through in a collaborative spaces the we have to be results oriented

and quite frankly giving the extended drought and the projections we have people's attention so they cut through the infighting that occurs with a colorado river basin it is remarkable the progress we have made with the key business felicities and now mexico. >> go down space if we can. of how we can coordinate what is already happening but to recognize effectively you don't have anybody with the one agency in charge. how'd we collaborate better? . .

the agencies and departments have to take shape. we then asked the question what are the areas of collaboration? in monitoring and forecasting and impact assessment and in the use of communication of affirmation one of the big successes of the national integrated job information system is it is nominally led but inherently interagency. developing the efforts in which the agencies take part, and collaborative mechanisms also see the benefits themselves become critical. from the standpoint of working on the colorado, the apalachicola, we ensure that the benefits of the information we are providing is linked to the

lead agencies who are operating in that area, the court in the condition of a cf, the recommendations with the color of basin. given that issue, i think one of the major points that was made which is an opportunity to stand back and say how well are we reconciling different views of what is happening in different watershed's is critical. instead of the rush to apply information, a good approach is to say, let the agency stand back and say, how best should recover in of this issue. in the case of the colorado we have until 2024 to do this. from the standpoint of collaboration the key aspects have to be strengthening our monitoring the systems because we are losing strain gauges, strengthening our recharge estimates but really working with the agencies on the man they said they have in designing an effective and formation system to support adaptation

being undertaken by the state and local level. what i mean by that, and we have many examples and one led by recommendation, the climate working group of water and others is to work with the state, fed, tribes on developing appropriate information systems for planning. where that comes to bear is by saying which agencies are working together and monitoring forecasts, which is is is are working to get a risk assessment and which is is are working together on communicating and preparing information such as usda and then coordinating that into effect of information systems. one example is -- >> before we go down here, it was my understanding that under the energy policy act back in 05 it required doe to employ this program and research the demonstration development and the commercial action to look at what you have talked about , the existing federal programs. so my understanding, doe is not doing that.

is noaa doing that? >> server in the case of droughts and floods, want to add. so it plays a role and when we put out a forecast saying bill likely conditions. welcome a likely to flood. ♪ is cordate from the standpoint of research and coordination, but it is problem oriented. it defines drought as the problem and says, work with your partners as effectively as possible. there is no one agency that can do one of this which is clearly clear. but the result is we ought to go back up the chain to respond to our mandate and measures of accountability. where it becomes really critical is in working with our partners such as the water utilities and others in ensuring that we are coordinating effectively to provide information and planning to support their activities. and in the case of the national driver ever mesa system under

public block about 9430, that is the approach we've taken. >> yes. i would like to echo what he just said. i can give you a concrete example of it. the single most important thing that congress can do is force interagency cooperation. we -- to talk about having one agency in charge, and all honesty, it will take some much politics and speed -- and it will be so difficult to do and quite honestly we don't have the time for it. you can to the way budgets and the way you set things up force interagency cooperation. that really showed itself, and i have to give huge credit to my -- for hurting all of the cattle through the mexico 319 discussion. you have the ultimate collision of the treaty clause in the constitution and the constant cause of the constitution. the united states government had

clemency in knowledge of national affairs but had no water with which to sit at the table. they had to bring the states to the table in an international discussion. it was an interesting exercise augeas get to that point. i'm giving mike a lot of credit for this. he personally really helped make a lot of this happen. and it proved just how valuable it was when the states and the mexicans finally were able to sit in one room and really understand each other's issues and really begin to work together. and the two parts of the federal government really started cooperating and working in tandem. we moved mountains and a very short amount of time. that is what is critical. that level of interagency collaboration program medically aimed at a single outcome. >> great. >> great question, as well and give you a little bit of good news which is organically people

with the different daisies are the starting to find each other and work together. people at the department of energy, u.s. geological survey, epa, department of homeland security all have a different interest in this issue and they're finding each other in a very unofficial way through different conferences. it could be celebrated and expedited. you can give this whole issue of mandate the authority. you want to see something done. you could give it a budget. another is not really one for this issue. people are finding each other and convening among themselves but are not really past. you could help clarify the roles. the department of common security cares about the use. national security or reliability perspective. barbara of energy cares about a from a potential constraint on energy. epa cares about what energy just to improve our quality for treatment for what it does to the waters crossbills. nationals at science foundation as a research mission predella different mission. think you can help clarify those roles and given mandate and a

project and then it becomes an in official organic. that might be where you're going as opposed to creating a lunar agency. so people who are already interested in clarifying roles. >> dr. carter. >> to add to the positive work of collaboration i would add innovation, so essentially to allow and to assist the states and some innovative activities that they are attempting already come and we may see more after the 2012 draft. we have indications that the state level, they're managing ground water. an example is kansas, innovations which were tested and are being reformulated some in georgia related to the management of the surface ground water relationship in the flood river. so in addition to just collaboration among federal agencies is having that collaboration allow for the state and local level innovation

as well. and i think an example of that may be a little -- the western governors association did become interested in greater reliability issues and in particular related to the hydropower question that you ask, what will be the impact. and stay doe, i deal the lab, a west right assessment and they identified taxes and the pacific northwest as being of the great. those two with the most vulnerable. we don't have a similar assessment, so we don't know, for example. i think one of the things this scene is the state and governors are attempting to understand these issues and gravel of them. bring federal resources to support and allow those is one way we have seen a successful

interesting development. >> i appreciate the responses you have given and thank you for the latitude. engage in a little bit of dialogue. >> your questions were very helpful. you have latitude on my watch. let me ask about a couple other areas. at the keep a step that this committee, we care tremendously about heitor power. we have called it the forgotten renewable. that was the message when i went up to meet with senator murkowski to my constituents, we have gotten these astounding votes in the house of representatives here recently for hydro power expansion. it is almost like about 422-0. people say that congress is on an alternative galaxy when you're talking about hydropower.

these are exceptional kinds of votes. the senator and i keep on packing the statistics. 60 percent of the coin, power in the country, opportunity for 60,000 megawatts of growth is a very, very personal success story. and i want to ask you about the potential for disruption to hydropower from climate change. let me just kind of walk you through it and see what you think of this whole area and could your take on it. in the northwest the snow in the mountain serves as an additional reservoir that slowly releases the water over the spring and summer. it is the snow, if it melts earlier in the year because the temperatures are warming, the question becomes what is that going to do to the availability

of water for hydropower and other uses in the summer. so what you tommy what you think of how i packed the issue here and tell me your assessment in terms of how this can affect the availability for what senator murkowski and i want to do, which is move to build on this in the future. it is our goal, you know, to tap the potential for 60,000 additional megawatts of clean power. and what is so exciting about the hydropower story is certainly back when i started looking at this, you know, is you have a full head of hair and rugged good looks and all that. there was a lot of arguing back and forth between the developers and the environmental folks. senator murkowski and i have noted, those folks have been working together now.

and so we are seeing a lot of common ground, and that is one of the reasons why you see this incredible set of votes in the house for hydropower. and so, tell me what you think about the potential ramifications for hydropower and the success story stemming from this issue of climate change, particularly as we would see it from the pacific northwest with that's no in the mountains and the additional reservoir and how that releases over the spring and summer and what happens if the snow melts -- melts' earlier. >> thank you very much for the question perry from the standpoint of changing run up over time, especially for the pacific northwest and alaska, as we look at the changes in earlier runoff, the question becomes what is the proper time for storage that also balances the so-called parity between hydropower salmon and other resources that are needed. i think from one of the major lessons that you are seeing that

was just described, the northwest power planning act of 1980 certainly lead to a new collaboration is among the states and the federal agency. in other parts of the country where loss due to higher temperatures from evaporation becomes critical, then the hydropower is reduced simply because we are losing water to the atmosphere in drier conditions. in the case of the pacific northwest where there is not yet full agreement on the total amount of precipitation, but there is agreement on the timing of the flow in the changing climate, i think the critical aspect is balancing the trade-off between when storage occurs in the early assessment, when flood control than happens, as you know better than most, the reliability of flood control becomes critical when flood control and surges occur in very early in the spring season and then other melt water comes down and we have that trade off occurring on the columbia river basin as we speak between canada

and the u.s. hydropower on small tributaries is, of course, the recommended across the west, especially for the pacific northwest. selecting high-level higher elevation hydropower facilities is now coming in as a question simply because we're seeing a runoff earlier at higher elevations. the major issue relative to the pacific northwest is the spread and sale of those reservoir storage. whereas in the case of the southwest we know it was you lose to evaporation, in the northwest of the limits on evaporation seem to be a lot less here. so what ends up happening is the viability of increasing hydropower and places, especially major tributaries the more viable. >> from a historical standpoint how these jobs stand up in your view, doctor? everyone knows. the most consequential.

how they stack up compared to the other droughts? >> it is an excellent question because when we work with water providers, when we work with farmers, the first question we get is not what will happen. it is, is this something we have seen before. so this becomes a very fundamental question. during the testimony i mentioned that this spread of aerial extent of the drought last year, 2012 which is still continuing in the west was only exceeded by 1934 in which -- which had more months with over 60 percent of the country in record. what helps us out in this context was the 2011, wet. the 1950's were, in fact a more severe in terms of oklahoma, west texas, new mexico. there are drought in the past, however, that have lasted 10-20 years that exist in the tree ring record. what was mentioned by pretty much all the witnesses today was that the viability of our

systems during multi-year droughts is what calls us into question. we have done a fantastic job. when john wesley powell said in the late 1800's we cannot devote the colorado river, we developed it and we are still there. a lot of things are put into place that are actually very viable for managing risk. what comes to bear is the comparison between this present drought, 2011 to a 2012, 2013, and the potential for increased severity of drought conditions from temperature. when you add a temperature increase on drought conditions we are not sure what we get. it could be more surprising than we think as occurred during 2002. in the case of many of the vegetation in the southwest, they lasted through previous droughts, but a lot of them are not lasting through this one because of the combination of temperature and dryness. the magnitude of the drought is

immense. the temporal, the number of years, we have seen other drugs like this. >> dr. weber, one question for you at this point. what are the opportunities for using markets and marketplace forces to improve the situation? you log studying there. technically called the clean energy inky better at the university of texas. i want to go back to school and study in that program. that sounds like good stuff. but how might markets be used to integrate renewable energy to increase water supply? >> i think there is an opportunity with policy and technology, of one thing we have with water is highly dysfunctional markets today. water is night -- not priced and as well valued. highly regulated. if we had more of a market system or market was valued and people waste to conserve, tend to conserve things that are valuable and also if you had a price for water that matches the

actual contribution to society, you might get transactions that emerged. .. so this idea market can make us more efficient would help allocated. then went to have a price on

water company to pay for integration on say. you could use wind or solar office located near brackish water and wood treated water to make fresh water are outside oil and gas facilities producing a lot of dirty water from the shell gas production to do on-site treatment to make it cleaner. once you have water, things that happen quickly appears >> we are just the internet taxes, which it's extraordinarily important to restate first against it well to go collect online taxes forever on in america. i've got to go to the floor. senator murkowski can ask any additional questions and any closing remarks. it's fitting she has the last word in. if that's all right with you, why don't you just ask any additional questions.

i don't think anechoic so-called. and they closing remarks rappa. >> thank you for one final comment because alaska doesn't have a sales tax. with you on that one. one finalist precipitated by your response, dr. webber. you're clearly in a situation where at times of low water availability, water shortages, extended periods of drought and uncertainty. we don't know what next year is going to yield. we can look at our farmer's almanac and hope that we are ready. it's tough to predict with your accuracy. as the plane outcome of the upper cultures that there uses far more water. the energy area believes they

have more money to play with. are we seeing, there's someone in your part of the country, are we seen pushback on specific types of elements because the energy production might be more water intensive so you have pushback from the x factor. you have pushback because they recognize these are issues that you don't want to raise the cost to the consumer. you've got remarkable energy potential sitting right there. but the process he would use his more water intensive rbc in that type of a standoff between user

groups? >> but we are singing is a clear recognition in areas especially water lane like nevada that the type of energy facility that is spelled makes all the difference in the world. in 2002, during the energy problem, nevada had the current valley pipeline coming right through southern nevada. he said clearly to the merchant plant developers, you will build gas plants. the relative differences 3000-acre for a watercooled facility versus 300 acre-feet for a dry cold facility. all solar is not of late. and nevada have been a lot

photovoltaic solar rather than thermal solar. water intensive is something that is inappropriate for that particular location. that doesn't mean there aren't other areas where it can be. what you see more and more is the water sector is becoming extremely energy efficient because it's the biggest cost factor. state says the whole and whole regions are looking not given their set of circumstances, what are the appropriate kinds of energy to have in that venue. >> we see so even i stay they see it as a more important role

put in prohibitions and constraints on the production. even though the production may be small water use permits the marginal user, the user. we see with how well people wonder now other power plants should have the cooling systems the way they want as a model actually. that kind of thing. we definitely see the show up in the permanent process to talk about the cooling systems with new water users of oil and gas production. they get to read efficiencies and system so there's enough water for everybody and left over for nature. >> it also makes you wonder moving from coal to natural gas for a host of different reasons it makes you wonder as you see

more and more in terms of areas that are water lane as you describe it, ms. mulroy where there will did not push to the side of technology it is absolutely except to vote. it is absolutely except to vote, or because the water intensity pushed in those two other technologies that would provide the same level of production using modern a more conservative manner. i appreciate the information involved out there. it was a reminder to us and we talk about energy and energy production. we can't discuss it in

isolation. it has to be in conjunction with water and water access and the availability and certainty of it. as we see greater insurgency that is brought about by changing climate, how we deal with it come how we adapt to it is going to be a real challenge for us, particularly as you have long noted that this is a regional situation that the impact can go far beyond the region but the energy consumption. thank you for thoughtful presentation papers back, we stand adjourned.

>> george w. bush spoke at the opening of his presidential library on monday in dallas.

conceive a c from politics, happily sell a night out, but not from public service. we used influence to help more children start my with a quality education help americans find opportunity in countries overcome poverty and disease. will work to empower women to transform the countries men and women who have stepped forward to at the uniform of the state to defend her flag and freedoms here at home. the character of its citizens. the person i had the privilege to see the character close. i saw the first responders who charged up the stairs into the flames to save people's lives from burning towers.

my son a virginia tech professor who barricaded his classroom door with his body until his students escape to safety. as other people in new orleans made homemade boats to rescue neighbors from the floods. my fellow service members who laid down unless to keep our country safe and to make other nations free. franklin was one once described the dedication of the library is an act of faith. i dedicate this library with an unshakable faith in the future of our country. it's the honor to lead the country is brave and noble as the united states. i will always believe our nation's best days ahead. god bless.

caremark [cheers and applause] >> i went in. i walked into the kiosk and said i am here to report. the guard came up and said i knew one of your cam teen managers in ohio. i said okay, got down in may. the garden city have some hate mail from california. you have paid mail waiting on you. you go through the most embarrassing part of the stripped-down and then i got into the intake, what to do the prison, down into the courtyard.

i won't use the language is about, but the man who is to take me away from him can find his own land in a sitting there not knowing where to go and these may be close like pajama pants and brassiere escorts is supposed to take you around. the subtle kind of a suit yelled some foul language. he took me in the back where the laundry room. i walk in and amanda sitting mayor and he said are you? used to be. are you a republican aren't you? i said well, republicans put me in air coming in no. i was the mayor of east cleveland. welcome, i'll get you some clothes.

>> steve miller testified about the tax return filing season. he also warned spending cuts will cause an allusion and services to tax a person for those two irs employees. the comments came during an oversight hearing at irs operations. this is just over an hour. >> a hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. before you proceed with business, i was a deal to the ranking member, mr. lewis for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i must tell you that i'm not pleased to make this statement. mr. chairman, i would like to take a moment to thank you, miguel martinez on my staff. miguel's last day is today. he has served as my tax my tax

and benefit counselors 2009 and has been my key staff person for ways in committee type retirement and oversight issues. it is likely to have found and worked with this truly distinguish young man. he will always be a part of the john lewis family. he was born in atlanta and lived there and attended law school and just then a wonderful staff person, but a wonderfully human being. i wish them the best of luck as we move forward. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i too wish them the best of luck. liana whenever the stats come away with risking staff. we wish you the best of luck as well. [applause]

>> in there to welcome everybody to the subcommittee on oversight hearing on the internal revenue service's operation budget. last week millions of taxpayers scrambled to meet tax and obligations in april 15. taxpayers have growing complexity. indeed, nearly 5000 changes to the tax code in the last 10 years as a result of the complexity of the tax code, individual taxpayers and businesses spent an estimated 6.1 billion hours in $163 billion every single year complying with tax sign requirements. these burdens onto taxpayers alone. their task of processing tax returns and administering broken taxcode. at the same time come the irs must deliver customer service to millions of honest taxpayers who turn for assistance.

the agency has to execute its core mission on managing responsibility to run social policy programs such as obamacare. despite this, the irs wrapped up the 2013th island season with the efficiency and a few delays. although the 2013 season was delayed due to preparations for attacks on changes, the irs process 93 million individual tax returns in issue $214.5 billion in refunds to 77.8 million taxpayers. act in commissioner miller come a day to commend you for managing the irs resources to ensure there is no break in service during the tax filing season. many agencies have done with for those and you are able to manage all of this within the tax filing season to get it done and you are to be commended for the effort as well as all personnel involved.

we want to hear now today had the irs is able to do more with less people be interested in hearing this. the 2013 tax filing season will discuss the response to a sharp increase in reports of identity theft so far this filing season. every year tax fraud carries steal millions of dollars in phony tax refunds. apennines holed up refunds. they are going to detect and prevent tax fraud. congress adopted a measure the sequestration model for the balance of the year. there will never transition to this than enough involves management challenges. we are certainly aware of these.

we will discuss the operating plan for this. and examine how the irs can avoid wasteful spending going forward and have a more efficient service. rather than seeking to tighten spending can be more responsible to determine 14 budget request goes in the opposite direction. the budget never balances. the irises requested nearly $13 billion for fiscal year 2014, an increase of the billion dollars over the 2012 enacted grade. included is a request for 6287 additional employees. the demand for new personnel arises for the fact the irs has been given to responsibilities. revenue collector in social program administrator. the biggest contributors to present health care love administration's fiscal 2014 budget request acknowledges this. with an 803 employees have been out of the agency enforcement

operation to implement obamacare. the budget seeks 1151 more for a total of 1954. even if the irs has made progress with taxpayer i.d. theft in improper payments, it is acknowledged it can do more. the truth is obamacare is polling the irs away from its core mission. i look forward to hearing your testimony and now i'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the set committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis with an opening statement. >> i thank the chairman for holding a hearing on the internal revenue service. i'm pleased to have the commissioner before us today. i'm also pleased to discuss her landmark health care reform act, which will exchange coverage to 27 million americans. this is a key year for the agency in the affordable care

at. this is the year the health care reform law has been put into operation. they would play an important role as it helps to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in premier tax credit to american families next year. before we hear from the acting commissioner, it is important to review the many benefits of the affordable care act that had been delivered so far. the act has helped millions of american families and children. for example, the health care reform law has protected a person a million children with preexisting conditions. these children can no longer be denied health coverage. in addition, there are almost 7 million young adults now have health insurance until the age of 26. further, the law has helped more than 4 million seniors receive

free annual bonuses it under medicare. these are only few of the many benefits received to date. i am confident the affordable care act will be carried out on schedule. today i look forward to learning where we are in the process and understanding more about the agency budget requests. commissioner miller, i would like to thank you, your staff and agency employees for their hard work on health care reform law. we need to continue to move with speed to make sure tens of millions of americans receive the health care they deserve. thank you very much for being here. attack him i yield back to a >> i thank the gentleman. it's my pleasure to welcome her witness today, stephen miller

come acting commissioner of the revenue service and deputy commissioner for services and enforcement. i went to thank you for your time today. you appear before the subcommittee in full committee and we appreciate your willingness to come before us today. asked his customary come your formal testimony will be made a part of the record and i ask you to let major oral comments to five minutes. with that, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman boustany, senator lewis. before i give more details, let me report on this filing season. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, and happy to report the filing season and smoothly. the iris received 130 million individual returns come issued 94 million refunds for a total of $250 billion. a simple but despite challenges by financial tax law changes that occurred in january of this

very year. in terms of the 2014 budget request, i understand your views, mr. chairman, but it represents a fair balance of enforcement innovation. the taxpayer service highly include improving our phone service and providing more online self-service options. enforcement initiatives include increasing resources and tools available for it in the past as well as addressing national issues and improving the manner in which reads data. each salary receiver return multiples to the united states treasury. the enforcement initiatives in the 2014 budget are estimated to increase revenue collected or protect it by some $3.5 billion. my testimony outlines accomplishments. we have core progress in a number of initiatives. and to address identity theft

via 3000 employees are working on identity that had more than double the number at at the start of the last filing season. we spent $330 million fighting refund fraud and identity theft in money well spent. the billion revenue up from 14 billion year before. this filing season we stopped over 3 million returns. it's important to understand these and other accomplishments are at risk at our budget to news to atrophy. we will continue to succeed and continue efforts to maintain excellence in performance. it will impact the large budget cuts of the last few years. this means there will be a steady erosion in the service we provide to taxpayers and the amount of money we collect. in this regard, but being a the

effects of sequester pippi publicly stated the iris faces seven furlough days this fiscal year. we anticipate a considerable reduction in the cause we can answer as a result of sequestration. they've also become more efficient even as their budget has been reduced by about a billion dollars since 2010. that represents almost 8% cut in our budget. even as we tackle new challenges, including aca and identity theft in the foreign account work we do. we've met some of this reduction may come in expenses by half a billion dollars in recent years in the 2014 request contains 255 million in cuts. proven strategic and higher decisions using biased as well as reduce expenses in nonlabor areas. the closer you mention hiring

was he reduction the total number of permanent irs employees by almost 7000 between the end of 2010 concurrently. note also that currently run 10,000 employees, fewer than at this time during the 2010 filing season. in our nonlabor spending, we limited mission-critical needs to increase use of virtual delivery meetings and training, allowing the iris to reduce costs by 158 million annually, a 55% reduction from fy 2010. there's also reduce spending on professional technical service contracts by $200,000,000.60 million in printing and postage. but most a reduced rent payments. our strategic priorities and enforcement service and business modernization. however asive ted that a change in the current budget

environment, the american people see erosion and ability to serve them in the federal government will see receipts from enforcement entities. thank you so much, sir. >> you and i are both aware of the taxpayer is both the administrative standpoint and that's one of the primary reasons we move forward with tax reform in the full committee and am hopeful over time we we get to a resolution with a tax code that simple and fair for the taxpayer and easy to administer without ever-increasing cost in many compliance issues and enforcement sides. are hopeful we can get something that works. last week he sent a memo letting them know due to sequestration pads, all iris public operations will be completely closed on

side nonconsecutive days throughout 2013 period, to commend you during the past filing season with all the challenges that lay tax changes, there were no furloughs. you guys got through it. it is tough but today. it seems to me at this stage going forward that it's inefficient to close the irs entire operation for a day rather than for allowing employees on a rolling basis. i'm curious, how did you decide this type of furlough plan and were any other plants considered? >> mr. chairman, other plants were considered. we are still at a posture where we have 70 days we may have to take off. we've picked out five days and our passion now -- as to why we picked the days when we pick full days instead of rolling for

those. the days we picked are around holidays. we have a staff that is down on those days anyway. and on fridays, which are down days as well and days that our i.t. folks would argue are the best basis for going to to be days. we've laid out five and noncontiguous fashion because while i can afford to take a batch of furlough days, we have a batch of folks in the lower grades they cannot. they live hand to mouth like many do. those folks need that spread out. they can't take it all at once. our decision was delayed out early and nonspecific as to what everybody would know what to expect and be able to plan outlay. we did five days now. were hoping to go lower than five days depending what money

we collect and save in the interim. that money will go into reducing the days. in some places investments where we do that on a business basis obviously. now as to why we divided up, the complexity of hickory nut who would take off when was one thing we look at. another one that was key with degradation in service if we have people off the phone. our level of service on a given day without her and i'm not sure that it's better for the tax year rather than calling the next day k. would ruin for those verses getting in on a given day with a business decision we made in the last reason is that it's cheaper to do it this way. we will save our money, closed offices and have security stand down. ancillary fix cost, but also

found it would be cheaper and save my money to do fashion for taxpayers and the employees to do it this way. and secretary luke appeared before the co-committee, i asked with regard to treasuries operations across the board, are you confident that you across the board at the budget or any of your areas or cuts can be made. i ask you at this stage is to look at the iris budget, are you confident you really look at everything aside from furloughs, are there any of your areas you feel you can make heads without causing some degradation in service? >> we have made cuts. it would wrong be wrong for me to savor down the cooking because for now. we have d.c. we could scrape together to get this done.

the seven furlough days of our sequester amount. less than 200 elion of the 600 elion we have to find to live within our means. the balance has been saved to those items have been talking about, including contract cuts and cuts in other areas. so we have not done, no commissary. >> you and i had a phone conversation when news broke about the "star trek" radio and the need for a production video. i raised the question, is that a necessary ongoing expand at some $4 million per year at a time when you have to furlough employees and make cuts or service may be impacted negatively. >> so i think it's a fair question and were taken out what to make sure it's as cost as we believe it is. if you look at the numbers that

we can walk through these with you, sir, what you'll find a desire hard not to travel is down 55% in the annual basis. our training travel is down 80% and the rationale of the reason is we've doubled the virtual training we do. the virtual training is created out of the studio. for example, we talked about the island video. i was a 12 hour dvd set created by the group and saved us 1.5 million annually so we didn't have people coming together. they could sit under 12 hours of training. similarly, international training for 1500 international examiners. similarly small business training on how to interview a taxpayer. all these things are being done virtually. i think i've also mentioned that we as a further saslow.

i have used it personally foer frankly a virtual town hall with 4000 managers i was able to strain and talk to them directly about what we need to do, where we need to go, including the cuts in all these things. >> have you compared the ongoing expense of maintaining that versus contracting on a separately. >> that's a fair question would take a look at as we speak. i am absolutely open to efficiency. there's discussions or should we share with other regions see? we are open to all of that. it would be shortsighted to cut it off because not only is it training employees in an efficient fashion,to his creative information for taxpayers. youtube videos, the one of refunds had 1 million viewers this year but hopefully pull people are calling us on the phone. there are things we are doing that are efficient.

can we be more efficient? i'm quite sure we can and we have to get after that. >> i know no agency knows more about the scope of the c. implementation better than the irs. that's a fair statement given that it burdens placed upon you. at the september 2012 hearing on the topic, former iris commissioner fred goldberg called it a heavy lift pergola added to these on the iris beyond its core mission of the mistreating the tax code. i asked a number of questions we are forwarded by a growth nerd and you have a lot of the pre- when can i expect an answer to this question?

>> i apologize for that. i tried. >> i'm now pleased to yield two ranking member lewis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, mr. commissioner, thank you for being here. i would like to take just a moment to focus on the affordable care act. in 2012 about 13 million consumers received $1 billion in payments required by the law with insurance plan did not spend the law also is due to deliver hundreds of thousands of dollars of crack credits to the

american families so they can afford health insurance making sure they understand these tax credit is very. will you please describe what the irs has done so far to implement tax credit and the law? >> well, the tax credit, mr. lewis, will come in to affect and start signing up for advance payment in october of this year from the exchange is being run by states in cms and hhs. we have worked hard the i.t. capabilities. we are building infrastructure and piping to to get the exchange is to make decisions as to whether a particular individual or family qualifies

for the premium tax credit. that has been our key work on the premium tax credit today. >> well, thank you. the affordable care act has enhanced the health care for millions of seniors. as of april, more than 6 million seniors in the doughnut hole have received prescription drugs. they average over $700 per senior in 2012. give taking advantage of free annual bonuses that under medicare. mr. commissioner, for years 2014, the iris requested over 400 alien in the aca? some of this money would enhance

taxpayer service. please explain how they plan to educate and assist the taxpayers. >> part of the discussion will occur as people go to the exchanges in 2013. a lot of that discussion will be worked with our friends and colleagues that hhs. but we will be doing for 14 is preparing for the 2014 returns to come in, educating people on what they need to have in place for that year, what they need to report to us and having the ability to receive phone calls frankly from people who want to find out how to get through the tax filing season. the largest part of the component above are asking for actually is i.t. money.

there is some money for taxpayer service. most of that in the request is for phone calls. we also have some money in there for cramming stuff that comes in that we had data we need to prevent fraud and also additional staffing for walking sites. but that's fairly minor. desiccant and seven at 2014 budget with a taxpayer service side. >> is my understanding under the affordable care act, more than 300 employees to help them afford health insurance. the aca has also helped more than 85,000 individuals with preexisting conditions in-house coverage. is it possible for you to tell

us, what are you doing in requesting two dozen employees for implementation of the care act? what is the role of these employees? >> again, but start the largest piece for the call for taxpayer service to provide the ability for people to call and and get answers to questions. we also have mentioned field assistance folks when you walk in our walk-in sites to help folks. the second-largest amount by far is to find the i.t. individuals we need to do the work for a 2014. the 2014 i.t. work is how do we receive information from insurance companies? data received from the exchanges? paderewski from taxpayers about

20 with the information to ensure that folks know they've gotten all they need to get and that they haven't gotten too much sugar is for this system. there's 1950 for folks to be doing for us. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here today. i know you have a large job and acknowledged these are hard-working taxpayer dollars that we have to make sure our protect it. i would like for you to address. one comes from my state, which i'm not proud of and this is just in the news the last week and i'm going to hold it up here. 24 irs workers in tennessee. workers accused of lying to get unemployment benefits, welfare,

food stamps and housing vouchers. thursday's indictment accuse 24 employees of fraudulently obtaining benefit going back as far as 2006 and has recently september dirty one of 2012. this is a huge concern. i hear you saying that the budget of sequestration and all these things may be able to affect what you're able to do, but this goes to you on that. this goes to a culture and it also says here on a, for example, federal prosecutors announce convictions that irs employees in a similar scheme. i'm not proud of what happened in tennessee. it seems to me this is going pretty deep into taxpayer dollars, number one. but the closer what's happening there.

can you understand what we all are doing to help the workers accountable for the important positions filled in a public trust. >> i first agree with you that first they say they are in dayton and. so we'll assume they didn't do it. melissa seems they are incredibly serious charges. they are. i would say to dim our culture entirely for the acts of 24 individuals is probably not fair. i think the vast majority of our folks are incredibly honest and hard-working. they're obviously a 96,000 individuals going have pockets of problems. it seems like we have pockets of problems. we try to train, try to review folks for taxes. we have seasonals come in and temporary workers as well. we will be training them again

in the work of the inspector general on unemployment, especially if furloughs come out. people need to understand whether they can or can't do on a planet for of time. we will reach out. i'll train, work with inspector general who works very closely in this area and was part of these arrests as we were, we knew about them. >> i don't mean to paint a broad picture to say everybody that works there, obviously not. when you have something like this hit the newspaper and talks about not just isolated to one area in another area. i want to assure the hard-working taxpayer may district that were doing everything we can to protect dollars and they not be news for the people that are supposed to be protecting them. a second newspaper article says irs issues billionths in improper refund in this goes back to something we heard and

i'm not sure whether it's in this committee, mr. chairman or the h.r. i sat on my dear that there is a problem with the end income tax credit and the number of those who are improperly getting the tax credit. i want to read this one line that says the treasury department deputy inspector general, michael mckenney found the irs has failed to comply for two consecutive years at improper payment of the money should not which president obama stand in 2010. my question for you this is so well the agency has a little rent and reducing the eit see improper payment. this is really a can turn to me that there doesn't seem to be a following according to the inspector general about what is put in place to help us stop that. versus 11 ilium dollars in improper payments.

i know what a mishap about in the irs is they respond to the incredible complexity of tax world, which i recognize we are trying hard on the ways and means to rectify that with hopefully a bill that will build a with to do that. i see that i've just got a red light and ran out of time. if you put in writing tommy wyatt is for two consecutive years does not seem to it then it compliance with this improper payment of elimination night, i very much appreciate that. >> if i could take 30 seconds or two seconds p.m. not going to argue where it compliance because i don't believe we are. we will establish a writ response. by the way, while we are not where we need to be, what you will see is we are the best we've been in seven years.

>> were now this is an ongoing problem we had discussions about the additional child tax credit and we thought there was a need to require a social security number rather than a night 10. do you see that as they need? >> said that the statutory decision to be made. >> we have tightened up the rules, but whether bernardo to get a tax credit, you need to have a policy decision. i word pro i'm not to the congress on this question, i would concur it would be the right place for simplification. >> thank you.

ms. jenkins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, commissioner for being here. i want to visit with you a little bit about the irs handling of fraud cases as it relates to the. the overall increase in past cases i've seen an uptick in constituents that have contacted my office for help with dealing with the irs in most cases my constituents are simply asking for help and reaching someone said they can tell the nutcase status. i wanted to share with you a couple examples. one constituent filed their return early in the filing season last year, so february 2012 and received a message that is already been filed. after filing a paper return, he was to accept a refund in 90 days. at the ender friend richard had

not been released. several weeks after the initial contact from the irs system automatically release the fraudulent fire? apparently the return had not been flagged. at the same time his daughter was starting college in the late tax return for the fast application can manage resolution of their whole tax situation. in another instance comic feature that waited until they in august of 2012 to contact the irs because they hadn't received their tax refund after filing early in march. he was in form someone else had fired under a social security or and to expect their refund by november at the latest. he contacted the irs and the sound are and so the refund would be delayed yet again until mid-january.

he finally got to 2011 refund in april, more than a year after year which i filed the return. now we are still working on that case to resolve the issue that caused the delay in filing the 2012 filing. was sad as i could go on and on about calls we get every day. can you describe what the ideal resolution process would look like and how would victims be notified. >> when they put this in context because it would not matter whether or not we have released a refund. it matters to all of us. it does create complexities. if you're the second second one and with your social come you are prevented from filing. for working on it in an ideal

system i get to it in a moment. let me explain the problem first. people hit a wall. you have to file on paper, not david to indicate they are who they say they are. and then it does take us time. we have closed since the year began, within 200,000 cases. one obviously was a constituent. we are finally closing more than we are receiving, so we're driving down the mountain are. they overwhelmed us quite frankly. i pulled 1500 people to do this work off of the collection phones. we've had to find people to do this. in a much better world where we want to be coming you were the second one man or the first one in and you don't kicked out. what happens to you as you come

in and they see your steve miller. you have the same dependent you've had the last 14 years. he was living at the same place he lived for 14 years. you are who you say you are. we are not there yet. a better approach is sooner if we authenticated at the time. if you asked a few questions by her software developer or whoever, were asked sonata volokh question to validate you are who you say you are before you come into the system. these are the things we're working on. this is how need t get to a place where we have the

information and other companies, financial companies have the information. we can define if you are who you say you are. protesting the out of volokh stuff this year. hopefully we'll do something next year to get as close to replace her constituents are able to come in and through the system. >> i guess the big concern is after her return her return a slight come at us concerning how fraudulent return be sent -- if it's not five. >> pattern of the situation. it doesn't sound right, but there are reasons why it could have been. by the way, are more than willing to discuss the specific cases involved and why that wouldn't have been >> thank you. i yield. >> mr. davis, you recognize.

>> mr. miller, as at april the first, 2013, nearly 7 million young adults up to the age of 26 now health insurance to their parents insurance plan. could you talk about changes to the tax code they were necessary to implement this provision? >> so, i think mr. davis, that you are referring to a number of changes obviously made as part of the aca bill. one of them extended the employer exclusion for health coverage, the fact we don't get taxed if the employer provides health coverage to her children, for a later age. previously, your child or dependent needed to be 19 years -- less than 19 years old boy full-time student in 24 and the new rule is unfortunately

our kids are staying with us a little longer, that they can be covered on your plan without adverse tax consequences to your taxes. >> the affordable care and concern he delivered many benefits to millions of people. for example, 100 million americans have received one or more free preventive services and 105 million americans have had a lifetime limit on the coverage eliminated. these are the beginning of the health benefits americans will receive for fiscal year 2014. the irs requested $340 million for information technology and operational support to deliver these new tax credit. could you tell us why that money is needed?

>> i previously indicated some of this, that the i.t. money for 2014 in the budget is to allow the irs to receive the information that will be coming into us from the exchanges. they'll be telling us who's covered under what plans for the employers who will be sending on an annual basis information with respect to their covering and insurance cup is of similar nature, what is coming in and who they are covering. that information needs to be received any system put together to do the matching we need to do so we don't have fraud in the system, so we know steve eller has come in, steve miller is covered via oddly enough the department of agriculture may show up. he has health insurance, so we would know not to have an issue

with respect to my return. .. that makes this prone to errors and why it might be difficult to implement? >> so i would touch on two things here. first, the population involved. there are something like 55 million credit plans in i

think 2012, something like that. the people you are claiming the credit go in and out around the edges of of the qualifier not. so we believe may be as many as one-third are out of the credit a year and into the credit. that creates a real problem. secondly coming it is a difficult credit to administer because it is filled with definitions of qualified child that are different than other places. there is a residence requirement very difficult for us determine of the face of the return of that is met or not. relation to requirements that are difficult for us to determine. very specific things in determining the level of the eligibility for and the level of the credit that are both difficult for the taxpayer and difficult for the service. as we talk about improper payments, want to make clear, it is not all fraud. it is difficult and people make

mistakes. it's both. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. mr. reed to you're recognized. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to have you of course. i note that the chairman has sent you a letter recently regarding the irs policies on reading taxpayer e-mails which some sources say run counter to established case law. since then you have gone on record, and i appreciate that, saying that the irs believes taxpayers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to e-mail. so based on that, i found it interesting that in the internal revenue manuel it permits an irs agent to attach a tracking device to attacks bear vehicle without a court. i am interested, do you believe, as you did with the mills that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in taxpayer vehicles? >> so i am going to have to come back you on paper for that one

theory that it's a smear of the blue, congressman and i apologize for that. you had me going toward e-mails and year of the vehicles, and i am not really sure i understand the full impact of what you're asking. i will be glad to get back to you. >> i appreciated, and it is in your internal manuel 94675 and reference is a policy of tracking without court orders taxpayer vehicles, and there appears to be some oversight forms that have to be required when that is done. i would be interested in getting the details as to what that policy is all about. >> absolutely. >> moving to another area, i am interested in knowing exactly because we have the affordable care act going into implementation. and that is what to get a good read from you as to how many of your employees, full-time equivalents are working on that

implementation right now? >> so, i think the chairman indicated 800. i thought it was a little less and i will have to come back with the exact number. i thought it was in the mid 600 to 700. that is not -- that is not full time people. that is some full-time people, mostly in the eye to the area, but then there are a bunch of people doing some work, example working on something on my guidance project that related to hca, but there also doing other things. that is a conglomeration of the time that has been spent and i will come back with more specific number. it is something in that range. most of it is, as i say, tea. some of it is tech air service commence of it is unfortunate, maybe 200 in the enforcement area and those individuals are doing things like the 45 are small business credit tax and working on the drug statutes and

bills like that. >> okay. because qaeda treasury secretary loop, the 700 number. that is good to here, somewhere in that ballpark. the jellies or cross training with other agencies working with you on the implementation or are these all full-time equivalent under the direct control and authority of the irs? >> the 700 you're talking about are our employees. we work with hhs, cms, the department of labor. we work with as as a. we would -- work with a lot of other agencies. >> have other -- >> some underwear. i will check, but i am aware of any details or details that all. >> okay. if you could check on that i would appreciated. thank you. the last thing, i want to kind of get on the health insurance

reform implementation fund. some money has been spent by the ira so far. >> through 2012 that number sounds right to me. >> about in the ballpark. >> yes. >> how much money do you anticipate using or kneading in regard to implementation of that billion dollars is out there? >> i don't know how much of that is left. we -- i can answer it this like an answer what i need generally. my needs this year -- >> implementation. and just talking about implementation. >> implementation, we ask for something in the room with 360 million. who will spend less than that this year because we did not get it. next year, you know, in the budget is 439 is something like that. >> because my understanding is that the irs has been --

>> 312. so that is all of those years together. >> okay. and so going forward, just one clear, what was the number again that you think you need any additional requests? >> we asked for in the 13 budget requests 360 million something like that. in the 14 request is for wonder and 30 million. >> the implementation. >> for implementation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thanks, gentlemen. mr. paulson. >> thanks, vice chairman. thank you for being here. what the follow-up on a letter i sent over to your office and you were there about emerging patterns and trends and ridges of the conversation about the slow but ago. the inspector general had reported that by mid march in 2013 there had been a 10% decline in the cover 65 the volume of tax returns received by the irs. what was updated figures in the overall total volume of returns that the ira says received by the end of the tax season that

is ended commandos that compare year-over-year to the projections and this season volumes back in april of 2012? >> my understanding is that we're -- and my numbers are, i think, as of the 20th of april when we finally counted everything. takes awhile. we are somewhat -- we are aware -- maybe 1 percent -- less than 1 percent down from where we were in 12. we did have a different filing pattern this year, which is the treasury inspector general was referring to what was correct. we started two weeks later, and we never really caught up until late in the season. we were always behind and wondering where the returns were . they show up eventually. we will be looking to see why the pattern was a little different this year because we need to understand that. i don't have the supplies for you right now on that. we are still the out.

>> it was my understanding that last summer the ira's was predicting a return to be up. identifying the reason for the sweating. not quite sure yet. and of the fiscal cliff issues and that the lay of the service tax season is the controlling factor. >> a 2% 1 way or the other would be significant. welcome back to look to that. >> any change in the number of extensions that were filed by april 15th compared to last year that would lead you to expect a bigger than the usual this year with many more taxpayers. >> of the? you on that. i don't have the extension number. >> and then can you identify, yes, in the context of tax reform, any systematic

implications that we should be looking at the tigers to be looking at africa tax reform and the potential future legislation ? that is really the exercise of the full committee has been going for. what other insights can you share regarding trends and patterns? leyna you will be looking at it, but in terms of what you're observing the we should be paying attention to. >> telecast is that as you forge for of tax reform, which i think is wonderful because simply it will help all of us, that we talk. because our systems are, as i indicated to everyone, our systems are not incredibly flexible. the things that we will deal to do and the time friends and which will the will to do the, you want to a least have in mind to menzies' start talking about these things. i think that we would have important but. not to say, no, we can't do that, but here's how we can do it. >> can you guess at all in terms of how much you leave that either your permits in detecting or preventing tax fraud might

have contributed to any differences in expected return volumes by season's end on april 15th at 0? >> i don't know, congressman. as i say, the returns show up eventually. i don't know that i can describe any difference to the refund fraud work that we have done, but it will be something we look at. >> one of the questions on a different subject, but speaking of the tax measures in the who were getting a tax return. they filed. suppose to get a substantial tax return, high dollar return and got a letter from the irs saying you will be getting a return to mobile will be old enough for a couple of months. so it followed up with the irs and says that that -- is a standard practice. >> if you come back with more facts we can engage in that discussion. there is no automatic stop for high income return. there is not.

there is a stop further if you hit a filter. that might be something the you're talking about here. there is no absolute stop because it's a big return. >> good. >> thank you. i yield back. >> sure recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. coming from the private sector, another we talked a little bit about obamacare and the patient act, however will expand coverage, but is also expanding the cost. how many people -- i think mr. reed talked up the number of employees the irs has to handle. and going back to the private sector, everyone i talk to is talking about the same thing, the complexity of what we have right now. this code is so complicated. when i talk to people, there's a great fear with the people start to fill out there tax return which is why most americans and do it themselves.

they don't understand it. d'agata somebody else open to get them off the king might mistake. mr. lund of trepang to much. they're afraid of paying too little. tommy, from your standpoint, or talking about tax reform up for the sake of tax reform, but to make it easier to understand. it has to be difficult for you folks to go through. and now with the addition of the if little character, the supreme court saying this is a tax, is that the the burden. just a little bit of the complexities because i know what the people i represent feel, but never talked tayras people the fun and they feel that. >> i think -- and their is a reference to former commissioner goldberg statement, this is a yes.lift. but is also a lot. so i sort of would disagree with the characterization that we have our court and as other work the law is the law. we will go after whenever we are

after in terms of executing in implementing. i think, you know, with respect to health care, it's a big loss in the big lift. and the credit card reporting work we're doing, it's of very large component coming into our domain. and hca is just one of those. >> i understand that. in the private sector everybody is returning and doing tax returns. there's a great deal of cost a man of the taxpayers' pocket, not just for the taxes that they go, to prepare for the texas. we have an awful lot of time invested, an awful lot of money invested. the complexity of it is -- and a know it's a like a minor step part of it, but sometimes is unintended consequences drive the cost of this so i and, again , the private-sector when the pressure on taxpayers to the complaint is absolutely

incredible. have to tell you, for businesses , you're talking about not just to competition in the same business commute talking about your government and trying to compile all the things that we require them to do. there's a great deal of costs involved that goes into the final product. the stuff just doesn't of or someplace else. everything we do has cost that it add to the goods and services we're providing a selling. as i wonder about this because it's really about collecting revenues to help the country run. wouldn't it be easier to make it somewhat simpler than the 70 some thousand pages and all the rest of the weight comes with that of the people of supply every single penny that the government uses to supply all these services. sometimes we get the eddy and somehow there is this limit canada's mark, this wonderful person-hours the people with all this money. no, we grab you by the heels, attorney upside-down and shake as much as we can.

we still, but trillion short even though we're shaking his eyes began. the cost of doing this is an incredible addition to people doing business. that money comes out of somebody's pocket or gets added to a finished product. i cannot imagine what you go through every day with your folks and don't know how many houses you have working for you which 78,000 per read employees in and out around 97,000. >> 97,000. any idea what that perilous? you can ballpark. we throw billions around pretty easy. >> rear-ended billions. there's no question about it. our total budget is 11 billion command real pro with 70 percent >> was a request this year? >> 128. >> only another 2 billion more. every penny is provided by taxpayers. or they have cosigned of the note and barred. that is right to disconnect comes in. it is not about collecting

revenue. the ethnic deasy of the people that provide the revenue. so i applaud you for what you do. not criticizing. i'm saying, having of this my whole life, the scary thing. text is a scary day for most people is afraid. and watch this year after year, and then whenever we do a budget -- all we do is take a guess, projects revenues but now we will be about one half trillion more. never in my life have i sat down with anybody who says i think that's okay. and make 2,425,000 combat began should not spend 37,000. as the real number. as with every day americans understand. with a don't understand is how you do that your trier and think things aren't your right. another set with you. and you have a heavy load the left, so all those people. >> thank you.

the business, last september at an oversight subcommittee hearing your agree to provide the subcommittee with all documents relating to the determination of the insurance. subject applying the federally created exchanges. there has been a dispute about this, whether commune of -- and other subsidies and law, it's pretty explicit, they apply to state created exchanges, with the law did not state beverly created exchanges to be ethical for the subsidies. and the subcommittee has asked for these documents. your committee previously committed to providing them. will you give us those documents? >> to be honest with you, i don't remember doing that, but if i did we will work with the dissing will we can do. >> thank you. i appreciate that. the unfinished business. it may have been the commissioner. attention member. it was a commitment, and who

like to see those documents. thank you for being here date. we appreciate your testimony, as always. please be advised, members may submit written questions to be answered later in writing that will be made part of the record as well as the questions. and with that, i'm pleased to adjourn the subcommittee. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> learn more about your congressman and senators with the 2013 congressional directory . contact and permission, district maps, and committee assignments for each member of the house and senate. also, cabinet members of the supreme court justice system and that covers. the directory is called dollars and $0.905 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org / shop.

thursday after attending the opening ceremony for the george w. bush presidential library in dallas the president and mrs. obama attended a memorial service for the victims of the plant explosion in west texas. you can see the president's remarks in the entire event in the time on our website to c-span.org. >> the book of psalms tells us for you, o god, have tested this you have tried us. we went through fire and threw water, yet you have brought us out to a place of abundance. we went through fire and threw water.

you have brought us out to a place of abundance. for the state, for our country these have been trying and difficult days. began here in texas to mourn the brave men who went through fire in all those who have been taken from us. we remain mindful of our fellow americans in the states to the north to endure the high waters. we pray for those in boston have been tested and the wounded his greatest test still lies ahead. no this, while the eyes of the world may have been fixed on places far away, our hearts have also been here. your time of tribulation, and

even amidst such sorrow and so much pain we recognize doug's abundance. we give thanks for the courage and the compassion and the incredible grace of the people. we are grateful for her the mayor in all those who have shown such during this crisis. to the families and neighbors grappling with unbearable loss, we're here to say, you're not alone. you are not forgotten. we may not all live here in texas, where neighbors, to. [applause] we are americans, too.

and we stand with you, and we do not forget. [applause] and we will be there even after the cameras leave. in after the attention turns elsewhere, your country will remain ever ready to help to recover and rebuild and reclaim your community. [applause] >> coming up on c-span2, a senate judiciary committee examines the constitutionality of using drone target terror suspects. then the hearing looks at the affects drones are having in the energy sector. and then the acting arras commissioner justifies our operations at the agency. >> on the next washington journal we look at homeland security policy.

>> she married at the age of 16 and held teacher touched -- teacher has been to be a better reader and writer. during the civil war she sneaks to the union, but by the time her husband since the presidency she is in poor health and secludes her herself to a second-floor room at the white house. legalize it johnson, wife of the 17th president, as we continue our series on first place with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c-span, also on c-span radio and c-span.org.

[inaudible conversations] >> a senate judiciary subcommittee held a hearing tuesday on the constitutionality of the obama administration using drones to target terror suspects overseas. witnesses included retired u.s. military officials, and activists. this hearing is two hours in 20 minutes. >> this hearing of the subcommittee of the constitution so rights and human rights will come to order. today's hearing is entitled drones worse, the constitutional and counter-terrorism replications of target killing. on his way from another hearing, so i want to start on time but certainly understand there are just conflicting schedules that we face here. this is the first-ever public hearing in the senate to address the use of drums and started killing. we're pleased to have such a large audience for today's

hearing. to illustrate the importance and timeliness of this issue. thank you to those that are here in person, those watching live on c-span, and those following the hearing on twitter and facebook. at the outset i want to know that the rules of the senate prohibited outbursts, clapping, or demonstrations of any kind. please be mindful of those rules as we conduct this hearing. there was so much interest in today's hearing that we also have another larger room to accommodate any overflow crowd. if anyone could not get a seat in the hearing room they can go to it to. ♪ and dirksen. at the outset i want to think the senators. pressing the justice department to provide the committee with the justice department's memos on target telling americans. the department provided these memos to the committee.

developers love to the to review the in advance of today's hearing. as we will discuss today this was a positive step. still believe justice department said provide the committee with the memos on target killing of not americans as well. make public the legal analysis contained in those memos without revealing intelligence sources and methods. that led to take a moment to also in balance my colleague and friend, congresswoman barbara lee of california who is joining us today. he spoke recently on the front -- on the phone about drones enamelware for great interest in this issue. thank you for being here. i also ask anatomists -- unanimous consent to confirm senator rand paul of kentucky during a filibuster of the nomination of the senate floor. he could not make it because of a conflict which has submitted a

written statement. i will begin by providing opening remarks. thank you for joining yes the constitution bestows upon the president a unique responsibility and title of commander-in-chief. with that title comes a responsibility to protect and defend america from foreign and domestic enemies. to accomplish this goal, the president as a military as the best in the world. the best trained, best equipped, and most effective. while the tactics and tools used by our military are ever evolving, one thing must remain constant. ours is a democratic society where the rule of law prevails. the president must exercise his authority as commander-in-chief within the framework established by the constitution and the laws established by congress. even as president obama commands

a military with the most sophisticated weapons known to man, including weapon last drones and started killing operations, his authority is grounded in words written more than 200 years ago in our constitution. at times over the course of our history the rule of law has been abused during times of war. when this occurs challenges america's moral authority and standing in the world. this potential for abuse is a stark reminder of congress's responsibility to authorize the use of force only a narrow circumstances and to conduct vigorous oversight once authorized. the heat of battle and the instinct to defend increate moral, legal, constitutional challenges. we can all recall the controversy surrounding the use of torture in a previous assertion. torture, though clearly illegal under both domestic and international law, was rationalized at that time by

some as appropriate in our war against terrorism. today the subject of target killing of commands in contrast to torture has always been part of warfare in areas of active hostility. in recent years, however, it has been employed more frequently away from the traditional battle field. the use of drone's has come in and start turns commemorate started killing more efficient and less costly in terms of american blood and treasure. there are, however, long-term consequences, especially when these airstrikes kill innocent civilians. that is why many in the national security community concerned that we may undermine our counter-terrorism efforts if we do not carefully measure the benefits and costs of target killing. this administration has not claimed the authority to override loss like a criminal prohibition on torture. instead the administration has attempted to a ground its use of

drugs is statute. the 2001 congressional statute to use military force. officials attorney-general eric holder and cia director john brennan have a knowledge to the strikes and delivers speeches explaining the administration's legal and policy positions. in my view more transparency is needed to maintain the support of the american people in their international community. for example, the administration should provide more information about its analysis of its legal authority to engage in part is killing. the internal checks and balances involved in u.s. terms tracks and the administration must work with congress to address a number of serious, challenging questions, some of which are being hotly debated coming even as we need. what is the constitutional and statutory justification for target killing? what do process protections extend to an american citizen overseas before restarted until

bedroom strike? were legal limits on the battlefield? the conflict with al qaeda. is it legal to use drone spot just in war zones like afghanistan, but also to target terror suspects in places where the u.s. is not involved in active combat, such as somalia and human. what is the legal definition of a combatant? in the conflict with al qaeda who qualifies as associated forces under the 2001 a you in half. should the u.s. lead an effort to create an international legal machine governing the use of drones? what moral and legal responsibility does the united states have toward knowledge its role in targeted killing and make amends for inadvertent destruction and loss of life, particularly when missiles kill or injure innocent people. these are some of the questions that we have at this serious hearing. speaking recently, president obama said, one of the things

yet to do is put a legal architecture in place and many congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only i am rain again, but any president. and i agree with him on the need for clear, legitimate, transparent, legal framework for targeted killing. today is the first step in the process. want to know for the record my disappointment that the administration declined to provide a witness testified. i hope that in future hearings your lab up to the door with the administration more closely. i will not recognize my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i would like to begin by thanking the chairman for holding this hearing on this important topic. like to think of the witches -- each of the witnesses for joining a state, known like to echo the concern that the chairman praised, the disappointments that the obama administration declined to send a witness, particularly after this year was delayed in order

to accommodate the administration schedule. i am full of their will provide witnesses as subsequent hearings occur. drones our technology. like any technology, they can be used for good purposes or for ill. the real scope, i believe, of this hearing end of the concern is on the scope of federal power a particular, the scope of federal power to engage in target killing. the obama administration has, for some time, advocated for a drastic expansion of federal power in many, many contexts. indeed, on april 9th i released a report that detailed six different instances in which the obama administration has gone before the u.s. supreme court advocating a radically broad view of federal power. six different times the u.s. supreme court has unanimously

rejected the ministrations view of federal power and has come instead concluded unanimously that federal power is more circumscribed than this administration recognizes. indeed, federal overreach is what was at the heart of the march 6th filibuster led by senator rand paul, which i was quite proud to participate in a significant manner. that day began with a hearing before this full committee where attorney-general holder testified. at the time, took the up to the desk attorney-general holder if he believed the constitution allowed the united states government to use a drone to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil , if that individual did not pose an imminent -- imminent threat. the attorney general declined to answer my question as initially posed and instead responded that he did not believe it would be appropriate to use and drone to

do so. he said, and i paraphrase, that dree should breast confident that in their discretion the administration would not choose to do so. my response, of course, was that the question was not a question about propriety. it was a question addressed to the chief legal officer of the estate's asking whether the nest is smart and of justice and legal position on whether the constitution allows the federal treatment to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat . three-time the pose that question to general holder and three times declined to answer in simply stated, it would be inappropriate company would not say whether not it would be constitutional. finally, after the third time you went back and said that when he said inappropriate, what he meant was unconstitutional. that exchange served later as

the predicate for the 13-hour filibuster that occurred as the first senator rand paul and then one senator after another after another came to the floor of the senate to insist on basic constitutional limits on the authority of the federal government. let me be clear, the authority of the federal government's and the protection of the constitution should not be a partisan matter. the statement from the attorney-general that we should trust the federal government's to do what, in my view the bill of rights is predicated on the notion that we do not trust those in power, be it democrats or republicans. the bill of rights exists to protect our liberties more regardless of who happens to be in our. that 13-hour filibuster did something remarkable. during the course of it americans became fixated by

c-span. i would suggest, fixated by c-span is not a phrase that exists ordinarily mean this language. but we saw thousands upon thousands of americans go on twitter, facebook, begin speaking out for liberty, for limiting the authority of the federal government to take the life u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. as a consequence of standing for principle, we saw the next day the administration do what it had declined to do for many weeks call which is a knowledge in writing that the constitution does not allow the u.s. citizen to be killed. in my view we need protections and simply the of restoration, and i both love the congress will pass legislation making very clear the limits on federal power, and i hope that this panel of witnesses will share your wisdom and expertise on the appropriate boundaries under the constitution and the opprobrious touched our boundaries that congress should consider. thank you. >> thank you, senator.

we're going to turn to our panel of witnesses. the onset of want to thank the senator and his staff for working with me and my staff to develop a witness list for today's hearing. you will hear a wide range of different points of view in the course of the testimony. in keeping with the practice of the committee, will the with this please rise and raise their right in to be sworn. these were or for the testimony you're about to give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you. let the what the record reflect that the witnesses have inserted in the affirmative. the first witness will be retired general car right who certainly -- currently chairs the center for strategic and international studies. he presides active duty on supporters -- september 1st 2011. among many other positions he has served under two presidents as vice chairman of the joint

chiefs of staff, the nation's second-highest military officer. also commander of the u.s. strategic command. general car ride studied at the university of iowa, the air command staff college, naval war college, and the massachusetts institute of ecology. and i was party is a native of rock from illinois. general car right, thank you for your service to our country and joining us today. your written statement will be entered into the record commander europe can is justified. >> thank you, senator durbin. it is an honor and a pleasure to testify before this committee. in the time allotted never like to address three questions central to the topic of this hearing. the first, are we to continue the policies of the global war and terror as they relate to target killings in the use of armed robbery piloted aircraft? that is, number one, the feet terrorists and the mosser organizations.

number two, identify, locate the man most terrorists along with their organizations. three, denies sponsorship, support, and say sure terrorists. for comment to miss the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit and defend u.s. citizens and interests at home and abroad under both the domestic and international law regarding national self-defense. i support this mission and policy. second, under what authority and accountability framework when operating inside the united states are we to operate? intelligence, often referred to as title 50 in covert activities , military, often referred to as tettleton and clandestine not -- activities. law-enforcement. the fbi. the framework robust enough in this mission area to provide appropriate direction of oversight and accountability. the deal the framework requires written orders from the national

command authority, secretary of defense and the president teach first in the chain of operation and accountability, who, what, when, where, what capabilities, restraints, and what types of collateral damage to what to do if there is collateral damage, with what metrics and after action reports. this direction is provided in the mission statement and objectives, warning orders to begin detailed planning, preparation to deploy orders to move to a point of embarkation, deploy and orders to move to the objective and orders to connect the operation. active support consolidation of the normally piloted aircraft on the part of the fence only if there are fundamental changes in how they train and equip for this mission. believe each of the authority and accountability constructs, intel, military, and justice should remain available to the president suggested to insure there are effective for this particular mission.

lastly, under what conditions are armed and remotely piloted aircraft in a brick cavity carry out this mission? in this campaign the u.s. has employed bombers, attack aircraft and cruise missiles, and special operation forces in various areas. improvements in technology and the emergence of armed and normally piloted aircraft have provided a significant improvement in our ability to find, fix, and target in this mission area. they are not perfect. they can be improved. no other capability that we have today is better suited to conduct this mission under the guidelines provided. improvements in sensors and bob is an improved edification of authorized targets and weapons and reduce the potential for collateral damage should be pursued. finally in summary, my recommendations to the panel in committee, one, read you an address as appropriate the framework for direction and oversight and accountability, and i have along piece on this

incited by written testimony. if this is -- if it is to be a covert mission it should be conducted by the intelligence committee. if it is to be a clandestine mission is to be conducted by the military and trained and equipped authorities will need to be adjusted. improved and remotely -- improve the remotely piloted aircraft and weapons systems used in this mission area to better align their current abilities with the desired effect. i am concerned that we may have ceded some of our moral high ground in this endeavor. all i continue to support the objectives of this campaign to my command to the committee for its consideration the recommendations in my written and oral statements. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, general car right. our next witness is professor rose brooks of georgetown university law center in addition to teaching law, professor birch's a senior fellow at the new america foundation and a weekly columnist a national security issues for foreign policy magazine, previously serving as counsel to the undersecretary of

defense for policy where she founded the defense department office will rule of law and international humanitarian policy. she was a graduate of harvard university's dr. university where she was a scholar and the floor is yours. >> thank you. as submitted 20 pages of written testimony, but much like c-span, people don't usually refer to a law professor's right as writing, so i will condense that into about five minutes and focus almost exclusively on the broader rule of law issues that believe are raised bye-bye drones as such, but by the u.s. started killing policy. in the context of the traditional battle field, as we know and have also to have already said, they do not present in a legal rule of law issues. is in the context of places such as somalia, led to cut somalia, yemen, outside of hot battlefields that we are prepared to take represented by problems to the point in which i

think the use of u.s. started telling policy as currently understood appears to both challenged the legal framework that exists and potentially dangerously undermine the rule of law. not because of some conspiracy or lack of concern, but i think we are faced with the situation where the fit between the law in the legal framework that we have in this situation on the ground is not very good you more. soviet the of the rule of law as you and the senator breaux said, is to protect people from the arbitrary exercise of government power. in ordinary circumstances we all know that means the government cannot come and take your property or liberty or kill you without some sort process and similarly we believe that the government cannot use force to kill someone in the borders of another state without the state's consent and appropriate judicial process. obviously there are situations where ordinary rules of supply, such as in war. in the context of wars, armed conflict, the law of armed

conflict tells us that is susceptible to kill, whether by slingshot, gun, or drone. the problem here is that we have two different bodies of law which have radically different rules concerning to process and the use of force by the state. in the law we call this a fancy latin turn to talk about special law applied only in special circumstances, in this case armed conflict, the law of armed conflict, the general law applies in general circumstances, ordinary peacetime. does not necessarily a problem to have to radically different sets of rules applying different situations. is not necessarily a problem as long as we're clear on how we know the difference between when one set of rules apply it when the other supplies. no, the traditional battlefield is pretty clear. you have uniformed soldiers, open the bottom of the conflict. you can have objective observers such as journalists say it looks like their is a large-scale armed conflict.

on the other hand, let's begin of the traditional battlefield when we're looking at in protein enemies such as a geographically dispersed last terrorist organization it becomes very, very hard to say here is where the armed conflict is. here's where the armed conflict isn't. all of those legal frameworks just start breaking down. the problem we now have is that nobody outside a very small group within the u.s. executive branch knows how we're making those decisions about who is a combatant, hours the war. is not what will work to come also, the information in the process is classified, so is just hard to get a grip on what basis we're wracking his decisions on which means that all of our core rule of law questions in which we figure out how we even know what body of law applies are unanswered. was the criteria for determining who is a combatant? who is an affiliate of al qaeda? what does that mean? or as the war?

does the law of armed conflict travel anywhere in combat and travels mckeon applicable anywhere? what about sovereignty issues? is a matter of the state does not consent? decides if a state is unwilling or unable to take appropriate action? who in the u.s. executive branch makes the decision? what is the chain of command, the mechanisms for ensuring we prevent -- prevent abuse. as a deep problem. fadel to get is a problem of lack of good faith. this is just a problem that we have a concept like armed conflict in tickets squishy enough that we can use that same trip to talk about world war ii and will story on right now with regard to al qaeda and its affiliates, frankly, that is a term that is not doing a get -- a lot of useful work anymore. what means in practice is that we just lose in the principal means of categorize new target killing. should we call them lawful targeting of combatants to mclaughlin the law of war. no problem if that is the case. should be called a murder, extrajudicial killings as many

human rights groups have asserted. adelle have a principal basis for deciding in more. else to worry very much about the precedent we are setting for other less scrupulous states such as russia, china, except her. all the second talk about and much more detail and would be happy to during the question and answer. when it comes down to, senator durbin and cruise, right now we have these ticket a bridge back the plan that it has the right to kill anyone anywhere on earth that any time for secret reason is based on secret evidence in a secret process undertaken by an unidentified officials. that frightens me. in my statement submitted for the record i suggest a number of reforms that might improve our ability to insure oversight and accountability. and don't have time to discuss the now, but a very much up to address those letter. i will leave you with this final thought for now, which is that i

believe that it is absolutely possible to make a plausible, legal arguments justifying each and every u.s. strong strike. to me is to suggest that we're working with the set of legal concepts that of a littler usefulness. half -- now what the u.s. started killing zero legal. the real question is this. do we want to live in a world in which the u.s. government justification is so infinitely malleable. >> thank you professor brooks. professor, the upper house that correctly? did george mason law school. make sure your microphones on. professor, her research focuses on popular political person -- participation, co-editor of the supreme court economic review, previously the john olin fellow in law at the northwestern

university law school. it earned a b.a. at amherst college, and in a in political science from harvard and a j.d. from yale law school. please proceed with your testimony. >> i would like to start by thanking the chairman, senator crews, and the other members of the committee for your interest in this important issue. in my testimony would like to focus on two key points. first, they use of drones for target killing in the war on terror is not in and of itself illegal or immoral. second, there are serious legal and policy issues that arise when the problem of ensuring that we're actually choosing the right targets and combining these drawn strikes to people who really are terrorist leaders were in these terrors of some kind as opposed to a innocent people unduly come across our. so by its very nature in a word starting killing in my view is a legitimate tactic and the current conflict between the

united states and al qaeda and its affiliates as a war has authorized by the authorization for the use of military force established in 2001 and various times the president, congress, and the supreme court have all recognized that the current conflict qualifies as a war. certainly in many past wars combatants have legitimately resorted to target a killing, for example, during world war to the united states targeted japanese admiral -- admiral yamamoto, and everyone agrees that is an entirely legitimate military operation. if it is legal in war and morally permissible to use started killing against military officers, surely the same applies to terrorist and terrorist leaders. it would be perverse if terrorists deserved greater immunity from targeting than that enjoyed by uniform military officers. we pretend to obey the laws of war were the terrors clued in not. in addition, i think it's not inherently illegal or

problematic to target american citizens in such situations so long as those american citizens are also commence in a relevant more. the supreme court in the 2004 decision and at other times has recognized that sometimes u.s. citizens to qualify as enemy combatants. although the use of started killing, with a buy drone or with other weapons is not inherently illegal or inherently unethical committee issue of choosing your target does raise some very serious issues. in the war and terror we face an adversary that generally does not wear uniforms and often does not have a clear command structure. therefore, it is often not typical to be able to tell who is a combat and then he was not. this raises to problems. first, we might inadvertently or recklessly started an innt person. second, worse, the possibility exists that the government deliberately target someone who

is innocent because, perhaps, there're a critic of the government or the otherwise attracted the eye of leading government officials which is particularly problematic from a constitutional point of view if there is abuse of targeting of an american citizen. doing that would violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment which provide -- prevents the government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. two aspects of current policy raise serious questions about whether we're doing enough to ensure we're choosing only legitimate targets. one is the sheer number of targeted killings of the last several years which includes hundreds or even thousands of people. studies by various people including mr. burr in who will testify later suggests that only a small percentage of these individuals were killed only word senior al qaeda leaders. secondly, the department of justice memo released a couple of months ago states that it is

permissible to target american citizens who are senior operational leaders of al qaeda into a pose an imminent threat, but it doesn't say anything about how much evidence we need to add before we can determine that someone really is a senior al qaeda leader or even which official is to make that decision. in my written testimony, discuss in more detail some possible institutional solutions to these problems, one that i think deserves serious consideration is the establishment of an independent court to review potentially targeted killing objectives and to ensure that they are backed by sufficient evidence. could, perhaps, be similar to the courts currently used to authorize in the fisa system. whatever solution we opt for it is probably not possible to have a perfect system that avoids all mistakes. but we should aim for is a system on the one hand that permits a legitimate military operations to go forward but

also provides a check on what might otherwise be the uncontrolled and arbitrary power of the executive to order killings, particularly those targeted at u.s. citizens. i think the subcommittee and very much for which your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you, professor. we will now hear from colonel mar offered -- martin mix sally. the first woman in u.s. history to fly a fighter jet in command of fighter squadron in combat. sharon is the brunt -- bronze star. the chief of current operations in africa. assigned to the saudi arabia error operations when a predator drone was first used. she also served as a legislative fellow. she holds degrees from the air force academy, a kennedy school of government in the air war college and was added to the panel at the request of our

friend and colleague, senator lindsay gramm. he for serving our country, floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member should -- crews. i come to you today from an you, and i will speak in generalities that level for my military experience relented use of remotely piloted aircraft for target the killings. i use the time -- term remotely piloted aircraft instead of drone's because that is part of the challenge. there's never permission operation campaign by al qaeda going on against us, and the word trone actually has a connotation that we have these autonomous vehicles flying around and striking a well without a whole lot of scrutiny in riverside . so the military does use the term remotely piloted aircraft to explain and to paint the picture that it actually takes a 200 individuals to keep one of these aircraft airborne for a 24-hour bit, and 200 individuals includes the operators,

intelligence personnel, the maintenance personnel, equipment people call lawyers, and as part of the process you have literally hundreds of personnel involved in the process of the military side when you are actually conducting one of these operations. i will be using the term rpa throw my testimony which is one of the pledge to make. in my written testimony i explain that i think this issue is very important and there are legitimate questions that need to be asked for the oversight rules that we have. as we are choosing, it is legal to use lethal force retarded killings and if it is a good counter-terrorism strategy to use that force. those questions are legitimate and need to be asked. that oversight has got to be tightened up. there has been way too much, i think, fitness and lack of clarity, even in the information that has come out of the chain of command related to illegal our human and strategy on that matter. i believe there should be separation of three questions.

is it legal, is a good strategy, and the third question is if we decided that it wanted to use lethal force because it is legal in good strategy and a counter-terrorism marina what platform should we use? action refocusing and discussing that platform. it will be surprising that a pilot would be advocating for the use of remotely piloted aircraft. but in the course of my 22 years in the military i have excessively worked with remotely piloted aircraft for our variety of different means. we're on a regular battlefield you often have a lead tenant pilot in an era in first class on the ground making decisions to use lethal force with potential strategic consequences . if they hit the wrong target and there is collateral damage then there is a great level of potential issues related to that wrong decision. when you're talking about the use of an elite private

aircraft, you have what i believe is unprecedented levels of persistence, oversight, and precision of your choosing to use it as a platform. your other choices are fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, seals, artillery, and other means of using lethal force. when you're using remotely piloted aircraft, oftentimes because the number of issues that have to come together and line up to include positive edification, geographic location , collateral damage assessment, forced the conflict and other communications that to happen is often not practical because the targets are fleeting to use any of these other assets. ..

>> if you decide to have a legal strike. i look forward to a question that discussions on this matter and that the unclassified level of processing get through to achieve the different criteria before we clear for

the straight. >> thank you colonel mcsally. mr. bergen director of the national security studies program for the new america foundation and a best-selling author and widely publicized journalist. and national security analyst of the center for and an adjunct professor at john hopkins school of keffiyehs to studies and holds it his degree from oxford university. please proceed. >> thank you for the privilege of testifying. we get the new american foundation basically are collecting data on the drone strike so for the last three or four years a about a lawyer but my presentation is about what has been happening with the drone program. here are the main points. under obama 307 drone strike

since pakistan six times more than president bush a drink at 180 million pakistan these that is a large price to pay and to be a more discriminating program as a result to override the discussions but also an increasingly congressional oversight and

the supreme court justice brandeis said earlier think we have this discussion. so there is a series of reasons there are probably fewer targets and you have seen a decline in pakistan and nebulosity about the drone program in yemen. only one drone strike under george to be bush before city -- 46 under president obama and we calculate up to 674 casualties while the six to place under president obama. who are the targets? as the professor indicated the militant leaders and not being killed with any great number we calculate only 2 percent actually people you could term leaders. that is an interesting development.

what was initially started as a program to do toward high-level members of al qaeda has taken to the counter insurgency airforce but good or bad it is a fact it is happening. where are the targets? over in waziristan that is where the haqqani network is located. says seville -- civilian casualty rate initially 2006 it was almost one in to present now we have to present we also have an unknown category of 9% sometimes it is not clara clara:negative clear because if betty dresses the savings could be taliban or civilian that we find a significant

change in the casualty's said one is that the drone as pointed out there are smarter payloads. better intelligence. bombing has taken a more direct role to adjudicate strikes where there might be a civilian casualty. but the london-based bureau for investigative journalism but it is quite low. this led to issue to have an interesting discussion. there were forced millions casualty's in this is the first official acknowledgment in pakistan on the background the

civilian casualty rate is much lower than presented. what effect is this having? osama bin on and himself with the documents recovered he was concerned about the drone program in the amount of damage inflicting on his group that that they should change the location of the camp and he even suggested to move to another country to get away from the tribal regions. so it is having an impact and to reinforce, the precedents we are setting where 70 countries have drones and three of them have arm to drones and it is very, very close the chinese are very close and you can easily imagine the situation with china and deploy-- drones and go separatist with the same

rationale with a credit or the taliban that we could be a terrorist. >> thank you very much mr. bergen. the last person has made a personal sacrifice to be with us. a yemeni youth activist writer in freelance journalist. and instructing the use in public policy dialogue. and attended the american university for beirut. i hope i can production name a figure for coming today and afford to your testimony. please proceed. >> the queue for inviting me

today. six days ago to apply an american drone and in the attack that terrified. i come from a family that lived off the livestock of our farm. my father and come barely exceeded $2 bets in the employ in today reaches the u.s. state department supplemented by a educational progress did with an american family and attended american high school that was some of the best years of my life. of learned about the american culture in was on the basketball team. but the most exceptional experience is someone who

was like a father to me a member of the u.s. airforce. most of my years was spent with him and his family. he came to the mosque with me and i went to church with him. he became a best friend in america. i came back as an ambassador of the u.s.. who i could never have imagined the same hand that changed my life and ticket from miserable to promising also paul my village. might understanding is a man was the target of the drone strike. many people know that they could have easily found and arrested him. even local governments would have captured him of u.s. told them to do so.

in the past but what might wonderful experience has had the friendships that i have described help them to understand the america that i know and love. now however when they think of america they think of the killers that hover overhead that could fire missiles any time. with that has failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instance that is now against america. this is not isolated. fish runs strikes are the face of america to the images but i have spoke to many victims of the u.s. drone strikes like a mother who had to identify her child's body through a video

series sulfone. or the father who held his sexual children as they died in his arms. i spoke with one of the tribal leaders at the place where the u.s. cruise missile -- missiles loaded. but tribal leaders and others that it was impossible to differentiate between the children, will men and animals. some of these innocent people were buried in the same grade as their animals. -- in the same grave as the animals. but based on the interviews i have conducted for have been a part of. i have a personal experience

last year i was within american journalist and the local people we were interviewing talked of their past experiences and both was the american drone my heart sank and i felt helpless. but i eighth thought this might be my american friends. i was stunned this is a country that i love it was one of the most divisive aaron difficult things i have ever encountered. i felt that way when my village was balm to. i deeply believe that when

the strikes have caused a and with the mines and the grounds in yemen. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> general car ray n. a recent speech you notice your concerns about potential reaction to targeted strikes. in that speech you said you try to kill your way to a solution the matter how precise you will upset people even if they are not targeted. stannum a crystal vase also said the strikes is much greater than the average american appreciates. the testimony provides a chilling example of how

these strikes can undermine our efforts to win the hearts and minds of the very people we rely on to provide intelligence and the allies. are retreating success of killing individual targets for the long term strategic failure by looking at widespread discontent and anger? >> senator, i can talk to specific operations, i am worried we have lost the moral high ground for much of the reasons the witnesses have talked about. some element of transparency in process, a decision making coming in the understanding not just those who make decisions but the people love this country and the country that we work and his going to be essential to find our way back to the moral high ground. i believe if people understand what the options are and they are reviewed

and basically with the judicial system in the adversarial way, looked at with a jaundiced eye to proceed and not to proceed we can move in a direction far better than where we are today but i believe in several areas around the world the current drone policies have left us a position where we are in gendering more problems than we are solving. >> but within you would knowledge because of the classified nature of information being used to target and protecting the sources and methods which we're using to find that information makes transparency is not challenging, impossible? >> i was a challenging but not impossible. it is not necessary to provide the secret sauce to provide the understanding of why you are doing we we're doing, how you make decisions, and why they're

necessary, and you have reviewed alternative choices for but that is the important part. i don't disagree as i said said, that the policy is one that i support but it is the means and methods to reflect on. >> am looking jazzy he would have been here to cast a vote for the authorization of military force. there were two votes. one relative to the invasion of iraq, 23 voted in the negative and the second that we see was a direct answer to 9/11 with a direct assault on al qaeda of virtually flat at the time i don't think there is a single senator that would

say what they envisioned 12 years later we would end the longest war in history and treated in an authorization for the ongoing war like effort for the al qaeda operatives and their associates. my question to you is whether or not if the officers in -- authorization for military force is adequate to the task to protect america when we are still menaced and terrorized by those who would do us evil. and whether or not there needs to be a revisit of that to determine whether it should be stronger or more specific. >> senator durbin i would urge congress to repeal the 2001 event. the president already has ample power as the commander in chief as a chief executive to use military

force when necessary to protect the united states from the imminent threat but i would emphasize the words imminent and grave play in the absence use military force we would like we see the executive branch perceive itself as constrained to do a more careful analysis of the importance of using that force particularly where the targeted killing in a country, i share my colleague's views there is nothing inherently wrong about the use of targeted killing, but i do think we have gotten well beyond of the drafters could ever have imagined as they go from al qaeda to the of language that focused squarely on those floor responsibility

and also preventing the those to go further down the lower level militants and we also shifted to focusing on organizations that it is not that clear that would fit that tactician and in leaving to 9/11 or in any capability, a capacity or inclination to focus on the united states. >> by and trying to get is this a definition of our enemy is al qaeda and associates could be challenged today in terms of threats and going off field from the original threat but they are realistic threat so the definition of our enemy or enemy come back and would have to be carefully considered but second, we're

not challenge to define the battlefield where we canning kj and targeted killing and what it takes to authorize to go into somalia, yemen, pakistan, af ghanistan or nations in africa. where is that battlefield? it seems like it could change on a daily basis to still we a threat to the united states. having been through this debate in the house and senate over the authority and responsibility of congress to declare war on behalf of the american people that i don't think our founding fathers could have envisioned what we're facing today to keep this country safe. senator? >> i would like to take the opportunity to welcome back senator grassley who is the ranking member with this unfortunate consent i'd like

him to ask questions before i ask wind. >> welcome senator grassley. thank you for the cynicism. [laughter] i appreciate each of the witnesses it -- witnesses coming to present a very learned and provocative testimony with this critical issue. i would like to begin by a posting to each view is the theoretical because it seems to me what is the use of legal force and of the spectrum are relatively easy then there are areas in the middle that are far more complicated legal questions. seems there is no serious question that if a foreign national is overseas actively taking arms against the united states -- them

the the force can or should be used against a foreign national in those circumstances. likewise it seems clear to me that the answer to the hypothetical is simple and straightforward and that was its united states citizen is on u.s. soil and we have intelligence to suggest that individual is terrorist come involved with al qaeda but at that moment that individual poses no imminent threat coming in deeded u.s. citizen is sitting on u.s. soil at a cafe in northern virginia does the constitution allowed united states government uses a drone to kill the u.s. citizen on u.s. soil? in my view that answer should be absolutely not. it is the question i'd like to pose to all six.

does anyone disagree the constitution does not allow killing a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose a threat? >> i agree. >> i am encouraged by that answer. i wish the obama administration had accepted this subcommittee repeated invitation to send a representative because the last time the attorney general was here he was reluctant to oppose the answer that all six of you just gave. it seems to me there are many difficult questions about the use of drones and the current policy to use them overseas. there are strategic questions using a drone strike to take out a terrorist or a leader of al qaeda means that individual will not be apprehended or

interrogated we will have no actionable intelligence and we will not come as a result the able to prevent acts of terror in the future and with a drone strike, the risk of error is said to that individual is not new rethink it is there is no process to correct that mistake. the consequences are significant. that being said the, if it is so i would like to ask a question, it seems to me on the question of the constitution parameters and agree with the two extremes then you get into the whole gray area and i want to suggest four possible criteria to get both of your thoughts out each of those criteria impact the constitutional question.

the first is the individual the target of the drone strike whether the united states citizen, of legal permanent resident or a foreign national. a second possible criteria that could be possible is location. is that individual on u.s. soil or overseas? 1/3 possible criteria and is if that individual is actively affiliated with a foreign house style for such as al qaeda? in the fourth possible criteria is whether that individual poses an imminent threat of violence. i will no one of the concerns i have about the white paper released to nbc is the definition of an imminent threat in my view that this administration has put forward is exceedingly broad.

so for each of you to talk about the relevance of that criteria and the imminent threat is important, how should it be properly defined so it is relevant? >> thank you senator. those are perfectly reasonable criteria think the administration has put out very similar criteria but the devil is in the details we can say is someone meets the criteria of a foreign force taking of arms against the united states then they become targets doubled no one will disagree on the broad principle but the trouble is who decides what constitutes evidence, what did you make a mistake? it is the same for the other

criteria nor will disagree the united states has the inherent authority to use military force in the context of the thread of a serious attack against the united states but as you suggest that term has gotten pretty squishy in the legal memos we have seen so far. so we would highlight not so much secretary in the abstract but to create adequate mechanisms to make sure there is sufficient transparency with the classification and to ensure oversight and accountability. one other thing i will lead at is coming to me, a constitutional question but a broader rule of law question in the declaration of independence of forebears' spoke of inalienable rights of all

men and today we talk about human rights and the fact they are not u.s. citizen that they do not have specific protection obviously should not make us care last about there legal recourse in the event they are wrongly or abusive lee it targeted i am fully confident in my colleagues in the of ministration make there very best efforts to prevent the error but on all that is a firm foundation to think about the rule of law more generally in the future >> thank you very much for the question. each of the four points you raised are essentially different and i will try to give a few thoughts. one is a question if the individual is a u.s. citizen or foreign national but as i noted a u.s. citizen could potentially be an enemy combat in to it that does

make him or her a legitimate target that there are special constitutional problems that arise in the views of targeted of this is a sin that could be a violation of the fifth amendment if it applies to foreign nationals outside of u.s. soyoil. obviously even if it does not, targeting the innocent civilian is still legal under domestic and international law that with the constitutional issues could potentially be different. the question of location that is more fully covered in the written testimony, i would tentatively suggest there is a reasonable distinction between suspected terrorists located in areas where