in 2008 when we were proceeding with the dismantlement programs to dismantle yongbyon there was a bare negation particle that they agree to orally. when we asked for them to put it in writing because that was a very robust verification protocol it required if you will unfettered access anywhere anytime samples taken out of the country and they refuse to put it in writing. since then they have not come back to the table so it shows how important verification piece of the equation is with north korea. i would think the same with iran with a very robust meaningful protocol that insists on a unfettered access and samples and so forth. i will be critical as we move forward in this example we got from north korea. >> thank you. let a shift gears for just a moment. where does israel fit into all of this and their views on iran

compliant issues and just what attention is being paid in that area? mr. rademaker? >> israel is obviously concerned about the iranian nuclear program and with good reason. iran and iranian need leaders have made comments about how israel should be wiped from the face of the earth or wiped off the map of the earth. so for a country like israel that's obviously alarming that you have those kinds of statements coupled with technological activity that seems aimed at producing a nuclear weapon which would enable them to do precisely what they are saying they would like to see happen. so the united states has a lot to be worried about and iran's other neighbors in the persian gulf region have a lot to be

worried about. israel has a lot to be worried about. israel is paying a lot of attention to this problem. my understanding is there's a great deal of apprehension and israel about the current course of the diplomacy. as i said earlier its eyes been possible to negotiate a deal with iran just agree with what they're asking for and we can have a deal. i think the israelis are concerned that the deal that was struck last year leans too far in that direction of iran's negotiating objectives. they are allowed to continue enriching. they get sanctions relief momentum in the direction of tightening sanctions has all been reversed and then they are promised this get out of jail free card and they can continue to enrich at a level that is being negotiated right now and

when that period expires they can do all the enrichment they want. they can do other reprocessing they want and none of that will be limited. the israelis are deeply concerned about that and my sense is that is going to rise to some tension in the bilateral relationship between united states and israel. >> my time has expired. >> we will go to karen bass of california. >> thank you mr. chairman. b-52 on the administration has intimated that a final agreement that leaves iran with the breakout time of six months to a year may be acceptable. i wanted to know from the panelists whoever chooses to answer what you think of the idea if a six-month breakout window would be a sufficient period of time to detect and counteract and iranian breakout. go ahead. >> certainly six months as a short period of time with diplomacy and it depends how

iran will deviate from the agreement. there are several options available there and if it goes for example in such a way that the only evidence the iaea has on the results it normally takes about three months to get it. six months is much too short a time because you need to take examples and you can perhaps analyze them but it has a lot of vulnerabilities and it's also very difficult to estimate the unknowns what kind of perimeter you have there are and how long it will take to find out. you need to prove it etc. so six months is a very short and. see if i could just add i think some of us feel that there may

be too much emphasis on a timeline because it's hard to say for sure iran is six months away from a weapon or its 5.5 months away from a weapon or even react to that time and i think that's why several of us have been advocating that the really important thing to get right in this agreement is to layer on sufficient monitoring system so you have the sense of what that attack status of iraq's -- iran's program because everything else falls from a. >> forgive me if i sound like a broken record but that six-month breakout time is fine but let's bear in mind that six-month period will only apply during the. period of a comprehensive solution. when the conference of solution and some that will be in five or 10 years than all of the things that give us that six-month window go away. they will no longer be limited

in the centrifuges and the amount of enrichment so the moment that solution expires it won't be six months. it will be six weeks. >> i heard you say that earlier so what do you think it should be? it shouldn't be five years it should be 10 or 15 years? what are your thoughts about that? >> on the comprehensive solution? >> right. >> i think the enhanced verification requirements, the restrictions -- given the history don't think iran should we permitted to enrich at all. i think they should not be permitted to enrich but the restrictions on what they can do and the enhanced verification that applies to that should be indefinite until the international community can reach a judgment that it is satisfied that iran is not like

south africa. they have turned a corner and they are no longer a nuclear proliferation. i think it's going to take more than good behavior before i will feel comfortable. >> you and several of the other panelists mentioned several countries south africa and brazil. are there any other examples internationally where it's been without a specific timeline? you know what i mean? in other words we continue --. >> i think they also gave up their program. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. now we go to adam kinzinger of alumni. >> thank you chairman and thank you all for being here and helping to educate us and talking about these important issues. as i look around the world and i look around especially at the middle east i guess i'm excited

the administration is so giddy about the prospect of negotiations with iran. i think a lot of the pending negotiations we heard yesterday from the administration about how they are hopeful that the situation going on with the release of five taliban will help lead to a reinvigorated taliban to come negotiate with the united states. i reminded some folks in the administration that in fact pakistan is in negotiations with the taliban right now and a day or two ago 18 people were killed in an airport in the fight with the taliban. we look at the situation in israel the israel-palestine negotiations and all the effort that the administration is put into that which while we would all of love that to be solved this questionably regional conflict in the smaller conflict on the basis of conflicts that surround the developing middle east. in negotiations with russia and how well some of those of don and syria and the situation we find ourselves in there.

i don't have a lot of hope in the future of negotiations from this administration. and i would ask and i will assess rhetorically and feel free to comment later if you can think of any success we have had with negotiations with an enemy of the united states under this administration. we had her boot on the throat of iranians at a time when we really could have i think ended the question of nuclear arms in iran. it's always interesting to me how the iranians feel they they can be in any position at all to have any bargaining power the table or have any demands from the beginning. we determined they should not have the right to an air weapons program and i think that pretty much says it. but that said i want to go an issue that has been touched on it very briefly. i can asks for the level of your expertise. can you talk about the iranian ballistic missile program? they are developing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons through the ballistic program.

i'm curious whoever wants to go first talking about the situation where iran finds itself with ballistic missiles. mr. lauder? >> there are raining ballistic mullahs -- missile program is a capability that is of concern and in fact if it would be difficult to negotiate at this stage given what has transpired already but i would think it would be very important to begin to find a way to add additional constraints on that program and to add additional monitoring against the program. you may recall in the heyday of arms control agreements between the united states and the soviet union we chose to focus on

delivery vehicles because they were easier to to monitor in some ways than an air weapons themselves or the nuclear programs themselves and i think constraints and monitoring of the uranium ballistic missile program would be a very useful complement in the types of things we have been talking about safari. >> but do we have the ability to do that? when you're negotiating with the russians and you have arms limitation agreement and you have two superpowers those with a vested interest in trying to calm the situation this is an asymmetric situation. iran is no soviet union. do we really believed we could put in place a way to monitor? are there ways to put in place to monitor what they are doing and deal with the assurances that they are not hiding anything in the mountains are underground? or underground? >> one of the challenges we face is this is very much an asymmetric relationship. this is not where the united

states is concerning some of its capability. we are asking iran to stop doing what it has been doing illicitly against international norms and international agreements and we are trying to trade off of sanctions against that. we know how to monitor missiles and we certainly have a track record of things that we could put in place if we could bring iran to that position. >> but your your point is right on. we are talking about weaponization and miniaturization of the delivery system for ballistic missile program. they continue to develop it so is a central piece and an meaningful monitoring verification protocol the missiles have to be very much a part of that. spain mr. chairman -- >> we go to mr. william king of

massachusetts. >> i would like to thank the panel for their very important discussions this morning. i think it underscores to me and many of our members the reforms fully before the agreement is to go forward and many of the issues you brought up for critical ones. my role is also as the ranking member on europe and asia and the emerging threats there so i would like to shift more into european perspective of things and how do you assess the role of our european partners in the pf plus five especially if catherine ashton stepping down. will that have an effect at all in what you comment on that? our partners and how they are feeling the situation and give this your expertise in that area as well. >> my only comment on that would be the europeans are extremely concerned in your last question about ballistic missiles that north korea has the capability

and they're working on that to touch europe with their ballistic missile systems and if there's a nuclear program so i think the european nations ought to be extremely concerned about the nuclear program, no question. >> do we have any comment on the effect of the u.s. dealing with the partners as well and this? with things could raise potential conflicts and what things could we do to ameliorate things going forward? >> sir on your question about -- she has been a central player. i think her departure will make a difference although we don't know exactly what the difference will be because we don't know who her replacement will be. we can depend on the personality of her successor. more broadly speaking the observation was made earlier that were sanctions policies to work we need cooperation of our economic gardeners and there

have been plenty of hiccups along the way but by and large in recent years the cooperation is in pretty good. i think congress has provided incredible leadership in the sanctions area. the shorthand that is applied to this is the menendez-kirk amendment to the defense authorization bill. there have been two of them but the way they impose financial sanctions in a creative way designed to discourage the importation of iranian oil but it was done very cleverly and in a calibrated way that has actually worked and there's a lot of conversation about frozen iranian assets in foreign banks. these are not funds that are frozen but funds that are being held in the banks and being briefed he. to in cash form to iran because

of the sanctions policy that congress mandated and other countries are cooperating on. the partnership has worked pretty well. in terms of the actual diplomacy it's interesting. i was involved in it to some extent when i served in the bush of administration and there are times that some of our european partners take a harder line on iran than the united states does for example the current french government has been pretty firm in its stance on the iranian so it's gratifying to see sometimes some of our allies take a harder line on the iranian nuclear program in the u.s. government. >> the pf plus one moves forward there is some kind of flop turned -- long-term agreement and some of the ambiguity and the lack of robust -- what are the concerns as a group?

what would happen if lifting of sanctions unilaterally or as a group. do you see that is a concern going forward. that kind of disengagement? >> lifting sanctions like that would be that would be a terrible move and move us in the wrong direction. i think we have to be united on something like this. >> and then lastly i just want to touch base a little bit on russia. the u.s. and e.u. imposed sanctions what implication of any will increase european demand for gas and our ability to sustain international consensus regarding sanctions on iran? >> the that's a pretty complex question having to do with the functioning of global energy markets.

both iran and russia are major energy exporters and so i guess they both benefit from higher prices and they both benefit from the diversions of shortages so it is one of the challenges that i believe the united states faces in dealing with russia and the fact that something like 30% of european gas consumption is russian gas. there is an effort now to build a pipeline across turkey and to southern europe but ideally to be filled with gas and i think the iranians would be happy to put their gas in the pipeline if they were allowed to do that. we don't want that to happen but the energy equation is a complex one and iran as the government is guilty of gross financial mismanagement so their energy

resources are relatively undeveloped compared to what it could be with that or management. >> we go now to mr. randy weber of texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. our colleague mr. meeks said that negotiating with iran is not easy and i thank you mr. mr. rademaker would -- negotiation would be easy and my words if we roll over and play dead in every -- give them everything they want. was either said that? >> my opinion is that if we are not careful in these negotiations we will get what we got in the guantánamo trade. we get to keep unconventional weapon. they get five nuclear weapons so it turns out adam kinzinger was correct. negotiations have not been kind during this administration. if we don't realize there's a danger of negotiating with iran we are fooling ourselves.

anybody here on the panel remember when the first time iran referred to the united states as the great satan? anybody? >> november 5, 1979 but ayatollah khamenei so for 35 years. i don't know what time it was said israel was a smaller state so should we be saying when we talk about negotiating with iran and the terrace here we are negotiating with the group of people who are radical is fundamentalist terrorists who the jihad is believed in exploiting terrorism to the extent that they will strap explosives on young boys and girl's to kill other foisted

girls and we think we can negotiate with them? i believe it was you mr. lauder who said we need a list of all of their scientists who are working on their program? i don't know if you saw "the wall street journal" article on may 27 where there's a group of opposition leaders who have identified motion foster is our day i think is his name as the father of a nuclear weapon. would you agree with that? and mr. chairman by the way mr. chairman if i may have would like to get this letter into the record. >> without objection we will include that. >> would you agree with that? >> i think it's very important that we have access as part of the regime of the key personnel on the part of iran's nuclear program. >> you agree that he's the father of the nuclear program?

>> i don't know. most nuclear programs probably have multiple fathers. >> but do you know this gentleman? mr. ambassador you are shaking your head. turn your mic on please sir. turn your mic on. >> i've heard the name before sir. he's affiliated with the nuclear program. >> would you give this credence versus something you heard in passing? >> i think there's something to it. >> okay. >> you mentioned also mr. lauder that the facility first of all that we should get that list of those involved those scientists. we should have anytime anyplace access for 24/7. i think it was you that said that in today's hearing which i can't agree more on. if we keep it in the context that we have terrorists who will kill innocent children men and

women and who had been lying and doing such for over 35 years. how long do you think we have to give them a chance to prove themselves? trust but verify 24/7 anytime anyplace access? should it be 35 years? should they stop their exporting of terrorism or i should say supporting syria right down the list afghanistan and iraq all the terrorists they are supporting should be 35 years or is 35 months long enough or not long enough? we will start with you mr. mr. rademaker. >> the question is how long should we expect to be compliant before we can trust them? >> i have a hard time answering that. it's sort of like the supreme court. i will know it when i see it. i don't think you can measure this by a timeline for it i think the measure of whether you can trust iran will be the

totality. >> okay i've got you. >> who is in power there and what policies are they pursuing. >> what do we catch them with if we are diligent enough? i'm almost out of time. let's go to mr. lauder for a minute. >> i agree with some of the comments mr. rademaker made earlier that we have to be about this monitoring and verification regime for the long-term. >> six months karen bass bass asked the question six months is long -- not long enough for great? >> has to be longer. >> very quickly because i'm out of time. what do you think the length of time out to be? >> more than six months but it's how the compliances dealt with. what kind of process will have in place when something comes up

when we see iran has not complied. the track record is fair. >> forgive my. >> i would say this is going to be indefinite. the part of the npt is fair. you're going to have to have those launches and they have two have the protocols and the unfettered access is going to have to be there indefinitely. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back the. >> we go to mr. david cicilline from rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses for this very useful testimony of very serious issue. the principle challenge we face as a country is how we reach agreement with the party with very serious consequences that has been deeply untrustworthy and deceptive and i think in part our success depends on our ability to monitor effectively and to respond effectively to any failings to any agreement. i want first asked the

witnesses, the joint plan of action calls for a conference of solution that and i quote that would ensure iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful end quote. we have also heard of president rouhani say that iran will not dismantle a single centrifuge and so my first question is, is there a way to ensure iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful without dismantling some centrifuge is? ..

>> >> of course, we don't except that. if your question is how many centrifuges could they be operating we are confident it is with the history with where they have been. and forgery to say to be a exclusively peaceful is zero centrifuge but we're in in a

situation where they have an operating number of a centrifuge. i don't understand why they need any. and to produce fuel for the civil nuclear program. >> then they do gave more centrifuge. so the idea to negotiate the number that is lower than it now that is evidence of a peaceful program so of an abominable -- minimum number makes no economic sense and now negotiating down to is a centrifuge program literally make sense of the military program.

so it would go to the operation of zeros interviews. >> with there were constraints with respect to research and development with that technology it is frozen in time and were entering your thoughts of the final agreement to impose responsible constraints on research and development with the security of our country and the limitations? >> access to the facilities to the notes and the data and the test records. it is important to go way back to determine the capability is. >> but in addition further it a limitations to limit research and development to

limit capability? >> first of all, in our mind we saw the two technologies for their uranium for peaceful purposes. it is the behavior of the state and i personally see very hard to argue they need in richmond for the power plant if nobody sells it and it is uranium so what you are not able to buy uranium then you are well dressed but nowhere to go. solo to baster argument on

that. >>. >> i have been struck to watch the ayatollah reaction how things have unfolded in front of a bitter that america cannot do a thing and said they have renounced the idea of any military action in. i try to understand from their perspective the sanctions so what incentive does he have to want to change his course of conduct? to me he is absolutely incentivized to want to enrich and have a nuclear capability. and does anybody want to quibble with me with the

ayatollah perspective haven't we provided him a road map to continue on? >> i thank you point to a well-founded concern what brought every and choose the negotiating table in the first place? in a tin is pressure that has been relieved to some extent and on the military side with the threat of a military strike than one year ago. we have negotiators meeting today in geneva. maybe they are making progress i don't know but i am concerned iran right how they know what they need to

would agree to to get the deal been holding now for better terms is that because they are under less pressure and will diminish over time? that the current trajectory is in their favor? i worry that is what they are thinking. maybe the diplomats are also. for whatever proposal they have made. >> as this has unfolded to deal with ivory and to treat to them in a way that is too much of the sensibility however and conducts themselves they don't recognize enough the way they are motivated with the islamic jihad to wage war against infidels.

and to to have negotiations i am not optimistic that that will be done and iran well willingly disarmed itself for i hope i am wrong but that is where we are. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> edwin what has been said and allowing us to conduct a bipartisan way into the ted shawn in testimony with the deal is time based in proceed however the country wants to.

with that since we all need to a trustee and iran is with hegemonic and nefarious intent that it can be treated like to pay and i would argue the exact opposite. like any non-nuclear weapons state by rand is different. today is 40 days away from the deadline in there is talk about moving a ran back onto the pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. many of us have stated here before and today moving iran back words is not sufficient the goal should be to move it off the path by that way

of introduction is there any reason we should be not holding them a reactor or to fully disclose their previous military intentions? civic i think we're in violent agreement with our perspective. but with the rationale i am the wrong -- the wrong person to ask because i don't think they should be allowed. if you want someone to do give you a reason. >> does anybody have a case

to justify to allow them to a rich? i think the sense is we're all in agreement. before november to fourth last year before it was made the conversation was any and all pathways to acquire a nuclear weapon and it seems that concern is not closing the pathway after all. mr. lauder you talk about how to deal with noncompliance but how do we do that even before to make sure as incentive to go forward? >> it is an excellent question and comes back to begin to have any confidence that this agreement will be

complied with we have to go back to the path to make a full disclosure of what they have done under the nuclear program. we still have to leverage the sanctions nothing is agreed and everything is agreed but that understanding for what iran has done in the past becomes a foundation for the of monetary regime. >> in 2003 when they reach what is an agreement with iran to come to the history of its program made to look what was the reason was there another and this is the most important element to be concluded.

>> sanctions they are abiding we know why they are back at the table because they need relief. going after the financial system with that illicit activity is so lucky in that is the pressure to keep them on a path my personal view is you keep that on if they want relief that is where it comes in and if you're not performing. >> ambassador eyes agree but my personal belief is we need to make sure iran understands no deal is better than the bad deal but orders of magnitude credit -- greater if there is not the deal to our terms and with that i yield back.

>> i appreciate you being here. we sat here several times over the past year in the half and everybody was pretty much in agreement therapy nuclear richer real to construct five or six bombs does every and accomplish that mission is to have enough material? >> no. the concern is with 20 percent parity into enough kilograms. >> but we don't have all the information can we -- and we cannot say with certainty? >> have made the as indicated. >> you were saying is very difficult to monitor and verify the compliance.

should these details have been worked out before releasing sanctions? >> you should have everything on the table i wanted everything before you move forward. would you agree with that? >> i don't have all of the modalities but they gave relief with a certain number moving forward. >> but if we cannot verify your monitor richet of had a way to monitor all those parameters before moving forward. i hope so what about you? >> i think it is very important before there is further loosening of the sanctions that we do get the complete and full accounting of those declarations as the basis of the monetary regime. >> in your opinion does the

program allowed iran to do get closer to have a bomb if we stay on the current track ?yq- >> i think the obama administration would argue with the current arrangementq there is a jig at the 20% but on the other hand, there was of recent analysis from the center along your producing 20 percent with up production of three or 5 percent.

did vintages of the of progress is substantially less than what the administration advertise. >> i have heard they have way more centrifuges than they need for nuclear power production so we are an agreement they're moving in that changed direction and they have over the last 30 years. would you believe the interim agreement was detrimental to u.s. security or the regional security of israel the way it was negotiated at the time? >> guys think it was detrimental on the sanctions side so that was not permitted. >>

[inaudible] >> turn on your microphone please am part of the inventory part of the enriched uranium and the report speaks about the former for cooperation. there has ben movement in response to the relief of the sanctions. >> but to feel they have abided by the terms of the agreement? >> it was a much more positive report with the exception. >> and what should we do?

to prepare for the nuclear bomb? >> sanctions are big and have impact. >> i appreciate your time. >>. >> the key to the ranking member. i have been very critical of the deal i thought it was a mistake but first we should have gotten the final deal that negotiated the interim deal with first should have made sure there was no path said we could negotiate the interim deals because the sanctions were working. i voted to ratchet up do you want us nuclear program or

to function in the economy? we will press the sanctions that would have been the right way to go but now we are here and it is a very dangerous situation because we will get to july 20th and they will want more time. said what do we do? then it is harder to put the sanctions back on so where do we go from here? i could not agree more wholeheartedly so to force them to comply so to play cat and mouse so where do we

go from here? >>. >> we talk about unfettered access with access to all the facilities with weaponization to be drilled down indefinitely. >> but we will get to that six month when they want more time. >> it is pretty clear if we reach the six month point of the comprehensive solution there will be the six month extension and they said at 1.it will take up to one year to negotiate they were anticipating the six month extension but they do want to pick up on one thing.

rethink the right they would be to negotiate the final agreement? it pains me to lose say this but i think that is what they did. it does specify the final agreement, i read it earlier that upon the expiration of a comprehensive solution and the program will be treated the same manner as did a non-nuclear weapons state. the end state is no sanctions are restrictions on the ability to do whenever they want but with those ordinary safeguards. >> i met the issue to have any type of the richmond program or a way to reach set ability to create a nuclear weapon. i know what you are saying and i am not disagreeing with you but what i would

say if you allow if you had no way around to have it come from somewhere else to have unfettered access where they could be hiding things that is the deal. those people associated with the deal are good hearted to attend to negotiate this western type of nation. >> so as to the extent the negotiations continue but to expand the provisions that area needs to take.

they have not been in compliance with international agreements that iran it should be to undertake additional provisions to build confidence in the international community. >> it was like north korea they would also threaten to bomb los angeles and they may have the nerve to do it. >> now we go to the senator from north carolina where i think we could agree if they would draft a final agreement is a huge foreign policy win that it was

bereft of foreign policy. but my a concern was if they achieve a win the lack of political will to: and a violation subsequently. so to respond to this one and one dash internal controls that the politics to salvage the foreign policy win do not trump good sense in the white house before calling out a violation. take 30 seconds and then i

will be out of time. >> i don't know the checks with the decision making on foreign policy the way he sees fit to a life to think there are people in the intelligence community trying attention to problems that i don't know. but ultimately it is the united states congress. >> baby that was helpful as the president was considering in stanching five taliban terrorist for bergdahl. >> they are trying to hint the sanctions that i don't think the president has the authority unilaterally to get rid of all of the sanctions. but to enforce certain losses that only the

congress can do. to lead this congress to pass legislation to pass judgment on the entire arrangement and for that reason it would behooves be administration to consult closely now that you are prepared to except. >> indeed. >> i don't know if that is happening but they need to persuade you that if there are details you're not happy about let them know that now that after they promised things that they cannot deliver. >> i agree the most effective red team will be the u.s. congress. you will have the opportunity, i am presuming

as an outsider, but this is not to a treaty but the functional equivalence of the ratification in dealing with the sanctions question. that is the opportunity to express the congress view of the capabilities to be nurtured with the compliance report to the extent with the agreement what has been done to resolve that asking for the of classified report it has been a feature in the past it led to internal debates but to make sure the

iranians understand compliance will be very important. >> i agree with mr. lauder. but with public opinion you make the deal ( and compliance. the deal is important on only to the security is the united states by a regional security to set a benchmark. this will have ramifications >> i believe it is the foreign governments at have access to a unique insight but a strong case can be made and if they are in their own way i don't think

anyone can conceal that aspect. >> we thank of witnesses for testimony today and you have given us a lot to consider as the administration continues to negotiate higher troubled as mr. rademaker put it to iran is on the path from nuclear pariah to partner and i don't think any member of the committee is comfortable with that given the supreme leaders comments in may in particular about the expectations to limit the ballistic missile program that this was a stupid and idiotic expectation but i did not give you the rest of the quotation which is very revealing. the revolutionary guard should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied that the present

level. they should mass produce ballistic missiles. he is not referring tompgug space program. and adding those juicy 19,000 ignoring what the leader is saying on this subject as they move forward with their program is very concerning to me and especially wanted to thank the members of this committee and witnesses for the chance today to take a good hard look at the on the wing negotiations thank you very much. we stand adjourned.

[inaudible conversations]

>> both events will read air saturday night starting at 8:30 p.m. of tv, television for serious readers every weekend on c-spa c-span2. >> and now live to london for british prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session we bring you prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the

house of commons live wednesday morning here on c-span2. we invite your participation via twitter using hashtag team cues. prior to question time members are finishing up other business. now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> let me congratulate him on an investment year. s. degree -- [inaudible] international investment competition in october played a key role in reaching that objective? >> i welcome the honorable gentleman back from his recent illness. i invite him back and pay tribute to his work on the select committee. i think we all can see that engagement of government and other prime minister in investment in northern ireland has been hugely successful and that would help everybody in the house will congratulate us on that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. unemployment statistics show the

work of ago and i'm an executive in reducing youth unemployment is working but can you tell us what specific measures were in the queen's speech that will indicate a way of reducing youth unemployment at a national level for all regions across the united kingdom? >> well, i think the queen's speech as the honorable gentleman nose is dedicated to pursuing this long-term economic plan and its working. there are no specific measures immediately spring to mind for northern ireland of course but we all wish to see the economy grow, and i think that is happening. i am visiting a lot of places in northern ireland where people are optimistic about the future of northern ireland and the economy in northern ireland. >> questions to the prime minister. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in wishing the england football team the very

best, the very best of british before their first world cup game this saturday in brazil. mrmr. speaker, this morning i hd meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wish the football team in the world cup -- [laughter] >> less than a quarter of people who have applied for the new independence payment have received decisions. if we continue at this rate it's going to take more than 40 years to get to the point where everyone gets a say. does the prime minister think that's acceptable, and what is he going to do about it? >> first of all, it's important when we introduced these new benefits that we make sure it is done in a way that works well.

so i would say it's very important not to have an artificial deadline of replacing one benefit with another. the whole point about the personal independence payment is it is more accurate and more targeted than disability living allowance. it will need more help for those with the greatest disabilities and are determined we get it right. >> would've the prime minister join me in congratulating the foreign secretary on organizing this weeks important global summit to end sexual violence, and agreed indeed it is time to act? >> i think it's huge credit to the foreign secretary for the work that he has done but also i'd like to pay tribute to all of the ngos across various countries of the world who all come together for this extraordinary summit in london. it is absolutely vital that we never forget about the victims of sexual violence in conflict. this is something that is still far too prevalent in our world, but real advances have been made by having a declaration that countries are signing up to and

then even more important, an action plan of how to gather evidence, prosecute the rockers are make sure they're properly punished while helping the survivors and listening to the testimony of survivors of yesterday in downing street was immensely powerful. >> mr. ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, let me first join the prime minister in wishing the team the best of luck in the world cup. the whole of the country well i'm sure to be behind them. now thank you, everybody will have been concerned about what is been happening in certain schools in birmingham including girls being sent to the back of the class and the forced removal of head teachers. mr. speaker, at the heart of this story is a failure of accountability locally and nationally. but the key question for parents is this. if there is a serious problem at their school, where do they go to get it sorted out? >> first of all let me echo what the right honorable member has said about how important is to

get a grip on this issue. the problem of extremism in our school is series. the situation not just in birmingham and elsewhere is action is serious and i'm will be determined as is the home secretary, ma as it is of the education secretary, to make sure this is unacceptable in our country. people should be being taught in our schools in a way that makes sure they can play a full part in the life of our country. in terms of where you go to, if you're concerned about what is happening in your school, the first place to go is to the headteacher into the chair of government. and while i hope we can forge real unity across the house of commons on combating islamist extremism in our schools, i hope that it isn't used as an agenda to try and knock down successful school formats, whether academies greater under the last government or free schools created under this government.

>> mr. speaker, they're certainly a degree of common ground on what our kids are taught in schools and having a proper upholding of value but the prime minister said that people should go to the headteacher or the chair of governor. in this, in certain cases the headteacher was removed and the governing body was part of the problem. and the truth is it's a very hard question to answer as to who parents can go to because we have been incredibly fragmented school system where no one is properly responsible. now some of the schools, some of the schools are local authority schools and some of the schools are local authority schools, and some of the more academy. but what parents want is someone responsible on a day-to-day basis who can intervene quickly when things go wrong. now doesn't there need to be one service of accountability for all schools for the education of our children's? >> as i said the first protocol is the headteacher and the chair of governors. if people believe there is a real problem, there is one

organization that has responsibility for checking standards in all of these schools and that, of course, is off state. that is why one, why it's a important what education sector has said about no notice inspection. with one of the opposition just asked is how can this happen quickly. it will happen quickly if it is no notice inspections. the point i would make to the leader of the opposition is this is an important debate. this is an important debate. if we are saying there is only one model of accountability, that will work and some people in the south believe the only model of accountability is local government accountability, it is worth making the point that birmingham city council failed in their duty to these parents. and, indeed, when we look at what it was that caused action to happen it was only when the department of education was contacted that proper action was taken. so yes let's learn the lesson

and let's listen to the permanent secretary of the education department when he reports, but let us learn the right lessons. >> he -- only if the ofsted inspections been happened only once every five years. that is not the kind of system and candidly that you need. that is the thing, mr. speaker. here's the thing of think we should be up to agree on. nobody surely believes that the department of education can run 20,000 schools. may be dissected stable is that but i don't think anyone can possibly do. no one is arguing to go back to the old local authority system. isn't it time, isn't it time -- [shouting] is in a time if they just listen to the question, isn't it time for a proper system of local oversight, council, responsible for standards at all schools to

prevent what happened in birmingham happening elsewhere in? >> i have to say i always listen very carefully to his proposals but this sounds like creating a new local bureaucracy where we need to make sure that the resources are going into the school for the teachers and the computers and the books and the equipment. and he says that a ofsted inspection can only take place every five years but the point about these no notice inspections if we're going to give this issue the attention it deserves, that a report and a suspicion to ofsted about these problems could result in an instant inspection and instant action. let me make one other point because it's often said that some of these new formats for schools, results are academies which is not the party opposite they used to wonder sensible still, supported, that they don't act as us as local authority schools. in fact, completely opposite is the case when there's been a problem in preschools or in

academies far, far more action been taken than other schools and been left in the state of failure for far too long. >> mr. speaker, i do have to say to him that he has no answer on this question of accountability. ofsted inspectors are not going to do the job. everybody knows it. now, try to want to turn to the failure in the education department to failures in the home office. can the prime minister update the house on his latest estimate of the backlog of people waiting for the passport applications to be processed? >> the situation with the passport agency is extremely important that we get it right because i understand people are anxious, they want to get the passport, they want to be legal and holiday. let me give him the fact, that we have 300,000 extra applications that is normal at this time of year. we have increase massively the staff, the level of applications outside the normal three-week

limit is less than the 10% of the 300,000. >> mr. speaker, the truth is that is tens of thousands of people who are finding the holidays are being canceled because they're not actually getting a passport. and he said they've increased the resources, increase the resources at the passport agency. that is not the case. there are greater responsibilities for the agencies and fewer resources. will the prime minister tell the house went to the government first know about this problem and how has it been allowed to develop? >> well, the government has taken action to deal with this problem -- not today but in weeks contest. we got 250 staff already redeployed to the frontline, prioritizing all outstanding applications but that would allow for extra 25,000 examinations weekly. we are having -- asked the question. people would be concerned about this, they will want to be the

answer. >> order. that's certainly true. and they say to mr. robertson, you do have something of a lion's roar and it rather let you down because i can have very clearly. and as for you, mr. lucas, i told you commuted to go on some sort of therapeutic training course. lets you the answer. prime minister. >> the government has major as i said 250 extra staff deployed, longer opening hours in the passport office, now seven days a week, 650 extra staff on the help line to support customers and the home secretary has announced today that new offices will be open in liverpool next week with an additional 100 step if the home office has been on this from the very start but it all begins with 300,000 extra people applying for passports compared with the previous time last year. those are the actions that are being taken but i hope you will be careful not to try and frighten people in the way they did with his opening question.

>> mr. speaker, he says the government is sorting out the problem but there are tens of thousands of people who we understand a wedding for the application to be processed, and you are finding their holidays have been canceled. the truth of the picture of this government is we have the home secretary fighting with the education secretary but not paying attention to the business of government. [shouting] and here's the thing, mr. speaker, to add insult to injury people are being told that if they want their applications processed in the three weeks target, they have to pay 55 pounds extra. can the prime minister to get a grip on the situation and tell families when is the backlog going to be cleared? >> we will be clearing the backlog not least because we're not wasting time with a national identity card scheme from the party opposite. but isn't it interesting, isn't it interesting, mr. speaker, not a word about the unemployment

figures? [shouting] he simply cannot stand the fact that in our country we've now got 2 million more people in work in the private sector. [shouting] he cannot stand the fact that unemployment has fallen yet again. the claimant count has come down. he is absolutely allergic to good news because he knows that as our economy gets stronger, he gets weaker. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's now 28 years since the devastating accident happened in chernobyl and the effects are still in fac effect today, particularly by children. last year -- [inaudible] to come to uk for care while many were dying. will they pm we look at our policy because since charging for these these as we've seen a 50% reduction in the young people being able to come to the uk for respite care? >> i'm happy to look at the kc raises and we all remember the

appalling incident that took place at chernobyl and the long-term effects that it had on people. we charge for visas because we have to cover the cost of these operations to make sure that we're protecting ourselves and people who shouldn't come here but to come here and that's important but i will careful at what he said and perhaps i will write to him. >> mr. speaker, will the prime minister agree with me that now more than ever we need to bend our efforts to build a strong, robust civil society? 100 years ago this august a war broke out that killed 16 million mainly young men but devastated communities. the lack of active participation in politics is declining rapidly. only 34% of people voted in the recent euro election. can he agree with me to meet at a cross party basis to look at citizenship in this country in a serious way so we can look at how we build society that encourages active citizenship?

>> i agree with what they write honorable gentleman said. returned to some of these elections is very depressing but i think people feel with respective european elections that these institutions are rather distant from them and they don't see the relevance of them. of course, i'm happy to look at what he says about citizenship, but i would prefer that would put our resources and effort into practical programs, things like national citizen service which is i think now a superb service and that many young people are taking part in so they can see the importance of engaging in their jimmy discoe engaging in the world and that i think will lead among other things to greater political participation. >> will be prime minister join in welcoming the 2 million new private-sector -- [shouting] jobs that are being created census 2010 quickly continued with the long-term economic -- [shouting] go up? >> i think my friend makes an important, this is an important milestone that we have reached which is there are now 2 million more private-sector jobs than

when this government came to office, that is 2 million reasons for sticking to the long-term economic plan that we set out. can i think and particularly for the work that he has done for his constituents in terms of running a job club after job club to help make sure that the businesses that need more work i put in touch with the people looking for a job? ikebana important service that members of parliament are delivering and he is leading the way. >> thank you, mr. speaker. given the revelation that the royal prerogative of mercy has been granted in at least 16 cases relating to terrorism in the days and weeks immediately following the belfast agreement, stretching back to the 1980s, would the prime minister agree in the interest of openness, transparency and not least an interest of justice to the victims in northern ireland and, indeed, cases here in britain itself, that he should be intervened to ensure that the circumstances of these exercise

of royal prerogative of mercy should be rebuilt as it is in the rest of the united kingdom so that people will know the facts -- the facts of these cases? >> i will look as i always do very carefully to what the audible chairman says about this. what i would say is that the last government did have to make very difficult decisions to try to get the piece process started by john major on track and working. i don't want to undertake all those difficult decisions or second-guess those difficult decisions because we have in northern ireland now, yes, we have frustrations and difficulties and many of issues that need to be subtle but we have the basic architecture of devolution and parties working together across historic divide and i don't want to put that at risk. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today's employment figures show unemployment is down by 37% since may 2010. since doing to i have held a job fairs advertising hundreds of local jobs. to some of the 2 million private sector jobs have been created

since this government but there's still more to do. together with the jobs are, i'm launching a mr. engler jobs beach where local members will be paired with local people looking for work helping to find them with one to one support. >> can i thank my friend for what he's doing in terms of these job fairs, to the people who want work in touch with businesses. and this is absolutely key because there is no complacency on the side of the house about an opponent whatsoever. use on a punt, long-term unemployment, we still need to remove these scourges from our country. we have a goal of full implement and the way we will achieve that goal is not simple to a growing economy, growing faster than other countries in the g7, but also by making sure we help people, trained people and give them all what his message to get on and get a job and have security and stability in their lives. >> thank you, mr. speaker. shockingly, one in three

children in the northeast are now living in poverty, the highest rate in the uk. significantly, two out of three in people who are living in poverty are living in working households now. would be prime minister agree with me that something went wrong suddenly with regard to child poverty and can he say please, please, tell me where it all went wrong? >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is the best route out of poverty is work, and if we look at the northeast, the number of people employed in the northeast is up by 47,000 over the last year. that's what's happening in the northeast. now, i know the labour want to have this narrative in our country but let me give them some facts. inequality is at its lowest since 1986. there are 300,000 fewer children in child poverty than when i became prime minister. there are half a million fewer

people in relative poverty than at the election. that is what is happening but a bubble -- >> mr. campbell, when you're eating curry -- order. when you're eating curry indicating in canberra, you don't yell across the restaurant. don't yell across the floor of his house. the prime minister. >> what we need to do is to tackle the causes of poverty underachievement at school, homelessness, lack of work, drug addiction. that is what drives this government. is that we did with and their 250,000 fewer children in failing schools and when this government took office. >> mr. speaker, it's longer to carry out medical assessments of applicants for disability benefits than they do for people living elsewhere but this is because the other reluctant -- [inaudible] i'm sure the primacy will agree this is unacceptable, but will he tell why they discriminate

against people this way and they must receive ss that's as good as people in the rest of the country? >> obviously there are challenges and particularly far-flung rural constituencies like he is with so many islands with in the air tonight except we have to make sure we make sure people get their system probably dig up these assessments are important to the whole point of our program is we don't want to leave people on unemployment or other benefits year after year but we want these assessments probably could as we can see whether they are applicable for benefits and what help they need to get work. >> dr. alan whitehead. >> is the prime minister's intention to help people with the cause of insecurity of renting their homes lose its slot -- [inaudible] or did he perhaps not have any proposals in the first place? >> what this government is doing is making sure we build more

houses. that is what we absolutely need to do to help either those were renting or buying. yes, we need greater transparency in terms of what leading agencies do, and we're delivering that. out as part of our program, but i don't live a policy of rent controls which arose -- letting agents themselves instead would put up red is the answer. >> mr. speaker, metal fabricators, hydraulic, cnc turning, mechanical engineers and maintenance for friendship are some of the real jobs for local people offered at jobs there. with the news to many -- [inaudible] will the prime minister continue to support creating real jobs and quality apprenticeships of? >> look, absolutely i will. the point my for next is a good one which is we are seeing a

rebalancing of our economy. just this week say manufacturing figures with growth in manufacturing. we've seen all those elements of gdp, construction, manufacturing grown. what we want to see his recovery that is broadly based across the difference sectors and every part of the country. when it comes to the figures today you can see pay levels in industries like manufacturing and services rather than financial services on the rise. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. last week the right tribal member said that people in uk have not yet felt any sense of recovery. and today, the north east full-time workers are 36 pounds a week worse off than they were last year. does the prime minister agree with his cabinet colleague? >> the point of would make to the audible lady is i just said that there are 47,000 more people in work in the northeast than the were a year ago. the best route out of poverty is work and what that needs to be followed by are the tax

reductions that this government is bringing on to make sure that you are in work and better off in work. that's going to make a difference. >> thank you, mr. speaker. they increase the turnover by 10% to over 2 billion pounds last year and increases the workforce significantly, constituting 2 million private sector jobs but on top of that they'vthey just been voted euron family business of the year. will my right honorable friend join me in congratulating them and agreed to visit? >> i'm sure i will be visiting my honorable friend's constituency before long. i join them in congratulating this great british country this great british computer completely came with me on my visit to china where we were pushing speed does as hard as we could, including -- [laughter] including getting them on the vital chinese equipment to amazon to make sure that they

could be sold at very happy to come and visit. is a part of the economic success story and export success story of our country. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on monday i'm going to united nations to address a number of member states and to present a cross party petition in support of the inclusion of the right to healthy early childhood into new post 2015 millennium development goals. this petition has been signed by people from 170 countries around the world. can i, therefore, ask the prime minister to support with his advocacy and to support of his government this leadership by the united nations to create benefits for at least 200 million of the world's poorest children? >> i pay to do the right honorable lady and what she was doing in this area. britain has tried to put a leading role in making sure that

the world has a good replacement for the millennium development goals, and i co-authored a report with others about what should be put into place. at the heart of this was the idea of better maternal health and better health services, particularly for women in childbirth. i am very happy to look at the proposal that she makes to make sure we put the full ways -- the full weight of the british government behind it. >> could i join my right honorable friend in wishing the england soccer team every success in the world cup? could also raise one of the darker aspects of the game? mr. speaker, recently my constituent was a series of salted by refereeing and local football game by one of the players on the field. he was very seriously injured. but i therefore ask the prime minister what steps the government is taking to ensure that violence whether editors on the field or off the field history with equal seriousness and is never tolerated?

>> my audible for next and more but which is of course passionate it's good to say that again but there is really important that we crack down on all forms of bad behavior whether on or off the football pitch. referee should have the full protection of law to ensure committee football is safe and enjoyable your ip treated for all the work they've done in terms of training but also explained the importance of respect and good behavior in our game. we need more of that in the years to come. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have nightmares this evening about the prime minister modeling speed does. thanks for sharing that. [laughter] and on a series note, mr. speaker, in scotland alone since the prime minister took office the number of people that a been forced into using loan sharks is up 37%. affected this made the total 85,000 people in scotland and

that's an estimate it can ask the prime minister what is good is going to do about this and you think that is acceptable? >> personal library sure the audible lady that speedos also makes surmake sure to avoid andt of vermont. [laughter] look, there's a series of issues that audible members quite rightly raise that we need to properly tackle to make sure that we have everyone in our country benefit from economic recovery. on the minimum wage which was a declining when i became prime minister, it is now increasing. on zero hours contract, nothing done under the last government. now legislation to get rid of it. on payday lending, nothing done in the last 13 years. now we are properly regulated it with a cap on payday lending. on minimum wage would also make sure that the penalties for not paying the minimum wage have been quadrupled under this government.

i'm determined to make sure that everyone who wants to work hard and do the right thing can benefit from economic recovery now underway. >> the prime minister must know that every member of this house collectively and jointly shares a total repentance that a young woman has been sentenced to 100 lashes and a death penalty simply for wanting to practice her faith. will my right honorable friend request the uk delegation, to united nations council on human rights to present the case that the concept of -- is in direct and total conflict with article 18 of united nations convention on human rights? and will my right honorable friend assure the house that the sudanese government will be left in no doubt of the awards in which the sentence is held? >> i think my right honorable friend speaks for the whole house on this issue. i completely share his of boards about the way this case has been treated. it has been absolute barbaric and it is no place in this world.

i can confirm we will be raising this case at the forthcoming u.n. human rights council. sedan instrument on the agenda at this comes out of think we should bring the full weight the totally accept a way in which this woman is being treated. >> it was good of the prime minister to which the england team every success in the forthcoming world cup, but with the cabinet split and his coalition fractured, should he not be picking up the phone to the royal hudson and asking some tips from team discipline? [laughter] >> i wouldn't want to offer roi too much advice can but what i would say about his government, what i would say about his government, we've had the same chance for for four years and we have record growth in our country. we have had the same non sequitur for four years and with that record false of crime in our country. we have had the same education secretary and we are delighted 50,000 fewer children in failing

schools. i say if you have a strong team with a strong plan, stick with the team, stick with a plan and keep on putting it in the back of the net. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister will have heard calls from audible members on all sides of this house or an independent inquiry on the model into organized child sexual abuse in this country. can he truly be satisfied that currently to investigations are sufficient for the public to have confidence that we are both willing and able to get to the truth? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very important point and i've looked at this carefully with mr. collins because of course we have a series of inquiries taking place into what happened in various hospitals

and care homes and, indeed, media organizations and i think it's important the government keeps a clear view about how these are being coordinated at how the lessons are being learned. if there is a need for anymore over arching process to be put in place i'm very happy to look at that but at the moment i think led by the home secretary and our colleagues we do have a proper view of what's happening at all of these organizations. >> analysis has shown the labour policy to allocate funding based on house needs actually reduced -- by 85%. why, why should the government scrap it? >> what this government has done is actually to make sure that the public health budgets are properly -- and to deliver the money according to need to the various areas of the country. the only part of the country i am aware, where labour policy is put in place, is in wales where

they haven't actually had a health target since about 1989, and were experts are saying people are dying because of the length of time they spend in waiting list. so issues concerned about labour health policy, i think that would be a good place to start. >> thank you, mr. speaker. youth unemployment today stands at 50, not a% of the total. and it is down 83%. it reflects the 2 million new private sector jobs great and so will my right honorable friend be building upon the success by providing more opportunities and skills with young people in our area by expanding apprenticeships? >> i think my honorable friend is absolute right that even though 50 is a very small number of people to be young and unemployed, it is still 50 to me. are ambition and the next parliament should be to make sure that everyone has the chance either of going to university or taking on the petition and we leave out fully

no one behind as they leave school and look for the stability and security that a future and work provides. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this government said it was going to recruit 11,000 reserves to make up for the cuts to the regular army. what in fact has happened is the number is declined since 2012. is -- if he continues to reside not only the passports but as for the example of governments in competence and, frankly, -- spent i'm afraid to say what we inherited in terms of defense is not only a 38 billion pounds black hole but a situation where the military reserves, where they have been under resource and undervalued fo four years. we now have a five year program for building them up. the program is underway. it is gathering pace and what we're going to see is the strongest possible professional army with all of the best equipment that they could have

and a very strong reserve force backing up, making sure that we can meet all of the obligations we set out in the strategic defense review. >> order. statements to the prime minister. >> here on c-span2 we will now lead the british house of commons as members move onto other business. you have been watching prime minister's watching prime minister's question time aired a live wednesdays at seven in eastern when parliament is in session. a reminder you can see this week's session began sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to get every program with air from the process of comments since october 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's question via twitter using the hashtag pmq pmqs. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend, booktv now for 15

years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> yesterday the house budget committee look at the effect of the federal antipoverty programs and how they impact the poor. house assistant minority leader james clyburn is the hearings first witness. this one hour 45 minute hearing begins with committee chair paul ryan. >> hearing will come to order. morning, everybody and welcome. this is the fourth in our serier of hearings on the war on poverty.ody. we've been talking about how to is is the ofomote upward mobility in america in the 21st century. and today, we're going to pick up where we left off. prom last time, we heard from peopled

fighting poverty on the front lines.ast ti today, we're going to hear fromm people who have worked on the p supply lines. we're going to look at how theeg states and federal government can better support the fightsup. against poverty. because, if we've learned the anything, it's that there's rool for improvement. ve learned anything, it's that there's room for improvement. each year we spend nearly $800 billion on 92 different programs to fight poverty. and yet the official poverty rate hasn't budged in years. if we're going to people -- they can get help if they fall into poverty but far too many people still can't earn enough to get out of poverty and over the past three years deep poverty has been the highest since it's been recorded. clearly something's not working and we need to try something new. and given our history i'd say we're due for an adjustment. the last time we made big changes was welfare reform in 1996. that was almost 20 years ago. we all know what happened. poverty among children of single mothers fell by double digits.

we also learned and our witnesses are unanimous on this point, that work is crucial to fighting poverty. and there's another takeaway. before congress began drafting legislation, it allowed states to try out new ideas. the national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies program tested a number of different approaches for work programs, education programs and different mixes between the two. i think that approach, with an emphasis on results, on concrete evidence, on what works, is just the mind-set that we need today. but times have changed. today the biggest means tested programs are medicaid, s.n.a.p. and the earned income tax credit. we spend more on earned income housing, and we haven't made serious reforms in almost two decades. pofr if i is a very complex problem. and deep poverty is especially difficult. many people in deep poverty face serious challenges like addiction, homelessness,

disability, and all of these challenges are interrelated. but the current system is too fragmented to give them the care that they need. if we can provide better coordinated care, we can help more people actually get out of poverty. today we will hear from two panels. on the first is our colleague, a leader here in the house, the esteemed democratic leader congressman james clyburn. he is going to brief us on the 10, 20, 30 plan that he's been discussing. and to make sure we have enough time to hear from all of our witnesses we will not take questions from mr. clyburn. on the second panel we will hear from three people who have extensive experience working with aid programs at the federal, state and local level. first we have jason turner who worked with wisconsin governor tommy thompson to reform our state's welfare program. then we have robert doar who served as commissioner of the new york city's human resources administration under mayor michael bloomberg. finally, we have olivia golden who led the d.c. children and family services agency from 2001

to 2004. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and sharing your expertise. the question i want answered today is how can we improve. what are some ideas to do a better job? how can we better focus and target, interrelate these programs? how can we make these programs better? how can we get more bang for our buck? and how can we get more people involved? i said we need to hear from people with different points of view, and from different walks of life. today we'll hear from people who have firsthand knowledge of the challenges we face, and with that i'd like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm glad to have another opportunity to talk about what additional measures we should and can take to fight poverty in america. let's begin on a point of agreement that for all those who can work the best anti-poverty measure is a job. and many of us believe that if someone works hard all day, all year around, that he or she should be able to earn enough to keep their family out of poverty. that's why the president and democrats in congress have

proposed to raise the minimum wage, which has less purchasing power today than when harry truman was president. and according to the congressional budget office, that measure would lift over 1 million hard-working americans out of poverty and raise low wages for another 15 million working americans. here in the house, speaker boehner's refused to even allow a vote on that measure to raise the minimum wage just as he continues to refuse a vote to extend emergency unemployment compensation to 3 million americans. but we all know that even if we raise the minimum wage, huge challenges remain. and we must examine the past to chart the best way forward. a january report from the council of economic advisers did just that. it found that about 50 million americans remain in poverty. an unacceptably high number. but it also found that steps we've taken over the last 50 years have cut poverty in half

from what it would otherwise be. that over 40 million americans who otherwise would be in poverty are not. that's why, mr. chairman, we cannot understand the disconnect between these hearings on poverty, and the republican budget that was recently adopted. that budget is full of trojan horse policies that are heavy on sound bites but actually shred the social safety net and push more americans into poverty. the republican plan undermines the existing supports for the most vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and children. it guts food and nutrition programs, it slashes $700 billion there the base medicaid program which primarily serves these vulnerable populations. and it repeals the optional state expansion under the affordable care act. all told, two thirds of the budget cuts in the republican budget come from initiatives to help middle and lower income individuals. now by what logic do we reduce

poverty for the millions of americans in poverty today by cutting programs that have helped lift about 45 million americans out of poverty? it's bad enough that the republican budget targets these programs, but it does add insult to injury to do so to protect special interest tax breaks for powerful wealthy elites at the expense of middle class families and those working to climb into the middle class. the republican budget passed this spring calls for a one-third cut in the tax rate for millionaires and refuses to close a single special interest tax break to help reduce the deficit. not one. but it doesn't just slash safety net programs designed to prevent people from hitting rock bottom. it also slashes programs that provide opportunities to climb out of poverty. it cuts deeply into early education. it cuts deeply into k through 12 and cuts very deeply into higher education programs like pell

grants, and student loan programs. and just this week while the president and many of us are working to try and reduce the debt burden being faced by college students, here in the house, we're talking about permanent unpaid for tax break extensions for businesses. allowing future generations to foot the bill. so, in the end, mr. chairman, the republican budget will not create jobs, it will not make people more employable. it will not reduce the poverty. it will reduce the ladder of opportunity, and shred the social safety net as part of a trickle-down ideology obsessed with cutting tax rates for the wealthy at the expense of all the other priorities. when you get to the top in the republican budget, you pull the ladder up, after you. so i hope, mr. chairman, that today we can really get to the bottom of some issues here on moving forward, and we have a

tremendous witness with us right now, the assistant democratic leader mr. clyburn who has spent his life working to improve the lives of those living in poverty, particularly in communities that have had persistently high poverty rates. we couldn't ask for a better person to be before the committee, and i'm proud to join you, mr. chairman, in welcoming mr. clyburn to the budget committee. >> now that we set a nice bipartisan tone for productive conversation, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let's hope we can keep it that way for awhile. mr. chairman and ranking member van hollen, members of the committee, good morning, and thank you very much for having me here today. i want to thank the chair lady of the congressional black caucus first and other members

of the congressional black caucus who have adopted this formula as an appropriate way to tackle this issue of persistent poverty. i know that all of us know that it is no secret that there are major disagreements among the members of this committee, and our respective parties, over the role the federal government should play in fighting poverty and confronting many other national challenges. these disagreements put simply come down to a question of federal resources. i believe that we should target more resources to impoverished communities. than you proposed budgets allocate. and i believe you can do see efficiently and effectively. i was privileged to have the

opportunity to work through some of these disagreements with you, mr. chairman, last year, as a member of the budget conference committee, and the results, while not 100% of what either of us wanted, was a reasonable compromise on federal spending through the end of the next fiscal year. i was proud to support that agreement. now that we have determined how much the federal government will spend, we must determine how to spend it most effectively. it is on this latter question, how to allocate finite federal resources to get the most bang for the buck that i believe we need to work a little harder, and more creatively to find common ground to make real strides in combatting persistent poverty in america. now mr. chairman there are currently 4 8 persistent poverty

counties in america. so defined because 20% of the population live below the poverty line for the last 30 years or more. they're diverse, including counties in states like kentucky, and west virginia, native american communities in states like alaska, and south dakota, latino communities in states like arizona and texas, african-american communities in states like south carolina, mississippi, and alabama. there are urban communities in the northeast, and rural communities in americaaries heartland. 139 of these counties are represented in this august body by democrats. 331 of these counties are

represented by republicans. and 18 are split between the two parties. from that impersistent poverty should matter to all of us, regardless of party, geography, or race and ethnicity. in early 2009 when we were putting to the the recovery act, i proposed language to require at least 10% of funds in rural development account to be directed to projects in these persistent poverty counties. this requirement was enacted in law. in light of the definition of persistent poverty counties having at least 20% poverty rates over 30 years, this position became known as the 10-20-30 initiative. this provision bore dividends,

as economic development projects proliferated in persistent poverty counties across the country. the recovery act funded a total of 4,655 projects in persistent poverty counties totalling $1.7 billion. i saw firsthand the positive effects of these efforts in my congressional district. projects were undertaken that would have otherwise gone lacking, and jobs were created that would have otherwise gone wanting. among these investments was a $5.le million grant, and $2 million loan to construct 51 miles of water lines in a community in marion county. which i represented at the time, but today is represented by our

colleague, who silts on this committee, mr. rice. in lyons county, mississippi, $17.5 million was spent to install a water line, elevated tank, and two waste water pump stations, providing potable water to mississippians and created badly needed construction jobs. the special utility district in brasso county, texas, received a $538,000 loan to contract more than nine miles of new water distribution lines, and connect over 50 pauseholds to a new water source. i come before the budget committee today to ask that as you decide how to allocate federal resources, you expand 10-20-30 to other federal agencies.

in 2011, i joined with our former republican colleague then-representative joann emerson of missouri to introduce an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have continued 10-20-30 for rule development, and expanded it to 11 additional accounts throughout the federal budget affecting economic development, education, job training, health, justice, the environment, and more. i hope to work with members of this committee to include similar language in future budget resolutions and other legislation. and i want to be clear about two things. number one, 10-20-30 is not a license to be applied to an inadequate budget.

and number two, it does not, i want to repeat this, mr. chair, 10-20-30 does not add one dime to the deficit. it simply targets funds already authorized or appropriated to needy communities. over the past 30 years, the national economy has risen, and fallen, multiple times. during each economic downturn, while we have been rightly focused on getting our economy as a whole back on track, we have not given attention to these communities that are suffering from chronic distress, and depression-era levels of joblessness. as a result, they have suffered even in good economic times.

the 10-20-30 approach will provide a mechanism to address this depravation in time of want and times of plenty, in times of federal investments, and in times of fiscal austerity. i published an article on 10-20-30 in the most recent issue of the harvard journal on legislation. in that article i discussed the history of our nation's efforts to address chronic poverty, and more fully lay out the case for broadly implementing 10-20-30 in a bipartisan fashion. i have included the full article in my written testimony so that it appears in the record. >> without objection it will be included in the record. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i encourage the members of this committee to please read it when you have the opportunity.

i look forward to discussing this issue further and working with you to eliminate the scourge of persistent poverty in these distressed communities. thank you so much for having me here today. >> thank you very much, mr. clyburn. i understand your schedule is very busy and you have to move on. but this very appreciated and thank you for your contribution to this and thank you for all your hard work on this issue. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. >> we'll now move to our second panel. jason turner, the executive director of the secretary's innovation group. robert doar the morgridge fellow in poverty studies at the american enterprise institute. and olivia golden, the executive director of class.

to make sure that every witness knows that it is against the law to provide false testimony to a committee of congress, we are going to begin a new committee practice, which is occurring in every committee here, of swearing in all the witnesses. this does not reflect any mistrust we have in a witness. we are taking this step only because of recent legal guidance we have been given from the department of justice. so please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> i do. >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. why don't we just proceed from our left to right, and

mr. turner. why don't we start with you. -- a couple of seconds. >> can you hear me? >> testing. there y go. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. i'm the executive director of the secretaries innovation group made up of 17 state secretaries of human services from around the country. reporting to the governors and representing 34% of the population of america. our group exchange ideas and examples of state program innovation, and we presser national solutions which they don't work, healthy families, economic growth and budget responsibility. in 2012 our members propose a policy recommendation which would read balanced relationship between states and federal government, and these remarks are adapted from our policy as

developed and agreed upon by our 17 member secretaries. whenever our organization meets with congress, mr. chairman, are secretary's always ask for less money and more accountability. to take an example, our members requested through our food stamp policy proposal a fixed allocation, a block grant, with a 50% federal and state shared risk and if it's going up or down either way rather than the 100% risk borne currently by the federal government. adapting this proposed in a to a legislative initiative last year we proposed that the house agriculture committee allow willing states 100% to self fund a new food stamp were program comparable to tanf for similarly situated snapped recipients. with benefit savings resulting from increased work levels and independently verified shared 50/50. ..erified shared 50/50. our members were pleased to advance this proposal in

partnership with representative steve sullivan and which as the members of this committee know passed the house in modified form without the shared risk funding mechanism we had advanced was enacted into law the first new federal work program since 1996. in two other proposals our members have made for ui and for disability we proposed federal state share risk financial models on an opt-in basis. with the states designing and owning the overall system to be -- to better run the program. in fact, the federal state shared risk model could be adapted to any program with entitlement based expenditures going to individual citizens. our member secretaries constitute a pool of proven risk managers who, through example of our own proposed reforms are willing and able to consider shared risk models as proposed by congress in exchange for program management and operating control.