undermines the first amendment, reduces transparency, potentially reduces the market and increases market volnerability and poses a cyber security threat. given the dol's refusal to extend the current june 15th date for removing equipment, the calendar will dictate how shortly seeking an injunction unless a comprehensive overall agreement is reached. an understanding has been reached amongst technical officials of the news organizations and some technical staff at labor. labor is still to get back to us on a number of issues including rules for the lockup. until an overall agreement is reached in the format of the april 10 letter, the order stands. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. dougherty? >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the new policies and procedures the labor department is planning for its press lockups.

my name is rob dougherty, i'm general manager in the united states for reuters which is the news division of thomson reuters. reuters is the largest international news agency in the world. we have more than 2,900 full-time journalists in 200 bureaus around the world reporting in 20 languages. globally our audience includes more than 1,700 text, media and 600 tv clients over 35 million visitors to reuters websites each month, and more than 400,000 financial professionals subscribe to thompson reuters desktop products. on april 10th, the labor department notified our washington bureau chiefs and other news organizations about major changes they planned for the operation of its lockups. dan covered the changes in detail so i won't repeat those. needily to say, we were taken aback by the change. dramatic and without advance notice and no real explanation

of the rationale and without consultation with the news organizations. i want to be clear on two points. we believe lockups are extremely useful in promoting accurate and authoritative, sensitive data and provides journalists time to better understand the information before sending it to the public. and we fully believe in lockup to guard against premature use of it information. we believe the lockup procedures now in place perfected early release of data. despite that success, the department plan announced in april would require us to use government equipment to do our work as a matter of routine. something we as an independent news organization fundamentally oppose. and it would represent a major step backward for news organizations and for the did it is accept nation of critical data. that would imperil the ability

of news organizations to provide such information to a public in a reliable, accurate and timely way and lead to confusion in the public and in the financial markets that rely on the department's data. to gauge the importance of that data to the public in general and markets in particular, look no further than last friday's unemployment report. years of development has gone into developing our software that it works with the system and redundant private communications lines to speed the delivery of crucially important information to millions of readers and subscribers across the globe. our software allows journalists to accurately incorporate new material from department news releases and supply data that puts the material in context. this would be lost if lockup participants must use a department provided standard configuration computer and a department internet provider, and lost new procedures increase

premature leaks and as dan said, make an argument it would actually increase the difficulties with the dissemination of the data. because of these concerns, we join with three other news organizations, bloomberg, the associated press and dow jones in requesting a meeting with the white house to voice opposition to the april 10th announcement. we are hoping to better understand the labor department's concerns and see if we could find a way the department could meet this responsibility, prevent early release of data without the draconian changes it was planning. we now held a series of what i would describe at constructive meetings with labor department officials and staff and the meetings left us optimistic we'll be able to agree on procedures and policies while not perfect and not the status quo we would prefer would represent a workable compromise and allow news organizations to disseminate information from the lockup quickly, reliably and accurately. we're not there yet. we're hoping to complete an agreement in time for the july 6th deadline set by labor. if not we'll ask for a short

delay to allow agreed changes to be implemented in as least destructive way as possible and i want to underscore as we discuss other issues and reach agreement on other issues the times is an important issue for us. it's now june 6th. as dan said, the equipment comes on june 14th and 15th. the new procedure goes in place july 6th, the next unemployment report, hugely watched. talking to our technical staff, they think it's nearly impossible to do this right by july 6th. if we are able to reach agreement with larger issues i hope the target will be flexible on the implementation date. thank you for your invitation to address the committee and for your continued interest in this issue and i will be happy to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. ms. dalglish. >> thank you. chairman issa, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify today. i am lucy dalglish, executive director of the reporter's committee for freedom of the press. for more than 40 years the reporters' committee has provided free legal and advocacy services where the united states law applies. i am happy to testify today on behalf of the sunshine and government initiative of which the reporters committee is a sgi is a coalition of media associations promoting greater transparency in government. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. we strongly object to the changes the united states department of labor announced less than two months ago. the department's approach as proposed in april makes the release of market moving information less reliable, less secure, more prone to errors and inaccuracies and less equitable as it reaches the public.

last month, the sunshine in government initiative urged the labor department to suspend these changes, clarify the concerns with the current process, and work with us to address those concerns. since then only your attention to this issue has helped bring about productive discussions between the media entities and the labor department. quite honestly, we are bewildered by labor department's announcement without consulting with any of the media involved about these dramatic changes that will have a devastating impact on journalists' ability to inform the public in a timely and useful manner. it took the interest of this committee to spur what we understand to be productive discussions between the journalists in the lockup and the department. as you know, mr. chairman, since its formation after 9/11, sgi has worked with you and others on capitol hill and across the executive branch to work through problems, and we remain committed to working with the

department on this issue. but let me be clear we do not wish for the labor department to maintain procedures that would advantage one media entity over another or make it easier to break embargoes. we're hopeful that the labor department can address vulnerabilities in the current lockup procedures with ongoing dialogue. while these conversations continue, let me describe how the announced changes would undermine the integrity of the high profile economic indicators released to the public. first, the labor department's announced approach raises cyber security concerns. releasing this data through an online connection may allow an internet hacker to target the release and change key numbers as they leave the department. or, a denial of service attack could delay release to some or all. second, the labor department's new approach would likely be less reliable than the current practice. currently, at least two media

organizations have built redundant system hardware, if a circuit fails, a second circuit already installed in the network reroutes data traffic. if a secure line fails, duplicate dedicated cabling in place carries the traffic. even attempting to duplicate these secure systems on government-owned computers would be costly to taxpayers. last, the department's new approach would make errors more likely. without their own equipment, preloaded spread sheets and custom software to digest the data, journalists will have to type this information relying on memory or handwritten notes. this dramatically increases the chance of errors, markets that measure time in microseconds surely will react to wrong data before any correction can be issued. no one begrudges the federal government for moving quickly if need be to address security concerns but the labor department should first explain

its concerns and consider the prospective of journalists and the public before making such a dramatic and permanent procedural change. the media takes government interference with its work product very seriously, so does the constitution. in fact, the first amendment obligates the government to allow journalists to operate independently. requiring journalists to draft and publish stories using government-owned computers loaded with government controlled software simply crosses the line the first amendment clearly drew to separate the press from the government. in conclusion, mr. chairman, we are committed to working with this committee and the labor department to find a resolution that serves the public interest. thank you. >> thank you. dr. hall. >> good morning, chairman issa and ranking member cummings and members of the committee. i'm keith hall, a senior fellow at georgia mason. recently i was the commissioner

of labor statistics from 2008-2012. in my testimony i would like to talk about the bureau of labor statistics and its role in disseminating economic data. first of all let me note that the bureau of labor statistics is an independent federal statistical agency. as such, it is tasked not only with collecting, compiling and producing economic data, but also with disseminating the data and explaining it to the public. there are a number of principles which any federal statistical agency follows, its to disseminate data in both a transparent, independent manner with no bias of any type. they are also tasked with creating a level playing field for the release of data meaning that nobody has an advantage of getting the data early ahead of other people. in addition, they are responsible for the security of the data and that's everywhere including inside the lockup room.

in fact, the bureau of labor statistics has the responsibility to decide whether or not to even have a data lockup. i make this distinction, this is the independent federal agency, that is not the department of labor that i'm talking about. traditionally, news media were considered by statistical agencies as the most effective distributor of economic statistics to the public. wire services were the most practical and fairest distributor to media outlets and for this reason press lockups were designed decades ago to provide the most important economic data to wire service reporters. wire service reporters would look at the data ahead of release time under lockup conditions, get to ask clarifying questions, get to write stories on a typewriter, when the release time came, reporters would race to a bank of telephones and call in their stories. that's essentially how the lockup runs today despite tremendous changes in technology.

today now, most new economic data is actually disseminated to the public through a statistical agency website or e-mail. lockup continues for the most important economic data, but technology has changed and i think it made it difficult to maintain adequate security inside the lockup. in particular, automatic computer trading now has made the release data, employment release data, extremely valuable in fractions of a second makes a big difference in financial markets. also, lockup participants may now have specialized computer equipment and softwear that links to trading models. when i was commissioner back in 2009, i read one article and i'm going to quote from it. this caused me a great deal of concern.

key economic indicators are released to financial markets through a small and exclusive group of accredited news agencies. a trading model can now read this specially formatted data and enter into a trading model immediately. this to me raised concerns over whether or not we had a level playing field coming out of the lockup. i have a number of recommendations on this, but let me mention a second thing quickly as well. emerging technology constantly changes and agencies that are tasked with disseminating data need to be able to take advantage of new technology and new methods of disseminating data. for example social media is a relatively new method of disseminating economic data and other agencies have free access to use social media. i believe bls should be allowed

to freely use social media and any other new method without having to compromise its position free from filtering, free of bias in its presentation and free from actual or perceived parts in intervention. that's my first recommendation. second with respect to press lockups. i have a number of things i mentioned that are common sense and long overdue having a lockup agreement, having adequate control of the lockup room. a number of those have not been in place, they need to be in place right away. one of the things i have a problem with is tv journalists are allowed to break the lockup and leave the room and go outside before the data is released to set up for cameras. i think that's a security concern. so i think that ought to end right away. most importantly, though, i think that the bureau of labor

statistics should be given full oversight authority for conducting all of its press lockups, developing and maintaining policy and procedures, and have the authority to establish and implement credentialing and confidentiality protocols. let me say to some degree this is not just my opinion. this is the opinion of the office of management and budget, at least if you believe the omb statistical policy, omb federal statistical policy directives 3 and 4 who make it clear as i mentioned before that it is bls' responsibility to determine whether or not there is a lockup and their responsibility to disseminate the data and they are the ones who are responsible for the confidentiality. >> thank you. miss roth. >> you should just say diane. >> maybe after the hearing. thank you. >> thank you for inviting me to testify here today.

i was asked to talk about green jobs and it's a very topical time to be discussing green jobs because we just got the employment news on friday which showed that the number of jobs rose by only 69,000. following an increase of 77,000 in april. the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% and has been above 8% for well over three years. well, america might not be good at creating jobs but it excels at relabeling jobs as green jobs. it's much easier to redefine an existing job as a new job, a green job. how many jobs has our government relabeled as green? the bureau of labor statistics decides which jobs are green and which are not and they identified 3.1 million in 2010. the latest year available in a release in march 2012. americans may have toiled for decades at the same job unaware

a federal agency might some day designate their job green. i'd like to argue that we should focus on job creation rather than green jobs because we have over 12 million unemployed. our broadest rate of unemployment is 14.8%. if people want to buy green products such as priuses because the price of gasoline is high they will do so. much emphasis on green has driven jobs overseas. just two examples, incandescent light bulbs, the ban has resulted in the closure of those factories and the new cfls, the new fluorescents are all made in china so there are green jobs but green jobs for china. many solar panels, wind turbines that are required by law, are made overseas in places such as china. coal is produced here but we are

increasingly not being allowed to use it. china is using our coal and produces less than 1% of its electricity from renewables so it makes these products with coal, then sends them to us. which reduces our jobs. so bls decides which jobs are green and sometimes these jobs qualify for tax preferences or subsidies. for example, our transportation policy is based on green jobs with 20% of the highway trust fund reserved for mass transit. tax subsidies are given to electric vehicles, both for companies to produce them and for americans to buy them. bls has defined green jobs as, quote, jobs and businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources, unquote, or as in,

quote, jobs in which workers' duties involve making their processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. so in order for a firm to be considered green, they have to meet one of five goals. namely, energy from renewable sources, energy efficiency, pollution reduction or removal, natural resources conservation, and environmental compliance, education, training and public awareness. so i was particularly interested when i came in to see this cup here. this just is a cup. but on it it says, we have the power to save energy. so this fits in with number 5. environmental compliance education training and public awareness. so now people who produce these cups, they would be considered to have green jobs. but that hasn't meant a total increase in jobs in the economy. it's just a matter of relabeling.

in agriculture, for example, one of the main categories of workers are 36,000 organic farmers and growers, and their workers are credited with accomplishing both natural resource conservation and creating energy from renewable sources. so when a farmer produces corn to eat, that's not counted as a green job. but when he produces corn for ethanol, that is counted as a green job. with farming it's possible to calculate the percentage of employment that's dedicated to ethanol or organic produce but in other areas it's not so clear. one example is wood chips used for biomass. how many workers are employed by the timber industry to produce wood chips. wood chips are a byproduct of milling and milling is not considered a green job. yet according to a labor department definition the 33,000

wood product manufacturing jobs are created -- are called green because companies can sell the wood chips for biomass. i have many other examples in my testimony but i see my time has run out. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you all for your testimony. dr. hall, i'm going to begin with you. because you do see a need for reform in the lockup. but what you said earlier is of concern to me, the office of management and budget has a set of guidelines, it makes every effort to make sure that the bureau of labor statistics is independent. carl falichio, do you know who he is? >> he works for the secretary of labor. >> he is a political appointee connecticut firmed working for the secretary of labor and came up with this policy. >> yes, he is. >> okay. so they violated omb guidelines, it is being directed from the department of labor, this is in fact not the independent agency

intention that you worked for so long and hard and you've been candid with us in the past, you know, it's your job to count the green jobs you're told to count. so you accurately account for the numbers. it's somebody else's decision whether they are green or not under a definition. so we've enjoyed your honesty but your honesty here says it's supposed to be one way. it clearly wasn't. isn't that correct? >> that's correct. i do think the bureau of labor statistics should be responsible for running the lockup. >> by the way, would you ever have thought that the department of labor would be -- or bureau of labor statistics would be the left of brookings able to come up with more green jobs even than one of the great liberal think tanks? you need not answer that one. mr. moss, you're one of the companies that invested heavily in proprietary lines in order to send out in a timely basis, aren't you? >> yes.

>> okay, so you did so for two reasons. one was clearly to ensure that your story didn't fail to go out. and i guess the second one is to make sure you got it out at least as fast as anyone else if not a few seconds faster. isn't that right? >> mr. chairman, we're not interested in getting it out faster than anybody else. >> but you at least want to tie the fastest. mr. doherty next to you is shaking his head so i assume he wanted to. >> we have an interest in transmitting the information as instantaneously as the lockup rules will allow. >> and mr. doherty, you also obviously have an interest in absolutely positively not being beat to the newsstand. >> we have -- our interest is to get the information out as quickly as we can to our clients within the rules of the lockup. >> and you sort of represent the umbrella for a moment, dr. hall

was very kind in saying that, one, most of the statistics actually go out on a news wire. they are not important enough so they go out, everybody gets them at the same time and they look at them. but the most important are subject to this lockup, historically until today. let me ask you one question. if, in fact, the bureau of labor statistics started pumping this out through their internet, wouldn't in fact it be worse for these most critical information because then the hedge fund with the best computer diagnosing what is very predictably exactly the same raw statistics would then make the decision on market interruptions and trade during those first few seconds? doesn't the plethora of different news organizations with different opinions, reporting in a different fashion, reaching sometimes different conclusions on raw data, actually negate the advantage of a hedge fund

because ultimately looking at any one of the services doesn't guarantee him anything -- doesn't give him the raw information as much as it gives him somebody's opinion and isn't a dozen or 100 opinions a better safeguard against a radical market move than a single piece of fact? >> mr. chairman, i really have to confess i don't know a lot about how hedge funds operate but i can tell you that by having multiple news organizations in that lockup disseminating that information i believe there are safeguards for the public and i also believe that the independence of those news organizations is a benefit to the public rather than having the government being the only source of the information as it gets out, whether it be to the public or to the hedge funds. i think there is value in having multiple news organizations digesting and disseminating this information. >> and to the two news

organizations represented here today, if you're given no tools, if you are given information in a short period of time basically to report what you're given, aren't you in fact an arm of propaganda? the difference between propaganda and independent news, isn't it the value added that your reporters can bring either through their years of experience or in fact the information they bring in that helps them take raw data and turn it into opinionated factual news? >> mr. chairman, the advantage of the lockup as it's currently run at the department of labor and at commerce, agriculture, and agencies disseminating statistics around the world is that it allows us to publish information with as much context and supporting data and as many superlatives as we can. what we publish at 8:30 sharp goes beyond one headline and one

number. we endeavor to tell the story, both behind the number, on top of it and underneath it. >> and i would add that one important part that we didn't talk about in the april 10th order that labor put out though we are in talks about changing this, is that there was no internet access at all. even in the half hour that leads up to these -- leads up to the lockup starting. that's important because it allows our journalists to do a variety of things, one of those is to see what's happening around the world, and add that context in even if it's breaking at the last minute. with everything happening in the eurozone, it can provide context to the stories. >> thank you. recognize the ranking member for his questions. >> let me -- mr. hall, good to see you. i want to make sure we're clear. sometimes i don't want the wrong -- inaccurate information be on the headlines tomorrow.

the bureau of labor statistics is a non-partisan statistical agency. is that right? >> that's right. >> did the department, to your knowledge -- when did you leave? when did you leave the department of labor statistics? >> january of this year. >> did the department of labor or any other entity within government that is focused on the development and advancement of policy interfere with the bls development of the methodology for counting green jobs? >> no, they didn't. they were very good about letting us do our work and staying at arm's length. >> as i listen to the testimony, clearly i understand and sympathize with the news organizations, i understand exactly what you're saying. seems like we have a question here of balance. anytime anything gets out of balance you usually run into problems. it appears our security problems are not equal to wte