>> they could prosecute abuse of authority under the statute. i don't know whether that's right or wrong. i am just saying we should first decide whether this could handle it and we want it to be clearer and then take it from there. >> okay one of the things i'm going to suggest unless somebody has a different point of view that because these statutes are -- at least representative spires statute is addressed perhaps we start off with the wrongful use of force so that we can be relevant in terms of the consideration of that statute. is that acceptable to members of

the panel? grate idea. >> don't go too far. >> one point on that in terms of the panel's look -- i just want to make sure that we're clear, looking at it under the definition of threat and under g-7, representative spear's proposal creates strict liability. it doesn't tie it to threat. it's merely a class. if you're a trainer and have sexual act or sexual contact with a trainee that's an offense. is that something to look at? >> if i may, i think we should keep on the table this idea of strict liability because as i said in one of my earlier comments i think that this is one of the places that coercive

power is most likely to be used in a way that is absolutely contrary to all of our values. i think this is an important issue. and they reviewed this and concluded they had adequate regulations to deal with this problem pretty much on a strict liability issue because it involved the violation of regulations. it's adequate to really address the problem. >> i think the other issue that came up is this could be prosecuted. but those don't carry. and you have to be registered in the state. so the consequences are much

more serious. and there's the point that judge jones made. it's the idea of strict liability in this period of time. it's the statute to make the trade. >> we didn't get an objection. and representative of the joint

services committee. >> the time limitation is what they were focused on. >> but i do think the number of service representatives spoke to their ability to prosecute these types of offenses under strict liability under non120 frame work. there was issue with the specific time frame and whether strict liability. >> well, there is one case that had a result of orders. i think the orders as opposed to 120 is at the max. >> it is for a violation of general order under article 92 and the different frame works that they have and they are working. i know that the joint service committee talked about potentially increasing the

potential liability under those offenses. so there are different options there. but that was a point talked about. >> and an important issue is what attaches is a 120 conviction in terms of the sex registry. a huge issue. >> yes and to me if i just make one point it seems to me if we're going to label somebody for slapping someone on the rear end through clothing. how do you take exception of someone that's taken use of his or her authority to abuse a young recruit. it needs to be in my view some proportionality here on these offenses. but i think that we don't have to debate the substance of this. do we all agree we want to take

a look at this? >> yes. >> okay, great. >> now of course the really tough point arises. >> do you have any information on how we should go forward with this? sorry we have one more. sorry. should penetration officials be from nonpenetrating offenses. one suggestion for the amendment of the statute and three against amendment. how do we feel about proceeding on this. mr. taylor? >> sure. i don't think it should be amended. i think it's going to be complicated whether they're in one statute or two and once you crossed your way through it then you understand it. obviously it needs to be presented as staff director said in a way that's more readily understandable to recruits than lawyers schooled in this.

>> there's all kinds of poll ten shl problems is attempted rape where the person gets interrupted before there's penetration, which statute is that one in? if congress decided to put them together i think we should accept that frame work and try and work with what we've got in this case. clearly done it differently but i don't see this as a compelling need to change and it seems that we have other things we need to work on. >> i agree with that. >> okay. so that's not on our list. >> we have a pretty full plate

otherwise. >> do you have suggests about how we're going to proceed? >> since we almost consumed all of our time for deliberation then we'll suggest to panel members how we'll proceed on these points and we'll just proceed and right now we'll continue with the hearing before us. maybe we'll take a five minute break and commence in five minutes with the rest -- with the panel members that -- with the witnesses who have come to testify. thank you very much. tonight on cspan 3, washington journal's interview with purdue university president mitch daniels. he spoke with viewers as part of our special series on universities in the big 10 conference. that's followed by a debate on genetically modified foods. a senate hearing on school lunch

nutrition and a look at how bees are being used for more than just making honey and pollinating plants. it all begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan 3. >> be part of cspan's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. cspan is bringing you over 100 senate, house and governor debates and you can share your reactions to what they're saying. the battle for control of congress. follow us on twitter @cspan and liking us on facebook. >> next he speaks about u.s. afghanistan relations and military force against isis at the u.s. institute of peace. this is just over an hour.

>> senator levin has been a strong supporter of the united states institute of peace. in 1981 he was one of the cosponsors of the legislature that established the institute of peace. in 1984 one of the bills out of his committee. in 1984 signed by president ronald reagan and established institute of peace. here we are 30 years later. very pleased to have the senator

join us. he visited afghanistan many times. most recently in july before that in april when -- right behind you organized the head of our office in afghanistan and kabul. he organized a group of people for the senator to talk with and share experiences with. i was talking to some of the senator's staff and they said that was an extremely useful session that we organize for senator levin in kabul. he was there as he will describe at a time when the political prices were still real. he had something to do with having conversations with both sides of that crisis. the political focus at that time was intense. and the senator played a major role. secretary kerry followed up and we know that story.

and also former national security advisor and knows something during his time, during that period. we'll moderate the discussion that will follow senator levin's comments. without anything further let me welcome senator levin to the podium and steve will join him afterwards. please welcome senator carl levin. >> well, bill, first thank you for your warm words. thanks for the invitation to join with you here today. as a matter of fact i had a very wonderful visit with your folks in kabul when they did brief me

very helpfully on the situation there. i won't report secretary kerry, your view that i kind of lead the way with discussions and he followed up, he cleaned up after me. i was delighted to be able to meet with the two candidates. both of whom, by the way, i have great respect for. both the new president and mr. abdullah both. i think -- i'm glad they came together. it was essential that they come together in a government of unity. but it was -- i think they were lucky. afghanistan was lucky to have two people as qualified as they are and as willing when the crunch time came to come together. when i met with them i guess it was now a few months back i told them that what they needed to do was to be as brave as their

troops and our troops and the coalition you troops and that they needed to be politically brave if they were going to workout a solution. this is during the period they were counting ballots and recounting ballots and re-recounting ballots. like chicago actually. that's a joke. an inside joke by the way. nobody from chicago likes. but it was very tense and show in a political way the kind of courage that the troops of afghanistan and the coalition forces that were shown to make it possible for there to be an election. and then to have a resolution which under the circumstances was peaceable as you could hope for and again i am very appreciative of the institute

that helped brief me. we appreciate the work of the institute in many many ways. you worked haurd -- hard. the kind of wisdom talked about in the famous comment that said quote, we need more owls. not more hawks of doves. and it kind of puts it all in one sentence. it was a well-known comment and he was really beloved in the senate. but today i do want to focus on afghanistan and i'll have a few remarks on another subject after i spend a few moments on afghanistan. now i'm somebody who is hopeful about afghanistan's future because of the progress that we've helped bring about there in the last several years the

power that's the first in afghanistan's history the transition offers increased reason for optimism that we have an essential ingredient for success in afghanistan. perhaps the essential ingredient and that's a unity's government whose goals are in with our goal on afghanistan with strong government. they face challenges from terror to poverty to ethnic and political tension but the progress that the country has made is also immense. too many people forget what

afghanistan was like before coalition intervention in 2001. even in major cities with access to food, water, and employment was extremely limited. women were barred from attended school, working outside the home or even leaving their houses unless accompanied by a male relative. medieval rules were enforced by armeding throug armed thugs using public institutions and television and music and the internet were banned. there's vibrancy in afghan society. life expectancy has increased by 22 years.

infant mortality decreased by 62%. under the taliban there were just 900,000 students in school. all boys. now student enrollment is more than 8 million. including about 3 million girls. in 2001 afghanistan had 20,000 teachers all male. today there are 200,000 teachers including 60,000 women. universities are sprouting up including an inspiring american university in kabul. they exceeded the military commanders expectations successfully responding to taliban attacks and safe guarding two rounds of elections. >> the taliban threatened to prevent the power in afghanistan

but failed spectacularly. the afghan people support their security forces. now about 350,000 troops strong. i always believed that our principle mission in afghanistan is to help establish afghan forces so they can protect it's people and their hopes for a free nation. that's the taliban's worst nightmare. and one of my early trips to afghanistan when i asked a group of village elders whether they wanted us there, their spokesman answered, stay until you have trained our army and then leave and some day we will welcome you back as guests. he hoped for governance as well. they have resolved their differences over the election

and formed a unit government. we have seen in iraq where the malaki's regime left the nation vulnerable to the poison of isis. the fact that the new afghan government's first official act included the signing of security agreement with the united states and nato and the reopening of an investigation of the kabul bank scandal gives the afghan people reason to hope that the nation's new leaders are more interested in building afghanistan's future than in pursuing partisan or sectarian or corrupt agendas. it's been built on an adherence to a number of important

principl principles. first is the value of broad sper national support for our military efforts. second it's the value of willing to defend their own people. third is the value for pressing for unified inclusive governance that is the value of a government worth fighting for. fourth is the value of setting limits on our own military involvement in order to incentivize the developments of military and government institutions able to stand on their own. while public opinion polls show the afghan people accomplish much and are glad that we came, polls in the united states show that americans show that our involvement in afghanistan has failed. former secretary gates has made the point that the afghan war is

the first that he's experienced, the first war that looks better closer up than at a distance. i believe the american public's failure to understand what we have accomplished in afghanistan is due in large part to the contact, almost totally negative portrayal of events in the american press. the press understandably reports on negative events. a taliban truck bomb does make a better story than a million girl gogs to school but it would be tragic if this negative focus deprived the american people, our men and women in uniform, and their families of the sense of accomplishment they deserve to feel about our effort in

afghanistan and the relentless negative focus of the press could have a serious negative effect on afghanistan's future. for two reasons. first of all it could dampen the willingness of congress to continually support afghanistan. if the american people think we failed, that we've wasted our resources it's less likely that congress will do what we should do which is to be steady and constant in our support economically and otherwise for afghanistan. afghans continue to fear that the united states will abandon them and they believe as they believe that we did after the soviet's left in the early 19

1990s. the afghans assumed responsibility for their own political repairs. they continue with funding, training, and institution building in particular for sustaining the afghan army and police. the economic life of the country is far more vibrant than it was under the taliban but it will take years for the afghans to develop a sustainable economy and they won't be able to do it without substantial economic assistance from not just the sbiets but from other allies and other members of the coalition. so if the public continues to believe that afghanistan is a lost cause it may become a self-fulfilling prophesy. simply put, if we don't understand what we and our coalition partners have gained in afghanistan we risk losing it. we have accomplished much along

with our afghan and coalition allies in bringing more security instability to that country and preventing it from once again serving as a safe haven from terrorists that can attack us and others and while much remains to be done i believe that if the afghan people remain united and if we remain constant in our support of them that afghanistan will take it's place among the achieve lts -- achievements of which our nation can be proud. before we move on to questions i want to touch briefly on something that congress is going to safe when it meets after the elections. and that question is whether we should vote to authorize the president to use military force against isis. in my view, the answer is clear, we should. the posionous ideology is

poisonous against the world. it could become a training pad against the united states and our allies. isis is terrorizing the iraqi and syrian people and slaughtering and persecuting religious my toir gattis and attacking schools and hospitals and cultural sites. but if the fight is to succeed it must be a fight against an eternal cancer and not be or be perceived as principally a western fight. though some have sought to minimize the contributions of b arab and muslim nations they're spending a powerful political

signal to their populations and to the world. we have a unique opportunity at this crucial moment in history to bring the world together to confront a common violent enemy. our role should be to help bring together a broad coalition and support of a unified iraq and a moderate syrian opposition by training and equipping them for the fight and as part of the broad coalition with the strong visible support of arab and muslim countries by providing arpaioer that the iraqi's and syrian's lack. boots should be on the ground but iraqi and syrian groups and we should establish a bufferer

zone in order to protect civilians. it would be secured by turkish boots on the ground if turkey is willing protected by a coalition no fly zone. both things would be necessary for turkey to consider turkish boots on the ground in that part of syria along the border. there must be a no fly zone that protects that buffer zone and we should consider doing that and seek to do that. we'll struggle to unite the world against isis if congress and the world appear disunited. we should vote because there's a broad coalition that includes most critically arab and muslim

nations that are public and open participants. their publics know about their participation. i do disagree with those that argue that the president cannot act without an express authorization to use military force. and that's really the other question. should he -- should we vote on it? the answer is yes. if we don't vote on it can the president act without that authority? and i believe the answer to that question is also yes. the president has the authority under article 2 of the constitution to act where necessary to defend the united states and, indeed, presidents have used military force overseas on dozens of occasions. so in the last 25 years we have

engaged in air campaigns to enforce a no fly zone in iraq, to end the bloodshed in bosnia. to bring about a serbian with draw from serbia and protect from gadhafi in libya. congressional support would strength b the international fight against isis but the united states should continue in this effort with or without a vote on a resolution to authorize it. my thanks for the invitation to be with you this morning and the work that you do and i'll be happy to try to answer a few questions.

i'm going to offer some questions and we will then throw it open to the audience and we'll have mics that will be brought to you. so let me begin, there was some reference to the agreement that secretary kerry negotiated between the now president. you were of course there for that role in that agreement and one of the things as i understand it, you emphasis the two leaders and that became a part of secretary kerry's audit. now that it's completed what is your assessment of how that process went and how the electoral process went? did it achieve what you had

hoped when you made that recommendation? >> i think it achieved as much as could be expected. there -- you know, you're an old hand in washington. i think you understand the necessity of reaching practical agreements. there was a practical agreement reached at the end of that audit which is that the result would be announced but not the number. and that was essential for an agreement to be reached. for all of the eternal, political, psychological reasons that drove it. so even though ideally on paper if you're teaching a civics class you'd say well of course you announced the results but that was not a perfect election. and in order to have an outcome that was accepted by both sides

there had to be that practical resolution. but because the numbers no matter what the numbers were that were announced, problems, second guessing, third guessing, fourth guessing, that they had to agree that the result would be there and that the numbers would not be made public. >> very imperfect numbers. >> in terms of the power of the ceo position that's another practical resolution that both sides sign up to and which i think helped to pull a nation

together. >> people look at america because of the negative view and way the press treated afghanistan they view something as a failure or don't view it at all. it's quite extraordinary if they could agree whether or not to announce the votes and count or shared power to another which i believe is still going to ratify it sits culture of afghanistan they were able to come together and the contract is huge and it's very positive in terms of

afghanistan they were able to come together after a campaign. >> it is remarkable. they felt they needed a unity government if they were going to go forward. they now have one. it creates a practical challenge for people in the administration and in congress when they go to kabul and it's a little bit reminiscent but not parallel in anyway but when he was made president of russia and putin was then prime minister there's the old question so who do we deal with? do we continue to be with putin and the obama administration and bush administration. and now there's a different situation.

do you go to abdullah, do you do both? what is the sequence? >> that's not unusual. by the way. that's -- many places in the world we obviously deal with both but the sequences is elected a president and it's important that we obviously deal with both. they're both powerful figures. and that's the fact of the matter. and i think -- i hope that both accept the sequence. i think both understand it. both are very deeply involved in discussions and hopefully agree. we have a sequence problem in this country in a sense too. i don't know if anyone looks at it this way. but we're not good at compromising these days. i don't think we can lecture people with too much power about the importance of compromise.

we ought to have a little self-righteous about the need to work together. we can probably follow their lead these days instead of vice versa. >> it is a remarkable achievement in terms of the election and the community government. as you know better than i, it's compounded by as you made in the remarks it's not been a success. so is afghanistan still important to us? the united states? and if it is, how do we rebuild the support within the country

for the afternoon project. >> the afghans have helped a great deal of agreement in the unity government agreement and they've taken on the kabul bank and working out a bilateral security agreement. but the bottom line is i think there's a lot of fatigue in this country. and that means leadership has to lead. you know, if you have people that are tired of the election and tired of politics and scared of ebola, worried about isis, i mean, just go down the list. leadership becomes more and more important and there's going to be greater unity in this

country. we have fallen short. again i want to avoid being too partisan. but there's been a real short fall of bipartisan foreign policy recently. we have to not just win a war but win a peace and he was an isolationist as a matter of fact this republican senator before the war. he became somebody that became an internationalist after the war and helped truman win nato and helped aim for turkey and greece and a number of other things that were so important. we have fall anway from that recently and there's not been enough, i think enough critique

of falling short of that goal of having politics stop at the water's edge that is so important in this country. so important to our success. so i would hope somehow, even if the battles continue on the domestic front over health care or over budget and the other things and the battles go on that there could be a coming together more in the area of foreign policy. >> let me press you on that because you've been in the senate now over 30 years. been a real student of washington. how do we get that back since the media seems to push us to the extremes? the electoral system now with so many saved seats. republican candidates fending off challenges from the right. democratic candidates challenges from the left. it almost seems like the divisions have been institutionalized in our

politics and in our media. how do we get it back? >> it's going to take leadership. people who are willing to sit down together just the way leaders have until recently and work things out. and maybe it's just a matter of getting through an election. this election and hopefully then there's a new environment but given the fact that it is probably a heated presidential election is next in line just two years away which is like two minutes away in terms of political time i think the odds are against it in the short-term. it's going to be a fortuitous combination of leaders that for whatever reason see it in their political interest to come together. we're facing sequestration and i don't want to get way off the subject. but mindless across the board cuts which nobody who voted for them that i know of thought would ever take effect and they

cut into everything. just about everything and they're mindless. it's not a way to budge. we know whether you're liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, 80% of us say it is crazy that we're now going to face in january and february another round first of three or four more rounds of sequestration and it effects everything including whether we're going to support as we should afghanistan's recovery. and so will we be able to find a course to deal with that threat? that ought to be doable. that is a budget issue. and we've got our deficits actually coming down to a level which is now lower than they were when president obama took office. we ought to be able in a better budget environment to avoid these additional threats to some

very important programs. everything from education infrastructure to national defense. maybe that would be the way. if that needle could be threaded that one budget needle called sequestration where everybody says they hate it just about -- not everybody but 70 or 80%, bipartisan. rail against se quest see quest sequestration. i layed it out publicly but maybe they can see it's in everybody's interest to do that. that maybe can set us on a better course. >> you mentioned in remarks a conversation you had with afghan elders and they said to you train our security forces and

then leave and we'll welcome you back as friends. obviously the training and security forces enabling them to take more responsibility for the security of the country is critical. you followed it now for a long time on the armed services committee. how are they doing? and how much more help do they need from us? and the question a lot of americans will ask, for how long? >> they're doing well. better than we expected. i think they protected electi s elections. and i don't know there may be some where the taliban have been able to hold ground. they have taken huge losses. the army has taken huge losses. the afghan army. there's a willingness to fight. this isn't like those iraqi divisions which just disappeared when isis showed up. there's a willingness. there's a hatred of the taliban inside afghanistan. most afghans don't like the taliban. and like the army.

and so they've done well. >> they're going to need continuing support and they deserve continuing support. training, equipment. they need training particularly with air force, arpaioer. intelligence, logistics. i'd say those are three areas where they're going to be continuing support. they do not have a goal of removing all forces by 2016 but both general campbell and general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs said well if circumstances change by 2016 they're going to make recommendations to the president. whoever the chairman of the joint chiefs is. whoever our commander in afghanistan is. they whatever the circumstances

indicate they should make as a recommendation to the president when that time comes when all forces are pulled up. in the meantime there's counter terrorism, logistics, intelligence are areas i would say. they took care of the special support but they're doing well and they're well liked and there's some local police too which are well liked by the way. that are close to the inside the villages to the village leaders and that one -- that effort apparently fairly successful as well. and the national police are doing better too. i mean years ago everybody said the army is great, clean, afghan armies. got strong support but the national police was corrupt. that's what you heard five years ago. you haven't heard much about that because even the national police seems to have cleaned up

their act some what. >> i want to ask one last quick question and invite you a little bit into potential controversy and then go to the audience for question. i think former ambassador ron newman in a piece published here a few days ago brought something to my attention -- said something which i had not understood which is that u.s. air operations which continue in afghanistan are used to defend and correct me if i get this wrong, used to defend u.s. troops and coalition troops but not at this point in support of afghan security forces. since it's all one fight, that surprised me a bit. do we have that right in terms of how we're using our a air power? >> i'm not sure that's been decided by the way. hopefully not. i think they have a good point. i don't know that that's been resolved yet but they make a good point. >> great. >> so let's have the questions

from the audience. ma'am we'll start with you in the back. >> thank you very much. i really appreciate your statement. basically i'm from afghanistan too. everything looks wonderful after the big change in afghanistan but the only concern that everybody has is this is a policy of pakistan. do you think that after the new government in afghanistan, pakistan able to change their policy toward afghanistan. thank you. >> well, we have been pushing them to change their policy for as long as i can remember. i used to -- i made maybe a dozen trips to afghanistan in the last ten years or so and i used to always add pakistan. go to pakistan. but i received so much false information, bologna in

afghanistan about their policies that i just finally don't even go there anymore. i don't want to hear their lying anymore, frankly, about what they're doing to -- and at one point i had the head of intelligence saying if you could point out to us whether in pakistan that people are that are supporting the taliban in afghanistan, we'll go after them and i looked at them like are you kidding? you know where they are. you know absolutely where they are. you're supporting them. so i have sort of just given up in terms of trying to change their policy toward afghanistan. we shouldn't give up. the fact that i'm frustrated is not a policy, by the way. it's just a fact of life. i'm just being honest with you. but now there may be some additional ways in which we can

encourage pakistan to really go after the people who are creating trouble inside of afghanistan. there may be and we talked about it a little earlier in the meeting we had, there may be some new there may be some new f persuasion towards pakistan to really go after the problem that's being created in afghanistan. but created in pakistan. so we just got to keep looking for ways to not be frustrated by my frustration. >> sir? >> . >> good morning, senator. >> good morning. >> we were saying in my part of the world. you, sir, are the mountain. so we are here to talk to you. >> i know i'm overweight, but i haven't -- half laugh. >> my name is ali sarad.

i'm an african american. for ten years, i have been the president for afghanistan. i came here for some medical treatment recently. first of all, i want to extend our people's appreciation for the partnership that's always existed between the united states and afghanistan. we were partners in fighting the soviet union. you supplied us with the military equipment and we supplied the manpower. after a loss of 3 million of our citizens, 1.5 million on the battlefield and 1.5 million through genocide, we managed together to bring the soviet empire down to its knees, although the afghan people are no getting credit for that. secondly, we're partnering

to fight against terrorism. when the united states first entered in afghanistan in 2001 with 500 soldiers, it was the air support from the united states and we managed to get rid of the taliban and the al-qaida. since then, sir, i see a strain in our relationship. up to 2005, it was okay. today, we do not see the strength of the partnership that we had in the past. as a fact, sir, being in the position that you are, you cannot play marbles with the pakistani isi. the pakistani isi is greatly supporting the group. they have bhished b whether i s

established bases in the land. does this include the united states bringing action against the pakistani government through united nations by imposing sanctions against them? i appreciate the fact that we want to develop afghanistan. but the people of the united states, sir, you said how do we wring the people? we bring the people of the united states back into the arena by informing them and letting them know that the battle is not between afghanistan and pakistan or between afghanistan and iran. this is a wabattle that the al-a and the new kids on the block terrorists, the isis, are are fighting against the west using afghanistan as a battleground. and as long as we keep the door open for these people to come in and do this battle against you, i extend my condolences and my

appreciation to over 2,000 american soldiers that have sacrificed their lives in afghanistan. but not for afghanistan alone. they have sacrificed their lives for the children of the united states so that their futures are are secure so people like that cannot make trouble for you, sir. i just want the united states to voice its opposition to what pakistani isi is doing in afghanistan, sir. thank you. >> okay. >> there was a question in the back? >> thank you. i have a question about counter terrorism efforts in iraq right now. this have been some contradictory reports about russian and u.s. counter terrorism collaboration. i'd like for you to clarify what that collaboration looks like

and then, also, in terms of terrorist financing, what is the current status of saudi arabia? are they moving toward countering that terrorist financing the way they promised and the way we expect? >> i don't know anymore about the u.s. russian collaboration, if real. than you do. as i just saw for the first time, we're not in session now. so we don't get the briefings that we usually do. i only know what we've read about it and we'll know a lot more about it when we get back. if it's real, in the intelligence area, -- i hope it is. people now kind of have an

unhappy chilly relationship because of activities in ukraine and other places. but there still are are areas where there should be a working together and, if isis can't unite the world, nothing can. if isis can't unite the arian-muslim world, than e then i don't know what would. isis is an opportunity. it's hard to use that word with isis. but it can unify people. it has unified the world. how many countries now? 60? 70 countries are signed up to support the, in some way, effort against isis. there's a real coalition now openly participating in the campaign against isis.

that could have a major impact among their pop ewe haitians. a recognition that islam is conducting in the name of iz haem islam, horrible acts. and the other 80% is seeing that -- they know that's what islam is not about, but they don't want it perceived that way. this is going to be a long battle. now this could be a turning point against a common thet. and so i hope the stories are true, but i don't know anything more about it than what i've read in terms of of showing

intelligence between russia and the united states. it could be a good sign of the power of terror to unite people against it. your second question had to do with iraq -- i'm sorry, saudi financing. and i know that the issue has been raised constantly. and we think that this's been progress in that area. they've hooked the other way when they're supporting some class that they believe in. i'm not sure which is more pref lae

prevalent by providing funds for terror. >> mark snider, international crisis group. first, i would like to say sow sorely your voice is going to be missed at the u.s. senate. >> my wife would not join you in that. half laugh. >> two questions, quickly. by the way, we're going to have a report coming up today or tomorrow on the afghan political transition. one of the things you mentioned was the importance of sustaining the coalition of government by in fact continuing to support the strengthening of the nsnf. and to do that, we need to provide what they're calling the combat enablers. close air support over the horizon intelligence. and thus far, it's not clear how that's going to be provided after 2014. i'm wondering what or not you could speak to that issue. second, you spoke about the

importance of supporting the moderate rebel forces in syria. they're getting clobbered in aleppo at the moment. while your suggestion of reheaving in chobani, the question is how do you provide more support for those moderate levels now? >> the keyword in that sentence is now. this is going to be support. and the hope is that it will be able to be provided earlier than hater. but i mean, it's going to take some time. now, i can't comment on covert support. there have been reports that this has been covert support. i can't confirm that, even though they're on the press. but if that's true that this's been covert support, you've got to factor that in to some extent. you don't know to what extent.

i do know, but i can't say. but that is a -- if it's true, is a factor. okay. now, on the overt support, which is the department of defense support, the president has had out a course of aex. i just hope it can be speeded up and i think that's your point, as well. in terms of the enablers that you made reference to, those are are not, except in general terms, i don't think the precise nature of each area of enabling has been worked out. maybe it has and maybe i don't know it. but that's going to be determined by the circumstances and events and capableties on the ground. and i don't know that in any area that they've been full hi worked out. and if they have been in a particular air kwa of intelligence, if i did know, i wouldn't be able to say. but i doubt those have been really flushed out yet. if it's something i could

publicly talk about, then i have to apologize for not being able to fill you in. but my hunch is that that's being worked on as we speak, all of them. >> here in the front row. >> you right hi pointed out before that about pakistan being frustrated for just hoping for pakistan to change its policy. do you think that one way to change pakistan policy would be to demonstrate a long term and strong commitment to afghanistan's stability and future and to convince the pakistan security option and this current establishment will remain in mace. bassed on my own discussion, they are not convinced about that. before 2014, they were saying that -- they were reading some

legitimate and sometimes exaggerated concerns. and when i asked them, that's why you're not perceiving your concerns through the current, legitimate government of afghanistan, they were saying, very frongly, that they're not sure that this would remain in place. whatever it was about, they is this time frame now ending in 2014. do you think that's impacted the change in policy? and you had mentioned before that if the situation is that which we might consider even post-citizens extreme. is that possible given that we see it's so difficult to do that in iraq? thaing. >> well, this's a totally different situation in iraq than there is here. here, the afghan government wants us there, except for putting aside kerzi, which was

sui generous. the people of afghanistan want us there. and their kabd dats wanted us there. boets 06 them. so unlike iraq, where their prime minister said that there's no way that your troops can stay here after that dead lien. i mean, i know it's a big debate as to whether or not the president could have tried harder. but if you read gates --' book, what gates said in his book is that the prime minister of iraq was not going to allow any american troops to stay this beyond the deadline which president bush had negotiated. and i believe that's true. politically, he was not going to do it. period. he wished now that he had agreed to american troops staying this, by that's what he may wish now. that's very different from afghanistan where the government wants us to continue. to answer your question, i

believe that, yes, if they -- if pakistan senses constancy, a continued commitment on the part of the united states, not just militarily, but economically, that we're there for the long term, and we are, and i hope we are, that that will are affect their calculous. i think that's true. that will affect their calculous. and if they think that, yes, 2016 is now what is the goal, that's now what is set. but, as dempsey said and as campbell said, that if circumstances are such at the end of 2016, that that's got to be reconsidered, that they would recommend -- because it's only a recommendation, whoever the president is, from 2000 -- end of 2016, i guess, it would be

2017 when to make the decision. as to whether or not follow a recommendation by our commander or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to continue some military presence. so that possibility is real, as far as i'm concerned, it's real. even though it's not now, the plan. >> we have time, unfortunate lir, for just two more questions. >> thank you very much for your service. you started your talk with we don't need doves.

we don't need hawks. what we need are owls. could you speak to the characteristic of the howls that you envisioned? thank you. >> eyes open, mouth shut. >> you know,thoughtful, wise, not squumping to conclusions, understanding history. learning from history. i don't know if that's what the question is seeking, but, you know, we've got to understand the history a lot better. we've got to understand isle rainian history, iranian-u.s. history, what happened in the 50s in iran that still drives iranians, at least the old leader, not the young people of iran who want a major change. but the leaders who were alive in the 50s when the cia deposed

a freely-elected iran. i think an owl character igsices would be that they would real hi understand the history and keep their eyes open. and not reach any pre-judgments. understand our limitations as far as mower. understand the limits of power. understand the capableties of power. when you decide to use it, use it widely and effectively. the power of coalitions. i think a wise owl understands it's critical particularly in that part of the world, unless there's some immediate threat to our own ine interest, like when you act with countries in the region far more powerful than to

just have a western deficit militarily. that's a propaganda tool for them. this is not a western effort that's going on right now in iraq and syria. this is a worldwide development. and that takes awra a propaganda club from isis that wants to take away a crew said. >> thank you very much. my firm is on track and i'm on target because that is really the basis of much of the problems in region. assumed asuchgss. diplomats being sold out.

importance of hang waj is what you're talking about. when president bush began, he talked about humility. it was a word whether he lived up to his own stabd e standard or not. it's a different issue. but i hiked it when president bush started his office. >> last question, quickly. gh so you just mentioned about the progress in afghanistan. election showed that the people of afghanistan, they wanted -- even for governments. and also ejected the taliban.

how to mend rehaitian ships. with which is special in the ugs. we need support. from one extreme, you are giving a lot to afghanistan or spending a ho of money without conditionality. but now we would like to is less money, but with more conditionality. >> i'm not sure this is directly responsive to your question, but in terms of american support, which i mooef is important, desired and important, and other

counties, i think the same thing is tu that is been supportive. either with troops or money. that what our publics believe in a demock a sill such as ours, is important. if there's one thing that i could change, it would be more balances of america. not just where the bombs are are going off or where the taliban is making progress in some parts. but the amazing progress under these circumstances in afghanistan. that's going to affect our congressional response to what should be done in afghanistan in order to strengthen the rehaitian ship. and it's not ale hi responsive to your question, but it's what i bhooef is so important.

>> somehow or other, the press can't see the glass not only half full in afghanistan, but getting fuller. or whatever it is. if they can't cover that and say look what we have helped -- helped -- produce. 06 shi, the afghan people is produced it. we keep say iing we want to ope the door for people. we can't walk through that door.

if the american people can sense that, imthink it would really, on our side of the relationship, be the most important thing that could happen. gh i think we've seen today an example of this sound, stoed day leadership that the senator has sewn in his years in the senate, particularly, 234 the senate arms services committee. afghanistan is only one example. he has, if you will, largely been an owl on foreign policy. thoughtful, wise, steady. he has been a supporter of u.s. ip. and when you step down if your responsibleties in january, you will be sorehy missed. gh thank you. >> on a whole range of issues. and i think if you can join me

in appreciation for the senator being here and his wonderful service. [ applause ] bhank blank.

>> the highest unemployment in 30 years. one of the worst unmoment rates in america. corruption or incompetence? pat quinn failed his job. now, he wants four more years? gh do you know how many professionals work at billionaire republican bruce werner's firm? 51 people. do you want to guess how many of those employees are after i can american? none. zero. not a single africa american e american. why do you suppose that is? when abc news asked, they said they couldn't find anyone.

>> we weren't finding the folks. >> and now you're running tv ades saying how close you are to our community? did you ever think that no one would find out? >> i'm a lifelong democrat. i'm kind of bias since bruce is my husband. but when bruce says he'll shake things up, i know he means it. bruce doesn't have a social agenda. he has an economic and educational agenda. this isn't about democrat or repub hi can. this is about our state's future and that's why i hope you'll be for bruce, too. >> this is michelle obama. and i know pat quinn. i've seen that pat has the courage to do what's right. now, pat is fighting to fight the minimum wage. he's working to create jobs here at home instead of shipping jobs overseas. he'll never cut funding from

military or veterans to give a tax break to the wealthy. we're taxing our societies for our friend, pat quinn. gh recent polls have listed the illinois governor's debate as a toss-up. then, at 9:00, repub hi can challenger.

>> good afternoon. . i'd hike to welcome everyone to the subcommittee on government operations. and this is a subcommittee of the house government oversight and reform committee for this hearing on october 14th. and first of all, thank my ranking member, mr. connolly, for being here and for negotiating and working together to make this hearing a reality, which hasn't been a very simple process. we had a plan to conduct this hearing i think thooes two times before. one time they e him nated votes that members didn't return. and another time we had a schedule and this was a convenient time for this hearing. and, also, we have tried to

conduct as many oversighted hearings as we can. i think it's an important committee not only to see how congress spends taxpayer doll hars. this can be the campaign season top pyrety in the interest of the american people or the taxpayers who pay the bill. the title of the hearing today involved gym memberships, gift cards, hair salons. as we start this hearing, we always -- mr. isis starting the

hearing and cites a little principle statement of the purpose of our hearings and this committee and subcommittee. everything outside the constitution is created by law or funded by congress. earl hi on, the founding fathers created the fore bearer of this committee. and that's the orr site committee today. and we've had various names of that purpose, but it's one of the few governments that i know on the planet that has additional check on how money is expended for programs that are are authorized by government. and it is an important responsibility because the public has the right to know how their money is spent. it's our duty to see that that

money is proper hi spent. with that little opening, statement of the purpose and principles of the committee, i want to return to the order of business, the anxiousing member m. connolly and then we'll recognize the witnesses that we have. we have five witnesses today. >> again, the purpose of the whole hearing is to look at the way credit cards and micropurchases, small purchases, are made. we form ed a program several years back to use credit card, geb e again, government-i shall

shoed credit card, for small purposes. this program is administered by gsa. and, actual hi, we did a hearing prior to 2012 looking at some of the abuses and misuse of credit cards it gives employees the flexibility for these small yugss which are currently capped at 3,0e $00. one of the key benefits is that it ahows the government to voavd burdensome administrative costs. unfortunately, while it does simple hi fill the process and save money, it does have some serious drawbacks.

and also loss of assets. and that's quoted from that report. some other very serious audit findings by passing a bill that some of us were involved in in 2012. and this hearing has actually a follow up to see what's taken place since we passed that law and how effective it has been. its also directs the inspectors

general to highlight and focus on one of those reviews in this hearing today. this act is not applied to the department of defense. we also h hear from the air force about whether they need a statute like we have the government charge card abuse prevention act, which, again, we passed in 2012, but exempted the dod. and we will are question as to whether we think that type of law needs to be imposed or dod. today, i expect to hear from some of the civilian agencies

about the effectiveness of the act. epa issued this report in effective oversight of purchase of credit cards are results in inappropriate purchases at epa. we'll find from that report that epa did not provide effective controls for the 2012 law. more than half the credit card purchases sampled, now, listen to this, they took a sampling. about half of those that were sampled were either plo hibted, improper or erroneous purchases.

in fact, again, in that report, that's quite startling that 94% were not in compliance with epa policies according to the law. we have evidence that dhs spent $12,000, aum purchases and charges. at one mar coffee shop. i've got a little starbucks here. we're not supposed to show the habl, but they bought this at one location in 2013. now we've been looking. this is just the coast guard and

that one star bucks. pretty heavy bill with those ket cards. but now we're up to $31,000 that d.h.s. spent at that starbucks, again, looking at different reports that have been filed. : recent report suggests that the bureau of land management used government charge cards to buy $800,000 in gift cards. this is another recent report and this is at the office of u.s. inspector general interior. we have another agency, again, that has gone wild with these microcharge card purchases.

another example of abuses and the department of labor and the nnt xx general office is with us today to discuss series e serious abuses they found when their office is audited at the job corps program. let me focus on this report for just a moment. gh the hay boar department office of inspector general received a request for an audit and a e view of the job corps in my home state and in the city of miami. if the department of labor maneningment. >> the request to allegations, the oig conducted an audit and found that there were, indeed, individuals using government,

pre-paid debility cards for their own personal gain at that miami office. the cards were used for nearly a hundred thousand dollars worth of trips to the hair salon and paying personal phone bills. as a result of oig's personal work and through their work, thee miami employees were terminated and referred to authorities and two other employees resigned. this demonstrates how the system should work. we gave some pretty strong authority on that 2012 law to act. however, again, the department of defense is not covered by the act, but actual hi, it's the

government's harjest purchaser and we have done some preliminary review and found some serious abuses in dod that needs to be addressed. in 2012, the oversight committee and transportation infa vukture committee, which i chaired at the time, held hearings on the infamous gsa las vegas conference. on september 25th, that's not too many days ago, jeff kneelly, the infamous -- now infamous, gsa employer responsible for organizing the extravel began e gant las vegas conference ha caught everybody's eye. we had a picture of him. everybody remembers this guy thumbing his nose at us in a hot tub.

it took all of that time to document and go after the falsely filed travel vouchers and starmts that mr. neilly had made. m. neilly represented gsa whose trafl was for official purchases and many were, as we saw, and they identified, were for pleasure. the individuals in miami and mr. kneelly are are the rare -- let me say rare, bad examples of federal workers at our federal work mace. the vast majority of federal em proi yees are are honest and hard working, dedicated individuals. but i hope today's hearing will serve as both the reminder that we need to do a better job monitoring this credit card program and, also, act as a

potential deterrent to -- and to deter bad actors. make no mistake, congress, the inspector generals, managers, all of us in congress will hold them acountable. the american people work hard to send taxpayer dollars to washington. they expect and deserve to have accountability and responsible use of their tax dollars here. if the 2012 law needs additional refoorm, we will reform it. if agencies failed to uphold the law, we will hold them acountable.

>> mr. connolly has worked in lock step, has never faltered a moment in assisting in this effort to go after, again, people who abuse the law. he's joining me today and sending a let arer to ga objection requesting an update to the audits and investigations they have previously conducted on the richest credit card fraud. mr. connolly has signed on. so it's from both of us. without objection, a copy of that letter will be meade part f the record. so, again, without objection. i want to make comment to

mr. connolly's steadfast going after abuse as we report it. but, also, this is a small, rather quiet hearing today, it's important and i thank him for his commitment. i think the witnesses for their participation and look forward to their testimony. and let me recognize the distinguished ranking member from the nearby state of virginia, mr. connolly, thank you, sir. >> thank you, chair mesne mike. and thank you for the two years we've had the opportunity to work together, we have absolute hi worked on a by partisan basis. and i appreciate that, the commitment of your staff and my staff to making that happen. it's a model for how i think the broader committee and committee structure in congress can work. we don't pretoend we don't have disgreechltss.

e but we have been able to find common ground. but i really appreciate your leadership in that regard and your friendship. and, by the way, i think we're the only show in town today. >> so -- a small but important activity. >> i thank you again for attending. >> i was greeting our panel and telling them how lucky they were to be part of the only show in town here in the hill. the subcommittee is addressing an issue of federal financial management that boasts broad, by partisan agreement over the desired outcomes. namely, dramatically reducing issues of fraud while insurers are taking appropriate enforcement actions to deter such conduct. to build trust and public constitutions, it's absolutely vital for public servants to conduct themselves in a manner

that produces both real and per received risks of such fraud and abuse. when i served on the board of sooip visors and chairman for five years, i made it the policy of my office never to use or possess a purchase guacard, whi not only eliminated waste fraud abuse and carried considerable value with trust in local government. a vital characteristic that may be difficult to quantity, but i think is absolutely essential for good government. i don't necessarily describe to that model for the entire federal government, but it has something to commend it. ensuring that edge e agency implement corrective actions is a critically importanted faceted oversight and i look forward to receiving a progress update this afternoon.addition, i look forw

how the charge card program after examining one procurement of surely what must be high kwaults machines intended to serve thousands of service members on a daily basis. although this acquisition was certainly not a small e small dollar charge card purchase, it recently garnered negative press attention due to the cost alope and i hope we're provided necessary context to fully understand why the purchase was made for these machines. and the cost associated with it. we must also examine the effectiveness of our own efforts here in congress. and i look forward to reviewing the implement tax to the charge card and abuse prevention act of 2012, which you mentioned, mr. chairman, which the over sight committee reported back 2342011, prior to unanimous con innocent in congress in 2012.

one mus understand congress actually facilitated a more proficient procurement system that continues to achieve actual cost savings and actual cost avoidances that v shrill unacceptable incidences of charge card abuse. according to the gsa, taxpayers benefit from charge card programs because they cost agencies nothing to obtain charge card services and the use of the cards has generated more than $1 billion in gross agency

rebates alone to agencies bags e based on the amounts charged to the cards. it's vital we not overreact in response to outrageous, but isolated incidents of abuse, with broad, one-sized-fits-all prestr p p restrictions with more cumbersome bureaucracy that rumted from agencies being unable to utilize charge cardingscards to streamline acquisition. as the office of management and budget noted, reminding agencies of the obligations to consider small businesses when e when making micropurchases, the majority of the approximately 6 260,000 cards sufficiently

support mission delivery. to be clear, i'm not minimizing the findings of office reports and the ig audits in front of us over the last decade that identified inadequate and inconsistent controls across federal agencies, with respect to both purchase and travel cards. that's one of the reasons i enthusiastically supported the government charge card abuse prevention act. while congress codified the majority of passing that bill as the findings of dhs, dol and epa reveal e veal, much more work remains to be done. i am certainly prepared to join you in inking more legislation, if that's what's rooired.

>> in our response to that boondoggle, the federal government may have swung the pendulum too much in the opposite directing, inhibiting interagency coordination and perhaps even having a chilling effect on the innovation that anoth occurs from networking. the bottom line is we cannot rest until we've significantly enhanced internal records. for the disgraced minority of those who abuse government charge kards, we must ensure that the consequences are con sis consistentlyism leapted. it's vital to enhance enforcement and to ensure that justice is carried out.

and, also, do right by the vast majority of federal employees, who, as you indicated, mr. chairman, are hard working, and hone hone honest civil servants. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the ranking member, mr. connolly, for his statement and all members may have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. and noi r now, let me turn to recognize our panel. mr. elliot lewis is the inspector general for audits at the u.s. department of labor. ms. anne richards is the assistant inspector general for audits at the u.s. department of

homeland's security. mr. john lisle is the dep it assistant secretary for contracting at the united states air force. mr. hl larry is the deputy director of air force services at the yients united states air force. i thank all of the witnesses and welcome them today. i don't know if you've come before our committee or subcommittee before, but this is an investigations and oversight committee of congress. and, in accordance with our rules, we do swear in our witnesses. so, if you'll please stand, i eat add mem eel administer the oath. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? all of the witnesses, the record will reflect, answered in the affirmative. and, again, i welcome you.

thank you for coming today. our -- of course, we don't have as many members today since we're not voting. but we try to limit you to five minutes. if we have to go a little bit over, i think we'd be okay today. we do have copies of your statements which were prepared and submitted to the committee without objection, will be part of the record, so ordered. so you can try to make some major points to the panel this afternoon. and we will run the clock, but, again, we'll try to give you as much leeway as possible. and we'll go thu all of the five witnesses and then mr. connolly and i h direct questions to the witnesses. so, with that, first het me

recognize janet ataskin, u.s. inspector general's office of epa. welcome and you're recognized. pull the mic up, too, as all of you testify so we can hear you. thank you. >> gad e go . >> good afternoon. thank you for inviting me to appear here today. the government purchase card program was established 30iers ago to streamline the federal acquisition process by providing a low-cost vehicle for obtaining goods and services. the government charge card abuse prevention act of 2012 this e which is designed to prevent recuring waste fraud and abuse of government charge cards. in 2012, epa has 2,071 employees who were assigned cards. of those, they contracted $29

million in purchases. in addition, epa had 1,000 check writers. the charge card abuse prevention act of 2012 states that the inspector general is to conduct periodic assessments to identify risks of illegal, improper or erroneous payments. in maer, 2014, the epa oig issued a report on management of purchase cards. the objective of the all it e it was to determine whether epa has sufficient controls to identify potentially illegal, improper and erroneous use of purchase cart e cards. overall, we found that epa's oversight is not effective to ensure officials kmie with controls. we found 7$79,254 of prohibited

improper appropriation of arrangements. specifically, the internal control oversighted issues we identified in one or more transaxes inchuded card holder did not obtain approval prior to making purchases, card holders and approvers did not apply closer scrutiny to transactions such as clothing, entertainment and light row freshments. there were some more e gree jus than others. for one transaction, epa provided four different appetizers, chicken tenderloin, fresh fruit e fruit, pasta salad, cookies and punch. the total cost of the food was $2900. in 13 of 80 transactions we

reviewed, card holders did not follow requirements related to restrirkted transactions. for example, in three instances, card holders who were not acquisition professionals purchased gym memberships totaling $2,687. two were for family memberships, not just the epa employee. our old our audit found approving the official inkrerktly assumed that since he pre-approved the purchase, he dd e did not have to review the purchase card quarterly. consequently, he was unaware that the fupder and card holder amended his prior approval to purchase an additional item for $805 for personal use. in compliance, these transactions were undetected because epa approving officials

and purchase card team improved purchase card oversighted potentially saves money by reducing prohibits purchases, i budget environment. to improve transparency, during the past year, the oig has started to publish reports of laws, regulations and procedures. as part of this effort, the oag initiated a detailed log of its own purchase cards. we plan to make that report public soon. mr. chairman, this concluded my prepared statement. i would like to thank the subcommittee for your continuing support for the oig's mission and i'd be pleased to answer your questions you or the subcommittee members may have. >> thank you for your testimony. we'll now turn to mr. elliot lewis, assistant inspector

general. welcome and you're recognized, sir. >> good afternoon, chairman and ranking member. thank you for the opportunity to discuss our april 2014 audit that identified wasteful spending due to the misuse and mismanagement of prepaid debit cards and government travel cards in the job corps program. our audit concluded more than $900,000 was wasted and centrally billed government travel cards used to pay for student travel. the $1.7 million program provides residential and nonresidential support and training services to 60,000 disadvantaged, at risk youth, age 16 to 24 at 105 job corps centers nationwide. travel costs more than 20 million annually. job corps pays for initial visit, transfers and breaks.

the department referred allegations it received related to misuse of debit cards at one of its centers. we conducted an audit to see if -- were allowable. in may of 2009, job corps centers began issuing prepaid debit cards to students rather than cash so students could pay for checked baggage charges during travel. job corps later expanded to pay for student meals while in transit. during our audit, we reviewed the cards with a total value of $600,000 to determine whether they complied with federal travel rules. we found 35% of the cards were used to purchase items such as consumer electronic, clothing and various online purchases. these improper purchases occurred at 98 of the 104 centers reviewed. at the miami center alone, over 1800 cards were used to make

improper purchases totalling more than 96,0$96,000. the operator at the miami center generally agreed ang ed and ter two employees. job corps and other centers acknowledged that -- to make more than 6,000 improper purchases. however, we could not always determine who made these purchases. our audit found that even if the cards were properly used, they were not cost effective. we found job corps paid more than $100,000 in merchant fees for the 18,000 prepaid cards purchased by centers from december of '09 to march of 2013. in addition, completely unused cards can be returned for a refund, but partially used cards could not. we identified about 4,000 cards

with partial remaining balances totalling almost $30,000. job corps lacked basic internal controls over these cards and did not place emphasis on establishing processes for centers to distribute and monitor the cards nor did job core monitor to insure the charges were reasonable. we also reviewed job corps' use to pay for student travel. they were required to use a travel card to obtain contracted air fares. we found instances where cards were canceled or suspended because job corps had not insured that the cards were paid. when centers were unable to use the cards, they were forced to purchase commercial air fare, which were often 50% or more above the government fare. travel parts suspensions for the boston region alone cost over $400,000. cost savings lost from paying commercial air fares.

as a result of our audit, we made several recommendations for job b corps to improve processes and oversight and demand they take action to ensure government travel cards are not suspended or canceled. the department responded and has taken steps to address these issues and will take additional actions to improve student travel. the department stated it has eliminated the use of prepaid debit cards. in conclusion, it is important job corps ensure it's funds are in support of the program. although travel is not the largest of costs. it demonstrates job corps can do more to ensure its travel funds are spent wisely. we will follow up on our recommendations. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i would be pleased to answer any questions that you or any me members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you, mr. lewis and

we'll hold questions. we'll now turn to ann richards, the assistant inspector general for audits at the office of inspector general at the u.s. department of homeland security. welcome and you're recognized. >> thank you. good afternoon, chairman, ranking member. thank you for inviting me to discuss our work related to dhs' purchase card program. my testimony today will focus on our efforts to assess the program and recommend ways to decrease the inherent risk of purchase card use, as well as the department's progress in implementing those recommendations. in fiscal year 2013, dhs purchase card holders spent about $439 million. placing the department among the top purchase card users in the federal government. when used properly, purchase cards decrease administrative costs, increase procurement efficiency and provide an audit. they are a low cost payment

mechanism that eliminates the need for paper purchase orders and expedites payments. the natural risk of misuse is greater because of the number of card holder and the low dollar decentralized actions which are subject to fewer reviews and controls, but this increased risk was purposely accepted to reap the benefits of a simplified procurement process. that is less cost and quicker response. over the last decade, the dhs oig and gao have conducted several investigations addressing the department's use of purchase cards. based on that work, we have reported that a weak controlled environment break downs in key controls have exposed dhs to purchase card fraud and abuse. in short, purchase card guidance was inconsistent and inadequate staffing and monitoring also

contributed to the weak controlled environment. dhs has axwreeed with our recommendations and taken actions to improve its control environment. to this end, dhs has taken active to ensure card holders have -- card hold ers do not exceed single purchase limits or monthly limits without appropriate justification and that card holders comply with documentation requirements before. the process to include the use of potentially questionable transactions, such as those transactions taking place at retail stores, atms or restaurants. in our audits, we identified newm numerous examples of abusive or improper transactions. they were subsequently reviewed and appropriate corrective actions were taken when necessary. in january of this year, we reported that dhs had an aud

quaut internal control framework to manage its purchase card program, but that the department needs to continue its compliance and implementing its internal controls. in other words, the internal control is strong, but adherence to the design is still needed. dirnlly, new controls are in place based on the government charge card abuse act of 2012 including the periodic risk assessments to be conducted by our office and an annual reporting requirement op the state of charge card internal controls and the status of any outstanding audit recommendations. we are currently conducting an audit to determine whether the department has -- a sample of transactions to determine if the ip ternl controls are working. we plan to publish a report in early 2015.

consistent application of controls individual and oversight minimize fraudulent or questionable purchase card usage, but the risk cannot be eliminated. never the less, purchase cards give the government flexibility and save money on transaction processing. the department's actions provide reassurance that potential fraud, waste and abuse are minimized, while the added benefit have been maximized. mr. chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. i welcome any questions you have. >> thank you. we will get back to you with questions. turn to our next witness, mr. john lyle, he's the deputy assistant secretary for contracting at the u.s. air force. you are recognized. >> thank you, sir. good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify this