lems here. one is this. we have this behavior of drinking and drive inging and kind of carousing around. there's lots of examples. i've got three pages that i can do go through. i kind of get that. i understand that a little bit. it happens. it's troubling, but it happens. we have to deal with it as we've talked about but i think a greater problem to me is the fact that there was an officer who was aware of this or many officers, at least one, who was aware of this and took steps to protect their friends. rather than to hold them account bable. if anyone is aware of this and they didn't tell you, they have lost your trust. how could you ever trust them again? you may not be able to fire them, but you should assign them to the furthest type of the aleutian islands in my opinion because they have lost your trust and the trust of the american people and they have shown loyalty to their friends and co-workers rather than to their responsibilities and i don't know how you say it any

differently than that. again, i was a military man for many years and i hear you say well, you know, people are coping with stress. and i got to say, please, oh please. because lots of people experience stress. this is a stressful jobs. there's lots of stressful jobs. military members experience acute stress and would never protect nor sanction the behavior such as this. and i can give you many examples from young airmen to new lieutenants to senior colonels, in some cases generals who were caught dui on base and they were just gone. they were dismissed. and we knew that. and the military was better because we knew that was the rule. and we knew that we would be held accountable for that and the american people were better and our nation was better protected because we had a

culture that we simply don't entertain this. and for someone to have done that and to have one of their peers or supervisors protect them is hard for me to imagine that that would happen. in our cases, we were dealing with top secret information. many of us. as our you and your agents. most highly classified information this nation has has access to. and the accountability just simply isn't measuring up to the responsibility they have. i guess i would ask you to respond to that, but i don't know what else you could say other than what you've said here. except for you know, this idea of changing culture, you said mr. director and i understand what you're trying to do. i really do. when you say i have to set the example, i have to earn their trust, dude, you don't have to earn their trust. you're their boss. they're supposed to earn your trust and they haven't earned your trust. and the way you earn their trust is you hold them accountable and then the others who aren't out

there driving through barricades and laying drunk in corridors of hotels in overseas locations those guys know that they're going to be held accountable. that's how trust is developed in my opinion, so, i mean, i've gone on for a while and i'm not berate berating you, i'm berating this culture and if you'd like to respond, please do. >> thank you, sir. we have had incidents obviouslily in the past and previous directors have after due process, had moved these people off the job. they're gone. cart hey na is an example where i believe we lost ten people. they were terminated. so, there is an indication, or there's a history where we will discipline people, but again

this, i cannot do this on day one. i am frustrated that the agency is taking this and rightfully so. but i have to allow this process to take place and that will be our first test and indication, are we serious about holding people accountable. maybe it's as bad as it may be to say this, maybe it's good to happen early in my tenure so that we can so that we can set a tone. sir, i can't say any more than that. >> well and i appreciate that. in one sense, you're right. in irony it may be good this happened earlier because you have the opportunity to truly lead and show what your expectations are and in my last few seconds, i recognize most of these agents are good people who are trying to do a very difficult job and to do it very well. but the ability and the

willingness of some of them to protect one another instead of being loyal to the oath they've taken taken, it's hard for me to respond to that. it's so foreign to my experience. >> yes, sir, and i honor that. i think as we get into the workforce is list ping to this testimony today and i think a message is being broadcast loud and clear that that's not acceptable. >> thank you, director. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> director, i know you're in a very difficult situation. came in, under the circumstances, i feel for you and i understand and i thank you for taking this job in the first place. put yourself in our shoes. we've heard other directors say we're going to take care of it. what are you going to do that's going to be different? because we've heard this before and with all due respect to you,

tell me how do you convince us that what you're going to do is going to be different? >> i can't compare myself to the previous directors and what they did, but i will tell you that my folk is first accountability, and this will be our first test. but also, listening and communicating with the workforce workforce. and i know that sounds like 101 leadership. listening and communicating to the workforce, but that is, our people want to be heard and i think that's why there's some of this frustration out there that we have not done a good job of listening to our people and showing them the respect so that you know, again, we have to see what the facts are for this case. in general, if a young officer or young agent sees something that's wrong he's got to feel that when he moves up and gives that information up the chain, that that will be respected. that information will be respected. and as we move forwad, i have to

ensure that those mid managers listen to those younger agents and officers and act upon them. i think too often, information is passed up and nothing's done about it so the younger agents younger officers assume that nothing's going to be done. if i resognate something to an up upper level middle management nothing's going to be done. there have been individual circumstances, just yesterday, as a matter of fact, where i took an action where an individual was not being heard. young officer. i walk by the white house every day and the young officer was not being heard on some recommendations that he wanted to make. so, i brought in upper management. we immediately responded to that officer in writing. as well as sat down and went through each of his concerns and we've got to do more of that and i think, i don't know, well, i don't know if it's been done

that way in the past or not. >> and again basic management 101 as the leader of this organization, i understand there's a lot of good, honorable men and women working for y'all, so you've got to look at the morale of the employees, but at the same time, you have to provide discipline when you have to provide discipline. i hope you can find that balance quickly. i want to be supportive of that. the committee wants to be supportive. but i do have other concerns. one other concern is the pope's visit. when he comes down will coincide with the 70th anniversary of the united nations general assembly which is a very busy time. how will the pope's visit potentially affect the number of foreign heads attend thg year and u.s.ing this year and my second question is a little different. you want to build a $8 million

white house replica for training? i have concerns about that. not that i don't want to be supportive but i have concerns about $8 million. talk to me about the pope first. >> with the pope's visit to he's confirmed to come to philadelphia for the world meeting of families. we also are planning for new york and washington. in philadelphia alone, we expect upwards of 2. 1 people to attend those events. at the same time, in september of 2015, we anticipate, we will have the united nations general assembly and we expect 170 heads of state to come to that event. because it's a 70th anniversary of the u.n. wouldn't surprise us if some some of those heads of state traveled to philadelphia to view those events, so it's going to be very taxing to our agency, but we've already started

meeting. the local field office there in philadelphia as well as washington and new york have already been working with our local partners. as well as with the vatican and other federal agencies to start to put together a good plan. we think, philadelphia's been designated an nnse. there is funding for that in philadelphia. as you know, sir, it's a two-year money, so we'll use some of the money left over from fiscal year 2015 to help us with this pope's visit. so, we're going to be prepared. lot of those 12-hour days with all of our agents and officers we'll reach out to our department of homeland security partners tsa and i.c.e. and coast guard for support. we're well on our way to a good plan for the pope's visit. >> thank you. and the other question we'll do it hopefully in the second round because my time's up. thank you so much.

>> thank you for being here today. you talked a little bit about this thorough review needs to be done. and a process needs to go through to let people go. if they're determined they need to do. what are the steps? how long does this take and it seems to me if you don't have swift action, it builds to this low morale of complacency and if it's not swift, you know, almost what's the point? you never hear about it in the end and when was the last time the secret service did fire somebody? because of their actions? was it car ta hey na? is. >> in the netherlands, there was an individual drinking on the trip and he has been removed as well. >> how long did that process take to --

>> legal -- he -- gl i'm surprised that these officers who drove drunk through barricade haven't stood up and said we're resigning. what, what do you do with them? if you don't let them go? do you have any, do you trust them? where would you put them? >> well as it is now, they're in nonsupervisory positions outside of their original offices. one assigned to the president's detail has been removed. the other to the washington field office. he's been removed. both have desk jobs at this time. nonsupervisory. and once the process goes through, then we'll have options towards removing their security clearance. we remove their security clearance, then termination would be a factor. >> it seems like such a long and

drawn out process. i know that you know, we have problems with you know, a staffer here on the hill, that we have the ability to immediately let them go. and i'm wondering where all this comes from and we'll find out i'm sure. through the committee, what the process is. but it's just amazing to me. and the low morale issue we hear about, i understand stressful jobs, too. you talk about maybe you're just not hearing your officers but it's got to go deeper than that. there's got to be a culture there that you have to uncover that is contributing to this and with the low morale how is that affecting staffing needs in people wanting to come work for the secret service? >> yes but the morale you're exactly right, sir. staffing is our primary concern. because we don't have the proper staffing, although we're working diligently to get up to speed and thank you for the funding here that we're -- we're

building up our staffing pretty qukly here. we've added additional personnel in our hr department. we've brought in contractors to our hr department so we can build up this staffing and we're anticipating overreaching our goals in terms of hiring fiscal year '15 and that will have a direct impact on morale because their quality of life will be better. they won't have to have as many days canceled won't have to work as many days overtime. the travel will be somewhat cut back because there will be more that wuk use for this travel but p the most important thing is the training. when we get more staffing, we can get more people out to our training facility. since september 19th, we've taken a big step in that regard with additional staffing. our equalquality of life, more training, i think that's going to help morale as well as the accountability. when these types of ooechts occur, the accountability is

critical. i would also say this is not unique to the secret service. the way that we're handling this particular incident. i don't believe other agencies under title 5, they can't terminate people at will either. is my understanding. i may be corrected on that. >> thank you very much. i want to see you succeed. i really do. we hear at the committee want to do what we can to be helpful, but we can only do so much my making sure we provide the necessary funds, but it's got to come from within and you've got to dig down and find the root of this problem and i hope you succeed. the secret service has an immensely incredible job. one of the most important jobs we have out here with our forces. so good luck to you. we're here for you as well, but we do demand some accountability. thank you.

>> mr. young, our employees are at will employees. their employees are not at will employees. that's one of the differences. >> thank you, mr. chair, i knew that you would find that answer. >> mr. fleishman. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. director. thank you for your distinguished career in the secret service and for stepping up and taking over this agency at such a difficult time. when i was a young boy i always looked up. the secret service, wow. that was it. i would just think about pregnanting the ing protecting the president and the important mission you have. i share your sentiments. we want you to succeed. this is something that is important for our country and it's a difficult time. we've heard about the different problems that the individual agents have had.

i just after listen inging to some of the comments, want to ask you this. at the fundamental base of any profession when someone is going through training, we heard from one of our colleagues in the military. i was trained in the profession of law. great judge or chairman. there are certain fund menamentals that are imparted into the recruitment and training process. you inherited this, sir. i guess my question for you is how do we impart the values the good inherited values of the secret service to the recruits and bring them through the train training process so that when an agent comes to the point of becoming an agent, these issues are something that he or she would just stand up and say no to? i think that seems to be one of the fundamental problems we've inherited. i'd like your thoughts on that, sir. >> you're exactly right.

first of all, in terms of our hiring and recruiting process it's a seven to mine-month process. everyone gets a polygraph, a background check. they're thoroughly checked out. then they are given classes on ethics, professionalism and it's driven home. somewhere after that training is where we lose them and i think that's because of my leadership our leadership that somewhere we lose them where they forget those lessons learned and i think the only way we get get that back is my again, the accountability that we drive home so that people realize there are consequences individual behavior. >> i harken back to the different professions. there is continued training for those professionals who go through either annual or semiannual updates as to what's expected of them.

is that going to be part of the process, sir? >> we do five-year updates to go back in their neighborhoods and make sure they're good citizens and so on. we do continuously do training throughout their careers but in many ways, it comes to individual accountability. each of us, if you see someone in your presence, not performing properly, we've got to step up individually and then correct it. as well as of course the supervisors have to do it but as an agency, we've just got to work together to get through it. >> yes, sir. when the question expect your report on the reviews of professional standards at the secret service as required by the confidence report in fiscal 2015 homeland security appropriations act and as a follow up to that, do you intend in that report sir, to address concerns that have been raised on both sides today? >> i'm sure that will be addressed in that report. i don't have a date. does anyone have -- near future

it's in the near future, but we'll give you a more definitive date when we conclude this hearing. >> i wish you every success and i yaeld back. >> thank you for yielding. been looking at some numbers over here. my estimate, you have about 4600 people in your agency. carry a weapon or eligible to carry a weapon. >> yes, sir. >> okay so, mr. stewart made a good example. you're not in the army, the military, but you have an armed force, 4600 armed men and women. that's a huge responsibility. the kind of responsibility that chiefs of police in major cities have. where they have that responsibility. the chain of command has to be rigid. maintain the kind of discipline

that is necessary to handle an armed force. just that simple. it's a dangerous by its definition. it's a dangerous group of people. whether it be the houston police department or whether it be your force. okay. now, the concern we hear is that and let me say something. on the ig. i think i know why you did that. because you want to make sure this is a clean investigation to start. but having dealt with and i'm not criticizing any igs here, it's also a place to put something to go away for a while and that could take a long time in an investigation before it becomes a current event again in washington, d.c., a lot can calm things down in that period of time. having that experience in our veteran's administration some of the investigations and the

results of those, they can be disappointing. so don't want this to be a policy of well, we got a problem, the ag they get their job done, everybody will forget about the problem because i'm not going to forget about the problem and i don't think anybody up here is going to forget about the problem. the ig i hope has been told they better build a fire under themselves, get us a response very promptly as to what's going on here. but in reality, you're the head, you've got people above you in the chain, but you are in charge of these armed people. and there has to be a strict chain of command. the managers of those people should be all over today. if these two people were senior management, you should be all over them today. and i realize you got union contracts. you've got you know, civil service issues and all those

issues protect worker, sometimes to the debtriment of the agency. the it's a weakness that a i find appalling. one of the things that if i could wave a magic wand in washington, the ability not to terminate someone for dangers or bad behavior immediately quite honestly, i think is unacceptable. but it's not your fault. that is the way it is. i recognize that. but you're in command. you're the two-star. you've got a division under your command. and you've got make sure that everyone in your command and control structure are meelting that obligation. if everybody's just sitting around and watching me talk on television, figure out what it is, you know i could chew the rest too. but that's not my job. that's your job and the chain of

command. whether the ig is making a recommendation or not. i think it's a barrel push bump, tape break, but then the question is, you're both holding badges. get out of your car walk through the crime scene and say, what's going on, instead of being so arrogant as to think you can intrude into a crime scene. that's another issue. if they were stone sober. that's an issue you have to ask them. are you such a big shot in this agency that you think you can just drive right through one of my taped off crime scenes? that should be a something that they get called for. if they were stone sober. they were arrogant. >> yes, sir. >> and part of it you can have in an agency like you have, is is people who think they don't put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. they're supermen so they can act like supermen. they can't act like supermen and that's what we are really all

talking about up here. your job right now and you know, some of these outside reporters told the president not to hire inside the agency. and so, you've got a big responsibility because you've got 30 years of friends, but you've also got to start jerking a knot in their tail. and i believe you, when i met you, i believed you're the guy that could do it. i still believe you're the guy that can do it but recognize what your authority is and exercise that authority. >> yes, sir. >> that's not a question. i just wanteded to say that. because i think sometimes, we get so off acting like bureaucrats, we forget you are a dangerous bunch of people. and as dangerous people, you have to be a set chain of command, regulate it from top to bottom. or something dangerous is going to happen. >> yes, sir. >> that's what we're all worry

ed about up here. we don't want anybody under your tutelage to get hurt or to allow someone that they're supposed to be protecting get hurt. whether it's the president, the pope, people at the u.n. or whatever. those are big responsibilities. and i think your chain of command is haywire. work on that. >> yes, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman and let me just associate myself with comments made by the chairman. i, too believe that you're up to the task and can do it. last december the protective mission panel made a number of recommendations for staffing, framing, leadership, enhancements at the white house complex and i have a few questions related to that. what can you tell us about your schedule for fulfilling those recommendations, particularly with regards to the improvements

to the replacement of the white house fence and is the budget request sufficient for allowing to fulfill all of panel's recommendations as expeditiously as possible. >> first of all, the budget request is a good step forward and the recommendations from the panel, ones that we can do short-term have been completed. such as adding additional posts or some enhancements on security around the complex. the ones that are more longer term as you mentioned, the fence, we are in the process of the by the end of april, i should get some options to choose what is the best new fence or structure to protect the complex there. and with that, the national parks service, we'll make a decision on where to go on that. but even after we pick and choose that option, then we go into a design stage. about six months. then a procurement stage. maybe two months. then a construction phase. so it's still going to take

almost a year and a half to come "meet the press"meet pleat that project. however, we have been testing at our facility, some measure for fences. putting something on top of the fence that will deter people from climbing and will prevent people from getting over in a timely manner. we recognize that's a long time to wait, a year and a half so we're looking at a measure to go in place this summer to get theapprovals. >> and the mission panel also recommended that next director, which would be you, conduct an honest top to bottom reassessment of the agency and that he and this is a quote move the service forward into an era and drive change in the organization. what are you putting into place to help you look more broadly at the agency's practices, processes and activities to identify places where improvements are needed so that the initial training of new

agents isn't lost and senior members help to reenforce the ethics and the training that young agents get rather than whatever's happening today. >> overall, we have begin a restructuring of the executive staff. first of all, with bringing in new staff members, with new ideas and reinvigorate some of the things we want to do in the agency. but gishl additionally, we're empowering and elevate inging our civilian professionals subject matter experts. just as an example traditionally, the service service has had a director and deputy director. we now have and it should go out this week, an announcement for a chief operating officer who will be on the same level as the deputy director. that chief operating officer will ensure that the business is run correctly efficiently and we've put under this chief

operating officer, we're using for example the chief financial officer. traditionally, the chief financial officer has answered to an agent. now now, we've elevated the chief financial officer so that we do a better job in the budget world. same with our technology. typically, that director was run by an agent. we've moved to now run by the drek tat. we have a search for a civilian private sector cio, so we want to leverage their experiences, professional professionalism in our agency. on the operational side, we mention mentioned the training piece of it. previous to me being named the director, hr and training director was one. i've split them out to provide focus on training as well as the

hiring process. but specifically, the training. now, we're spending a lot of time ensuring that people get the right integrated training they need. since september 19th, uniformed division training has been increased 110%. the agent training has increased 78%. that's, we got to sustain that though. and that's why we've got this new director for training, so taken that level of training. they need. they need that training. so, in general to your question, we're restructuring the management of the agency. >> i see that my time is up. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. the department of hoemdmeland in

inspector general have come up with different recommendations. i know you implemented some of them, but have you implemented all of them or are they still missing? what needs to be done on those recommendations? sxwl >> to protect the mission? >> the longer term projects for example you mentioned earlier, the training facility. out at our belsville training facility. the mock white house. we feel that's important. to right now we use a, we train on a parking lot basically we put up a makeshift fence and walk off the distance between the fence at the white house and the actual house itself. and we don't have on that parking lot, we don't have the bushes fountains, we don't get a realistic look at the white house. even our canine they're responding on hard surfaces rather than grass, so we think it's important to have a true replica of what the white house is so we can do a better job of

this integrated training between our uniformed officers agents and tactical teams. when i mentioneded tactical teams, i think spernl force, but they go out to do some kind of operation, typically, they have a model built first and that's where we would like to be. we'd like to have a good mock up of the white house to train more efficiently. >> on this when you look at the secret service you've got to look at the employees there are there and the employees that will be there. the hopefully, a diverse hiring process. what, how will you focus on the folks and i know you've gone over this, but just summarize it, on the employees there and on the new hires that will be coming? to make sure you don't compound the problem. >> there is con tin yul

training. >> the problems that have been going on for years. >> yes, i'm sorry, for years. we have continuous training. we hit it very hard in our first seven months of training when they are first hired, as well as a background check. we look for any di first timeeficiencies and polygraph. we lose a considerable number of candidates because of the polygraph. we're looking for the people with the best character and then the background check. so so, we think we're hiring very good people. then we go through that training that the ethics and professionalism is stressed, as well as the operational piece of our job. although we continue to train and we continue to give classes on ethics and professionalism throughout their career, i think as much as anything, it has to be how do we react to these mishaps, this misconduct. how do we hold people accountable? i think that's the piece that maybe missing and that's the piece that it's my responsibility to ensure we hold

people accountable. >> you lose a lot of people by attrition. >> we lose a lot of people by attrition. more recently, i'd say because of their quality of life. you know, when you're working 12 hours a day and you think you have the next day off and it's canceled, the amount of travel they do. and the stress that we're under. i know folks don't want to hear about -- >> sorry, apologize, do you lose them to other agencies or to the private sector? >> we lose them to other agencies. but what i've done since i've come here for example, uniform division. i've encouraged and insisted that these uniformed division officers who want to roll over to special agent position, we've got to make that happen. they want to experience that side of our agency and if we don't do that, we've invested a lot of money in them. if we don't, they're going to go

to other federal agencies or the private sector. >> do you work with historically black universities or hispanic serving institutions to expand because you're going to have a small pool and as you've added, you lose a lot, but if you expand, codo you work with those universities to look for potential recruits? >> part of this, i'll have to go on memory. i know we did and over the last few years, our overall hiring process has been limited and now, we're back on track. this fiscal year '16, we've asked for additional moneys to have their hiring fairs, get a goody verse people we can hire.

>> about 45 seconds, just real quickly. the secret service has a tradition, but lakely it's taken a black eye. how do you expect to turn this around quickly? because we've heard other folks sat exactly where you're at. how do you take your new initiative to say this will be different this time? >> it has to start with building that trust and part of that is how we hold people accountable and that people's views matter:. that we're listening to whether you're a new agent, officer, professional, that this we're listening to your concerns and that we have to act on those. if we don't act on their concerns and show their value then they're going to, they're going to lose interest and we're going to have these discipline problems. we've got to do a better job of communicating, mentoring teaching and each of us whether you're a supervisor or not, have

to take responsibility to ensure that these types of events don't happen. >> i wish you the best. thank you. >> director clancy, you mentioned in your statement, zero base and one of the mission panel recommendations is the need for a new budget structure that is zero based on mission based. as it's subject matter. how is this different from this, from the budget presented in your fiscal year 2016 quest. what type of budget reform is being considered and how will it be implemented? how might a new type of budget drive future funding needs. have you already identified gaps in funding based on initial reviews of the budget. i can go back over those. >> that's fine, thanks, mr.

chairman. again, this is fiscal year '16 budget is one that basically i heard. i think it's a good budget. i think it's deaffinitely a step forward. very positive direction. we are in the process now of identifying from top to bottom, where are our deficiencies. we are going director by director to see what those needs are so that we can best have our people best trained staffed and give them the proper equipment. so, we are compiling a list of those priorities and things that we really need. >> mr. quaur has talked about some of the budgeting and programming ways they do things in the great state of texas. a mission, when we know you're defining what it's going to cost dood a certain mission, then we

can see where the failures are in each mission and we can budget and make changes accordingly. isn't that what you've been pushing me with? and that's what you seem to be proposing, which quite honestly gives us a clearer picture. gives you a clearer picture and us of how the agency is functioning. i like the idea. i hope you do well. >> thank you. >> and we're constantly looking at the emerging threats as we talked before in your office about the uas and what we need to address these emerging threats, so that's all part of this process. >> i'd like to foe low up on the zero based budget. can you tell me what the timeline is for completing that analysis? >> initially, we were hoping we might get into my chief

financial officer just gave me an answer here:. the 2017 you can expect a mission driven program to identify budgets so by 2017 we will be well on our way to a zero based budgeting. what are the central recommendations of the protective emission panel was to hire an additional 200 uniformed division officers. and to increase the number of protective division agents by 85. the panel described this as an interim step while the agency does the necessary analysis to match requirements with mission needs. i'm also aware that the secret service has struggled in recent years to keep attrition from outpacing hiring and that you have recently taken step to address that. so my question is are you satisfied that you have resolved the shortcomings in the hiring process. at the secret service will be

able to meet its hiring goals for fy 16. >> yes. where regards to the panel and recommending 85 agents, we have 30 that have been reassigned to the president's detail. now thanks to your good work with the continuing resolution being resolved, we can transfer more people into washington so we can fulfill that 85 number requirement. in uniform division, we are working with your staffs to look for retention measures that may allow us to keep some of these people that are close to retirement or maybe looking at other opportunities. the retention piece is important to us as well because our hiring, we are going to surpass our goals. initially, we planned to have six classes of agents. now, we are anticipating nine agents classes and eight uniform

division. >> all right. my time is up, mr. chairman. >> no further questions. i just, we want to work with the director. thank you. >> the budget once again proposes to eliminate $8.4 million for the support of michigan missing and exploided children, including funding at the center for missing and exploited children. the justification materials indicate that forensic support for missing and exploited children investigations will continue to be providing through the agency's field offices. the secret service has a long

standing partnership with the national center for missing and exploited children, going back decades and while we understand this may be a need to prioritize funding for activities within the agency, it seems to me that we should be weary of weakening that partnership. what would be the impacts if we would appropriate no funding for the program in fy 16 and what are the benefits to the secret service from the existing partnership? >> we understand this is a pass through grant to the department of justice. this hasn't, this is a very important mission to us. it has so many good things. such an important job, but we offer a lot to our local law enforcement partners with the forensics that we can do the polygraphs that we can do for them and just relationship building as well. but we can bring a lot to the table to try to help with this

very important mission and we're very thankful to be able to do this. moving forward. if we can. >> okay. >> all right if no one else has any questions, then i guess we'll end this hearing. i want to say that this has been a tough day for you, but you know, it's all a learning process and once again, we're part of that chain and we're willing to help. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

our social media question for the day today is do you trust the secret service to protect the president? our question on our facebook page. let us know what you think. here's a look at some of the responses responses. i wish they could, but they do not seem good at their job. the actions of a few should never outweigh the long history of a job well done by the secret service. i trust them to maintain a safe environment for the president and other protectees. dude is alive they're doing a great job and no i do not. even though i dislike obama greatly, their job is to protect him.

like it or not, he is the president of the united states. they have a job to do and they need to do it and take it very seriously. live coverage will continue at 1:00 eastern at sally jewell talks about her department's energy development priority over the next two years. she'll be speaking at the center for international studies at 1:00 eastern. this weekend the cspan cities tour has partnered with media com to learn about the history and literary life of columbus, georgia. gl right here inside the museum is the remains of the css jackson. it was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson and jackson is armed with six brook rifles. the particular brook rifle we're firing today is one of the guns

built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad. and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus, saturday at noon eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on cspan 3. the national highway traffic administrator on consumer issues. he spoke at the confederation of

america's conference and also touched on distracted driving initiatives and the rental car safety loophole. this is about half an hour. hour. >> i think we'll start now if everybody has their coffee and we're ready to watch this. my name is jackie gillan and i'm president of advocates for highway safety and i've been asked and have the honor of introducing speaker dr. mark rose kind who is the 15th administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration and he was sworn into office this past december 22nd. i first got to know administrator rosekind shortly after he was appointed to serve

on the national transportation safety board in 20106789 we've worked together on safety issues including murder coach and distracted driving. mark's transportation safety is rooted in his personal life and professional career. at his senate hearings he spoke about his father who was killed by a driver who ran a red light. and like many other men in his room, he married up. his wife is a successful pediatrician practicing in the san francisco bay area. his career has prepared him well for the career of being a nhtsa administrator. i'm going to brush over my

introductions so we can get to mark first. but basically, he was an academic superstar and he went to the leading universities and colleges for under graduate and advanced graduate degrees that many of us wanted to attend but few of us were smart enough to get into such as stanford, yale and brown. administrator rosekind is an expert on human fatigue and is a recipient of numerous awards acknowledging his innovative research and program designs. in fact his expertise in fatigue management and alertness solutions may be the most important qualification for handling the relentless demands and extremely long hours he's experiencing as being nhtsa administration for the past 81 days. but who is counting right? we know that there are many challenges facing this agency

and critical safety issues to advance and there really isn't much time. all of us are rooting for your success and appreciate your joining us today to share your program and planning priorities. thank you very much administrator rosekind. [ applause ] jackie, thanks for that very generous introduction. and i know jackie well enough when she sends a note, got a goody that i can say that nobody knows about you, i know yours, you were kind enough not to put my mind out there. and i realize you have a big day. this is the warm up. we're going to the news talent next and secretary perez after that so there is a big day coming. and i wanted to thank jack gillis, he made the invitation and the cfa for the opportunity to join you. it has been five decades for the cfa to create a safer market and

this is a vital part of all of that. it is a pleasure to be here. and if i knew there was a powerpoint opportunity i would have gotten out my slides and wandering out. gordon my communications guy is saying stick to the prepared remarks and i'm good. i'm going to review the challenges and before us in the road and highway safety and how nhtsa is working to achieve the mission of reducing deaths and injuries on our roadways and highways. in all of the work i'm going to describe today, time is clearly of the essence. partly because my time in nhtsa will expire along with president obama's tenure in the office but more importantly time is of the essence because 32, 790,000

people lost their deaths and that is more than 3200 people injured every hour. they were mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and coworkers and they deserve all of our best to make sure deaths are prevented in the future. so the next two years is a sprint. we'll use every minute to make sure our roads and highways are safer. and the bottom line is every american, whether they are drive, ride or walk should arrive at their destination safely. every time, every one of them and there should be no acceptable losses. now to pursue our safety mission at nhtsa we will strengthen what is working well and fix what doesn't and make sure nhtsa is using every tool at its disposable to save lives,

prevent injuries and reduce crashes. so let me describe tree spesive -- three specific priorities for the next years. first, we must strengthen how we recall vehicles with safety defects. resources, including people, technology and authority, present challenges to nhtsa's efforts in this area. we have to address these issues threw multiple mechanisms such as seeking more people, new technologies and increased authority. recent cases involving gm and takata demonstrate the vital importance of getting this right. it is nhtsa's responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent death and injuries related to defects. the american people expect that of us. we have a commitment to the families and the friends affected by roadway tragedies and to you, to explore everioid kbra yeah, explore every tool to prevent such tragedy on our

roadways. before i arrived at nhtsa they caught more defects and sooner and i can tell you that work is continuous and will be vigorously pursued. in january we levied a $70 million maximum fine against honda for failing to warn deaths over a period of a decade. wur pushing honda for reporting snems, ensuring compliance and determine field goal there is cause for additional actions. last month we levied new fines in the takata airbag case. those fines are accumulating at a maximum rate of $14,000 aday and they will keep accumulating until they meet their obligation under the law. and they will force takata to preserve evidence that may be necessary in our investigation and helpful in private actions. we are going to take any actions

allowed under the law to hold manufacturers accountable. but it is clear to new unbiased observer that the law does not provide our agency for sufficient authority to hold bad actors fully accountable. that is why secretary fox has requested new authorities and resources so nhtsa can better protect consumers by authorities that put lives under risk. they must make sure that companies do not put private profit above safety or withhold information when we demand full disclosure. i've only been at nhtsa 81 days and i have been counting and there are examples of our willingness to stand up and fight on behalf of the consumer. and second, our priorities is to strengthen the core safety programs. the agency has household names such as click it or tick it and drive sober and get pulled over

and recently you text you drive, you pay. and this is changing how americans are driving for the better and saving lives. the agency grants the states and local governments are a foundation for the safety work across the nations. the partnerships are essential to providing resources to states so they can force laws against drunk and distracted driving to provide technical assistance on graduated driver's licensing and other safety issues and to support a wide range of agencies to save lives where the rubber meets the roads. and this is much more than the vehicle defects but it is critical to address where significant safety risks addresses. nhtsa just published that the last relevant events relating to a crash is literally human events. and bicycle safety is a major

focus, the focus of a ground breaking transportation study called beyond traffic and we're looking at traditional and technology approaches to help reduce deaths and tragedies. and every week at nhtsa i was learning something new about the depth of our portfolio, but the agency plays a critical role in advancing fuel efficience kwi and that work continues as we move forward with efforts on heavy truck fuel economy, standards and work that support the president's goal of the climate action plan and we're particularly grateful to cfa for its efforts in this area. our third priority is technology innovation and what we're doing is supporting technology across the board. they have been critical to saving lives and preventing injuries across the roadways from the most basic like the seat belt to automatic braking systems, taking a critical role

in safety and just in january we announced the role of technology over the period of 50 years and our findings 613,501 lives have been saved over the past half decade due to technology. and what was number one on the list seat belts. seat belts, far and above everything else. and those 613,000 lives saved are the most rp to support and -- reason to support and nurture safety. at nhtsa we are excited about technology. and we are more encouraged about safety. and that is why we are moving vehicle to vehicle technology safety to help drivers avoid hundreds of thousands of crashes every year. and together technology innovation and safety really represent the greatest value to the traveling public. so those are three of our priorities for the next two years and it will indeed involve

a great deal of sprinting to accomplish our goals before january 2017. but throughout these two years i'm listening to you and many different groups to explore any ideas and opportunities that will help advance nhtsa's safety mission. we have a ambitious agenda but it is achievable and it will be guided by three principals. first effectiveness. nhtsa is looking for every opportunity to be more effective. we are using all of the tools available to achieve our safety mission but bring to bear the best processes and people to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. we'll pursue any means possible to help us as an agency be more effective. the second principal is communication. externally the public needs to know what we do and how we do it. we build trust by excelling at what we do and also by ensuring that the american public understands how we do it. this will translate into

transparency. wherever possible by providing people with information to help them make safe choices. you'll see diverse changes in how we communicate with the public across nearly every nhtsa platform and we'll do so in clear and direct terms so our information is clear and accessible. and our third innovation is to innovate everything we do. that is how we've done thing and there is not an acceptable response. where nhtsa is doing something well, then the question is how can we innovate and be even more effective and keep americans safe on our roads. we can never stop that exploration. if we're going to keep driving down deaths and injuries on our roads. so on a final note, the nhtsa safety mission, any successes are shared by the dedicated individuals at cfa and the

individuals at this room and all of us. all of you have dedicated your lives and that is what it will take to serve the public interest to reduce deaths and injuries on our roadways. transportation touched every single person every single day and we share a responsibility to make our transportation system as safe as possible. together we can deliver on safety for every person whether they drive, walk or ride. so join me on a two-year sprint to advance the nhtsa safety mission to together save lives and prevent injuries on your roads. i thank you and i'll look forward to questions. [ applause ] >> thank you, mark, for staying to answer some questions. are there any questions or should i just start out the first one? i guess since i introduced him i get the first one. one of the most important

consumer information programs are the new car assessment program, do you have any chances for changing that or improving that or any other changes we should look forward to? >> so thanks jackie. because that is a great question. >> is your mic on? >> yeah we're good. so one of my favorite movies is the american president. remember that with michael douglas. sand gotta love it. and one of the themes is when he tries to get the roses and they can't get the credit cards and somebody faints when he tries to stop and at the end he hands her this beautiful bouquet of roses and she said how did you pull it off and he said i have a rose garden and i have a rose garden at nhtsa and i started to look

some of the things we're going after and one of the first things we started was a review with an opportunity to look truly to innovation in end cap. so what i can tell you is we've already started working on that and i will hope to let the secretary make an announcement come springtime about what our plans are for the future. i believe end cap is such a valuable program, started at nhtsa and incredibly valuable and needs to be leading-edge for what it can do. it is potentially for these two years one of the legacy programs to try and get in place. it will get a lot of attention. >> thank you. other questions? yes? >> i was wondering how your agency overlaps with [ inaudible ] the lags last

period and how. [ inaudible question ] >> so what is important about that question is differentiating. and people still ask me what is nhtsa and what do you do? and i have the chart from d.o.t. and federal highway and motor carrier and nhtsa. and federal motor carrier safety administration, do the enforcement side and set those rules. so those are not under nhtsa. what is interesting is nhtsa does have truck and bus involvement because we set the federal motor vehicle safety standards but not the service hours involvement. but she can make that comment, jackie, if you want to ask that. >> that is an fmcfa issue and we

are going to fight to make sure that roll-back for truck driver's hours of service is not going to be permanent. tired truckers on our roadways is very serious. >> one of the things i appreciate about the work you are doing at nhtsa and the department of nhtsa is closing the recalled cars. could you comment a little more on that, please. >> so rosemary and i were in richmond on the secretary's bus tour and we all met in richmond so we could stand in front of the rental companies right, and have the secretary talk. and really that extends to two areas. both used cars and rental cars that, if they've been recalled they should be remedies before they are sold or represented. period.

and i'll make a generic comment which there are many issues like this i struggle with because they seem so straightforward right. when people ask about if we have recalls, should it be 100 person. what else can it be, right? we should be trying to eliminate all deaths and injuries on the road. what else could it be? so how could you have a recall used or rental vehicle and not fix it before you sell it to somebody or rent it? so yes -- i think that is a good example of the interest in having congress change what they can and any appropriate changes we can push in that hand. and thank you, rosemary for your help on that. >> any other questions? . yes, lou. >> can you tell us whether you have any plans for re-establishing trust -- public trust in nhtsa by freeing nhtsa from regulatory capture? >> so i'll let you define

regulatory capture. >> there is an awful lot there. >> yes. it is. and jackie is going to want to ask a couple of other questions here. so go ahead. >> so nhtsa has been criticized now for six years straight, okay. and it has reached the point where new york times editorials, et cetera, are talking about regulatory capture at nhtsa, so do you have any plans to deal with that? >> yeah absolutely. i have to tell you, i think thwhat was interesting for me about the revolving door, at this point that is all people could come up with i welcome that. because given the difficulties going on, that is fairly straightforward. there have been official reviews that have been found there and that over an 18-year period there have been over 40 people that have left, i get that. all i can do is deal with the folks that are there now.

i'm cognizant of that stuff. that is where -- where you come from and how you act, and for us, i think the issues are straightforward for things. i'm aware of it but it is also one of those things where i'm not going to support anything except our neutrality and independence and protecting the consumers. >> so can i just say that no plans? >> no plans? >> to free nhtsa from regulatory capture? >> no. i think i'm saying that i'm going to make sure there is no regulatory capture at least while i'm there tor two years. and i can't -- all of you know this. people will leave. what i can control is people who come on. and what i can do is make sure at the very top our decisions will be made to protect consumers. >> thank you. >> sally is going to start kicking you if you don't move aside. >> my name is sally freeberg

with national league. i worked with vehicle safety and i hear you are doing a great job. i want to follow up on that point and then i would like to ask a question that is somewhat related. there were these real lapses at nhtsa in finding very serious defects and time and time again, it is a -- staff just either looked the other way or closed investigations so i think there is a serious culture problem there. i know we experienced it when i was at consumers union just the frustration of having the agency look at things that were palpably problematic and decided not to take any action. so i think it is a fair point and i don't know if it is industry capture or inept tooter a lack of -- inept you'd or a lack of solving the problem but i think it

certainly bears your close attention. >> and i'll make a comment to be clear. i absolutely agree, which is that nhtsa needs to increase our trust. the american people need to trust the agency and there is no question that there have been lapses. i'm going to be the first one to tell you. things were found slowly. actions were not taken that would have advanced things much more quickly. there are all kinds of claims about that and i guess what i'm saying is i'm not only cognizant about it but in two years, there are flon issues but -- nonissues, but i'm on it. and during the two years i'm on it. i can't control who leaves or who will be there, right now i'm sitting on every enforcement update i can and making sure everything that is going on and i can highlight things like the trw inadvertent airbag and we made a saturday announcement about things going on. we're going to try to get that.

>> that is great. and we do need that leadership from the top. and you were talking about fines, heavy fines on members of the industry for putting cars on the road knowing there was a defect, failing to report to nhtsa. when the gm in the last year or two and gm and toyota situations exploded, it became clear that the fines are only so effective. they become a cost of doing business for these companies. so there was a lot of talk about criminal penalties and there is some evidence to suggest that criminal penalties do make executives and others under them who understand that there are some serious problems with cars act -- react in a much stronger way to address problems. i don't know what you're sending up to congress. have you talked about that internally? i don't know if it is a nonstarter in congress and i'm not sure that matters because i think coming from nhtsa it is important that you guys get out

there and say we don't want this to be a cost of doing business and we want this to be a way for companies to be reporting this. >> and you're right, if you want to change behavior you have to have people reporting problems. and you have to have people in the the cap and there is discussion about potential criminal concerns as well. so one thing jackie and others will tell you i don't like to talk about stuff and i like to act. in the secretary's new version of grow america, that issue will be addressed. >> thank you. asking for appropriate authorities. >> thank you. >> we started late and i know you have another meeting. would you take one more question. >> sure. >> one more question. >> i'm rebecca kern with

bloomberg b&a. and since you started fining takata $14,000 a day from february 20th, what is the latest, is this having an impact and what is the latest on the investigation from takata. >> so specifically to the $14,000 a day, again that was the max that we could do and we actually had two orders out because it is really $7,000 but we had a way to do $14,000 which is a point before which is really not much but it is the most we can do basically. we had our most recent meeting yesterday. my quick understanding from attorneys is they are starting to become more forthcoming which is my way of saying we'll find out what that really meaning. i'm going back to hear more specifically -- so people understand that is what the issue was. the 2.4 million pages of documents and in richmond, we mentioned that and announced the fines and i -- secretary fox is just great because people said

2.4 million documents and the attorney said they just dumped about it and that is requiring them to point to the safety relevant information. and that is not going to be one meeting, it is going to be several. and my understanding is yesterday that things started changing around. i'm not sure they are far enough yet but i'm going to find out today. >> okay. >> i'm going to close by thanking administrator rosekind for coming and also to thank you for walking away from five-year reappointment to take over nhtsa. as i told somebody, that is the commitment to this agency and getting things right. so thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you. live coverage will continue at 1:00 eastern as interior secretary sally jewel talks about her energy development priorities over the next two years. she'll speak at the center for strategic and international

studies starting at 1:00 eastern. now isis rears their ugly head and this army is very shaky. you shuntd be surprised. you can't reduce soviet era and saddam stuff after eight years after you have u.s. advisers and partners with them. according to the president, we have 10,000 troops there in a training and advisement patrol and we're drowning down after that. i would warn we'll see a similar result to what we saw in iraq when isis attacks. that afghan army will be shaky without u.s. help. >> daniel bulger on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

more now from the consumer issues conference and a group of journalists who discuss the importance of in vest gaveive -- investigative journalism. >> i think we're going to begin. we're going to move quickly through the program. my name is jack gillis and i'm the director for consumer affairs for the federation and welcome to today's panel on invest gaveive -- invest gaveive reporting. today we're going to talk about

something near and dear to the hearts of advocates and that is investigative reporting. the increasingly difficult business challenges facing news outlets, the new types of investigative reporting. we'll look at how this is impacting a key pillar in consumer advocacy. because the media is so critically important to advocates there are new questions being raised that will affect the way we are able to change policy. who is emerging as credible news sources on the internet. do the new news editorials affect internet and what is the emphasis to the internet partners. how do we consumers address the concern that the internet content may not be as edited as daily print content. our blogs -- are blogs real

competition to traditional news outlets and what are the challenges of blogs, social media, user-generated content into organizations like nbc abc, the wall street journal and others that have unbiased and carefully researched content. the bottom line is we'll look at where investigative reporting is going in the next five years. as we ask these questions, the news about the news is kind of scary. a recent pugh report discusses that the continued erosion of news reporting resources combined with the new media opportunities present growing opportunities in politics government and agencies and corporations to take their messages directly to the public without a filter.

here is a snapshot from the pugh report. newspaper newsroom cutbacks put the industry down over 30% since 2000. in local tv, sports weather and traffic now account for an average of 40% of the content. cnn, the cable channel that branded itself around deep reporting has cut story packages in half. across three of the major cable channels coverage of live events and live reports during the day which requires expensive crews and staff, have been cut by 30%. here is where it gets interesting. to combat dwindling resources a growing list of media outlets such as forbes magazine uses new technology to produce content by way of algorithm. no human reporting necessary. this adds up to a new industry

that is more under-manned and under-prepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones and to question the information put in their hands. in all of this -- and all of this is happening at a time as howard kurtz said that the average consumer can in effect create his own news, picking and choosing from sources he trusts and enjoys rather than being spoon-fed by a handful of baked media conglomerates of which we have here, the big media conglomerates. for years, almost 20 years, we've had media, and some great participants and this year we are honored to have to be what could be the best collection of investigative reporters in the country. so thank you all very much for joining us. so what i would like to do today is just ask a series of questions and encourage the panelists to interaction with each other and most importantly

to encourage you to interrupt, ask questions and be part of this discussion. the first question goes to brian ross. brian is abc news chief investigative correspondent reporting for world news, niteline good morning america and 20/20. he's began his career prior to nbc, where he was before abc, in waterloo iowa. while he is a chicago native he is a graduate of the university of iowa which explains that waterloo iowa, beginning which i couldn't understand when i read his bio. he's received many of the most prestigious awards in journalist including seven duponts, six peabodys, 16 emmys and five edward r murro awards and many more. i could spend an hour listing the stories that brian and his team have done to generate these

awards. a couple of them are worth noting, however. exposing the dangerous conditions of factories in bangladesh, making clothes for tommy hilfiger and walmart. the largest automobile recalls in history. pay to play grading systems by the better business bureau. and exposing walmart and i was in a walmart recently and there was pictures of him all over the place, don't let this man in. but there are many more stories but it must have been when he was 10 years old but he broke what we remember as a remember story which is the ab scam story so you guess you can be credited with american hustle. and i have to acknowledge cindy galley probably one of abc star

investigative producers and someone who you know quite well. so cindy welcome as well. so brian, one of your award-winning stories was done in cooperation with the center for public integrity, how did that come about and what was the relationship and what do you see as the future for joint investigative reports and if there is a future what protections do you engage in when selecting a partner to avoid the appearance of bias? >> thank you, jack. it is nice to be here. we partnered for the center for public integrity an incredible story about what is happening to coalminers applying for protection under the black lung law. and at the center, chrissen vie one doctor at the country's most prestigious hospitals, john hopkins, became the company's go-to doctor and over the course of 10-15 years in every

case he failed to find black lung. every single case. he thought it was either some remote sort of bird disease -- he had a lot of explanations but he never found black lung. and what chris hanby did was to go back at the 1700 or 1800 cases and examine the findings and after some of the people had died, they found they did have black lung. and they came to us at the center and with the producer we worked together to use the incredible research and the research we would not spend a year and a half doing, that is what chris hanby did and we sat together with john hopkins and interviewed this doctor. after our report, that program was suspended by hopkins. the department of labor since moved to reopen every single

case where miners had been denied and again and again there were many miners who died who had been determined by their own doctors they had black lung after this doctor at hopkins said they did not, the doctor reached out to take back the benefits some were in debt of $50,000 and so for that for me was one of the most powerful stories and led to real changes in how the law was administered and how that program is being looked at again by the department of labor. and it was -- partnerships are not without their issues. we all seek to have credit and we try to share the credit as much as possible. there are a number of awards, the center won a pulitzer prize. we won the goldsmith award at harvard jointly and a number of other awards for it. and it was one of the more rewarding projects i think. but frankly, as i said abc

probably would not have spent a year and a half as hanby did to go through every file and he did incredible work and what he did was bring incredible work to shake the story and bring it as broad a broad craft and went on every story on abc news. >> and how do you work out the issue of this organization may bring a particular bias that you want to try to avoid? >> well we don't want to work with any group with any bias and i don't think the center came to it with any bias and we worked with pro publica and we made a decision of who we would and not work with. we are prepared to interview with people and do stories about all kinds of groups, and we'll go in the trenches together as journalists and we're very picky. >> and next we have mikiza

cough, the chief correspondent at yahoo and prior to that at nbc, chief correspondent for news week and a reporter for the washington post. mike has broken repeated stories for his report on the government's war on terror, u.s. intelligence terrors abu grab scandal and congressional ethics abuses, presidential politics and the coverage of the aftermath of 9/11. what is particularly -- mike is well-known for a couple of major stories. in fact his exclusive reporting on the lewinsky scandal gained him national attention and his coverage of the events actually led to the president bill clinton's impeachment. in doing so he earned a whole series of awards for news week the national reporting award the headlining award and the edgar poe award.

he's the author of two new york times best-selling books and as a result both of those books have chronicled much of his reporting. and in 2009 mike along with brody, who you'll meet in a couple of minutes was named as one of the 50 best and most influential journalists in the nation's capital. he graduated from wash u and received his degree in journalist. and today with news week tell us about yahoo's news philosophy and how are they reaching the audience with news. >> well, thank you. and actually, this is sort of new unchartered territory for me in the digital space. but -- and it is evolving. yahoo has made a commitment to -- as to be a serious news

player, it is invested heavily in recruiting people, katie couric is the sort of chief global anchor matt bye is the political columnist, i came on board last year, we're hiring other people. and we're trying to basically -- although yahoo is a huge silicon valley player it is in the news side, it is sort of like working for a start-up because we are inventing it we are trying to see what works, exploring, experimenting with different ways of delivering news both written and video. but a couple of things stand out. one is the incredible reach that we have.

yahoo has something like 8 million viewers globally. when i write stories for yahoo now, i rarely see numbers. there are people that track these things. but you get a rough gage by looking at comments. i don't -- i never read the comments on my stories. that's a true way to go down a rabbit hole. but i do look at the numbers to give you an idea of what is out there and the numbers of comments on what i do now at yahoo is 10-20 fold greater than anything i would get when i wrote for news week or -- or online for nbc news. there is a vast audience out there in the digital space that sees your stuff that is one reason why a lot of major news organizations have wanted to

partner with yahoo. in fact we have a partnership with abc that was just renewed and that was a sort of highly comments -- other networks wanted to partner with yahoo. we chose -- or yahoo chose to continue the abc relationship. and that is because to the extent that more and more people are getting their news digitally and mobile, this is where the audience is increasingly going to be. so in some respects, although in -- in silicon valley yahoo has a reputation of somewhat of a legacy company, it was one of the early internet companies, it is i think very much a pioneer

in the -- in news on the web. and we've got a commitment and i'm sort of very excited about the opportunities. >> thanks mike. so you're famous for the in-depth investigative stories, penn state story comes to mind, you've spent hours and hours. how does that translate to two paragraphs on a yahoo page? >> well the stories that i'm doing at yahoo are a lot longer than two paragraphs. maybe that is what people might see on their mobile or something. but it is all there. we've been able to do some pretty interesting investigative pieces. there is one that got a lot of attention last year. i've done a lot of reporting on the government's war on terror

and particularly drone strikes and the effectiveness of those. and we discovered a drone strike in yemen last year that killed a bunch of innocent civilians in a town caused a huge uproar in that village. anti-u.s. protests and backlash because one of those killed was a anti- -- was an anti-al qaeda imam who spoke out and denounced al qaeda. a police officer was killed. and this has led -- these sorts offer of er ant drones have led to -- because it is cloaked in secrecy, what does the government do when it kills innocent civilians in a foreign

country like this. when the u.s. military inadvertently killed civilians. there are procedures for condolence payments, and they will make compensation to the families. what happens with drone programs have been cloaked in secrecy. we found a guy who was the relative of some of the innocents who were killed who recounted an incredible story, this had been a cia drone strike and we tracked him down in yemen, interviewed him by skype and were able to get a whole bunch of records showing that after the drone strike and after some human rights watch had written about this and human rights group had brought him to washington to meet with members of the white house, he gets called to a -- the national security bureau in yemen, it was

still functioning then they still had a government in yemen then, i'm not sure what would happen now, but basically he was slipped a bagful of $150,000 in cash. green bags sequentially numbered, but no paperwork. the deal is you take this money, take it back to your village, pay the families, but don't say anything about it and they'll be no record of it. fascinating account. we were able to actually get the records showing how the money was ultimately wired to an account in the guy's village, fully corroborating his story. we had others who were able to do it. and this was the first window into first the u.s. acknowledging that it was killing innocent civilians in the town of yemen and what it was trying to do to sort of tamp it down. there was a big debate in the

village. some people thought it was hush money. they didn't want to take it. they ultimately took it. but it was a fascinating window into what happens in the aftermath of a drone strike that was something that we were able to do on yahoo. we spent a lot of time on it and we had some really gripping video and it got a lot of attention. so that is just an example of the kind of work we can do in this sort of new era of digital news. >> fascinating. so quick question before we go on to larry. >> yeah. >> so you invested all of this time, money and effort into this particular story, which could have been anything, including a consumer investigative story. >> right. >> and you put it up on the internet. do you have any concern that other reporters will just grab

it after your investment and then repackage it? >> well you always have -- i have that concern. "the washington post," news week, people see your stories and don't give you credit and they run with it. but by enlarge, people sort of know you had it first and where it came from. and it is very hard to stake a story like that, that took a lot of time and effort and accumulating documents and interviews for somebody to sort of rip it off without it being clear where it came from where the story is coming from. >> let's go on to lawrence roberts. a senior editor at pro publica. and from the huffington post, projects editor at the editor car and he began his career in seattle where he started an

alternative weekly and became a correspondent for united press international. as an editor, larry was a leader on the teams that received three pulitzer prizes, one for the current investigation into the flaws of the hubble space telescope, another for the investigation of dick cheney and exposing of the abe raw hoff lobbying scandal and he showed how aol misused accounting to fuel the disastrous merger with time warner which won the gerald lobe award. he taught journalism at wesleyan university and graduated from franconia college in new hampshire. so first of all, pro publica is the hottest discussion among media analyst and research and polling community and how are

you funding and what is your overarching mission. >> thanks, jack, appreciate being here with the consumer federation and with this ill loose russ -- illustrious panel and as an editor i'm sort of the lone man out. pro publica is a nonprofit independent newsroom starting in the midst of the real upheaval in the way the internet was changing the news business. there is a fear of many of us at the time that the traditional news organization, because of the change in the business model, were not going to be able to devote the amount of resources and time to investigative reporting in the sense of long-term in depth work that takes reporters months to produce. and at that time a lot of different kinds of elements of the news eco-system started to

spring up. pro publica raised money from foundations, from individuals, and has built over the last six or seven years a newsroom of about 50 people focused only on journalism in the public interest. and that of course, includes a big swath of reporting on consumers, on how, you know abuses of unfairness abuses of trust, fraud and what pro publica brings to the table is a long-term commitment to working on stories however long they take to do a big commitment to data collection and analysis, and a feeling that every time we produce a story that is based on a huge amount of data we try to extend that reporting to local

communities by partnering with people across the country who can do their own versions of it. for example, we recently started a series on workers' compensation and took a reporter michael gray bell about a year to produce and he analyzed how workers' comp laws changed in all 50 states showing enormous disparities on how people are treated how they are hurt in oklahoma compared to new york how they are hurt and put this in an interactive chart and now we are working with news organizations local and regional around the country where they would do their own versions of the story sort of based on the research that we've produced. and that has been replicated along a number of stories like how pharmaceutical companies pay doctors, which is up until now

been sort of a hidden thing. so pro publica is like a couple of other nonprofit news organizations, some of which were mentioned up here before. the center for public integrity which is the one that brian worked with. the center for investigative reporting based in san francisco, as the internet changed things and produced a lot of problems for what we call legacy news organization it has also opened up opportunities for different kind of news organizations to spring up and we're one of those groups. >> so larry what -- in your reporting, does pro publica see as one of its roles the object to influence and change public policy? >> yes. that is right. as a much more sort of focused

way, i mean implicitly in all investigative journalism that is done by anybody from the washington post, "the new york times," the "wall street journal," and there is implicitly this idea if you expose things that doesn't want to be known or abuses of power that may lead to change but we have a more explicit mission that when we tackle a topic we want to take it to the point if people want to act on reform or change they can do it. so that -- what that mainly means is that in the choice of what we choose to pursue, we're looking for things that could lead to actual action. >> fascinating. well next we have brody mullins, an investigative reporter for the "wall street journal." prior to joining "wall street journal," he reported for the national journal and roll call. at the "wall street journal," he first covered tax legislation

and then did investigative stories about congress lobbying and the culture of washington. recently his examination about how wall street mines government for information to trade stocks helped inspire congressional legislation known as the stock act that banned members of congress and their aids from trading in stock based on inside information. in 2010 his series of stories on lawmakers traveling overseas on official government business exposed a series of abuses, prodded congress to cancel plans to spend 500$500 million on new luxury jets and led to reforms on how congress travel as broad. brody has received the award fon distinguished reports on congress and the best political reporter on age 33. i didn't know they had the age brackets. >> i think it is 34. >> okay. it gets older as you do. he also received the george poke

award and a finalist for the gerald lobe award and along with michael is washington -- washington magazine called him one of washington's 50 best reporters. a true d.c. native and graduated from gonzaga and ultimately northwestern university. so brody, as a paper focused on business and business people, for many advocates, the "wall street journal" is somewhat of a mystery. yet much of the investigative reporting done by you and your colleagues is focused on consumer reforms like rachel maddow resulting in less government regulation so it is kind of an oxymoron. but in terms of investigative reporting, how important is it to the fundamental mission of the journal? >> how important is investigative journalism? >> to the gem -- to the general, yeah. >> well i think it is incredibly

important because the problem we've had in investigative reporting over all is the decline in media and regional newspapers which created a vacuum or opening for people doing big broad stories about problems in the government or abuses by lawmakers. these type of stories were the broad and butter of the washington post and and the new york times and the bloomberg in the journal years ago and dozens of regional newspapers and the problem now is the regional newspapers don't have the money any more to invest into these types of stories. the issue is you were talking about putting reporters on -- or all three talked about putting reporters on stories for upwards of a year. if a regional reporter went to their boss and said a i'm going to work on a story for a year, they would be laughed out of the building.

so that has created abuse. lawmakers know on a national level nobody is watching them and that is a real problem. >> so do you see the center for or pro publicia to be competition to your investigative reporting? >> i certainly do. i think there is enough out there that people can can stay in their same -- in their own lanes. there is enough to cover. i think i know another problem is the people doing this well right now are nonprofits. and the -- you know we work in businesses. we need to make money. and hopefully over the next -- the next few years, coming years, newspapers and journalism overall will figure out how to make money from these types of stories. the problem is you -- if you invest in a reporter to cover a story for a year, you could use the same resources to hire five people to write 500 stories. so the challenge is how do you

try to make money in -- by investing in longer term stories. >> i think the wall street journal is someone unique in terms of being able to make money and i guess one of the first and continues to be successful at generating enough revenue from its online subscription to be viable. when you are proposing and developing investigative story, ideas, to your editors, do you ever run into pushback that was often in the local press where you know, that's a great story but i'm not sure our advertisers are going to be comfortable with that. >> i have not dealt with that at "the wall street journal." i'm sure others have. i think the journal is big enough and has enough advertisers that they're not dependent on a one or two, you know individual subscribers to

carry the paper. but that is a big problem also. >> so going back to brian, all right, so we have got a million story ideas in this room. how do you decide which story ideas you are going to pursue and what kinds of things are you looking for, from advocates to get you started on a story. >> i guess i start with am i interested? have i heard of this before? to be a tv report, to be honest, are there pictures associated with it? are there people getting hurt? do we have some representation of that? what is going to make a story that will work on television is a key part of it. i think part of it -- i think we have done well because we figured out a way to make almost any story, you know, visual. it is not easy, but there is -- it is a challenge, part of a craft. but those are the questions -- am i personally interested? do i want to spend the next three months on something that

is interesting to me that hasn't been out there before, that would be -- would have an effect on people? we could have an effect on policy. those are the questions for me. >> the big question many of us get is are there any victims? do you know the victims? where are the victims? i think larry, this is where you come in. you seem to have the ability to pull together the data and how do you go about pulling together the data that shows that there are victims out there, and that does affect x number of people? >> well, sort of a very methodical process to collect data on a topic where we think there might be something new there. and one of the things i wanted to point out about the internet is that, you know while it initially was seen by us in the news business as something that was disruptive to what we were doing, there is also -- it also presents enormous opportunity to reach people and have a two-way conversation with readers of the news consumers advocates and

judges and everything else so once we sort of embark on a story line, we often will put in our stories, hey, if you know more about this or have something to tell us contact us. that's become an enormous source of you know, stories, as you say, of victims, individual stories, examples of things that are happening and places that in the old days would have taken a lot more time and effort to reach. >> well, you know, going back to brody, the wall street journal is known for precision for, you know, its expertise, sort of a no nonsense approach. given what larry has said, what do you think about the concept of crowd sourcing for information and somehow testing whether or not that information is real or legitimate? >> it is not something we have done directly, but part of the problem with information that

goes out on the internet, news on the internet sometimes not in these publications, is credibility. and i think that sometimes that's why you need a big name behind some of the information that goes out because i think if we're not there now, we're there soon, where people don't know what to believe. and in the 24-hour cable environment that we live in there is information, even on television, that turns out not to be true. yesterday there was a big story basically not true. and i think that there are -- i think readers are going to say -- have to look to name brands or brands they trust and say, okay, so and so is saying this, i trust that is true. and that puts a burden on us to make sure we don't try to follow a story by 30 seconds and we make sure it is right. >> so that brings me back to you, mike. you are one of the more trusted reporters literally in the world. thinking about this trust, and thinking about yahoo and the

internet, what kinds of differences have you experienced, i mean you had amazing experience, "the post," nbc, "newsweek" and yahoo!. was there different editorial policies? were you under different guidelines to avoid -- and how are you going to create this credibility that some people wonder about the internet? >> well first of all, in terms of guidelines, i mean, the short answer is no. there are standards in our profession, and standards of professionalism, and i pretty much had that in all of these experiences. actually my direct editor now at yahoo! danny kleinman, was my editor at "newsweek," former bureau chief and managing editor at "newsweek", the editor is megan lieberman former editor of "new york times" magazine.

so it is the same sort of professional ethos and standards and i think to a large extent, your work speaks for itself. people can read a story, and get a pretty good sense once they start, you know, delving into it of whether the work is there, whether it is corroborated, whether the sourcing is good whether the information can be trusted. now, i do think -- and so i think when you do good work regardless of where it is, people do recognize and if you've got something that people haven't seen elsewhere, it will breakthrough. there is a lot out there. and this is -- i think this is true for all of us. there is so many sources of news

now, so many, you know not just the traditional legacy and news organizations, but a whole range of, you know, ranging from nonprofits to blogs to regional news services to ideologically driven news organizations, that it is -- that there is just a lot of noise. and a lot of stuff can sort of slip through the cracks of the this is my frustration as a reporter trying to keep tabs on everything that is out there, you know, have i missed something? somebody, you know very often it is just word of mouth, did you see that? because then if i missed it on my twitter feed, i may not have seen it at all. brian did a great piece on human rights violations by the iraqi army. i happened to see it on twitter, watched it -- watched the whole video. it was really good. i didn't even know it was on

"world news tonight." had to ask him. but that's the way we're getting our news these days. and while in one sense that's good, because i'll see a lot of things like that story that, you know, i wasn't watching "world news tonight" last night, i was traveling at the time i was able to see it but it also means that you know, very often there is so much out there that good stories get lost in that way. >> i think it is very good because it gives huge numbers of new platforms. a story that might not make it on the world news we will have on twitter, we'll have on facebook. apple tv. we have a whole sort of magazine stand there of investigative stories. i think it is a very exciting opportunity for all investigative reporters because there are fewer limits on space and time, and great opportunity. and, you know, in our company, and i think others, we partnered

with yahoo! we're racing to be part of the digital future. we can see that's where -- that's where it is going. that's something we embrace. we're not afraid of. >> the other thing too, i think as all this noise is going on i think one other trend i may be a polly anna about this -- [ inaudible ] -- for land and water. thank you. secretary jewell comes to this position with ideal background and experience for what is the nation's number one land stewardship responsibility.