but for now, it's about terrorism. let me make a couple of o points. people are saying that christians and gays and that, their 60s, the kkk used christianity as a tool to repor. crime and the federal governmen does that ustime. this time, through the issue of our religion, muslims are using the idea to terrorism. now, anytime i go to a -- i ina might be liwrong, but look at t lady. a lady in california. you have a six month old baby.yl you left your baby at home, then went to a party to kill innocent people. what are we going to say? we are going to get -- and that is how people are trying to

support. >> i want to give the congressman a chance to respond. >> the american people are ned concerned. i think when incidents like what happened in san bernardino, americans are frightened and they like to their leaders for answers.ane i think the initial response, my republican colleagues was to go after the refugee program. that's the panacea, denyingun women and children and old men i and women fromng coming to the united states, who are looking for refuge. that really is not addressing the issue. get-g i think what democrats are focusing on and we had from the

get go is a visa waiver program, which we've taken action on in a bipartisan way, a more he thoughtful way and i think also the issue of addressing the issue of access to weapons by terrorists. weapo by keeping them from getting those weapons the terrorism watch list by a means as to who can purchase weapons.people i recognize the feelings there. the first reasonability of the president and congress is to protect the american people fron foreign attack. that type of violence. >> a good time to bring up this front page today in the new york daily news.t beco when trump came for the mexicans, i did not speak out ae mexican. a when he came for the muslims, i did not speak out as i was not a muslim, then he came for me. i

you can see the picture. your thoughts. i think it's remarkable, the hateful rhetoric he's been speeing. it's not enough to say i disagree with him. thinking about what they would do if he's their nominee. i think they'd have to support t him. i think it's not enough to say i disagree with him when he makes statements about mexicans or ths speaksla about women and in this case, how he speaks about people of the islamic faith and that all should be barred from coming to the united states. that it'sy being resoundingly

condemned by the new york dailyp news. i think evene speaker ryan yesterday finally came out and had some strong words for mr. trump and that he does not that language is not representative of the gop. gre the grand ole party, the republican party. it's about attime.i th it may be a littlein late. incredible damage has been done. people around the world have condemned what mr. trump has said. >> josh earnest as well, one ofi those voices condemning trump'sr comments. here's a bit from his press conference yesterday. >> the fact is, the first thingw a president does when he or she takes the oath of office is to swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. f what trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president.

and for republican candidates ls for president, to stand by their pledge to support mr. trump, that in and out of itself is disqualifying.d >> we have about 15 minutes left in this segment of the "washington journal."rning, g ken's been waiting in ohio. ken, good morning. >> good morning. i just wanted to couple of moments of your time.o ans poll from world republican opinions that states that 61% o, egyptians approve a tax in america. 41% pakistan. 38% morocco, 42% turks and being

that muslim religion is the ng t second largest in the world now, i mean, those numbers could beo staggering. if we have people trying to penetrate our borders to commitb acts of terrorism on our own land.oush there's a lot of talk about whether or not we should shut ,u down thet borders and the syris and everything. issue i think we've spent enough time, not thinking about what's going on with our own people and our . homeland. there's a lot of issues here we need to address as opposed to baby sit the bir world. and you have to understand the skepticism of the american people.rethere ha there's been deceit, lie, many

reasons for distrust for our sof government fromor the things th have happened over the course of history. our g we've got to start establishing, reconcilingrt a bond between ou people and government before we can start making anything better. >> i think a lot of what ken said was true.th i think there is a lot of sense of commonality. it's reflected here in the congress today.et i think the president would agree with the notion we can't be baby sitting all over the world. i call them daish. this needs to be a worldwide effort that cannot be the united states effort to eliminate them. they need to be eliminated. we will eliminate them. our country will work in con vungs with other nations of the

world, especially in the region to destroy daieh and eliminate them. we need to get our president and congress working together. that's why i'm in favor for are new use of military force the. we're working on one that's 12 or 13 years old. we need to pass a new one to give the president the authorization he needs to work in con jux to eradicate daish. i don't necessarily disagree with ken.host: the independent. >> nevada's next. pete's waiting on our lip for p republicans. good morning. >> good morning, ougentlemen. >> first of all, you democrats are very sneaky on how you use u your language. for example, you talk about common sense any kind of reform,

it's automatically shuts down the bait because if you have an opposite view, it means you have no common sense.nd it it's very slick the way you guys play this game.o throug you always use the term, t semiautomatic and -- automatic weapons arebackgr illegal unles go to a significant background investigation.publ illegal weapons at one point, you talk about how the american people is fearful. i'm not fearful. i'm angry. i'm frustrated with our government. you guys can't vet people coming in here, you can't and don't. clearly, that's evidenced by what's happening. nobody knows anything about it.a with the refugees we bring in.

and defend my own family. i don't think that's right. the terrorist watch list is garbage. there's tons of names on there.i that shouldn't be on there. there's no due process. we don't want the terrorist to know he's on the watch list, so, now, all he has to do, try to buy a gun, he's denied, i know i'm on watch list. it's ridiculous. you guys -- >> pete, let the congressman g b jump in here. >> i appreciatee pete's commen i don't want to be sneaky, i want to be very direct. 2,000 people who are on the terrorism watch list have successfully over the last on te decade, purchased weapons legally. t here in the united states. 2,000 people on the no fly list

on the terrorism watch list, have purchased weapons. that's not sneaky. that's a fact. just letting you know that. is - the first responsibility of our government is protect the american citizens. the no fly list is in place h because it is believed that the greater threat and the duty that we have to prevent another attack like 9/11 for the flying public as well as for as i said, the citizens of our country, is to create a no fly list. it is an inconveniencnconvenien. no question about it. life is inconvenient in trying to protect the american people and so, as well, with er using the terrorism watch list for the purchaposes of identify whether someone should have access to legally purchase a gun. pete, i think you know, guns can be modified. you can buy one, modify it into a different tostyle.

this is not a panacea either. ooip not saying this is the onl. thing we can or should do. but it's something logical. we may disagree. our logic may be different this seems pretty logical to me. >> washington, d.c. is next. randall is here on our line. for democratics. good morning.d i th >> i think one thing i never hear mention school district the guns..s of and i think that's the real, that's what republicans are really about. is business. and i think that's really purpose of the nra. as a cover in show thag the business of guns in any way is h not affected. on one hand,nu if you never lai another gun in america, a nump guns for everybody, i believe we have one and i think that's lefi

and probably the real purpose and drive of the republicans and the nra and it's never, ever discussed, i don't know if it can be, but i think that's the real concern and i think that's the real drive and they're using the second amendment as a tool to assist in that purpose. >> i don't necessarily disagree with you. it doesn't need more further comment. i think you're ws right.te on h >> want to talk about an issue that's personal to you. the 9/11 health responders bill. bring folks up to date on where that is and when the men runs out for that bill.abou look fo

>> these are men and women who r went down to the pile, ground zero, to look for their brotherb and sisters, to try to save their lives. to recover their bodies.business to restore lower manhattan to some resemblance of commerce and of business.as i know many of my colleagues were told the air was clean. i don't think it mattered. today, they're suffering because of that. they have cancers, i know people with stage four cancers. people who may not live another -- respond to 9/11. we have an obligation not to forget them. they didn't say i'll go in only if you tell me 14, 15 years from now, my government won't forget

me or my family. they went in any way. we can't forget them. the law we passed five years agd expired and without s reauthorization and additional e funds, these men and women were facing death, certainwi cancers that are linked directly to the attack of 9/11. they will die. and they need to health care coverage. they need tot know their government will be there for them.d in 2 >> the logic behind that five-year sunset for the law passed in 2010 was to allow forf a reviewor to see if there's an waste or fraud in this program. has that review been done?s def >> there's been review after review. no one is defrauding the government here. if there is fraud,rn not suggesting there can't be, if there is, those individuals should be held accountable to the inth degree. they should be put in jail forever, quite frankly, but vere that'snt not happening. because of that, people are

suffering. without certainty,,kn without knowing the government will be there for them and their families, as they fight these horrific cancers, it actually adds further burden to their health. and that makes them sicker. >> so, where's the hold up right now? >> we were told that we are thed ledge islators who care about this. we were told this would be in the transportation bill and at the last moment, it was pulled thed bill and then we were told it would be in the tax extenders, then told maybe not,h we'll put it into theat omnibusl bill. there's such uncertainty, what bill this willwe be used for as political fodder. which i think is disgusting, that we would use the 9/11 bill, hero hero of our country, to delivern for them is being used in an openly political way to pass other trst:legislation, i thinko

wrong and not in the spirit of our country. >> sheila is waiting, go ahead.g >> i just wanted to tell you that i had a different idea on n the subject of guns, how we e might bring this, i don't know if it will ntwork, but i see on of the greatest men in country music, johnny cash, the man in black, with his guitar strapped on his back with a words in bigs bold letters stating, don't take your guns to town, son, leave your guns at home, son, portrayed on billboards throughout every state in the ff usa. now, my idea on this was he went to prison, performed for the inmates with his meaningful songs and when they got out, they choose maybe hopefully, , they chose to live out the rest of their lives when they served their time and were welcomed back into society.as after they were released and i'e

thinking that you know, just maybe, the picture of johnny rc cash would flash across the memories stopping people from thinkinging about becoming radicalized or already will erase the desire to kill and as themselves, what am i thinking? this is not what johnny would do and i choose to follow his footsteps than take the chance of ever being ever able to rest in peace. our minds are, our brains are like sponges. and they absorb goodness as for developing from birth and that o goodness says in a person's sub conscious throughout the rest of their life. t maybe, just maybe, in that eaveu instance, they would stop and think. i'm hoping. and b >> a great idea. leave your guns and boys home. quoting johnny cash.grea

one of my heroes as well. i love johnny cash. wonderful. great thought, thank you. >> congressman joe crowley, democrat from new york. appreciate the time. >> thank you. great to be here. >> on thursdays, "washington journal" kentucky congressman thomas massey on friday's deadline for passing a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown and we talk to congressman robin kelly of illinois about the gun control debate following the san bernardino shootings. washington is journal is live. >> we take a moment to spotlight a recent article and this week,h we're joined by elizabeth grossman, who us,"cowrote this piece. what we didn't know is killing us t. result of a six month investigation into the science

of regulating toxic substances. why did you conduct the investigation in the first place brought you to this topic? >> thanks for having me on and what we wanted to know was why so many studies, scientific studies about chemicals that were done by researchers with e industry support were coming to such different conclusions than studies about the same chemicals by resernlers without industry support. we discovered a 30 plus year history and pattern that goes back to the r early 1980ss and i researchers at the department of defense and and c long pattern industry influence of the le science behind chemical regulation. zbr as we say, it was a six month investigation. let's set up the two stids of this debate.

>> on one side are researchers who are in a field, regulatory toxicology, that look at the toxicity of chemicals and a lotr of thesenm researchers over the years have worked both for industry and government. and on the other side of the - debate, our scientists who are- biologist biologists,, health affect researcher, scientists who relya on observation al experiments, i who look at how chemicals affect human health and the health of other living animals and the environment and on the other side, are the toxicologists, who are relying largely on computere modeling. >> that's the crux of the difference here. the modeling that's done to try to understand how chemicals un are affecting our body. explain what this term is. fizz logically based of

pharmacokinetic. >> what it boils down to is a kind of modeling that was r the pioneered by a group of resea h researchers working in the 1980s and the time when desktop computer technology was coming into play and all of a sudden, g it wasy possible to do these studies. what those do is toll low the path of the chemical through the human or other animal body.how look at where it goes. froms what it doesn't tell you . is what those chemicals are doing to those parts of the body and what happened was that these models, it turns out, they can be extremely useful, but they depend on the data and assumptions you put into them so itud turns out you can design those studies to influence their results.

>> a few we look at in the stories of people who might be familia familiar, probably familiar with the problem, exposure from hurricane katrina when discovered from the plywood of the fema trailers. of orns out those typesf models were very, very narrowly at a certain type of health effect when a single chemical bl can produceoo a range of health effects. by looking narrowly as a certai effect, you can down play the

chemical hazard, the risk of the exposure and what has effectively happened is that nu theseme studies have been used delay the regulation of numerous chemicals. >> doeso, what is a pbk study r formaldehyde show, liveim animae testing and other sorts of experience. >> it could show you there are different type of conferences that have been associated with formaldehyde. different types of respiratory effects. but if you look more narrowly, at these studies, you could look at one type of cancer and not the other and come out with some conclusions that could say well, we're not seeing the association between formaldehyde and

leukemia, for example, when in fact you may have lots of people who are suffering from leukemiar who had a formaldehyde exposure. that could lead to down playing that health effect.es" >> this week's story coming from in these times magazine. the chemical industry is using its sizable resources often with financial support from federal agencies to control the science behind chemical regulation, the result has been decades of delay in restricting hazardous and deadly chemicals.ant it's in theseto times, if you w- to call in and ask questions. elizabeth spangrossman is our g.

we'll start with bill from on h pittsburgh, pennsylvania. line for republicans. bill, good morning. g: >> thanks for calling. >> bringing up a subject, i wish i has been chosen later in the order because i'm not sure -- but the things that have ical m concerned me from the beginning is that there is a political movement. that says a correlation, if there's exposure followed by a - health effect, therefore, the health effect was caused by the exposure. that seems to be the beginning.

that opens the question of , ether there is causation and until you can show direct, having the government step in and ban the use of otherwise useful substances, it a situ essentially creates a situation where we're in a bubble, a baggy, where we don't touch anything that hasn't proven not to be safe. somebod >> you have hit the nail on the head of one of the biggest questions which is at what point does somebody decide to regulat or restrict the use of a hazardous chemical when so many

chemical health effects do not result in an immediate and acute effect. but what we discovered in our working on our story was that chemicals even with direct acute immediate effects, one we looked at was meth lean chloride, used in paint and varnish strippers and the occupational health fati administration hasti counted numerous fatalities as a result ofev theseen products being use. even dow chemical has not been effectively restricted or taken off the market in any way. you can go to your hardware store and buy products . containing it even though they've been connect ed with immediate fatalities and what we discovered was as a result of using this kind of computer modelinging, these studies and it is a perfect example, that we were able to find pap rs that

said wow, as a result of the study, we have been able to effectively delay the protection agency regulating this chemical, which means keeping these protects on the market. >> so, yes, for numerous chemicals, it's sometimes hard c to say this particular exposure immediately causes disease, but even for chemicals with acute ey effects, these studies have been used to delay regulation for 30 years. >> but isn't epa and the other regulatory agencies, aren't they there to be able to sort through the data and studies and find the ones that are harmful?anothe >> yes, that's what they're supposed to be, but another thing we discovered is that as a

result of 30 plus years of a revolving door tweep industry and government and industry ties, enormous numbers of that contracts.select not only the scientific literature that goes into the e decision making, who, which hese people and the chemical industry has successfully promoted those studies.ak and delay the regulation. >> they take on that topic in the story that goes along with x this. big kemp's tangled web of

influence, the research group, the agencies themselves, the trade associations and trying to find the connections between them. if you want to read the story in the november issue of in these times. she's with us to talk about hera story. ted is waiting in new hampshire. line four independent. good morning.oncern >> good morning. my concern is the chemicals thad in r in the food.w if you look at the chemicals in a bag of doritos, you'll see ths yellow number 5 and all w this. they don't seem to regulate these things that we're feeding our children. i'm a food junkie from a baby boomer. this has been in my system for years and i feel more like a lab rat than a consumer and i think the food and drug needs to steph up andat make these politicians get a hand on lobbyists that want to change it the way they d

want it.. because i think a lot of these f cancers we gotor can be prevent. >> yes, thanks for that comment. and yes, one of the things thatt we realized and discovered looking back to this history iss this manipulation and promotion for a certain kind of science that favors chemical industry favor, whether it's chemicals used in food production or that go into consumer products or industrial production.wh history of influence, of the science, not just of the political process, goes back to the 1980s. back to exactly the point in time when this country's major environmental laws went into effect. some of the food laws that you're thinking about go back even further. but the big environmental la protectionrol laws, clean air a clean water act, toxic substanca act, the laws that set up

superfund and things like that, all those came into effect in the 1970s and '80s and it was a that time that this corporate influence of the science really got going. we found details from that's what's happened and that's how we end up with a lot of has down chemicals. is this something that breaks down along party lines, along a whichge modeling is best here o? stay within the regulatory agencies themselves? >> what we looked at is well behind the scenes of the political lobby iing that gets lot of attention.ways t

one of the thipgs we did do is look back at this historical revolving darr and in terms of history, the epa because it goes back to the erarly days of the epa. both republican and democratic. >> founded in a republican administration. >>it exactly, so, it's not necessarily a partisan issue, but i would agree that at this point ins time, acceptance of l science has broken town on partisans lines. >> vernon, good morning. >> good morning. i'm finding that chemicals as nuclear, the thipg about humanity and its nuclear aspect,

it seems like when we created this stuff, we had a way of. getting rid of this stuff and it seems like that's not going anywhere. i am a democrat. seeing the reagans put a bomb on holy soil, i'm wondering, where are they putting the waste. they've got to be putting the waste in the soil. of our most holiest land and i don't understand why. >> the issue of waste, pollut n pollution, leaving the environmental impacts, the health impacts to the end of the pipe so to speak, is an enormous issue.reviou

the system was set up to allow chemicals to be used until they are proven harmful and as g previous caller alluded to, proving absolute causation and harm is extremely hard and the e laws we have in place have set an extremely high bar. to look way upstream and ask the question ahead of time, what th kind ofth impacts might this hae before we let these things out into the world andth products a out, smokestack, anywhere else.e >> are there chemicals aloud under the current regulation in the united states that other o e country, other bodies, who perhaps have different modeling have banned and don't allow in their countries? >> well, the answer is yes. whether it depends on the modeling, not necessarily.

but it depends on how the science is read. fd we didn't necessarily talk about it in our oopiece, but th caller who asked about food colorings, that's a wonderful example.in eur they look at the those,'s particularly the red and yellow. in europe, they said based on what we've seen, particularly for the effects on chirp's health, we should think these should be used, so they're not. regulators in the u.s., read them and said, oh, we're not so sure and we think there's some e wiggle room for tdoubt, so, wel let them be used. and that's where it boils down. whether you're, what you're going to look at in the science, and what you're going to decidet to do as a result, whereim you t the bar on when it's time to protect you.

>> deborah is in lubbock, texas. you with us? raffle is in washington, d.c. line for democrats. good morning.un >> good morning. i think this is a greatde topic. one thing people underestimate is a total damage this stuff has donetou to us. in the 50e 50z, a scientist discovered lead was being spread via the exhaust of gasoline. coy it led to neurotoxin. about 15, 16 years later, crime began to spike. not just this country. it was every other country where they introduced lead. what we did was passing a three strikes you're out law. there was huge violent in the city.ing th

people moved, we lost -- take that back. an extra million to two million people. we ruined lives and they kept gasoline into the mid-70s, so, e the s.epa was supposed to enfoc the law. they didn't do it. basically, they're a bought and paid for entity and the destruction to this country can be measure nd the hundredses of billions of dollars. if you look at the millions of lives lost. thank you. for bringing up extremely important point. eff that's delayed effects and that gets to heart of another really big issue that another big issue, that is there are a lot

of kchemicals and science that has emerged over the past now even 20 or more years, that shows us that lots and lots of kem kag expo shoours can result in not immediate effects, but w chemical exposures that can for example, upset how hormones work and set the stage for chronic diseases, health problems that k show up years later, whether they're metabolic diseases like diabetes and obesity or infertility problems or neurological problems and these delayed effects are difficult to deal with in regulation, but they're real, well recognized.oe so, yes, you bring up a difficult point about making sure we pay attention to the delayed effect.

>> still an individual is watching and tweeting still ar a individuals thoughts, it's clea that the eps isn't the answer e after the release in colorado. the clean up should be paid by those who own stock during the pollution is still an individual. you can join the conversation at cspan wg or call in like mike did in charlotte, north carolina. line for independents. mike, good morning. >> good morning. i'm concerned about the amount of called for fund raising to findof a cure for cancer and it seems there could be a lot of prevention by eliminating chemical exposure.e that's my coulthought.t: >> that is a point that's been very well researched. in fact, the president's council on cancer, president's panel ont cancer and maybe getting the name exactly, not exactly righta but they did a report a few ntru years ago that looked at environment alal exposure

contributions to cancer and thar was the conclusion they came tol that, yes, research for cures, absolutely essential. at the same time, we could the be doing a lot more in prevention, pesticides, exposing agricultural workers and their families or many chemicals that paying attention to this and preventive basis would be an llv enormous public health benefit and in fact, they've all come out and said we need to do moree prevention and getting these chemicals out of our environment on a daily basis for health n tn benefits. glenn is in tennessee for democrats. good morning. about

>> i have a concern about plain household goods we use from al day-to-day. how folks get away with not putting out any information to a the public? >> yeah, thatst a very good point.mical in >> it's got a complicated history like so many things. why it is that household products don't have chemical onr ingreend yent labels the way food products now do. or personal care products now et do. in fact, tlas move afoot to get a lot more of this information out there and and this isn't necessarily what we looked at in our piece, but one of the things that a lot of the scientists wes did speak to who are biologists really concerned about health

effects, pointed out it is concerns like yours from citizens it's that concern of consumers who are reading about this science because it's more ak siszto successable than ever who are starting to ask questions and putting pressure on their elections ange. representatives and the companies they buy things from and this is starting to change. >> wants us to follow the money. who funds this study, what private funds as we're talk at the studies here. >> that's something we did look into rather extensively and one of the things we discovered, whichof seemed to us a little bc disturbing in terms of conflictf of interest is that a lot of the these studies are funded by , oi millions of dollars from chemical corporations who themselves, b obviously have an

interest in these because they make them. with millions of government funding have gone into this research. some it's a very curious wrinkle in this revolving door of influence that some of these peresearch institutes have been set up in a way that they can compete and get millions of dollars that benefit industry. >> the story we're focusing on is the cover story from november's in these times magazine. it's what we don't know is killing us. by valerie brown and elizabeth grossmann. here with us to talk your fort m questions andye comments.icans. you're up next from florida. line for republicans.situat >> i'd like mention what happened in '70s and the botul

government's solution. there were outbreaks of salmonella, botchulism and what the fda decided to do was to incorporate -- in multiple forms and everything that is in a bottle or a jar. which continues to this day. unfortunately, what occurred as a result is everyone has -- in these foods, so, and they have alleviated an issue, but it created an epidemic. - >> we did loot knot lonot look score, but acid into food, i think one of the points you're bringing up is making sure we have a thorough knowledge of what goes into our pruktss andid one of the problems with how we

regulate chemicals in this country is that we don't in fact know very much about the health effects, the environmental effects of vast numbers of prou chemicals that are on the market and in products today.: so, that does raise an important point, so thanks for that.indepe >> out to wisconsin where paul is waiting. line for independents. good morning. >> hi. good morning. bear with me a moment, take me a minute to get through this. you just hinting at it, my concern is about the lack of research and then therefore, the understanding of the combined d effect w of the every day exposures of chemicals and erydy carcinogens. because of the current world we live in, every day experience ed lifestyles and the food and all the you know, air products and erthings. everything. our basic every day living.thesh there's such a lack of

understanding of how all of these chemicals together combine to have an effect in our s into biology. because obviously, it changes when it comes into our body because our body itself is a chemical lab and essentially, so, the lack of understanding of what that effect actually is is a concern.us does that, as you said, the research direction isre so cal focused, the models are so limited and focused on one chemical and aspect, there's another dynamic that's occurring here. >> you raised an extremely important point. our chemical regulatory system,a the system we werete in fac investigating, does indeed regulate one chemical at a time. when in fact we're all exposed i toca mixtures of many, many chemicals in fact before the d

time we werety born. and the type of study we were looking at in our piece, these pbpk models are indeed very, very narrowly focused and one of the big criticisms, we heard tai about them, from biologists, is is that they completely fail to take into account the full rangi of different health effects that a single chemical could cause and also the fact that not every individual will respond are now similarly, so, that is a huge research gap. a huge gap in information. that scientists are now rapidly trying to fill. >> about ten minutes left befor. the house is scheduled to gavel in. we'll be going there when that s happens, but until then, we're talking withman elizabeth gros. contributor to in these times magazine about our cover piece for the november issue, bad science is what is written on the cover. how the chemical industry has captured toxicology.

stopped regulation and put us all at great risk.ing. gerald is in new hampshire. line for democrats. good morning. >> good morning. thank you very much for taking my call and thank you for your research. and thank you for you research.y. my comment today is about the corruption and greed in this particular industry.er one if ms. grossman could comment on this and also if the united . states is the number one chemical producer in the world.o we are the number one producer of the arms in the world, and i think that's why we haveth a lo of the problems with guns and gun control. we have been the number one arme country in the world. it seems like every time we are always having to take guns away from different countries that we give them to. isis is a big example, but i

don't want to get off track. i really appreciate your research because i've had people in my family of die of oxic everything from agent orange tof toxicor you chemicals and rtant hydrofracking. >> go ahead. >> thanks. i was going to say thanks for n your call. you raise a lot of points in that question, and one of the things that we can say for sure is that our political system ann our system for regulating chemicals has allowed political influence to enter into the system of regulation far more effectively than it does in chec otheral countries. whether we're the number one chemical producer at this point in time is a little bit hard to say. there's an enormous lack of transparency about those kind of numbers and one of the things that has happened in part of as a result of chemical regulation is some of this manufacturing

has moved to over places in the world where environmental oversight is far more lenient. laws are enforced less stringently than they are here,l but it's a global problem.how or you raise a couple of really important points about how our system allows political influence and also alludes to this global problem we've been t pushing o other places. >> the caller brings up the department of defense, but there's some history here with the pvpvk argument and the history of the department of defense. >> we traced it to a group of se researcherst at an air force be in dayton, ohio.th

at the time, there wase divisiof there that was y entirely set u to look at the toxicity of chemicals that were used by the military. as you can imagine, thera mility uses lots and lots of chemicals in everything from maintaining aircrafts and vehicles to making new materials for that is. equipment, so they have a huge o interest in this. it just happened that they had a bunch of researchers there who c essentially developed this typer of t computer modelling and then went on over the next several decades to work at research institutes, to work in government agencies, and to fan out into industry as well doinge this type of research. so it may be coincidental, but there was a lot of effort atof e department of defense at the time into looking into chemical toxicity. part of that coincided with the

clean air act and the clean water act. the government for the first ur time saying to anybody who uses fected chemicals we're going to be keeping an eye on your toxic lie emissions. >> let's go to sparks, nevada, where brett is waiting.o know w good morning.el >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would be curious to know what elizabeth's view is on geoengineering. all you have to do is look out your window and see what's happening g in our air and that not fog. dropp that's geo engineering pollution. do you have anything about what they are dropping on us daily iy our environment that we're existing with their defecated red blood cells and aluminum and

barium andno stromium? >> we did not look at geo tists a ineering in our story, but number of the scientists that we talked to have on many occasiony pointed out that the environment in which all of us live is now chemically different than it was at any other point in time and as a result we are experiencing chronic health problems that are again really hard to link directly to a specific cause -- a specific exposure, but there i lots and lots of associations that paint a very , convincing picture that we are pushing human health in a certain direction and in fact i one biologist that we talked ton said if we actually wait for the human data to come out like thee animal data are, we may not be .

reproducing as a species, she feels so strongly about it. >> good morning. >> caller: yes. how are you doing, ms. grossman? i love c-span because you get a lot of information. out i i was over in vietnam. i came back and found out i had some of the agent orange that was in my system, but anyhow, they banned that here in america and then turned around and sold it to mexico and used it in vietnam. the republicans have no common sense because i believe they're being paid by the oil companies and fracking. they use all different kind of chemicals. i believe americans need to know what kinds of chemicals they us, in fracking. they want to get rid of the epa, the republicans do, but they'vee

shown who isan lobbying them. maybe all the americans can see. if we get a republican in there, they don't care nothing about clean water. they don't care nothing about the environment and don't believe about climate change, so we're in trouble. >> go ahead. >> thanks for those thoughts. i'm sorry to hear about your experience with agent orange. one of the points that you rais is something we grappled with ih our research, which was an enormous lack of transparency, whether it is in who is doing the research, making decisions f aboutor regulation. there's a terrible lack of transparency, and that makes it very difficult for people to understand what's going into products, what's being used, and again what kind of science is ny behind making these decisions. one of the points you raised a, about the

transparency is an enormous problem. >> let's go to montgomery, alabama. alfred, good morning. you're on "the washington who journal."or t >> caller: there was ahe f book written by a biologist who worked for the food and drug se administration around the late w president kennedy administration. she wrote a book called "a silent spring" referring to the environment. in other words, she was trying to say we're in a vicious circle. she called it environmental -- oh, my goodness. i forgot the title, but the book was written by rachel carson. it was titled "the silent spring." we're talking about environmental poisoning. i read an article sometime ago about dow chemical and one of

the largest seed producers for farming. they chemically treat seeds to discourage weed growth and produce an abundant harvest. i hope you can talk about that. rachel carson's book called "t'' silent spring" concerning environmental -- >> we got it, alfred. we'll try to get it in before the house comes in. >> yeah, i will try to pull that all together. yes. rachel carson's "silent spring" was published slightly more than 50 years ago is considered a watershed landmark event in raising public awareness and in fact legislators, politicians, awareness of the effects of ven. toxic chemicals. and she was wayea ahead of her time, pointing to hormonal dmarn

effects. that set off and is credited acs with pushinget the federal government to enact some of our landmark environmental laws, so that in fact set off a whole log of scientists and a lot of research that has been absolutely instrumental in protecting human health. >> i want to thank elizabeth grossman. it's in the november edition of "in these times." appreciate your time this morning. >> thanks so much for having me. coming up tonight on c-span 3, samantha power, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. and a look at the u.s. health care exchanges under the affordable care act. next, samantha power, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, testifies at a senate foreign relations committee hearing on u.n. peacekeeping

efforts. members also hear from former bush administration diplomat johnn negroponte. >> the foreign relations committee has come to order. i want to thank our witness [ inaudible ] significant responde responsibilities right now at the u.n. security council. quite educational, i hope, on both sides. we certainly appreciate you being here and certainly i'll introduce you in just a moment, but today's hearing will review united nations peacekeeping operations and explore opportunities for reform to make u.n. peacekeeping work better in the u.s. national interest. as a permanent member of the security council and the largest contributor by far to the u.n. peacekeeping budget, the u.s. has a particular interest in how u.n. peacekeeping mandates are

set and operations are carried out. the united states cannot be everywhere all the time. there's an important role for u.n. peacekeeping and supporting u.s. interests for security and stability around the world. today's u.n. peacekeeping is evolving in many ways. u.n. peacekeepers now are being asked to take on new and difficult responsibilities such as civilian protection, disarming active combatants, or developing the capacity to engage on the anti-terrorism front. these new missions and mandates raise many questions, which we certainly will be exploring today. what are the risks when u.n. peacekeepers actively engage combatants in a war zone? the u.n. peacekeepers forego

their neutrally in these situations. if u.n. peacekeepers are asked to provide logistic support in humanitarian crisis such as the ebola fight, what challenges does that raise? i am particularly concerned with recent disturbing reports of sexual exploitation by certain u.n. peacekeeping troops. the current u.n. peacekeeping policy is zero tolerance. so it's our hope to find some common sense ways to address these issues and explore these and other topics such as u.s. peacekeeping assessment. i want to thank our distinguished witness for being here, and i'll turn it over to our ranking member for his comments. >> thank you, chairman corker. i appreciate you convening this hearing on an important topic. and i want to thank all of our distinguished panelists today.

extraordinary individuals who have given so much to our country. we thank you all for your participation and your continued service to our country, particularly ambassador powers. good to see you here. i have long believed the united nations at its best can be a powerful partner of the use advancing global peace and security with far less cost and more effectively than if we act alone. when you add the u.n. presence, it's a global presence and that's far preferable than having a u.s. and sole one country presence. the u.n. assists more than 60 million refugees and displaced people fleeing conflict and persecution with life-saving assistance. it vaccinates 58% of the world's children. recently it launched the sustainable development goals, which if fully embraced could have a powerful impact globally

on reducing corruption. in short, the u.n. is capable and has already done a great deal of good in the world, but i believe the u.n. could be stronger and much more effective if there were greater transparency and more accountability across the organization. in the case of syria, the assad regime continues its barrel bombing and slaughter of civilians and those responsible for war crimes have yet to be held accountable, but let's be clear. the united states could not ensure international security alone or should it have to. the united nations and u.n. peacekeeping is one of the best burden sharing tools we have to protect the civilian population and secure territory. by drawing upon the financial and human capacities, the u.n. peacekeeping helps the united

states share responsibility for promoting global peace. unio u.n. peacekeepers now represent the largest deployed military force in the world. there are more u.n. peacekeeping missions today because peacekeepers are being asked to do more in deadly environments. we need to recognize this and make sure that the united nations and the troops and contributing countries are giving peacekeepers, who are placed in harm's way, the protect of equipment, training, and support they deserve. peacekeepers themselves are often seen as legitimate targets of attack by extremist groups. we saw that in recent attacks in mali. u.n. peacekeeping mission in mali has suffered 42 fatalities

at the hands of the militants since january 2013. we know that the u.n. peacekeeping is a cost-effective tool when compared to other military options. the budget makes up only about 0.5% of the world's total military expenditures. i think this is a particularly important moment in debating trying to balance our budgets. the u.n. mission, the cost per peacekeeper per year is about $16,000. in 2014, each u.s. soldier in afghanistan cost $2.1 million. moreover according to the study by the gao, u.n. peacekeeping operations are eight times as expensive than funding a u.s. comparable force.

the scale of the assessment should be reworked, and i'm confident that ambassador power and her u.n. team are focused on that goal as wel i have long been concerned about these reports of sexual exploitation and abuse. as the permanent member of the u.n. security council the united states has the responsibility to make sure the u.n. -- the failure by the united nations to hold individual peacekeepers, they command their commanders and troops, accountable for these abuses is unacceptable. the represe that's only a start. more must be done by both the united nations and the member

states, and i look forward to hearing about how the united states can continue to push for these effective reforms. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having a robust discussion. >> thank you, senator carden. we have two distinguished panelists today. we want to thank all who are here to share their wisdom. our first person is the permanent representative to the united nations, samantha power. we thank you for being here today with a very tight schedule. we thank you for bringing hailey back, who served so well with senator coons here and was one of the bright people we had here on the committee amongst many, but we thank you both for being here. if you could keep your comments to about five minutes or so, we'd appreciate it. then we look forward to q&a. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, ranking member cardin, for convening this hearing and

members of the committee for making the time to be here for this meeting. we've seen time and again how conflicts with displace millions of people, up end markets, and destabilize entire regions. all too recently and all too frequently, we've seen how such instability can attract violent extremist groups to recruit new members and plan, launch, or inspire attacks. u.n. peacekeepers play a vital role. as president obama said in september, we know that peace operations are not the solution to every problem, but they do remain one of the world's most important tools to address armed conflict. peacekeepers can deny safe harbor to extremists and protect

civilians from atrocities, all of which reflect deep american values by ensuring greater burden sharing by the international community. this organization has been working aggressive to ensure u.s. peacekeeping operations are better able to meet the demands of international peace and security, which has been noted by both the chairman and the ranking member, those requirements have changed considerably over just the last 20 years. peacekeepers today are undertaking more missions. the number of uniformed personnel has risen from 20,0 20,020,00 20,000 15 years ago to 1,000 today. they are assigned broad and increasingly complex responsibilities ranging from disarming armed groups to protecting civilians from those who wish them harm. today 98% of uniformed personal

in u.n. missions around the world are under orders to protect civilians as part of their mandate. this is not your mother's peacekeeping, your father's peacekeeping. while peacekeeping has never been more important to american interests, it's also never been more demanding. that's why in september president obama issued the first presidential memorandum on multilateral peacekeeping operations to strengthen and modernize operations by providing u.s. support and leading reform of u.n. peacekeeping. i want to briefly, mr. chairman, touch on a few key lines of effort we have pursued. first, we are working to ensure that countries with the will to perform 21st century peacekeeping, that they have the capacity to do. one way we're doing this is

there a-prep. through a-prep, the united states is investing in six african countries. it will help ensure that more soldiers deployed for peacekeeping missions will be fully prepared. i hope that the senate and house will fully fund this important initiative in future years. second, we are expanded the pool of troupe and police contributing countries and bringing advanced militaries back into peacekeeping. there was a summit at the u.n. to rally new commitments to peacekeeping, marking the culmination of a yearlong effort

initiated by vice president biden. 49 countries participated and pledged nearly 50,000 additional troops and police. not only that. more of these troops will now come from advanced military to bring with them equipment and expertise that is critically needed on the ground. we saw this in mali in january this year when dutch attack helicopters helped repel fighters on their camp. the united states is making contributions in this respect as well. looking specifically for ways to leverage our military's abilities to support peacekeeping operations, including faster deployment by others. third, we're working to ensure a higher standard of performance and conduct once peacekeeping contingents are deployed specifically in two critical areas. the complete fulfillment of their mandates and the combatting of sexual

exploitation and abuse. it will allow the u.n. to be more selective as to which troops it deploys and giving it the leverage to repatriate troops and police when necessary, especially in instances where there are allegations of sexual abuse. they have to use force to defend themselves, to protect civilians. too often, in the past peacekeepers have shied away even when atrocities are being perpetra perpetrated. a report last year found that in 507 attacks against civilians from 2010 to 2013 peacekeepers never used force to protect those coming under attack. thousands of civilians lost their lives as a result. this cannot continue.

the 50,000 additional troops and police should enable more police to staff these missions. the same is true on sexual exploitation and violence. we share the outrage of everyone on the committee, all the american people who are focused on this issue. peacekeepers must not abuse civilians. sexual abuse and exploitation have no place. it goes without saying in any society it is especially abhorrent when committed by those who take advantage of the trust that communities are placing in the united nations and those responsible must be held accountable. addressing this scourge will require continuing the important efforts to strengthen the implementation of a zero tolerance policy, including pledging to set up an immediate response team to investigate certain cases. it will also require more vigilance and follow through. there must also be far more

transparency in these investigations to ensure that justice is served. the u.n. should be able to take advantage now of this newly expanded pool of soldiers and police by suspending from peacekeeping any country that does not take seriously the responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute allegations. the fourth priority is to press for bold institutional reforms within the u.n. itself. we have seen the u.n. secretary make profound changes to peacekeeping from logistics and sustainability to military police, but much more needs to be done. we have spearheaded efforts for penalty for troops who show up without the necessary equipment to perform their duties. we will continue to work aggressively to cut costs. the u.n. has already cut the peacekeeper cost by roughly 17%

since 2008. we are also working to advance the reforms proposed by the secretary general's high level independent panel on u.n. peace operations, which are intended to address inadequate planning and a current set of rules around people -- in all of the areas i have just described, we've seen improvements and the united states has played an instrumental role in making them possible, but there's much more to be done. we're not satisfied with peacekeepers fulfilling a ining but not all of their mandates. the role played by peacekeepers today is too important for the sake of our own interest and security as well as for the millions of innocent people around the world.

we'll continue to work to strengthen peacekeeping. we appreciate your interest and support and continued dialogue on these matters. thank you. >> thank you very much for those comments. senator isakson and i were four years ago infuriated by the caveats the u.s. peacekeepers had. they could only fire at people when they were fired upon. people abused. people being murdered. and yet those caveats existed. we've evolved. that is not our father's peacekeeping mission anymore. as we have evolved these missions and people are placing themselves as peacekeepers more in the center of conflicts, in some cases taking sides, how has this changed the way the u.n. is viewed in these peacekeeping missions?

i assume you believe this is international interest for us to be in this. certainly i do. but how has this changed the way these blue hats are viewed in these areas? >> thank you, senator corker. it's an excellent question. i think one of the lines that the u.n. struggles to walk is that it has on the one hand peacekeepers that are charged with an aggressive enforcement of mandates, which entail protecting civilians not just protecting peacekeepers themselves as was once the case. you have that on the one hand. then you have them all driving around in white vehicles, unarmed, passing out food, providing shelter, trying to provide counseling to those who have been victimized by sexual abuse. so it's been challenging. the blurring of functions across these missions. but the only thing worse than confronting that challenge of

having people in society distinguish who does what is actually having people in these societies rely on peacekeepers, know that the mandate says protect civilians and have those peacekeepers bunkered and more interested again in collecting a paycheck and then going home than actually being out and about and delivering on the promise of that blue taflag. the statistics are not inspiring. there are still many troop contributing countries who send their troops in without the very strict guidance you will be sent home if you don't enforce the mandate you've been given. >> as i understand it for some of these countries, even though the cost to us is far less than having u.s. soldiers there, it's still the pay for these soldiers that's far greater than they would otherwise receive in their own countries.

that money goes to the countries. and so they're benefitting financially, these countries, in sending these troops there. is that correct? in some of the lower income countries. is that feeding the situation of actually having troops there that are not, if you will, carrying out their mandates in an appropriate way, not qualified, not equipped? talk to us about what is driving having folks in the peacekeeping mission that are not conducting themselves in a professional manner. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. it reflects a real understanding in the dynamics of some of these missions. again, the performances are uneven. the motivation is uneven. if you take rwandan peacekeepers, they are totally driven by what happened in their country 21 years ago and

actually view protecting civilians as a way of showing the world what should have been done when the genocide unfolded in rwanda. contrast that with other troops who institutionally are not given the guidance from capital that they need to be out and about, that, yes, there are risks entailed with patrolling, but there are risks by being bunkered. on the specific question of the stipend, this is a very good deal for the american taxpayer. these are extremely difficult environments not only because of the risk of militia and government forces targeting peacekeepers but the conditions in terms of logistics, access to water. i mean, these are missions that are not expending resources in the manner that our missions do when they deploy

internationally. the logistic tale is not nearly as fulsome. some countries are doing it because they're able, again, to secure additional resources that they are investing in ways that sometimes we don't have full visibility into. sometimes into professionalizing their militaries. sometimes in other parts of their government. but we are getting a lot out of the 100,000 plus troops that are active in these conflict areas. if you look at mali and lebanon, places that are cutting-edge theaters in terms of terrorism and extremism, if it weren't u.n. peacekeepers that were there putting their lives at risk, it would come to the united states at some point to advance our security. >> as it relates to the issues of the abuse that's taken place that's obviously abhorrent, i

think people on both sides of the aisle have concerns about the u.n.'s ability to put reforms in place. i know you talked about the leaders' desire to create reforms. we sent a letter suggesting that we have on site court-martials by the way these particular soldiers actually report too, not by the u.n. itself. we also made some other suggestions. what is your sense that those types of reforms can be implemented relative to peacekeeping? >> through the life of the u.n., you have a challenge always on reform in the sense that there are two places you have to secure will and follow through. the first is with the countries that comprise the u.n. every troop contributing country

to peacekeeping has to be prepared and implement in their own military changes to ensure follow through, oversight in the first instance, follow through on investigation, and accountability whether a court-martial or some type of prosecution. every country has it own set of procedures, again, for following up on abuse of any kind. then there's the u.n. itself, which has to be much more aggressive in shining the spotlight on the countries that are not taking the steps that are needed. i think we've seen improvements. this is, again, not something one should cite as an improvement. but those individuals who were alleged to be involved in sexual abuse are not being paid by the u.n. they're being recalled to their capital. training and vetting now is changing so there is training on

preventing sexual abuse and exploitati exploitation. you had an idea in your letter about a claims kind of commission. the u.n. is looking at creating a victims' support trust fund, which is something we would wish to support as well. maybe some of the docked pay of those against whom their allegations could be used in service of such a fund and then i think having more aggressive on site investigative capacity so that less time passes between an allegation and actual follow through. lastly, the two aspects of reform come together in order to secure reform, meaningful reform, there has to be more transparency between what's actually going on in the field and what we're made aware of in new york. too often we hear about sexual abuse and exploitation rather than from the u.n. itself. if we're going to go to a

developing country and try to enhance their capacity, their training on the front end, we have to know who's been accused of doing what in what period in order to be able to offer support. we have to know so we can look at our bilateral leverage. >> thank you. my time is up. as a courtesy, i want to move on. i do hope through questioning at some point -- i know the president had made additional pledges to the u.n. beyond our normal peacekeeping budgeting, and i hope at some point it'll come to light as to where those resources are planning to come from. thank you again for being here. senator cardin? >> thank you. as i said in my opening statement, i'm a strong

supporter of the mission of the united nations and the incredible progress it has made in global issues. i want to talk about tr transparency and accountability. one of the, i think, clearest ways to try to help the safety of civilians is to hold president assad of syria accountable for violating international war crime type activities. so do we have your commitment as our ambassador in the united nations that we will seek full accountability by president assad for the war crimes he's committed in regards to the resolution of syria? >> thank you, senator. let me say one of my more unsuccessful days in my office since this body was good enough to confirm me for my job was

pursuing a referral of the war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out in syria to the international criminal court. that was a resolution we brought to the u.n. security council, not wiwithstanding our own participation. of course that effort at a referral was vetoed by russia and a veto supported by china. >> i do understand there's going to be negotiations that will involve the united states and the united states is going to have to sign off on those negotiations. do i have your commitment that your position at the united nations will be to hold president assad accountable for the type of activities you just described? >> the ultimate settlement in syria is going to be between the opposition and the syrian government. the united states' position on

accountability, i hope, is well known. we are absolutely supportive and have been aggressive supportive in building and evidentiary base. >> it's not up to the government and opposition to determine whether a person has violated international standards on conduct of war. war crimes are global. it's a global accountability. >> two separate issues. one is what is the standard of the threshold question for where accountability should be provided or whether prosecution -- there are a whole set of tactical questions on how accountability should be pursued. there's a related overlapping question of what the terms of a political settlement would be. this is not something that is on the verge of happening, so i think the details on accountability have not yet been fleshed out. and it's something we should

consult on, but i want to underscore the final agreement has to be something that both the opposition and the government can get behind. >> i understand that. that doesn't quite answer my question. let me make my position clear and i think the members of this committee. if president assad is not held accountable, there will not be support for any solution in regards to syria. i want to make that clear from the very beginning. let me talk to issue number two in transparency and accountability. if this is not done in an open manner where there is complete understanding and disclosure of what is taking place, the confidence factor of those being held accountable will not be there. >> i agree completely. i'm not sure what to add. as i said, there has been

insufficient reporting back to the security council. we have now taken sexual abuse and exploitation made it an issue to be discussed in the security council. >> i've seen the specific recommendations and they're good, but they have to be followed through. it has to be done in a way that the international community, the activists, can be confident that those who are responsible have truly been held accountable so this will not happen in the future. that i think is the important point. it's not just a closed investigation, but that we have an open closure of this issue and a commitment on how to go forward in how these matters will be handled. >> it's fair to say that victims who come forward do so at their own peril and don't do so with

confidence. having taken that risk, there's even going to be accountability on the back end, and that has to change entirely. if it does change, you may well see more people coming forward. >> let me get to my third point on transparency and accountability and that is the budget system at the united nations. it's anything but open and clear and transparent. that's nothing new. it's been that way for a long time. it's hard for me to understand why our assessment on the peacekeeping is 28.36%, if i'm correct, which is almost three times higher than the next country and is significantly higher than our general allocation for the u.n. budget. that doesn't seem to be to me a transparent way to budget. can you briefly inform us as to the u.s. position of a fair allocation of budget? >> the formula on which the u.s. share of the peacekeeping budget

is a very complex formula. let me say in brief that it's some combination of our share of the global economy, plus a premium we play by being a permanent member of the security council and getting to dictate whether a mission comes into existence and whether it doesn't along with the other permanent members, so we pay a premium for being a permanent member. we were able to secure the cap on our regular budget. the formula would have us pay at a higher right if not for the 22% cap that ambassador holbrook secured going on 15 years ago. the one thing i want to stress is our emphasis is on ensuring that countries that are contributing more to the global economy are paying more of their share. we are in the midst of scales negotiations now on our share of the peacekeeping budget.

our emphasis has been on ensuring countries where you can see their economic growth, but you don't see a correlation in terms of their contribution. the chinese contribution to peacekeeping has more than doubled in the last ten years, and i think we can anticipate that the chinese share is going to be up around 10%, which would be a triple. the russian contribution has doubled. >> we should point out china is still less 1/4 of the united states and russia is 1/8 of the united states. the 22% cap, we understand that. that was well deserved the way that came out. it looks like that the united nations is equalizing through the peacekeeping percentage and that the 22% cap is being violated because of our higher contributions to the

peacekeeping efforts. i just urge you the more transparent this process, the better it's going to be, i think, received politically in our country. and we do think the 22% is a fair number, and we think it should be honored and it should be honored in the peacekeeping. >> i want to underscore when the agreement was secured on the 22% cap no similar agreement was secured as it related to peacekeeping. in fact having the 22% cap actually helps us in the peacekeeping realm because 22% becomes a baseline on which these premiums are agreed to. i want to stress we share the same objective. we want to get other countries to step up and pay their share. if you look again at what this means for u.s. national security, i think this is a version of the argument you made at the beginning, that having the -- even when you compare it

to nato where the united states bears the lion's share of defense investments, that having the rest of the world paying 72% of the peacekeeping budget is a good deal for the american taxpayer. >> my last point, the safety of civilians is critically important. you stressed the increased number in the commitment in the meeting in september. it's not matter of numbers of personnel. do they have the will to go in and stand in front of civilians to protect them? we haven't seen that. i'm not sure i was comforted by your reply that we have a greater capacity by number. if we don't have greater capacity by will, the civilian population is going to be at great risk. >> the point that i emphasized in my testimony is we have succeeded now in getting contributions -- commitments i should say from advanced

militaries. europe had gotten out of peacekeeping by and large over the large -- last 20 years. we think, again, giving the u.n. the choice -- now it has a pool from which it can choose. if there are people who show insufficient will and want to spend more time in their bases, we think having this pool of forces, which include more professional and advanced militaries and better aviation and engineering and infantry capabilities, giving the u.n. that selectivity is going to mean over time the performance of these peacekeepers is going to improve. numbers alone don't mean anything if you have 50,000 commitments of people with no political will. but we see sustainable

commitments from those who we think do have that will. >> i want to thank the ranking member for bringing up an issue that is brought up consistently certainly on our side of the aisle also. i want to thank him for that. with nato, which i know is not within your jurisdiction, we have become the provider of security services. and our nato allies, generally speaking, the consumer of security services. the same thing is happening with the peacekeeping at the u.n. i know it's a different set of actors, but the very people that stymy our efforts to enforce -- china for instance is taking advantage of us. but i think we continue to be not as good as we should be at forcing other nations to be responsible, so i want to thank

senator cardin for bringing this up. it is infuriating, infuriating, to have the lack of transparency that does exist at the u.n. i think over time it will erode support. it's not particularly high because of the many issues that we see going unattended like not dealing with the ballistic missiles that are being fired in iran. i'm glad there's bipartisan concern. i hope you can address it. senator perdue? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me echo that too. i want to compliment the ranking member for continuing to bring this up. i want to talk about that in just a second. right now, we're spending about $2 billion just in the peacekeeping force in the united states. i think that's our contribution. because of the assessment, we're some $345 million in arrears in terms of what the u.n. says we

owe them. i'd like to point out also, mr. chairman, it's not just the percentages here in relation to the size of the gdp. it's also, i think, should be taken into account the percentage of the gdps in this countries that spend on their own military. that also bears to the global security situation. i think given the situation we have in the united states 35 to 45% of what we've been spending is borrowed. i have two quick questions. first, i want to thank you for what you're doing. given your high school years in georgia, we claim you and we're proud of what you're doing. i want to talk about hezbollah and lebanon. some 12,000 troops are there of the u.n. resolution in 2006 strengthened the mandate there to preclude

the illegal transport of weapons into lebanon and yet we know today they have an estimated 120,000, 150,000 rockets, some of these guided weapons, and it is very troubling. it looks to me like if that mandate were directed to keep weapons out of lebanon, they're faili ining against that mandat. we've had reports that there reprisals if they report violations. what can we do to strengthen there and preclude the transport of these dangerous weapons? >> unifil has played a role since 2006 in calming the

situation, but there's no question that hezbollah has been able to maintain and expand an arsenal. we have and continue to urge uni fil to be more aggressive in patrolling and monitoring about violation of the unifil mandate. you've seen more transparency on the part of unifil. part of the problem is when you have -- when you're not at war with those terrorist organizations, you're using political pressure particularly by lebanon's own sovereign institutions, which are themselves very weak, you're shining a spotlight. you're trying to ensure interdiction of weapons before they even get into the theater

in question. so unifil is not a perfect fiction for everything that ails lebanon or for the threat posed by hezbollah, but it has a responsibility to be vocal and to take very seriously its reporting mandate so doesncount in the region, including our friends, know what's happening in an area from which threats have come routinely in recent decades. >> let me ask you to add a comment or two about syria. can you speak to their role now and how are they interacting with idf? i have one last question. >> thank you. you're right that there's been a reconfigure ration. this is something idof has done in israel. given the stakes here, it is a response to nustra made advances

on one side of the line. >> actually kidnapped some of the u.n. forces. >> exactly, senator. they did and the release of those forces had to be negotiated. i say even that incident showed it's not the same as civilian protection, but an unevenness in how the different units responded which is life in the u.n., some holding onto their weapons, refusing to be cowed, others handing over their weapons, unfortunately in a manner that left idof weaker. we again view this as a temporary relocation. we still believe the prior configuration is the stabilizing configuration, but i think the israelis are aware that the circumstances don't lend themselves to putting the observers on the other side of the line. >> the last question i have with the time remaining, ambassador,

is the chairman mentioned it, but the violations of iran, we've been concerned that iran would violate our agreement incrementally. they're violating the u.n. agreement with the launch in october. then we have reports in the last week or so of a second launch. what's the u.n. doing in relation to the violations and the sanctions that back them up? >> this is something i've had occasion to talk to the chairman about. it's music to an u.n. ambassador's ears when resolutions just roll off the tongue of members of congress. resolution 1929 has been an incredibly important foundation to the sanctions regime. as soon as we confirm the launch, we brought it to the security council. we now are going to be

discussing it on tuesday, the u.n. machinery always works slowly. the panel of experts is looking at it. we provided all the information we have on it. in a way, the security council is an important venue for increasing the political costs on iran when they violate resolution 1929. i would note, of course, that the jcpoa is aimed at dismantling iran's nuclear weapon program so that the threat iran poses in any aspect of its military is much diminished. the security council sanctions body operates by consensus. this is something that over time benefits the united states, but on something like that it means we have to convince all members of the committee to support our desire, designations, or any further form of accountability. >> what is the u.s. moving forward? >> we're going to get the report back from the panel of experts.

we'll discuss it in the committee. then we'll look at what the right tool is. i think it is important to look at the bilateral tools we have. we have sanctions on ballistic missil missiles. so trying to secure a nexus between this launch and any particular individual and entity is a challenge we need to take on. looking at the security council and our bilateral tools complementary is important in this record. >> thank you. we both everyomphasized with th security council, we thought they might got a d-minus. an "f." total hoax. nonaction here is just going to

empower them to continue to violate. i think what the ambassador just said is the u.n. is going to do nothing. nothing because china and russia will block that from they're p their bilateral efforts. it's disappointing. we provide the resources that we do and, yet, we have countries that will not cause other countries to live up to their obligations. so for disappointing. >> senator? >> thank you, chairman and ranking members. thank you for your tireless and dedicated service. and for your passion on behalf of our nation. and on going work. i'm pleased to here that there's not immediate finance ministers

around the un council and look forward to continue to work closely with you and secretary lu and others of the administration to make sure that we are using all the tools that we can to enforce the sanctions that remain in place. and to impose sanctions should we deem so. i've had the opportunity to visit u.n. in the field in a number of countries and have seen both the positive that they can accomplish and particularly where as you noted in your opening testimony, the disconnect with the trained equipment leaders. i just spoke with whether there's a mismatch whether security councilman dates and what countries are trained. for the president's leadership

in revamping militaries and not just logistics and intelligence but troops. how do we connect mandates and the capacity to deliver in the field. ? >> this is something senator mentioned before, which is the contracts with nato. i just want to underscore this. this really is an example where we have national security interests in peace keepers in troops from other countries performing ably. this is not a nato situation where we are carrying a disproportionate share of the trooper. we're carrying a large share of the finance burden, and u again, that's something we're working to ensure is al kated more fairly. i think on the mandate troop contributor disconnect, which is real, and i think it's written across the board, something you

have to do is get more quality groups. it has been, as you know well, a supply-driven market, as far as the un basically goes with different countries, you know, standing army, you know, that exists in new york, the secretary general doesn't have anything beyond he can extract from un member states. and that process.

>> and there's going to been an effect on the ability to perform the man dates. there needs to be more prioritization. it's hard in the real world to prioritize because you look at a situation like that in south sudan or that in congo. and what a task those peace keepers are slated to perform. would you give up? would you give up demobilization? would you give up human rights monitoring? would you give up attention to child soldiers? of course not. and so you need to make sure that the missions are right-sized. you need maybe to do some sequencing in terms of building out some of those capableties over time. and the u.n. country and their own bilateral assistance needs to be involved in state

institutions. >> i would challenge all of us to imagine what any one of those countries would be like without this somewhat stabilizing presence. but it's not going to be a cure all for leader that is are krupt. gld i continue as an appropriate xx to advocate for funding peace keeping and for dealing with some of these challenges. it's very encouraging for me to see your engagement and hard work. for this to be cost effective an, yet, refleblgt our values,

we need to make some real progress in the areas around accountability. let me just ask sort of the last question and then take what time we have left to answer. i'm concerned about the peace keepers both in africa and globally. china made a pledge of 8,000 peace keepers. and i'm concerned about how you see that planning on going forward and how we can sustain that investment. >> thank you. basically, told us anything he can do to ensure that these commitments are followed through on, he's prepared to invest his own time. so we are dealing with the set of challenges at a level that i don't think we've seen before

with the aggressiveness that we vrnt seen before from the united states, notwithstanding the fact that successive administrations have seen the value of this tool. >> i any the china question comes together a little bit. we have a major issue in terms of the delay between the time a mandate is given to u.n. peace keeping force. >> aprep is designed to take six militaries, and having plit k58 will to go to dangerous places. and we ape to ensure deepening

provision and the particular forms of training we offer that they can get into the theater more quickly than they happen up until this point. sometimes we have to swoop in and carry people into harm's way. but they need to acquire over time to lift and self sustain and, again, this ability to if not be formally on standby, to be ready to go when the 9-1-1 comes. china's commitment offal e 8,000 troops is a very large piece of business. of how they imagine that set of forces over time. right now, they've just deployed their first infantry battalion ever.

their reports are quite promising. so, you know, we need to look and see how the umt n. chooses to use that commitment. rapid response, if that were something that china could put on offer, you could actually use less time. in south sudan, we're still two years after the original employment. that's occurring in a pattern across. so we welcome rapid response and, of course, we also have to make sure that we're willing to protect civilians and put themselves at risk for the sake of the mandate. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you madame ambassador for your time and testimony today.

thank you, as well, for your service to this country. >> this is a clear violation of these rez luxs. after first launched in october, we first, as you said, called on it to review this quickly and recommend appropriate action. on october 22nd, i believe you stated the united states will continue to press the security council to respond effectively to any future violations to u.n. solutions. so, as of today, as the ewe nielted nations security council taken any action in response to the missile test? and i think the response is no. they're meeting tuesday. is that correct? >> yeah, beyond discussions of the matter, there's no follow up action -- discussions are a form

of u.n. action. it's a little bit like a hearing as a form of congressional action. so, you know, we've had multiple discussions. >> the tuesday meeting. can you describe the actions that will be taken at that tuesday meeting? >> we will be in a position to launch. we're not yet in a position to confirm. >> again, we have taken action. >> we confirmed the u.n. security council and we've launched the panel of experts investigating in the matter. >> so what other administration

actions -- other than taking to the panel, talking about it and having a meeting. >> we're looking, as i mentioned earlier, looking at the bilateral tools that we have at our disposal. >> what unilateral measures have we been considering? >> i believe sanctions designations, bearing in mind that most actors -- i shouldn't say most, many of the actors involved in ballistic missile launches and the program itself are already sanctioned under ugs law. >> and are we considering stopping or rescinding any previous relief as a result of these actions? >> the jcpoa i want to underscore, again, that the jcpoa, the point is to dismantle

nuclear weapon's program. that's a really important area of emphasis for us. >> so more important than the ballistic missile concerns. >> taking away -- i don't want to talk about relative importance, but taking away iran's -- i think it's something we can agree upon, actually ensuring that iran doesn't agree upon a huge priority. >> in your opening statement, you said, and i quote factors in the middle ooegs and other terrorists. by not imposing sanctions, by not doing anything that i'm talking about, are we allowing exploitati exploitations? >> we have at this administration put in place in the case of the iran sanctions the first instance and then amplified by what we've done. the most devastating in the history.

iran has seen the con kwens of violating the national norms. we also have a sanctions fact provision that i think few around the world would be part of this deal which would allow snap back in the event of significant noncompliance with the deal. so sanctions are a really important tool. the sanctions that are put in place is one reason we're ensuring that iran did not develop nuclear weapons. >> but nothing has been done, other than a meeting on a ballistic missile violation. >> we have increased and will continue to increase the political of iran. the work that iran does to ensure that the u.n. security council does not discuss ballistic missile launches i

assure you is a testament. the stigma they associate with our bringing these issues to the security council. same with the panel of experts discussing this and documenting any violation. this is something that iran increases the political costs. >> in october, this committee members sent a letter to the secretary of state talking about iran. and the letter talks about a range of unilateral, multilateral activities presented domestic authorities and engage in proliferation

activities. but we've done nothing -- there's no penalties under foreign entities as a result. >> it's also a defense response. it's also the proliferation security initiative. it's everything that's come out of camp david in our engagement with countries to ensure interoperability. it's the iron dome and all of the bilateral defense arrangements that we had, many of which are getting deepened, as you know.

>> one has to take measures to make sure that you have the tools to defend themselves. even if you have a designation, the number one deterrence and preventive measure is going to be regional defense. if i were here and we had designated another actor, bil bilater bilaterally, let's say we find one that has not already been designa designated, i don't think that would address your concern about iran. security council resolutions over the life of the entire international security council regime. the sanctions were in the system and would be sanctioned if they

were engaged in iran. >> this systematic ignoring of the solutions, doesn't that give you concern about their willingness to comply. >> that's why we have snap back. >> it's pred kated on trust. >> o i just want to reiterate what ben and i did the other day right now with iran. and on both sides of the aisle, regardless of how people voted, we want to make sure the agreement is implemented in the way that it was laid out. and i think there's been a concern on both sides of the aisle that there's an heir of permissiveness that's being developed. that calls the likelihood of any

pushback over time. and i think that's what she's getting at. and i think people on both sides of the aisle have been concerned about. 1929 says they shall not undertake any bligsic activity. and wha we're seeing is, again, not barely individual lent steps in taking and setting with the future with it senator cane. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thank ambassador power. if you gave a pbs news hour on december 4 and you know that more progress needs to be made in ewe nieunitedinewuniting the coalition, what is it to be clear if congress is willing to

finally debate and vote on this matter after 16 months of war? >> yes, i think people are puzzled as given the priority for the u.n. and on a bipartisan basis, both houses of congress attach to the struggle and all of the attention to it that, you know, has come over the course of the last two years as to how we can't arrive at consensus in order to be able to enshrine legislation that would be bipartisan backing of the american people. i think it would be really important to get that done.

>> that is my understanding as we know it. and i think other countries who were part of the go ligs, but not on the security council, also. >> germany, for example. >> last week, senator mccain said this. he did not say this approvingly. but when he was asked for an authorization, it may require an attack on the united states of merit. >> in terms of you being able to do your job well, would it be a good idea for congress to waive

that? >> no, it would not be a good idea for congress to wait. this should be one issue that everyone should agree upon, even those with differences over tactics over the number of -- the difference of tactics showing the world that this is something that is backed by the congress. it is a long struggle. >> the president started this war against isil on august 8, which was 16 months ago. a year ago friday, an

authorization before no action was taken on it. legal gymnastics that were not helpful and urged congress to take action. let me ask you this, you talked about european nations having scaled back. columbia is stepping up in september saying they want to devote 5,000 troops.

>> talk about columbia coming in to peace keeping forces for the first time: and a period in which you encourage that is. >> thank you, snats xx. we view that very much the same way. a reflection of however the peace process is, there's a lot left to do. but their confidence and where they need to get. latin america has a huge contribution to make one of the significant pictures of the president's summit.

a lot of latin american countries with haiti, i want to particularly commend uruguay because of the contributions working with the columbiaens, working for us, this is how it works for you. also, mexico, which i visited recently, which has announced it will be breaking ground involving peace keeping for the first time it's in the mids. if i could just touch upon, because i think it's such an important point, the larger point of pulling up latin america, which is the dividend for us in terms of conflict resolution. i'm just back from sri lanka, a place in the wake of its defeat, the lte people in effect coined

the suicide bomb, fairly regressed in terms of aauthoritarianism and carrying out on detail of the war. now there's been a change in government. how often do we see that taking on issues of capability, trying to reconciliation. we also see the behavior of international institutions transformed. also making a substantial commitment to peace keeping. a resolution on syria, north korea, et cetera, shifting. i want to just dwell on this. they become more at peace within themselves and we see a pay off,

again, in terms of the critical mass of countries that we have as partners to work with. right now, more than half the countries in the u.n. are not democratic. an effect to which the u.n. is going to be with enforcement, et cetera. >> thank you. senator isaacson is next, after him, senator menendez. i'm going to ask if you would chair the meeting while you're asking questions. >> very brief. >> okay. okay. >> then senator murphy is next. if we could just keep it going. i'm going to bolt and come back and thank you both very much. if menendez is not back. >> thank you for calling this hearing. i'm going to be very brief. your required at every meeting of congress, every ambassador of the united nations ought to

be -- fw that book had been read, a lot of the problems we're talking today with peace keeping missions and military tactics and things like that, we'd be a lot further along. the senator and i went to ruwanda. that's my first question to you. are we, as a country, the united states of america? >> as you know, we're not a substantial contributor to peace keeping. so these principles, so far, have been embraced by big countries putting thousands away, 40 police officers and 40 military officers: >> when i read your speech last

night, you talked about the learning lesson from your point out in the problems of how you do it. the rules, as i understand it is, the peace keepers need -- their countries need to affirm that their troops have the authorization to use force. is that correct? correct, sir. >> that's our problem in the middle east right now. in terms of the united states. authorization for the rules of engagement of our own troops. i commend you for raising it on this question. but i think it's a bigger question of being effective. the troops you have deployed for peace keeping or for war, if you're at war, to have the actual authority. it kind of struck me that we were congratulating a lo of people who are korean yet we, as a country, have the practice

right now in our own country. that's the point i'm bringing up. >> if i may just respond quickly, senator, while you're here, you know, my impression is not that. i think that what president obama has convey ed is a desire to offer strategic guidance and any big shifts in strategy at a senior level to make sure everyone is on the same page. but there's a huge amount of tactical flexibility these commanders have. and i think you've seen publicly which he's conveyed many times in a private situation room is

if there are ideas for how we can pursue this campaign more expeditiously in ways that increase the security dividend for the american people sooner, i want to see those ideas. and so, you know, i'm in these meetings and i, again, have not guilty heard the commanders. >> my last question is not a question, but a statement. i would underscore as i leave senator's remarks and the chairman. more transparency, the better for the u.n. there's a lot of suspicious and a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of lack of trust out there in the general public.

it would be helpful to the union to carry out its intent. >> senator, that gives me a chance to invite you to new york so you can get the budget numbers first hand. but we would really welcome visits by members of this body and we give you a good, deep tour of the u.n. and so many of the africa-related issues. >> invitation accepted. >> okay, great. >> thank you, senator isaacson. good morning. the evening of sunday night's speech, there was periods of social media spotted very wonderful report from the new york times. those observations was u.s. strategy seeks to avoid isis prophesy.

and the idea, if you understand the fundamental building blocks of the religious perversion, it is built upon a military belief on the ground. and i suspected that acknowledgment is part of what made the president talk not only about the things we shouldn't do but the things we should do. from a broader fer spective, as we try to confront organizes that are trying to have peace keeping forces that are trying to go in particular the united

states, why multinational and multiethnic forces are going the be much better positions than a majority of the u.s. force to try to have peace and order could or should make in the future if that is amongst what should be had. >> thank you, senator murphy. that's a complex question and several ideas within it. i think the key to effective deployments is legitimacy. and one of the things that multinational dploimts can offer

and can amgs forfeit is a perception of legitimacy. the whole world is behind a peace keeping mission. you know, which i think having the colix also enhances legitimacy and the fact that countries from the region are part of that council. the one thing that i would note in areas where terrorists are active, 44 deaths of peace keepers just over the life has only been in place a few years, there can be a mismatch between u.n. and even and other kinds of

environment where extremists and terrorists are, yes, they may make the united states number one target if they have that opportunity. but if there's no americans around so i agree with the logic of the article that you described and founded very powerful. i will use to how the extent to which peace keeping is being increasingly for terrorists and extremists in those environments that they inhabit.

>> and just to give you one example, we're now doing more and more counter ied training for peace keepers. if anybody would have imagined that people had to train against ieds that were presumably targeting the peace keepers themselves, i'm not sure peace keepers would have gotten off the ground. having, you know, countries who know the language, i think that's a critical component to have cultural overlap with those countries is really important. >> the other challenge is

sometimes countries can be foo familiar. trying to inject more distance perception of independence. to all of these need to be taken into account. >> thank you. and my thanks to the senator. >> thank you for your time, senator. >> thank you. >> i'm not going to ask for unanimous consent right now since i'm here alone. let me, first of all, ambassador, say i appreciate your service to our country. and i have a high regard for you. my own personal view is left to

your own devices, on some issues you may be more forward leaning. you don't have to respond. let me enlarge this conversation for peace keeping. >> peace keeping is, yes, very important. but part of the way we can keep the peace is to make sure that the will of the international community isn't violated. there are consequences that continue which doesn't lead to the outbreak of war and therefore what flows from that. so i point to the issue of -- i noticed several of my colleagues. first, i want to ask you, would you agree that for a decade, iran, as you have said and some of my colleagues questioned, did not recognize u.n. security

council resolutions and moved their nuclear program forward to a point in which it got so big, almost too big to fail and too big to actually end. and in doing so were able to get to a point that they large way wanted to. would that be a fair observation? but the point is they violated international resolutions for the better part of a decade. for a good period of time, and

so look at that and i look at your acknowledgment that they recognize security council rez luxs. and i say to myself. there's a history here and a pattern. if you go visit the archives building, it says what is past is prologue. and i have a real concern that what we have here is a lack of will by the united states and as a leader in this regard by our parter ins in goimpk ahead and making sure that iran understands that you cannot violate the international rule without consequence and i consider that to the extent the greemt is going to produce any benefi benefits, iran must clearly understand there will be consequences for not following that agreement. and the message seems to me that

we are sending, and that we have sent as a country in various iterations. so we basically have no real action. i heard your responses about now they have a second test. we'd like to see the multi-lat ral but we hear nothing in the interim about an individual consequence. i predicted as well as a whole host of others, that we are bagsically going to sweep this under the rug.

it's presently being circulated at the iaea. we want something bad enough, we are willing to go ahead and overlook and in doing so, we make a great mistake. we did so with cuba. they violate the security council resolutions, knock happened to them. so when we want something bad enough, and i say we as the administration wants something bad enough, they are willing to overlook. and that is a dangerous proposition. so what is it we are going to do to send a real, clear, une kwif cab, unambiguous message to the iran yans that notwithstanding the nuclear portfolio that we could be robustly active and take actions on non-nuclear issues.

well, this is a non-nuclear issue. and conversations is an action. >> thank you, senator. so let me use this also as an occasion to sort of -- to address a comment he made earlier, which is in keeping with what you're saying, k4 is his impression of a greater permissiveness in terms of your statement that somehow if you want it bad enough, you're willing to overlook. >> the way that this administration responded in new york to prior occurrence as it happened in the life of the regime, violations of the u.n. security council resolution hant changed.

there's no difference in the way we go through this procedure what we seek to do in new york at the u.n. security council. and frankly, there's not even much difference in terms of what we face from predictable quarters. the security council regime, as you well know, built out and put in place and it's that regime that caused iran concessions that, you know, three of you here deemed satisfactory, but went well beyond would have been achievable without the sanctions regime and givers us the confidence again that this is a good deal and one that will dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program.

>> we have a vested interest in seeing this deal implemented because we don't want iran to ever obtain a nuclear weapon. that is our objective. we have put in place measures, whether it's the expanded monitoring and for all the dissatisfaction that's been expressed about the report and our approach to it, understood famtly, the ie was able to get approached than it hadn't been able to get approached in the past. the snap back of the sanctions regime is incredibly important. the senator said the other day to the security council we will have given up all of our leverage on the front end. that's just not true.

we will have that hanging over violations going forward. and we will have it the way of responding to lesser incidence of noncompliance. so, again, the u.n. security council is one venue. and we will do, as we've been doing for a decade, bring forward violation increase, ensure that iran is isolated for its violations of 1929 now but we also have a set of tools -- >> i appreciate your answer. you're very good at answering but not answering. so let me just say you talk about snap back.

those sanctions that you admit, and the administration has increasingly admitted, brought iran to the table. they expire this coming year. and you all negotiated away, at least as i read, the abilities to export. >> and the administration just won't talk about that reauthorization. they don't have the where with all to reauthorization. they gave it away. and then, last point, you know, another example. enforcing resolution 1701. >> during the iran nuclear agreement, the administration repeatedly emphasizes that u.n.

security council 1701 is in place and that pertains to weapons of hersbolah. hesbollah has continued to receive arms. so what steps have you to stop the transfer of arms? what steps have we taken? >> thank you, senator. i addressed this question earlier for senator perdue. it's a very important question. i think the point that was made over the course of the discussion about the jcpoa is that the authorities, as we understandably concern would go away at some point under the jcpoa.

as i said earlier, do everything in its power to call them out when they are. to alert us and other stake holders to anything to their attention that, again, is alarming in this regard. as you know, a constructive effect of events on the ground. i don't think the government would have supported its perpetuation if it hant. it won't be. we have really pressed the u.n. to step up its reporting and sound the spotlight and do the things that it can do. but, you know, in terms of armed confrontati confrontation, that's not something we feel is pursuant.

we're also trying to enhance the capableties of troops with that bill. and we're hopeful again that the peace keeping summit will give us a broader pool of troops to draw from. >> okay. i just have no consequences is a green light for violation. >> thank you. >> it's true that it's highly unlike unlikely -- >> the answer is yes. >>. >> brought the issue to the council. >> but not as far as sanctions, penalties. >> i would not assess that. >> relative to -- the

administration were permissive. is that what you're saying? >> the leverage shifts to iran. so that they get the sanctions related there after, which we would expect. now people believe that january, february, they get all of this. and for you to say that snap back implementing back those sanctions and we have countries like russia and china which would probably, likely, know are not going to push back against this issue if there are incremental vie lagtss. all of the leverage is with iran. that is a fact. it's not anything but a fact.

>> all you have to do is step out. and they know that russia and china and probably our western friends in europe, are not really with them to comply. true statement. it entz up with them because they have what they want. we've given it up. we have pursuant to security council. senator martin? >>. >> for one second, i apologize to senator martin. we all hear the frustration that you're unlikely to be sanctioned by the security council.

but if you demonstrate action with our european partners, particularly in the signal to iran that these types of activities aren't going to go changed. >> i want to underscore to the council what further tangible outcome. mr. chairman, the one thing i feel compelled to say is that when you were going to dismantle, it's very important to remember that that's a good thing. that's what we want.

understanding, again, that there is pay for performance as part of the deal. like the way that we've incentivized. wu sometime but sometimes, in the way that this is discussed, you would think that that is not a good thing. >> i understand that. and, look, again, i don't want to redebate the agreement. what i think we're focused on right now is that the international community knows that they violated, 1929, and, in essence, they're violating the spirit where they're called upon. and we all know that their influence was not going to take action for us.

we believe that after they get sanctions that they're going to be there and taking you are correct. we like you and respect you. we have a policy difference here. this is not directed at you. it's directed at the defense council. >> thank you so much. thank you for all of your great work. >> you serve serve our country so well. thank you. if we can come back for a second, when i look at inside of the creativeness, upwards of 30% of the suni soldiers who have

soldiers trying to depose. and similarly, fighting for him, they'll be looking for him. and i thi secretary kerry will have to attach for these people. what happens and that kind of looks to the u.n., the soldier.

they lay douchb their guns. otherwise, i don't see a resolution. i see trying to ne gauchuate an ever-continuing conflict. so can you talk about that a little bit? the u.n. peace keepers could play? again, the post-peace agreemen ? i understand that we're far from that. but just looking at that and anticipating a potential call for the u.n. and to assume no guarantees. otherwise, i don't think asad is ever leaving. otherwise the fact of human nature and looking at what's happening with all of these countries. they'll be dead. the revenge mode will be so high given the tragedy that's affected the families.

so how could we play a con instructive role? >> there's no tour to very complex dimensions of imagining to syria. but you put your finger on, i think, one of the hardest issues involved with the emotional reinspiration of syrian modern opposition forces with syrian government troops who have been -- the air force which have been involved in barrel bombing, chemical weapons or the infantry and it is going to be vetble, i think that, and, as you say, we're not at this point of the discussions. but in order for there to be an agreement on a political con

sen, which is the catch phrase is the operative principle, ask in the other direction, as well. when moderate opposition forces go back, what happens to them if the forces in control or remain, you know, in large, you know, government forces. so, where that confidence building comes from, who the guarantors are of any kind of e reintegration and back to senator cardin's question earlier, what the accountability mechanism whereby there can be some healing or, you know, truth telling and punishment for those who committed the worst violations, all of those modalities have to be worked through. >> on both sides. >> on both sides. again, yes, absolutely. now, in terms of the new term,

you know, we have an isil with a -- you know, very extensive presence in syria that is shrinking but nonetheless would be a significant consideration for any outside country thinking about deploying troops to syria. we have al qaeda's affiliate nusra, as well. part of what's being worked through is definitions of who's a terrorist and who isn't so there's an idea that everybody could go against these forces together. but i think what you would need if, you know, if one wouz going with a troop presence from the outside would -- you would have to make a judgment that a troop presence would do more good than harm. that it would invite and create more confidence to have that confidence those alawite and sunni soldiers don government side and then sunni moderates on the other side have to believe that the troops protect them if

they get attacked f. you look at u.m. peacekeeping missions, this's not always the case around the world, right? some troop contributors, that's not a role they play eagerly. you could look at a force of some kind. you would ask that question. are troop contributors ready to invest themselves in enforcing this agreement? is that something that, you know, some of our allies would be a part of? and the only caution i would give in terms of a regional force which is something that i think is being looked at and, again, all the costs and benefits of these per miations have to be thought through. on one hand, the language, the cultural affinities but in the case of many of the regional players they have been stakeholders in this conflict so the idea they would be then seen as impossibartial -- so finding confidence-building mechanism that doesn't run afoul of being seen as a party of the conflict and where they would be willing

to put their troops in harm's way on behalf of this agreement is going to be one of the challenges we have to think through if the parties deem an outside force a necessary part of this political agreement. >> yeah. i don't see how you can avoid it. i just think that the recrimination coefficient is going to be historically high. the carnage is just been so great on both sides. and bitterness. the okay ri mony won't setting out for decades and we needs a period of reconciliation, healing. in the absence of a very well thought out plan that is put together and i think it should be put together sooner rather than later. just as a concept that could move in to assuage the concerns that all parties are going to have, that the removal of assad

doesn't lead ultimately to a repetition syndrome breaking out inside of the country and yet a different cycle that seeks to extract a revenge against those who they have grievances. so i just think the sooner we kind of think that through and what we're going to put in there, i think the better the conversations we can have to give some assurances to the more responsible parties who want to end this war that the death toll isn't just going to continue to mount so removing assad is just one step. i think the next -- i think -- but it has to be accompanied by a set of guarantees. i feel very good knowing that you're there, secretary kerry is there and thinking all these issues through. thank you so much. >> well, thank you for being with us. i think you can see we're

getting close to the end here. i do want to chase for a moment the conversation you had with senator kaine. i guess do your colleagues at the united nations think that somehow congress and the american people do not want to defeat isis? >> i don't think they would have that impression. my response was that they're puzzled as to why we can't come up with an authorization -- >> are they puzzled by the fact that the administration told us over and over and over again here at this committee, secretary kerry, secretary carter, the white house, sending over notes that they have all the authorities they need to continue the fight against terrorism, is that confusing to them? >> again, i was not speaking -- if i may, i wasn't speaking to the legal authorities question. i don't think anybody questions whether or not the united states has the authority to carry out the campaign we're carrying out.

i think the question is as a political symbol aez reinforcement of the effort we're making an ability to get consensus. >> there is consensus. i mean, the president -- >> i'm sorry. my response was on a -- consensus -- >> the game that's being played. it's dflt for me to understand. on one hand, witness after witness after witness comes up here and tells us they have all the authorities they need. and then, people like you and others come up and talk about how it would be nice -- i guess i don't get it. i voted for an authorization in 2013. help craft it. to go against assad. and we turned away from that so certainly this committee is willing to take up tough issues when a declaration of war is occurring. and has the president declared war on isis? has he declared war on isis? has he laid out a strategy

publicly to defeat isis? so i just want to say, i'm sorry that cute sy that's been occurring recently, especially over the last two weeks, i'm having difficulty understanding when i agree with the administration. they have every authority that they need to defeat and destroy isis. so, i don't know what's up. maybe the president's receiving criticism an he's trying to deflect that to congress somehow. i don't know what's occurring. but all i can say with you, i'm in full agreement with the administration that the '01 authorization while certainly on the edges gives them the authority to do everything they could possibly want to do to destroy isis and everyone in the world, everyone in the world understands that congress wants to see that happen. >> let me be clear. the president has himself as you

made clear he has the authority to prosecute this campaign effectively. i was responding to senator kaine's comment that a number of the other countries in the coalition have gone through a domestic legislative process as of late -- >> they didn't have the authorities to do what they were doing. is that correct? >> i'd have to go case by case ooshdy great britain or uk's unwillingness -- >> they have to go through the exercise they have gone through. i think this is a reason, though, that the question is a little bit more in the air than it has been over the last six months up in new york. >> i think it's in the air for -- >> but the president has said he has the authorities he needs. there's no resurrecting or surfacing this issue for any other reason. >> you agree 100% the president has the authority -- >> absolutely. >> has the president declared

war on isis, by the way? >> i believe he has said we're going to defeat and destroy isis. isil. >> we thank you for being here today and certainly respect the job that you have here. you're very bright and intelligent. sometimes i, you know, take issue with you when i feel like you're carrying too much, the administration's line but i understand sometimes you feel compelled to do so. i thank you for being here and wish you well as you take demon straitive action against 1929 being violated over the next week or so. thank you. so our next panel will consist of two more outstanding witnesses. the first witness is the honorable john negroponte and former united states permanent representative to the u.s. mission in the united nations, same job our former witness is occupying our second witness is

dr. bruce jones, vice president of the program at the brookings institute. again, we thank ambassador power for being here. both of you have witnessed what just happened. we hope you can summarize your thoughts in about five minutes and we look forward to questions. again, thank you for being here. and, john, why don't you start? >> yes, sir. thank you, chairman corker, ranking member cardin. it's a pleasure to appear before you this morning to discuss united nations peacekeeping, a subject of importance to the united states security. when i was ambassador to the united nations, this subject was frequently on the agenda of the u.n. security council and during my tenure the peacekeeping operations were stood up in sierra leone and liberia, of course. and operations that continue to this day such as in the

democratic republic of congo, western sahara and so far. i want to state categorically at the outset my conviction that united states support for u.n. peacekeeping operations is in the overwhelming national security interest of our country. there are three major reasons for which i hold this view. i call these three arguments, first, cost. second, the boots on the ground argument. and number three, legitimacy. i will explain each of these thoughts further. first, with respect to cost, united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world. today. the approximate cost of deploying these forces is $8 billion per year. which, of course, is a -- a small fraction of what we spend in our own national defense

budget. our share of these costs is less than $3 billion. a small fraction, again, and some ill lus strous figures were cited by senator cardin. a small fraction of what it would cost to deploy united states forces on similar missions. this is not a trivial argument. in today's world and with the high cost of deploying u.s. forces to overseas missions clearly it is an important advantage for us to know that we are considerably less expensive options available to us regarding whose forces might be available to carry out an intervention we deem to be in our interest. second, the boots on the ground argument. this, of course, is an argument related to financial costs just as we benefit from the lower cost of u.n. peacekeeping budgets as compared to our own defense spending we also do not deploy our own combat forces to these situations.

this is a huge benefit. it is hard to imagine sustained public support for a hypothetical situation wherein u.s. combat units deployed to five or ten peacekeeping operations abroad. the cost in u.s. blood and treasure would be high and the expectations of u.s. forces involved could undermine the kind of support and patience required in some of these very difficult situations. so support for u.n. pko saves us from having to contemplate these possibilities. it also enables us to think about choices other than a stark selection between u.s. boots on the ground on the one hand or nothing at all. and third, legitimacy. how many times have we

undertaken or contemplated sbe vengs without the united nations security council resolution? in early 2003, i was in the well of the security council arguing for a chapter 7 security council resolution permitting the use of force against iraq. we failed to achieve that resolution and soon thereafter intervened in iraq with a coalition of the willing. i'm not saying that a pko would have been appropriate at that point in time in iraq but what i do want to highlight is that we subsequently paid a high domestic and international price for intervening in iraq without the support and blessing of a u.n. security council resolution. by definition, a u.n. peacekeeping operation has consensus support within the p-5 and a blessing -- and the

blessing of a security council resolution. this is an important political and legal advantage which should not be dismissed lightly. senator corker, ranking member cardin, i know there are issues regarding the effectiveness, comportment and leadership of some pkos and these are issues that will require continued attention and effort from troop contributing and other u.n. members alike. and given our leadership role in the world and our status as the u.n.'s largest single financial contributor, we have a special responsibility in this regard. but whatever imperfections or blemishes might exist in the u.n. peacekeeping set-up, it is our responsibility to help address these issues in a constructive way with steady engagement from the u.s. and others, i foresee continued improvement in the performance and utility of pkos and even their more creative use in

addressing some of the very difficult security challenging around the globe. so thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee on such an important topic. and i'd be pleased the try to answer any questions. >> thank you so much. dr. jones? >> thank you very much, chairman corker, ranking member cardin. thank you for having me appear before the body an your leadership in sustaining attention to this issue. we have covered a lot of ground so i'll be brief and try to raise a couple of points, reinforce and raise a couple more. i think you understand the purpose of peacekeeping is to give the united states as a tool for burden sharing and conflicts where we have interests but we don't want to have to deploy u.s. forces. i think that is well understood in this body. i think it's important to remember that in the majority of the cases where the u.n. deployed it is not deployed alone. it's often a regional organization and the u.n.

co-deployed in a hybrid operation and we don't focus on that enough. the u.n. is an important part of the equation and we need to sustain attention to the way that regional organizations expand the reach of theu.n. and reinforce what the u.n. can do. >> that being said, of course, the u.n. as you both highlighted as a burden sharing tool, a global burden sharing tool allows us to reach across the globe. european forces working with news haiti that regional organizations can't perform and so for of its flaws and weaknesses the u. (only genuinely global burden sharing tool we have and extremely important at a time when senator murphy i think mentioned colombia and others like korea and indonesia and brazil, rising democracies who want to do more on the international stage, and the u. (the only tool that they have to do that.

so how do we improve the u.n.'s performance? this is four dimensions, effectiveness, efficiency and leadership. effectiveness, i want to reinforce something that ambassador power said which is important which is bringing countries with advanced military capabilities sbak into the u.n. a number of you stressed the complexi complexities. we have to be clear eyed about the fact that in a number of cases the u.n. operating in theaters and not challenges of troops with low order troops with low ordeyú look at the situation in mali, we have to see peacekeeping have within it troops with -- countries with advanced military capabilities to perform the functions or protections of civilians and implementation of mandates and very supportive of the administration efforts to bring european and rising states back into peacekeeping. an additional point that i would make, again, senator murphy touched on it, there are different way that is the u.n.

can structure their actions. there's multinational force operations an ena single member state takes the command and that's sometimes a effen effect tool because there's members who have a far higher degree of capability in command and control and intelligence than the u.n. secretary at the disposal and that variation of using a u.n. authorized multinational force is something i think we should be thinking about more than we sometimes do. quickly on efficiency, nobody accuses the u.n. of being an efficient organization but it's made an important step forward with the creation of department of field support, a tool to structure the field operations. the absurdity is the politics means that the department still has to run all of its decisions past the department of management, the headquarters tool and the same tool that manages workshops and conferences in new york to approve all the decisions of a

more nimble tool and something the united states could do is work to change that so the department of field support has more direct authority to oversee and implement peacekeeping operations without that kind of extra layer of kind of dual key system which is inefficient and keep working on the scale of assessments issues. third, the things that have been said, i think the u.n. makes a mistake not recognizing that even though this is an issue of a minority of troops and missions, it's severely erodes the legislation macy of the u.n. on the ground and in capitals. you have said a number of things about the united states putting the right kind of pressure on the u.n. to live up to a zero tolerance policy and ban ki-moon came to. and that goes to my last point and i'll end here. this is also about leadership. we're coming the end of ban ki-moon's term and i think it should be a matter of priority for the united states when we get into the business of selecting a new secretary-general to be paying

attention to the question of whether they're focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of the u.n. and contributing to international peace and security and working closely with the secretary-general when he or she is selected and other members of the p-5 to have available a deep roster of talent on which to draw and selecting top officials for the management of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. i'll end there. >> well, thank you both. we got off on on a lot of different topics in the last panel and rare to have the opportunity to talk to the ambassador. we thank you both. we know you're both friends and we just been here and this will all be part of the record and appreciated, this is more of a conversation. as we have moved -- i mean, you know, you both have experienced a frustration of seeing peacekeeping operations where people are being abused and brutdallized and yet the caveats

that existed kept peacekeepers from really being able to intervene so we have moved in a more forward manner which from my standpoint is welcomed. as we have seen helpless people be brutalized in certain areas. what are, though, some of the challenges that from your perspective we most need to think about relative to that? i mean, in essence, as an extension of some cases carrying out semikinetic activities, right? so what are some things we as a body should think about as we progress down that path? >> thank you very much. it's an excellent question. and i think it's extremely well put. it's interesting to observe at the u.n. i think you face two challenges. one over time as countries with more advanced capabilities,

europeans and others, have not been participating in peacekeeping and the practice sort of lowered to the capability of the troops. and so, the willingness to go out and undertakeaki nettic activity, to defeat rebel forces diminished. getting troops into peacekeeping is the first necessary step. i think an important question is what can the united states do to stiffen their will or ensure that they will have will or support? one things to put on the table is that -- by the way, i would say that i'm not among those who thinks that the united states has to put troops into peacekeeping to ensure. i don't think that's the correct approach. i think the united states hads a unique capabilities of air lift and intelligence that are more important and i would add to it over the horizon extraction. if we ask countries to put troops on the line and take risks, first of all, it's helpful if they're more capable troops and if we're willing to

provide defense capabilities, the risk they're taking is lessened and we can be in a stronger position encouraging people to take those risks and take those fights if we're willing to help them if they get stuck. >> if i could add, first of all, i would definitely agree with dr. jones that capacity building and i think that's what he was talking about in the first instances, really, one of the most important challenges if not the most important challenge we face with respect to u.n. peacekeeping. there was also mention earlier in the testimony this morning about the problem -- the time it takes sometimes to mobilize some of these missions and i think the security council and the peacekeeping department has become more effective at that. i would add with respect to capacity building the challenge we have in ensuring that there's sort of a uniform level of capacity amongst the officers

that are leading these different missions around the world, and i'm not aware that the u.n. has any kind of peacekeeping academy. it would seem to me if you have a military deployments in excess of 100,000 people around the world, i mean, we have -- we have an academy for each of our four uniformed services in the united states. and i wonder if some kind of training institution where you would cycle current and potential leaders, future peacekeeping missions, whether that wouldn't be an idea worth consideration. i mean, we won't have to sit down at the drawing boards and think about how you do that, but anyway, that's one idea i would like to leave for your consideration. >> dr. jones, you mentioned that you don't think it's appropriate for the u.s. to have ground troops, if you will, involved. you know, as it relates to our nato efforts, we obviously have

everything involved. money, equipment, personnel. again, we are provider of security services and unfortunately most of the members of nato are consumers of security services. here we're the largest provider of monetary resources and as i understand it we have committed 42 officers to be part of peacekeeping. but just for the record, so that you tease out why it is you said what you just said, you say we shouldn't be involved with ground troops because -- >> thank you. yeah. it comes up a lot. it's come up a lot in the last year as the administration is pushing the europeans and other states to do more. one of the resources is are you going to? are you going to put troops in? as i said, i think the things that only the united states can do include airlift, signals intelligence and some of the command and control functions you just referred to. i wouldn't be doctrinal about

it. i don't think there's no circumstance for the united states to put troops in. we have historically in 1995 the united states had troops under the command of a canadien-led multinational force. we have done it. it's not impossible to do. but by and large, it seems to me that we are better off when other troops are willing to be in the front lines of this. senator murphy talked about the motion of having multiethnic and multinational forces. and the simple reality is that the united states is going to attract attraction and people to want to fight the united states and simply raising a red flag to a bull putting u.s. forces on the ground in these situations and much better off performing the functions that only we can perform as well as as i mentioned over the horizon rescue and support operations and ask others to be on the front lines. >> generally the same approach

as has been discussed by most and that is in syria we would like to have arab faces on the ground. more predominantly than western faces. right? i mean, it just helps ensure that there's more cohesive nature, if you will, relative to when's happening on the ground. typically we have had a policy, have we not, that u.s. troops are not going to be commanded by people other than u.s. officers, too, is that correct? >> we have had that policy as i said. we have occasionally violated it. u.s. forces were under canadian command in multinational force operations in east zaire and as i said there's simply too many occasions in which participation in the united states changes the political force of the force in ways to amplify resistance rather than the opposite. >> whereas the enablers don't necessarily have that same kind

of a profile and yet no other country as capable as we are of producing the vital enablers to these missions. >> ambassador, you have had this role, you have been at the yipts. senator cardin which i appreciate deeply raised the issue of just our payments, the amount that we, you know, we have 22% of the world's gross domestic product. and yet, we obviously contribute 28.5% of the budget here. our other, quote, associates if you will, at the united nations, obviously are not doing their part otherwise our amount would not be 28.5. we find this saying to be the case. nato, it's where we desire for things to happen more so than others and we're financial exposed more than others much you have been in this role. tell us from your perspective what we as a country can do to

seek equilibrium and calls other countries to play their appropriate roles. >> it is frustratinfrustrating. and i think you were right, senator, to talk about the kind of mysterious ways in which the budget is negotiated and very often right at the end of the year just before christmas before everybody's in a rush to get out of there and somehow at 3:00 in the morning the u.n. budget gets agreed upon and so you sometimes get some rather anomalous situations to arise and i think we have to keep working on that. i recognize that we have not been as successful as we ought to have been in keeping the peacekeeping assessments down. but again, in proportion to what it would cost to field other kinds of forces or our own military expenditures for our own defense establishment, we are talking about relatively small amounts of money and therefore i just think we need

to do our best but recognize that we may not achieve everything we hope to achieve in those negotiations but i'm also reassured that some countries putting up more resources than before. i'm glad to hear china is assessed something like 10% for peacekeeping and a significant departure from 10 or 15 years ago when the contribution was a fraction of that. >> senator cardin? >> mr. ambassador, as you were describing the u.n. budget process, i thought you were describing the u.s. budget process. >> i don't know where they learned those lessons, sir. >> dr. jones, thank you very much for your service and you come here with a great deal of expertise on the united nations having worked as adviser to secretary-general and ambassador negroponte you served in that position and so many others so i want to follow up on the reform

issues and i'll tell you why. but first, let me suggest to the chairman, your suggestion on training is a very important suggestion. i serve on the board of visitors in the u.s. naval academy and see firsthand the availability of training at the u.s. naval academy for some of our allied countries. we do train at our service academies foreign students. i think an arrangement with the united nations in regards to their peacekeeping command may very well be a viable option to get greater capacity and i would ask our staffs to take a look at this to see whether or not we can look at how our service academies could assist in this regardment it also helps us with a more diversified student body at the academies prepares us for the global missions our military command needs to be aware of so i thought that would a good

suggestion and if our staffs could follow up on that and see if that's a viable option. but i want to talk about the -- absolute scales and assessment and how these numbers come about but i put it in context of a senator that strongly supports the united nations and its mission and its budget, but if we were to put a u.n. reform bill on the floor of the united states senate, the type of amendments that would be offered an enthe types of potential restrictions on the u.s. participation in the united nations, getting a majority vote, perhaps even a 60 vote threshold is real. and the reason for that is because the lack of transparency in the united nations and the illogical way they go about their budgeting. we talk about burden sharing and we recognize that it's

disproportionate. that the u.s. taxpayers have been asked to take on a much stronger commitment than the developed countries, those who have the capacity could do a lot morement it's true in nato. it's true in our coalitions. it's true in individual participation globally. and it's certainly true in the united nations. so, i understand that we're getting a good value for our contribution to the -- i never doubt that. i adpree with you completely an it's the peacekeeping missions are critically important to the u.s. but it seems to me we have not been as so in the transparency issue and if we don't deal with it in a way that's understandable to the u.s. political system then there could be negative consequences to the u.s. participation at the

united nations and for that reason i can't justify a 22% budget aloe case and then 28.5% on peacekeeping. particularly in light of all the other commitments that u.s. taxpayers are making to international security issues. and i just would like to get your advice as to how's the most effective way for this senator and for the congress to weigh in in a constructive way so that we can get the type of reforms we need in the united nations. >> well, you know, i'm not as current on these issues as i was when i was serving in that position but i inherited, i was the beneficiary of richard holbrooke's successful negotiation with respect to the last big arrears situation that we -- and it took incredible work on his part. as the kind of work that only richard holbrooke was capable of. jawboning with the membership

with the secretariat, working hard with the congress, like ms. power bringing the security council down to visit the senate which i think was a very, very good idea and i'm sure you imparted this message to them when you met with them. those are the right people to pass that message to. i think it just requires an intensive diplomatic effort with these countries to try and correct that situation. i'm pleased we have a 22% assessment for the general assessment for the u.n. holbrooke left that issue somewhat unresolved. it's gone up a percentage point or two since he reached his agreement. but i think we have just got to work that one really hard. and what i'd hate to see happen is that the arrears become so large that then it becomes some kind of a crisis situation with regard to whether or not we're going to continue our support

or -- which would undermine support for united nations and that's the danger that i think you're describing. >> absolutely. >> i don't have much to add. i would just add one point of context which is sort of ironical. we spend a lot of few years talking about a united states in the decline, you know, relative decline in the united states, all this kind of stuff, the rising powers. i profoundly disagree with that underlying notion and in this case looking at the scales of assessment it was about 30% in the height and decaylee anthonied to 25% as we made continual progress to bring the scale of assessment in line with the world gdp and gone up over three years to 28% since the global financial crisis because we have done much better in recovering from the global financial crisis. a number of allies and partners in europe and others and irony of the moment and people talk about u.s. decline --

>> as i understand, the difference between 22% and 28% is not our share in the global economy. it's justified by the seat on the security council which many of us interpret as bust the 22% cap. >> it's both. because the formula starts with what is the share of gdp. you pay a premium by being rich and rich countries pay more per share of gdp and then additional premium by virtue and it was going down as our global share of gdp pent down and gone back up a little bit and worth remembering the irony. i don't disagree with anything that ambassador negroponte said and it's an issue to be made an important priority with the incoming secretary-general. they have to make it clear to the incoming secretary-general to sustain support for the united nations it's impossible to explain to the american public why we pay a joult sized share of this bill. it is true that we have an

outside interest, an outsized interest in the performance. we have interests in the every region of the world and an outsized interest here as well and that reduces the leverage. everybody knows that we have an outsized interest in these things. >> because we have assumed greater burdens, we have even greater burdens. >> correct. >> i want to ask one last question if i might. ambassador power was pretty firm and optimistic about the september 28th meeting of the countries that are contributing resources to the u.n. peacekeeping. the commitments she over -- she continues to state are just that, commitments. they have not been delivered yet. have you had a chance to review the september 28th results and are you optimistic that, in fact, this will have greater

participation by the country that is are capable of doing more? when's your prognosis on this? >> well, i was -- had the honor of being invited to that meeting by the administration and involved and helping the administration think through the preparation for it. i'm semi optimistic. i think that the europeans in particular as they have down down in afghanistan, they have capabilities they're not using in that context. they can contribute. dutch in mali most important example of what we have seen so far. i think they recognize, they have a deep interest that if they're going to come to terms with the migration and refugee problem they have to solve it in the places where they originate and they have an interest in helping to stabilize conflicts in africa and beyond. so i'm somewhat optimistic. i would be very optimistic were it not for a very different reality which is rush why and

ukraine causing european governments to reprioritize back to some older kinds of concerns about nato, the containment of russia, et cetera and put pressure on budgets and pressure on european militaries worried about other things than conflicts in africa and so the two things happening at the same time. there's a genuine will from the europeans and korea that i mentioned to participate in u.n. peacekeeping and facing new challenges of china, russia and putting different kind of pressures and right to push the argument. the administration right to pursue that initiative and other challenges to confront at the same time to diminish the full impact that it might have had otherwise unfortunately. >> thank you. >> i think we need to keep the spotlight on it. i think that was a great initiative by the president and have to be followed up. the other thing i might add with respect contributing countries is one encouraging region of the

world in that regard is the willingness of certain latin american countries to contribute to peacekeeping, global peacekeeping which they have been reluctant to do in the past. this mention of colombia, for example. brazil, too. so i thought that was encouraging and i think it's something that the u.n. needs to avail itself of. >> thank you. thank you both for your service. >> thank you. one of the great privileges we have around here is the access to people like you who are so respected and have the ability to share wisdom with us and experiences and we know that every day when we come to work so we want to thank you for your continued involvement and issues of importance to our country. for being here today. as you can see, a lot of members are present by asking questions later. if you would, without objection, first of all, the record will be open until the close of business friday but if you could respond in a fairly timely manner, that

would also be responsibilitied but we thank you for your service to our country, we thank you for being here today and with that, the meeting is adjou adjourned. okay. thank you. >> thank you for the invitation. on thursday's "washington

journal," kentucky congressman massie on the friday deadline for passing a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. and we talk to congresswoman kelly of illinois about the gun control debate following the san bernardino shootings. "washington journal" is live with your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. thursday a hearing on terrorism and its impact on global oil markets. we'll join the senate energy and natural resources committee starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. book tv has 48 hours of non-fiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, on after words, nurse and "the new york times" columnist theresa brown discusses "the shift." which gives readers a firsthand

account of her experience in patient care and safety. she is interviewed by deborah hatmaker, executive director of the american nurse's association. >> health care is only going to get more and more complex. >> right. >> and we're just going to need better and better nurses than to meet all of those complex needs. so thinking about how to keep us strong and healthy and encouraging that is huge. i don't think -- we sort of give lip service to that but we don't really emphasize it. >> on sunday afternoon, at 1:30 p.m. eastern -- >> politics which i had been part of all my life was not so different from the world of petty criminals, robbers and racketeers but it was disguised and therefore less obvious to see. in fact, for 25 years in my career, i have looked at america as an idea. i've defended american

principles, the american dream, the american founding. and i've looked at american politics as a debate. the republicans believe in liberty. the democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of rights. democrats want equality of outcomes. now, it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american politics is complete and total nonsense. >> dinesh examines america and american politics in "stealing america." and sunday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern, former democratic presidential candidate and author lawrence lessig talking about his experience running for president and campaign finance. the central theme of the book "republic lost." >> we're supposed to have a democracy where we as citizens e

quantity participants but you have a system where members of congress spend 30% to 70% of the time raising money. they can't help but be more focused and concerned with the interests of that tiny fraction of the 1%. so that's a system where this basic equality is denied. >> watch book tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span2. now, a hearing examining state health insurance exchanges under the affordable care act. the house energy and commerce subcommittee on overnight and investigations heard from the acting administrator on the issue. it's about two hours. >> good morning. this subcommittee will now convene. the overnight investigation subcommittee to continue the

examination of the marketplace under the aca. on september 29th, committee heard from a panel of witnesses representing six state exchanges. while attempting to paint a rosy picture, they're serious long term and short term problems with the exchanges. one of the main concerns is how services or cms is conducting oversight over the billions of taxpayer dollars in the exchanges. we expect direct and honest questions of andy slaf it. welcome back, sir. cms handed out $5.51 billion to the states to help them establish the exchanges. despite the investment of taxpayer dollars, four state's exchanges turned over to the federal exchange and countless others are struggling to become self sustaining. as the federal dollars run dry

and enrollment numbers appear far below projections, all state exchanges face significant budget shortfalls. by law, state exchanges were supposed to be self sustaining by january 1st of 2015. at which point federal establishment grant money could not be used to operate the exchanges. not be used. yet cms is issuing no-cost extensions allowing them to use the remainder of the federal grants through 2015 and 2016 against intent and letter of the law. federal funds still cannot be used for operational costs. but because of lax oversight and weak guidance, we don't know whether or not state exchanges have actually spent the federal money appropriately. we intend to get clear answers today. in the over five years, cms issued two guidance documents to inform exchanges on the way to spend federal establishment

funds. the first guidance in 2014 less then a page. the second guidance came only after the hhs office of inspector general issued an alert to acting administrator an andy slavitt and using grant funds for operational expenses which is not allowed. in fact, the oig discovered based on budget documents that washington health benefit exchange might have used $10 million in establishment grant funds to support operations such adds printing, postage and bank fees. again, not allowed. hhs, oig urged the acting add min stray forfor a clear guidance on the appropriate use of establishment grant funds. what followed was a vague document bereft of concrete examples. based on these quote guidances unquote one wonders if cms is encouraging them to spend federal dollars in any way

possible against the stated purposes of the law to keep these state exchanges limping along. to the committees investigation we have learned of instances of state exchanges may have used establishment grant dollars to cover operational costs or transition costs when a state exchange shuts down and moves to the federal platforment it hasn't been always easy to discern because they're comingled and expensions and costs redefined. for example, rent, which is an operational cost by any definition, suddenly becomes business development costs. the system seems to be convol e convoluted by design. in spite of or perhaps because of cms hands off approach, they're struggling to become self sustaining. they cannot to face i.t. problems, growing maintenance costs and as the hhs oig pointed out in the alert, they're facing uncertainty in revenue.

four shut down their state exchanges and these four states alone received $733 million in federal establishment grants. the taxpayers return on investment appears to be minimal at best. further, little indication that cms attempted to recoupe any of this money. it is our that hope the slavitt has a blueprint for recouping the lost millions of dollars. to better understand the challenges these state exchanges face, to ensure more tax dollars aren't wasted, we have a number of questions. especially given the extraordinary taxpayer investment, a lack of accountability or oversight? cms encouraging fiscal restraint or taking a hands off approach allowed money to be spent unwisely and maybe imper miss bring? where an exchange has shut down has cms sought to recoupe any of the dollars? are they doomed to fail? in my estimation, cms oversight

is sloppy at best and ignorant at worst at costing taxpayers millions and counting from the states. we hope that cms is forthright in answering the questions on the failure and overseeing the aca state exchanges and provide members a blueprint of how the administration recoupe lost taxpayer dollars. it is a mess and taxpayers on the losing side and unacceptable. this hearing comes when premiums are on the rise, major insurers questioning the decision to join the exchanges and expressing doubts about the ability to exist long term. evidence suggests the aca problems of 2016 and today we have an opportunity to ask cms top official if and when the administration will finally address the concerns. so i thank andy slavitt for

testifying today. i now recognize ranking member ms. degette for five minutes. >> thank you railroad much, mr. chairman. yet another hearing on affordable care act, as usual, mr. chairman, i'm disappointed that here we are on having another hearing focused on undermining the law rather than focusing our efforts on trying to make the law work better. i know with respect to the topic of this hearing today cms is trying to implement efforts to make the law work better and i think that we should be using our time today to see how we can partner to make that happen. since the aca was passed over five years ago, this committee has held dozens of oversight hearings on the law. not one of them has been focused on ways to make the law work better. not one of them has presented a balanced view of the law's benefits but despite that, we have gotten a lot of good news out of the hearings about the number of americans that the law

is helping and about what the agencies are trying to do to improve coverage despite some of the bumps in the road. but, you know, even more disturbingly to me, though, it's been -- it's been really an uphill climb to try to implement this legislation because some of our colleagues, both here in congress and around the country, have intentionally placed roadblocks to implementation that make it harder for their own constituents to access carement some of the governors refused to give health care coverage to millions of lower income americans. a republican presidential candidate who also happens to be a u.s. senator recently bragged that he killed obamacare limiting risk quarter payments. i have two things to say in response to that. first, i think it's really disatonighting that members of congress would brag about taking

health care away from vulnerable americans. secondly, i think people are wrong on the facts. the affordable care act is not going anywhere. despite countless attempts to repeal, undermine, defund and defame the law, it's making comprehensive health care reality for american families. it's saving lives. since passage of the law more than five years ago estimated 17.6 million americans have gained health coverage through the aca's various provisions. according to the recent cdc data uninsured rate dropped to historic low of 9%, down from 16% in 2010. i just ran into my colorado folks yesterday at the airport coming out here and they told me despite the failure of the colorado co-op a month or two ago, they're expecting because of the revisions and innovations they're making in colorado they may be up to 95% coverage in colorado pretty soon.

that's extraordinary for the health care of our constituents and that's what we should be working to achieve. i have an article of "the new york times" entitled rise in cervical cancer detection is linked to affordable health care, mr. chairman. according to researchers from the american cancer society, more women are receiving an early diagnosis of cervical cancer due to an increase in health insurance coverage rnd the aca and ask unanimous consent to be put in the record. >> without objection. >> women's prospects for survival of the disease and it also bull stores their hope to preserve fertile if i in treatment and far more likely to get a screening that can identity cervical cancer early. you know, i know -- i know that it's hard to make this specific about constituents. it's hard sometimes for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to acknowledge that

actual people are being helped by this law but millions of americans are benefiting from it and a lot of people like me think we could be making it even better. the reason i'm talking about this this morning is because on the house floor we'll be likely voting on a recon sail yags bill to repeal key parts of the affordable care act, the 62nd attempt to eliminate key provisions. if enacted, virtually all of the gains in five years would be lost. this would be a tragedy for the american people. and a gross failure of leadership. you know, we have done so much good this year in this subcommittee. we did bipartisan work on pandemic flu. we did bipartisan work on the volkswagen invest and many other things. i think this could be the committee where we had these hearings and then we sat down to think about how to improve

rather than to undermine the affordable care act. i hope that's what we'll do in the next year but frankly i don't hold out a lot of hope. i yield back. >> before the next -- i want to welcome today several members here from the national democrat ins newt support of the house democracy partnership, this is a peer to peer exchange by peter ross and david price an we have guests with us from kenya and peru. is that -- welcome here. >> welcome. >> just let you know, we -- this is a love fest among us. we all like each other. so take back to your countries sometimes we argue but we still are in here for the same cause. >> if the chairman will yield. >> yes. >> we disagree in a civil way. >> watch this. >> that's going too far. >> thank you. now recognize mr. upton for five minutes. >> i thank the good chairman.

today we continue our oversight into the obama state exchanges. taxpayers some $5.5 billion in these exchanges, yet they still continue to struggle as we know. they are struggling to sign up new customers, struggling with operational costs, i.t. systems and self-sustaining. we welcome mr. slavitt today, and we appreciate his testimony on this very important issue. as the state exchanges struggle to survive, we seek to understand cms's role in overseeing them. the government's robust investment of federal funds in the state exchanges should be accompanied by equally robust accountability by these stewards of taxpayer dollars, yet the committee's oversight is revealed that cms took a hands-off approach to the state exchanges. for example, cms rubber stamped

no cost extension requests issued pervasive guidelines with no questions asked. this is not acceptable. we want to hear directly how cms plans to improve its oversight over the state exchanges to ensure that they are spending some grant dollars legally, actually all grant dollars legally, and wisely. we also must understand the long-term sustainability of the exchanges, especially against the backdrop of rising premiums, failing co-ops and insurance companies doubting their participation in the exchanges next year. the writing is on the wall that we very well could see yet another big taxpayer investment spiral down the drain. so it's critical that we all understand the short and long-term challenges that state exchanges are facing as well as what cms is doing to help the exchanges confront the challenges. regardless of one's views of the

president's health law, the law and its implementation demand oversight. as we see today, billions of dollars are certainly at stake, and i yield the balance of my time vice chair blackburn. >> shopping for insurance was supposed to be as simple as shopping on kayak or esurance. and that is not what happened. and what we continue to hear from our constituents is that this insurance, the obamacare insurance product is too expensive to use once they do get it because of the co-pays, the deductibles and the premiums that are there. it's a very expensive product. we want to look at the gao report from september. today we want to go through this with you as both chairman upton, chairman murphy have said, it is very difficult for our

constituents. and basically, what it appears is that this has been a false promise that was given to people, that they would have health care access, because they were going to have insurance. and that has not come about. so we are very concerned about the dollars that have been spent on these state exchanges. we're concerned about the quality of the product, and i yield the balance of my time to dr. burgess. >> well, thank you for yielding. look, the administration has invested billions of dollars in an experiment. an experiment that did not include the necessary safeguards and in fact ignored success models in the private market. the health benefit exchanges are one such experiment. billions of taxpayer dollars have been pumped into reinventing the wheel, and

billions have been forced to rely on exchanges to purchase health care coverage. my experience as a consumer on health care.gov has been extremely frustrating, and my experience as a member of congress and a member of this committee and sub committee has been just as frustrating. i know there are those who want to accuse us of trying to undermine the law. that is not the case. the law should work. we as members of this sub committee, members of this full committee, we as members of congress have a responsibility for oversight on how those dollars are spent. it is extremely difficult getting questions answered, extremely difficult getting information. that needs to change. and i hope in this last year of the administration we perhaps can at least now admit to each other that there are serious problems with the law as it stands. and there are serious actions that we could take to fix those. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back the time.

>> i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're here today for yet another hearing to attack the affordable care act. since the august recess, the majority of the sub committee's hearings have been dedicated to undermining the law. the majority has called in the state exchanges and cms to criticize them, and they have burdened them with massive document requests in the middle of the open enrollment. i do not mean to suggest that we should not be doing oversight of the implementation of the aca, but what we're seeing from my republican colleagues is not balanced oversight. instead, the majority's efforts are designed to hamper implementation and undermine the affordable care act regardless of the facts. frankly, it's incredibly frustrating to sit here time and team again, listening to my republican colleagues lay into the administration's witnesses, criticize the efforts of their departments without any sense of perspective on the historic

gains in coverage that have been achieved. i would have hoped that by this point nearly six years after the passage of the law we could add a balanced perspective on where implementation of the law faces challenges. but just as importantly, where it is helping americans lead better lives and become more productive citizens. we should be talking about ideas to advance the mission of the law to provide quality affordable care to all of our constituents or even make key focuses whe fixes where appropriate. as cms will testify today, the aca's making a difference in the lives of millions of americans, making familiar lils stronger, states stronger, making america stronger. the law has faced challenges, but we've had many more successes than you'd ever hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. so i'm going to take a moment to make shush we hear some of the successes in today's hearing.

17.6 million people have gained coverage. since the start of this year's open enrollment period on november 1st, 2 million americans have selected plans through the federally facilitated exchange. more are making the right decision on medicaid expansion which is saving billions of dollars. preexisting conditions can no longer preclude individuals from gaining health insurance. consumers do not have to worry about losing coverage if their employment changes. reductions in the uninsured rate mean doctors and hospitals provide less uncompensated care which means fewer costs are being passed along to consumers and employers. instead of acknowledging any of these successes, my republican colleagues insist on holding more hearings and debating bills to undermine the law. this week the house may be

voting on a reconciliation bill to repeal key parts of the affordable care act. this is the 66th attempt. the republican bill eliminates subsidies for individuals purchasing coverage through the exchanges. and according to the congressional budget office, the gop bill would increase the number of uninsured americans by 22 million by 2018. it would undo many of the historic gains we've made in the past five years while doing nothing to make health care more affordable and available for all americans. as for a viable republican alternative, which republicans said they would offer for several years now, let me just say this. i'll believe it when i see it, because i haven't seen it. let's actually work in a productive bipartisan way to make the affordable care act work better instead of taking empty, meaningless votes to repeal it and take insurance coverage away from our

constituents, and i yield back. >> i ask that written opening statements be entered into the record and without objection the documents will be entered into the record. we are holding a hearing and have a practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objections to taking testimony under oath? >> i do not. >> you're entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel during the hearing today? >> no, i do not. >> do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? the witness said yes. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. >> thank you. chairman murphy, ranking member degette and ranking members of the sub committee. thank you for the invitation to

discuss state-based health care exchanges. cms is working hard to provide access to affordable care coverage. allow individuals and families access to information, tools, personal help, consumer protections and an array of options from private sector health plans, setting up and managing a state marketplace is a significant task and i'd like to talk now about how we provide oversight and assistance to the marketplaces but also watch over the american taxpayers' dollars. in considering our oversight role, it's important to understand all the responsibilities of a state-based marketplace. states must establish the infrastructure to review and qualify health plan offerings, develop call lines, interface

with state medicaid systems. develop cyber security capabilities, outreach and education functions and dozens of other functions. they are successfully ensuring millions of people. every state has had its share of challenges, including five who have had more significant i.t. challenges. and i.t. typically represents 30% to 50% of a state's budget. in discussing our three key oversight priorities, i want to focus in particular on those situations where states have had more significant challenges. our first priority is to be good stewards of the federal taxpayers' dollars. this means returning unspent dollars to the treasury and closing grants, collecting improperly spent dollars and preventing more from going out the door. over $200 million of the original grant awards have

already been returned to the federal government, and we're now in the process of collecting and returning more. this also means no new money fix i.t. problems was given or will be given to any of the five states or any of the other states that may run into difficulties. we should not pay twice for the same result. second, our job is to manage every dollar tightly. i've always been a big believer in preventing problems so we can spend less time recovering from them. every state-based marketplace has external funding sufficient to run their operations. federal money may not be used for regular operations. we do a line-item review of the expenditures a state proposes to ensure it complies with the law and conduct audits to ensure there is a full accounting of all federal dollars. important to our approach we maintain control of the purse strings in 69 times this year we've denied use of federal

funds. we also make adjustments through readiness reviews, detailed reporting of regular audits. third and perhaps most important we assist a state on getting a return on their investment as measured by the value they provide to their state. for all the challenges they've had, their ingenuity, their persistence has paid off for millions of americans. s after june 30, state-based marketplaces provided coverage to 2.9 million people, has helped millions access medicaid and the uninsured have declined an average of 47% since 2013 to under 10%. now i've worked in health care in the private sector since the early 1990s and joined the government only last year. among other things, i founded a company that assisted people who were un-and underinsured. and ran an analytics organization touching virtually

every part of the health care system. i can tell you from my perspective what a significant advancement has been made to american families in a short time by giving access to care and eliminate the worries that come from not being able to protect one a's own family. i can tell you how difficult it can be to launch and operate any new enterprise of this scale. in conclusion, i have the privilege of serving as active administrator as we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of medicare and medicaid. the perspective it offers is that at this early stage of the marketplace there are millions still to educate and enroll and leaders are continuing to find the best, most efficient ways of meeting the needs of these populations. cms's oversight responsibilities are critical in this equation. cms must not only be accountable for these responsibilities but we must take every opportunity to find ways to improve how we do our job, including taking

outside input so we can best provide affordable coverage for consumers and presenting the investment by taxpayers. we do appreciate the sub committee's interest this this area, and i am happy to answer your questions. >> i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. the office of inspector general found that washington state budgeted $10 million federal dollars for expenses including printing and postage fees from july through december 31st of this year. these expenses are prohibited, but cms had approved them in washington's grant application. i know you said you disprove them but how do you explain that? >> the early alert stated that there was a potential that there may have been misspent funds, but i don't think oig made that conclusion, and we conducted an

investigation and looked through all their funds, i think there were a pewfew adjustments made, state of washington by and large is spending its money and categorized it properly. we do have one small collection that we are undertaking with the state of washington, but that's in process. >> but the oig did say that was occurring, but you said there has been an adjustment made? >> there's been plenty of adjustments, we have by background hundreds of interactions with the states. we rely all their line items and budgets monthly. so at any point in time they may have found something that they thought was classified improperly. we take advantage of the work of the oig and go conduct further the investigation ourselves. i don't believe we think all those 10 million were unclassified. >> would you have found these if the oig had not pointed these out? >> i wouldn't represent that our team finds everything. i would say that we have

multiple pieces of the process, most important being prevention. once the dollar goes out the door, you have to spend an effort to collect it. so we spend a lot of effort preventing things from being misclassified. we do find things and collect them. and i think oig also finds things that we don't find, and when we do, we have a period of time that extends three years past when the time periods end, and the clock hasn't started ticking yet, so we will make sure we collect anything that gets uncovered. >> will you then post what your findings are in the oig to show this is an inappropriate category and notify states that if you have spent money in these categories you will be asked to return that money? >> yes, states are all aware. >> is it appropriate for state exchanges to transition healthcare.gov after spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on their own sites, and shouldn't there be other

consequences? they failed and later they said sorry, it didn't work out. does that seem appropriate? >> i think it's important for us to recognize, states have the right under the law to decide whether they want to be a state-based exchange or federal exchange or to be a state-based exchange and use our platform. they have the right to change their mind for a variety of means including technical and otherwise. we think that's important. what also is important is if we find any money has been misspent or granted money we believe the state no longer needs, we control the purse springtrings. we have collected money from the state of maryland. >> with regard to the states trying to get into the insurance business and didn't work out for many states, but there's no real consequence if they were able to take the money, say, toss their hands up and say well, turns out it didn't work out, we'll just go to the federal exchange.

many of us have a concern, if there are no consequences then that's hardly a lesson. this is what i want to know. do you have any plan or intention to gather back, to recoup the federal funds that have been provided to states to set up their exchanges only to shift into healthcare.gov? >> there's five states that have had most significant i.t. challenges. two of them maintained the role as state exchanges. three of them are using the federal platform but are still state-based exchanges. in each of those cases it's slightly different. in one of those cases we have recovered money. in another case, the state, two of the other case, states in processes of trying to recover money, after which wlee try to go after our federal share. one of the other states we in the process of closing down and collecting some money. it varies by state. but even states that had challenges, they were, by every measure, able to enroll people, they had contingency plans and

eventually able to set up a system that worked, which extends, as he said earlier -- >> i understand that, but it was after a lot of failure and waste of money. and i would love if you could give us something in writing of what your specific plan is with recouping these federal tax dollars. >> mr. chairman, i'm assuming that you're referring to this gao report from september 2015 to congress? >> yes. >> in these questions? i'd askew nan muss consent to make that part of the record as well. >> yes. >> have you also reviewed this gao report? >> yes, i have. >> that the chairman was asking you about? and one of the things that they said is that it was their finding that cms that, had established a framework for oversight, but it wasn't always effectively executed. did you see that finding? >> yes, i did. >> and what, what's cms's response to that, to that

finding? >> yeah, i believe we concurred with that finding. you know, from our perspective, we are overseeing a lot of grants, so engaging the oig, which we have worked in partnership with as well as gao are very helpful to us. and we take action when we get those findings. >> so did you take action as a result of that concurrence? >> yes, we did. >> what did you do, briefly. >> we built a tool which allows and monitors all of the funding before it occurs, so we're able to collect money, to stop money from going out the door that shouldn't. >> i think this hooks onto the question the chairman was asking you. if could you supplement your answers by letting us know the policies that you've implemented, i think that would be great. >> yes. >> now, can you tell me about cms's interactions with sbm officials like weekly check-in calls and site visits? >> yes, i think we have dozens if not hundreds of interactions that relate to issues such as

weekly check-in calls to site visits to audits. >> there. administrator, what types of reporting are required from cms establishment grant recipients, and how are they used by cms? >> so, you know, we conducted at omb a one, two, three financial audit. we have a smart program audit, an externts security audit. the states have their own audits, legislature audits. so these numbers get pored over. >> and then how do you use them? >> well, if we find that money's

been improperly classified either as a cost allocation or as an operating expense when it wasn't, we go collect it. >> and what types of independent assessments and audits are required? >> well, there's the omb audit. >>. mm-hm. >> there's a large variety of audits that follow these. >> sometimes i think as you said before states do misclassify or misuse the grants. so what steps does cms take then to bring the state back into compliance? >> to give you an example, we found that in the case of arkansas, roughly $1 million and we've notified them. and we're in the process of collecting that. there's three other states that have amounts of money that we thought were misclassified but also emphasized, congresswoman, we do a lot more to prevent these from happening. >> that was my next question, yeah. go ahead. >> i think 69 times this year we

have caught in a request something to be used for generally an operating purpose that we didn't believe was an operating purpose, we believed, i'm sorry, for a development process, and we denied the funding. >> in reviewing the original app. >> reviewing the original request. >> and what types of evaluation can cms conduct on no-cost extension requests. >> pretty extensive. it needs to be to fulfill what's part of their work plan that three have set up and that they just need more time to establish. we all know that these things are taking a little more time to implement than people originally thought. >> now i just want to shift, shift my questioning for a second. to talk about some of the things the aca is doing. the most recent data from the cdc and census bureau found that the uninsured rate has fallen to 9% from 16% in 2010.

i'm wondering, is this a new historic low in the uninsured rate? >> i believe it is. >> do you believe that the medicaid expansion has played a significant role in these reductions? >> it has. >> why do you say that? >> because we see millions of people in the states that have expanded medicaid who now have access to coverage largely for the first time. >> they didn't have insurance before. >> they didn't have insurance before. >> and for these vulnerable citizens, can you talk about how the medicaid expansion has impacted them? >> yeah, certainly. i think very briefly, congresswoman, when these families get access to health care for the first time, it changes their participation in the community and in many profound ways, but it keeps them healthier and i think it reduces costs for the long term. >> thank you very much. >> we now recognize ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. slavitt, let's go to page

886 of the dao report. >> i don't have it in front of me. >> on page 86, what you find is the grants that have gone out, and the pool of money, which was $4.5 billion. and you've sent about $1.3 billion out the door. so what we want to know is, where's the balance of the money? where's it currently sitting? >> yeah. >> do you have a proper accounting of that? >> we do. we, in fact, we can provide you with an accounting of every dollar that's been spent, every dollar that hasn't been spent but we still have control of, and we're in the process in many cases of pulling that money back. >> okay. then do provide us >> we will. >> with that accounting, because we will need to see that. and, you know, if there is money that you are, let's go to the arkansas situation. >> okay. >> i know you had said there was a million dollars there

unallowable. so tying back in to what the chairman was asking you, when you have a situation, do you give them a plan of action and a timeline for returning that money to the treasury? >> yes. sometimes there's a little negotiation at first, but then we do that, yes. >> okay. it seems interesting there would be negotiation if they used it for something that was not allowed. >> well, i think really this is all a matter of us explaining to them why we believe it was unallowable. they're reviewing it, reviewing with their lawyers. it takes a little bit of time. >> all right. how many other states have utilized funds for unalouables? >> for unallowables? i can think of at least three. >> and you plan to get all that money back? >> we do. >> excellent. that sounds good. i, also in the gao report, one of the things that is of concern to me is they say none, zero,

nobody, not a one of these exchanges are meeting the desired operational outcomes in all functional categories envisioned by cms. so at this stage of the process, doesn't this demonstrate that the systems are incomplete and incapable of functioning properly? >> what i could tell you today is that all of the exchanges are functioning, serving the members in their states and their communities. and some of, all of them have run into their share of challenges. none of this was easy. some of them bigger challenges than others. but there have been some that are very successful, and i think the experimentation level of states -- >> then how do you answer the gao's assessment that none are meeting the desired functional outcomes? >> i think at any given point in time there have been challenges, things that have been delayed,

have been in the contingency plans. >> but nobody is meeting the desired outcomes. we continue to get complaints about these exchanges. we hear from people that, you know, the dissatisfaction is rampant. it costs too much, it's too expensive to use. the exchanges don't work, and then you get a gao report that says nobody is hitting the metrics. so why do you continue to put money in on this, if they're not meeting the functional outcomes, the desired outcomes? why are you continuing to put money into this is this >> so i understand the question. and it's an important question. of course, 2.9 million people have been covered. that's the point of these coverages. they are reaching the needs of populations that have never been meant before. >> so we've spent or could spend $4.5 billion to get access to

2.9 million people. that's what you're saying. >> i'm saying the states have reduced their uninsured rate, the states that have state-based marketplaces to under 10%. and they're still in the establishment phase. it's still early on. if there's money that's improperly spent or money part of a grant that's no longer needed we have every ability to collect that money, and we'll bring it back. >> so if you were in the private sector and you were five years into a rollout and you weren't functional, would you give yourself an a or an f? >> i wouldn't agree with characteristic that they are not functional. >> the gao says they are not, so you are disagreeing with the gao report? >> i would say at this point the states are all functional. >> so you disagree. the gao says not any of them have hit the desired operational outcomes in all functional categories. mr. slavitt, it means, it ain't

workin'. >> let me take a look at the language they used and let me get back to you on the -- >> well, i would think that you would have known that answer if you're functional or not before you came to us. yield back. >> now recognize mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. despite countless attempts by the republicans to repeal and undermine and defund the affordable care act, it is making affordable, comprehensive coverage a reality for american families. according to recent cdc data, the uninsured rate has dropped to a historic low of 9% down from 16%. so i want to ask administrator slavitt, can you put this in historic perspective? how significant is this drop in the uninsured rate, and can you comment on how the different coverage provisions of the aca have operated to result in these gains in insurance coverage? >> well, since at least i've been in health care in the early

199 1990s there's been very little progress. so these strike me as fairly significant improvements. i think they've come both from medicaid expansion as well as the offering of qualified health plans through the exchange. >> and you said, of course, that these gains really are historic, and i want to thank you for your contributions to making health insurance more affordable and available to millions of americans, but looking to the ut into, it's my understanding that this open enrollment and future seasons are more challenging, because there are some that are hard to reach. >> that's correct. >> many of the uninsured are actually still unaware or confused about how federal

>> what is cms doing to communicate so that they understand that they may be eligible for the subsidies? i don't know if you answered that, but i'd like to know more

specifically, if you could. >> for us, it's really a function as you said congressman, making sure people are aware that there are subsidies, that there are plenty of choices available. >> these are people many of whom didn't have health insurance for a long time. so they're not as connected to the process as the people who have been engaged so far. >> ply own experience, when you began the open enrollment, i guess, was what, in the early part of november? is that when it began? >> november 1st. >> and we had a couple of events at, you know, the centers that were being set up. and there was a lot of, you know, outreach that was done, not so much in the traditional way, you know, with ads or media type things, but more, you know,

just with people going around, you know, fliers and, you know, knocking on doors and that type of thing. and we did get a lot of people actually show up. you know, even that first day, and you know, it's hard, a lot of times you have to, you know, figure out exactly where your placement center is. you know, operate on weekends, you know, do things that are not easy, to be honest, just to get people, and i just think that, you know, i know that a very good job is being done right now, you know, during this period to try to get to the people, but it is hard, and i, i just, you know, even when i talk to people one on one and i explain to them, you know, that they can get help with their premium, they're kind of shocked by it, which, to me, is surprising six years after, you know, we voted on this that people still don't understand that they can get help with their premium, but that's the reality. >> this is one of the successes of state-based marketplaces

because they understand their local populations better than anyone could here in washington, d.c., and i think they do a nice job of that. >> thank you. >> the chair will recognize mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for appearing for us, mr. slavitt. several comments. one, i think, when your opening remarks you touched on some of your mission statement of providing oversight and assistance, but what was missing, i thought, maybe i because my hearing loss, i might have missed something, but i didn't hear about accountability. trying to give us, give some guidance to the people, not only your own staff, but those affected parties with it. and the chairman talked a little bit about accountability. and i know coming from the private sector, there is accountability. we, just a quick grab this morning of things here with a person that, because he had

committed fraud, he's going to spend 30 months in prison. here was another one that paid $7 million in restitution to nih. here's another individual, 27 months for $335,000. in fraudulent documentation. and here's another one. person is going to spend 3364 days for inappropriate expenditures. what are we doing? just checking the box that you're providing guidance? or are you holding people accountability? either in your department or, like arkansas, is anyone going to be held accountable? >> we are accountable for making sure that the federal tax dollars are getting spent properly and we are accountable and have been collecting federal tax dollars when they've been

misused or not. >> has anyone lost their job? >> at a state, in the state? >> in the state or in your own department, if you've, if you, they've given inappropriate advice. these people all have gone to prison as a result of doing something wrong. >> i can't speak to what's happening in the states. but i would tell you that just because a state misclassified information doesn't necessarily mean that they did it with intent, and each case, as you now, it know, it's case by case. >> i keep looking for a good analogy and a quick term. you seem to be like a policeman or a state trooper along the road trying to people guided and under control, but when they speed, they're ticketed, they're fined. i'm just wondering what you're doing for accountability after that, if they abuse it, then they should be paying for it. >> well, we're certainly willing to make all these things a matter of public record as we

have. >> but you don't have anyone has been held accountable for anything going on. >> i'm sure there have been people throughout the exchanges who have lost their jobs. >> could you share that back with me and the names of any -- just give me a handful of names. because surelily during this process as convoluted as it's been, there's someone that should be held accountable for it. and just in closing, you had mentioned about the affordability. i would, with all due respect i have a little problem because in west virginia we only have one exchange representing the majority of the state. and there, their costs are going to be increasing 19.7% if their rate is approved. that's, that's not affordable. what should be done? what can we do in west virginia? almost a 20% hike in premiums. >> yes, i believe west virginia has seen an uninsured rate from

17.6% to 8%. >> that's not high question. the question is affordability. that's part of the title of this bill is the affordable care act. but under the entitlement, they can't afford it. >> i'll be happy to get back with you with specifics around the state of west virginia. what i can tell you is that for the majority of the residents, they still have opportunities to get covered for less than $100 per month. no doubt we take accountability seriously and i'm happy toe wy with you on the state specifically. >> i want accountability. that's what we started with. who is going to be responsible for what's happening out here? all in federal government, but in yours right now is over this affordable care act. who's being held accountable? i look forward to talking to you. yield back. >> mr. mckinley, when you referred to the affordability, are you referring to the premiums?

deductibles? all of this together. >> the premiums themselves are 19.7% increase. >> i think there's laalso conce for the deductibles. >> now from florida ms. castor. >> survey after survey over the past year all confirm that the percentage of uninsured americans has declined substantially. due to both the affordable care act exchanges in marketplaces and also due to the expansion of medicaid in many states. in fact, the census data from september found that the uninsured rate dropped in each and every state. and this is a wonderful accomplishment. it was one of the overriding goals to ensure that our neighbors have that very basic, fundamental access to affordable

health care. although all states saw a reduction in the uninsured rate, states that set up their own state-based marketplaces and expanded medicaid saw the greatest gains. for example according to the census data and mr. yarmuth will like this, from 2013 to 2014, kentucky showed an over 40% drop in the uninsured rate. oregon's rate dropped 34%, and minnesota's rate dropped 28%, and further declines in uninsured rates are likely to continue into the next year. now florida, my home state doesn't have a state-based marketplace, but we're going gangbusters on the number of my neighbors now, that have access to an affordable plan. and it was announced just last week that as my neighbors enroll and renew coverage, we're approaching over 500,000 so far, just over the past four weeks, that's out of the 2 million all

across the country that are renewing in the federal marketplaces. and if you all are looking for a holiday gift for a loved one, for your son or daughter or niece or nephew, be sure to get them enrolled by december 15th. because then they can start their coverage on january 1st. we're very fortunate in the tampa bay area, the average cost of our standard of exchange insurance plan is actually dropping this year. and so it is very helpful to have that competition in the areas where we have that competition costs and the costs of plans are going down. but back to the state-based exchanges is that right slavitt, what do the declines tell us about the state-based marketplaces? do you think they are succeeding overall? >> yes, congresswoman, i think they are. i think the state-based marketplaces are on arm doing even better than the federal

marketplaces. >> and do you have a sense of how many people have enrolled in coverage through the state-based marketplaces so far? >> ago of june 30th, the numbers with roughly 2.9 million people. >> and what role has the premium support played in that? and who receives the premium support? who's it available to? >> sure. so the cost sharing reductions and the tax credits that are available through the affordable care act really are allowing people to afford their coverage for the first time in many of these places, so it's been a big impact. >> and what we've found in florida is it's kind of complicated for folks who've never had the ability to afford health care before, the navigators are playing a very important role, because they'll sit down with you and go through all of the options and what makes sense for you or your family. and you've seen this same thing across the country? >> absolutely. absolutely. i was just at a community center and saw the exact same thing.

>> and what more can we do to continue to lower the uninsured rates even further? >> so we are willing to work with any state that hasn't yet expanded medicaid that is interested in having a conversation. >> yeah, that's my state. boy, we have thousands and thousands of my neighbors. and it's just been, governor scott's been so intransigent, while it shows that it would lower costs, the chamber of businesses, hospital, okay, you're willing to work, but what happens when you run into this wall of unreasonableness and unwillingness to expand medicaid? >> year' willing to work with any state. we know the states have their local concerns and we're willing to entertain them on their terms. we open for business for states that are interested. >> i know you're still willing to talk to florida. i hope we can put the coalition together again to do it. and even though we have those challenges in certain states on

medicaid, and there are going to be glitches and audit reports that are not so favorable in some ways, it's still important to remember the purpose of these exchanges and the grants that support them is to provide affordable health coverage. and it's great to see that the affordable care act is providing that lifeline to affordable coverage and consumer protections and that the state and federal exchanges are achieving those goals, so thank you very much. >> gentleman yields back, recognize dr. burgess for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. slavitt, i'm going to depart a little bit from the stated purpose of the hearing. it's so rare that we get the cms administrator in here, i think it's two or three years, so there's some things that i feel that i need to ask you since i have the opportunity to do so. but first, i want to offer to colleagues on the other side of the dais complaints that no one

on the republican side is trying to improve anything in health care, i have had a bill out there hr 1196 which would al lou the bronze and silver level plans to be each considered as a an hsa compliant plan. you have high deductible insurance. when i had an hsa i had a higher deductible. and i could put some of that money away to use toward that high deductible. we've made it very, very difficult for people who have these high deductible policies, but, again, i'd encourage people on the other side of the dails to look at hr 1196. if you can suggest improvements we have something to talk about. but it says every silver and bronze plan would be hsa compatible. you wouldn't have to look to find one that's hsa compatible. they would be.

and another thing that's straightforward, currently i have a health savings account. i'm capped at $3400 a year that i can contribute, but my deductible is $6,000 on a bronze plan in the ppo, so why not make those two amounts equal? and if the deductible is $6,000 in a bronze or silver level plan, let that be the cap on the amount they put away into the health savings account. now, as i sit here and listen to the discussion on both sides of the dais, i feel like i'm stuck in a dickens novel. it's the best of times. it's worst of times. so i think the fair observation is that the affordable care act has never had, never had even a plurality of positivity. it's about a 52% to 53% negative right now, when you look at the polling numbers. you have to ask yourself, you're giving something away, why aren't people liking it more. and the answer is because even though you're giving something away, it's still really

expensive to live under the affordable care act. now my personal experience, i rejected the special deal for member of congress, and i just took a bronze plan at healthcare.gov, one of the most miserable experiences i've ever been through trying to get signed up for that darn thing, but look, i've got an insurance premium that's higher than i've ever paid in my life. i have a deductible that quite honestly leaves me, at least in my consideration functionally uninsured. people have asked me, is your doctor on the list of providers you can go to? i don't know, because i'm not going to look, because i'm not going to go to the doctor. if i can't fix it myself, that's that. but i'm not going to spend $6,000 on an office call or e.r. visit. and most people actually fall into that katz gore. so once again, even though you have people with that insurance you have people financing a lot of their day to day health care needs out of cash flow, which is exactly the way it was before, the only difference was you could in fact buy an affordable

policy before, now you simply cannot, and oh, by the way, we're going to fine you if you don't do that. i also have a question about some of the implementation on the affordable care act, and i apologize for doing this to you without warning you before. but section 1311 h, sub section b, which deals with hs, we're talking about the exchanges. h deals with quality improvement, enhancing patient safety, a hospital greater than 50 beds. next paragraph is b, a health care provider. and here are health care providers that can work in the exchange only if a provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the secretary by regulation may require. and the start date for that was january of this year. so my question to you is have the rules been written on 1311 h

when my provider friends ask me where, where is this in the rule making process, has that in fact happened? are people going to be excluded from the exchanges because they don't meet the secretary's definition of quality, and has the secretary defined quality, and are those definitions likely to change? >> thanks. so i think your question was relative to how we're implementing the quality provisions in the affordable care act relative to exchanges. and i could spend more time with you, either here or in another setting, kind of taking you through the quality steps we're introducing a whole series of quality reporting measures that are going to be coming with the exchange shortly. i think i understood -- >> have you excluded a provider based on quality? >> i'm not sure i understand your question correctly. i want to make sure that i said it at particular sub section. we do reviews, and i think we do

reviews based upon the network adequacy. i'm not sure we've yet excluded any provider for quality purposes at this point, but i will get back to you. >> chair recognizes mr. tonko for five minutes. >> thaurngs and welcome administrator. as you mentioned in your opening testimony we need to keep in perspective that the affordable care act is working. and it is working best in states that have embraced the law and taken advantage of the tools that the affordable care act provides. when states take ownership of the law and its benefits, the residents of that state see better outcomes. and let he use as an example my home state of new york. we expanded medicaid. we set up our own exchange, the new york state of health. and this year we are one of the first states to utilized basic health plan option known in new york as the essential plan. the essential plan will help people toward the lower end of

the income spectrum but above the medicaid eligibility line to gain access to quality health insurance for as little as $20 per month. because new york has taken a proactive approach to health care reform, the citizens in our state have reaped the benefits. more than 2 million new yorkers have enrolled in coverage because of the affordable care act. certainly, with that in mind and across the board, states have been have pursued the state-based marketplace models. and they're serving as laboratories for innovation, testing new roles for enrollment and consumer protection and they are tailoring the aca to their own given citizens. with that in mind, administrator, california has been a leader in the active purchaser model. can you explain what this is and

how this has helped covered california ensure access to high-quality, affordable health insurance coverage? >> thank you for the question. i think this is an example of a state innovation where california has really been, as the description says, actively involved in defining the benefit offerings for the residents of their state. i think quite successfully given both the number of people that have been covered, but also the management of the rate of cost has been, i think done a very nice job. >> now are other states taking steps that you know of to qualified health plans? >> i believe there are several others, yes. >> any number that you have in mind of how many states? >> let me get back to you on the exact number. >> thank you. and what are the steps are the sbms taking to improve the

quality of care to transform the health care delivery system? >> i got back from a tour of several states. and they're each doing unique, innovative things. some are reaching out into communities where they've got specific needs. but, again, i think this is a benefit of the model of the state having their own, operating their own exchange. it gives them more control to be able to taylor things to the needs of their population. >> and as we move forward, does cms plan to encourage states to set up and operate their own exchanges? what federal support will exist out there? will remain for our other states to plan to ten continue their o exchanges? >> the law provides every state the flexibility to make their own decision, but we will of course support any state that wants to set up a state-based marketplace. today if the state wants to do this, they get the benefit of

all the best practices and lessons learned that the states that originally did it didn't have access to. >> did we hear, do you hear from residents of these given states that have not expanded medicaid, for example, or established their own exchanges? do you hear from any of the consumers? >> we do. we do frequently. >> and what's the, what's that dialog like? is it one of concern? frustration? >> you know, i think anybody who doesn't have coverage has to manage their own personal family situation very differently than the rest of us do. they have to be, they don't, you know, they don't do things, typically like let their kids play sport in school, because they might get hurt or injured. so there's a whole set of things that are in the insecurity of people's lives that those of us who have insurance don't have to deal with every day. >> well, i certainly appreciate the work that you're doing. i know that it takes a lot of focus and concerted effort to

move us into, transition us into a new era of health care delivery, and we thank you for the work that you're doing at the agency. with that, mr. chair, he yield back. >> yeah yields back, and i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. the aca wanted the state exchanges to be self-sustaining after january 2015. and yet, as you heard earlier today, according to the gao report, the greatest challenges that stating with state-based marketplaces face are one inadequate staff and two, inadequate funding. and you answered a question earlier. and in that question, you said this. you said state-based exchanges are doing better than federal exchanges. so given that the gao report says that the state-based exchanges are having a problem, it doesn't foretell good news for the federal exchange.

none of the state-based exchanges were fully operational in all the required functional katz goers as of february 2013. y you heard that from ms. blackburn's presentation. they failed to be self-sustaining. my question is this. how many more state exchanges do you expect to fail to make the transition to the federal exchange? >> i believe what i said earlier that the states have been even more successful at reducing uninsured rate. the national average has been 45%. state-based exchanges have done about 47%. i think both successful, states even more so. >> let's go to my question. do you expect more state exchanges to fail to make the transition to the federal exchange? >> all the states have access to a source of their own funding, either through an assessment that they have on the health insurers in their state. >> so are you saying no state exchanges are going to fail? >> i'm saying all have funding.

it's a dynamic world. we do an evaluation at least twice a year. >> based on those evaluations, how many state exchanges do you expect to fail and move to the federal the system? >> i can't predict, because there are a lot of factors, including their own decision about -- >> given this trend, do you think the self-sustainability is and always has been a serious situation facing these exchanges? the state exchanges? >> so, as i said, as of today all the states are sustainable. whether they will be in the future, i'm not willing to predict. but as of today they are. >> the underlying economics of the aca have not changed since its inception. was there any work that cms did that could have predicted that these state exchanges would fail? i mean, did you know in advance that any of the state exchanges would fail because of

sustainability? >> a lot of this comes before my time, but i wouldn't classify a challenge as a failure. i think every state has had challenges. but every state today is successfully enrolling individuals in their state, and every state has sources of funds sufficient too run the run thei operations, so i would measure that as a success. >> whether cms mchlt schlms grs to set of exchanges, how did states like hawaii set up their exchanges. >> these are decisions made before my time. so i cannot speak to what was being thought of at the time. it's an ongoing process for states to make that evaluation, and as i think you're aware, the stating of nevada and hawaii have decided it would be more efficient to maintain the state-based exchange but use our platform. >> they're broke and couldn't sustain themselves.

how much has been recovered, i would ask for granularity from that and each state how much each state still owes that they have not repaid back to the federal government. and the last question, how would you ensure the states have not used and will not use grant funds for improper expenses after january 1st, 2015. >> yes, i will provide that information that you requested. and we do this through several steps. most importantly is to prevent them from spending the money improperly in the first place, this year, 2015, 69 occasions we have rejected a state's request to spend the money improperly. if it turns out that they have, for some reason, we conduct an audit, and we go back, and then we go through a collection process as i've said. we have the first several states that we've begun the process for have begun to refund money, and we take that very seriously. >> thank you. i yield back my time.

>> the chair recognizes another gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> thank cms for working with us on something other than the gao report. blue cross blue shield recently announced that they will no longer be offering a ppo plan in the national exchange in texas and also in the individual market. this means there's no ppo plans on the individual and exchanges policies as a result specialty like md anderson and houston texas children's hospital would be out of network. group plans are not under the same decision, so they will still have ppos, blue cross and blue shield texas pulled the plan saying it is no longer financially feasible, that they could not raise rates for ppos without raising rates for all the plans. this is not limited to the texas example, because we are a national exchange and not a

state exchange, but was reported as an issue in other exchanges across the country. what can cms do to address the issue of network adequacy that would ensure that plans with premiere and hospital in network are available to consumers in the original market? >> thank you for the question. we have just released a proposed rule around network adequacy. the national association of insurance commissioners has also done some work in this area. but let me also say that this is an early stage of a market. and consumers are in the process of communicating through what plans they choose what things they're willing to pay for, what things they value and what things they don't. and they're trying to figure out offerings that are affordable and meet the needs of individuals. i think we need to recognize this is still in year three of an early set of offerings, and i think if consumers suggest that they will want certain things in their networks, my suspicion is that the health plans in those

states will begin to make those things available. >> the houston market, if you don't have texas childrens or md anderson or a major full purpose hospital in our system, it's going to limit using. from your perspective, is there any actions that congress can take to address this issue? >> i think we should just continue to listen to, all of us continue to listen to residents and make sure we adjust and adapt whatever our regulations are or however we are viewing this in the context of making sure that people are getting their basic needs met, and we make sure that sh sufficient network adequacy, and we do a review prior to allowing a state to go on the exchange, and if we hear problems we'd like your office to let us know of specific instances. >> let me talk about the open enrollment for 2016.

november 1st marked the beginning. i heard mentions of how things are going. i realize you may not be able to speak to the federal marketplace in terms of early data, but how are things going with the open enrollment period and how many po folks are shopping? >> i think we've had 3.5 million applications and 2 million plan selections of i believe 1.3 million have been to renew coverage and 700,000 have been to get new coverage. and of course, we are now just beginning a, what has been a very big ramp up period between now and december 15th. people tend to be deadline driven, and this week we are seeing that acceleration we expect to see through the middle of december. >> in our area in houston, both with the original signup and the second time, you're right, we

all procrastinate. what types of indications are you receiving from the states on their enrollment? any information on how enrollment's going in states that have their own plan? >> i've seen some preliminary data. it looks to be pretty well on track to what they expected so far. >> i understand state-based marketplaces as well as health ca care.gov are ofteningen hanced shopping and tools to help consumers make better choices. can you elaborate on what things are being offered to consumers and why are such innovations important? >> i think one thing that's very important for consumers to know is 80% of consumers i believe is the right number have access to plans that offer services like primary care visits, prescription drugs outside of the deductible. they don't need to meet the deductible before they hit them.

and the tools you're describing allow people to understand whether a physician is in their network, whether a drug is in their specific plan and how to make the tradeoffs exist between co-insurance and premium levels which i think is a complicated thing for people. so state-based exchanges as well as the federal exchange all have those types of tools -- i shouldn't say all. many of them and certainly the federal market place has those tools available. >> thank you. >> now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullin, from for five minutes. >>. >> thanks for being here today. i, i know sometimes that seat must get uncomfortable. but there's real questions and real concerns, and i don't want people to get caught up thinking this is a partisan issue, because really, this is about taxpayer dollars, and what's been going on with it and if they're being misused. if we remember back, this was

supposed to be budget neutral, and that hasn't taken place, and so now the american taxpayers are on the hook for it. and what's happening with the dollars? where are they going? what's the accountability process? and so i kind of want to maybe go down a different path with you. my understanding is that stating operate on the federal exchange receive a 3.5% user fee? for the platform, is that correct? >> the health plans for the states. >> the health plan does? what happens to the 3.5% user fee? >> it going to fund exchange operations. >> who pays that? does the state pay that? or >> the health insurance company. >> the company does? so the user, the insurer. >> the insurer, yes. >> so it gets passed down to them. if the state closes its market place and transitions into the healthcare.gov, is it required, is it required to charge the 3.5%?

>> if a state continues to operate as a state-based marketplace. >> right. >> but uses the federal platform, we just have a rule that was proposed last month that's proposed, so it's still open for comment period on what the fee would be and the fee that's proposed is 3%. >> the states that are currently on it, though, do they pay it? do the insurers that participate in the fee states such as oklahoma? >> the states that are -- >> well, we have some states that have obviously closed down, and they've wednesdnt now, if it mistaken here, they've went into the marketplace or transitioned into healthcare.gov, are they currently having to pay the 3.5% to participate in healthcare.gov such as other states that were already in it. >> again, the states don't make the payment, the plans do. >> the plans do, but they're operating inside the state. >> yes, and the proposed rule is

for 2017. >> so oregon, nevada and hawaii that recently came out. >> yes. >> they're not, they're users inside the state, their insurers inside the state, are they required to pay the 3.5%? >> no, they make the payment to the state.