indicates, the article limb cost american taxpayers between $50,000 and $75,000 but it was nowhere to be found after masud had directed a homicide attack that killed 31 people and then two months later blew himself up to avoid capture. now, that was in 2005 that he came to -- it was in 2005 he'd been released and did that. so you would think that a small administration would come in and learn from mistakes of prior administrations. we heard friends across the aisle over here say over and over you got to stop deficit spending.

friends across the aisle won the majority in 2006 for that very reason. republicans were deficit spending. and now by a margin of about eight or 10-1 that's been increased in deficit spending for one year. extraordinary. then we get back to the issue of morality because this is what it all comes back to. as chuck olson said previously, when you demand the morals of woodstock you're going to have to expect some columbines. now, think about it. when the morality that's demanded by those in charge is one that says if it feels god do it, then somewhere you are going to have some nut that thinks it might be interesting to find out how it feels to

kill people. might feel good so let's do it. you can't demand the morality of woodstock and not expect some terrible tragedies to be wrought from that. now, it can also be pointed in the direction of the loss of life of the unborn. we used to talk in terms of over 40 million abortions. now we're talking about over 50 million abortions. so we got to get back to a morality that recognizes there's something more important than ourselves and it's not the government. it is that we have been undo youed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

and unless we're willing to fight for our endowment, to fight for our inheritness, then as so many generations and so many countries before us we lose that for which so many paid the ultimate price. now, mr. speaker, i was informed that there is a bill that needs to be taken up at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4173, an act to provide for financial regulatory reform to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate over-the-counter derivatives markets and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

reclaiming my time. we have an obligation as a government to protect those who have entrusted us with this responsibility. when i was a judge, one of the jobs was to qualify people for jury duty for anything from significant civil cases to capital murder cases. and there were some disqualifications listed in statute, and many times, thank godness not that often, over my 10 years i'd have people come in and say i won't be able to be qualified to be on a jury because i'm a christian. i'm not supposed to judged unless i am judged and i am supposed to turn the other

cheek. and what they don't understand -- and i never sought to use my position to force my beliefs on someone else -- but if they'd read their scripture more carefully they'd fine out as individuals we're to forgive and turn the other cheek. but the government is given responsibility that no individual has. as romans talks about, god is given a sword and the government is his minister to punish evil. and if you do evil, be afraid, because that sword is not given in vain. and you have to understand our history and that's where maybe we begin to fall down. when people didn't learn our history and they didn't find out that the founders were so excited. 1775, 1776, especially around

the time the declaration, july 4, 1776, because they said we have within our grasp something that people dreamed about. we have the chance to govern ourselves. in england they had a parliament but the king could throw them out at any time and they did. this was going to be a nation for the first time, not like rome where there was a caesar, but where people would govern themselves. and that sword would be given not to a caesar, not to a king, not to a duke, but to the people, we the people. so a method of government was set up such that the people, as the government would hire servants to come in and do what they hired them to do.

and if they didn't do what they were hired to do and said they would do, were told to do, well, then, they could be fired and replaced by other servants, public servants, to do what the government, the people, we the people, said must be done. so when citizens of this country, these united states, are called for jury duty and they refuse to serve and they try to do so on the basis of saying, well, i'm a christian, then they have rejected romans, they rejected teaching in both and new testament. they have rejected the sword, the power that was ordained and put in their hand saying i'm not going to do my job, i reject the power that god has placed at my disposal to protect my country. and when people don't go out and vote, same thing.

they are rejecting the power that was put in their hand to govern this country. and when they don't support good candidates, they are rejecting the power that was put in their hands to hire their own servants to carry out the will. and when they don't run for office when they feel that calling to do so, same thing. they can't say they're an obedient christian the way i read scripture and the way so many of us and the founders of this country read it if they're willing to walk away from that power that is put in their hand to govern this country by hiring servants and firing servants when they don't do their jobs. now, i've been told by my staff, you have to be careful talking about those things because you have an election every two years. somebody could come in and say,

ok, using your words against you. the people have the right to hire and fire and so i'm saying it's time to fire you. well, i'm not afraid of that because i believe i'm doing what my district hired me to do. and i serve at their pleasure and at their will, and if they say i'm not doing the proper job, because i believe in this little experiment in elected represented government, this incredible gift that this nation was given so long ago and has fought to keep ever since, i believe in it to the point that, yes, it will hurt to be defeated, hurt your pride. but i can also say, thank you, lord, i know there's something else for me to do. the people for good, for bad and in a democracy get the government they deserve. and i think it's too important that people understand that, to

worry about somebody using my own words against me, come on and use them. speaking of the record, we were talking about guantanamo and people, detainees that have been released. this article was incredibly good news. the headline in "the new york times" said, five charged in 9/11 attacks seek to plead guilty. hallelujah, what great news that is. from guantanamo bay, cuba, the five guantanamo detainees charged with coordinating the september 11 attacks told a military judge on monday that they wanted to confess in full, a move that seemed to challenge

the government to put them to death. that's such great news, such great news. unfortunately, that was on december 9, 2008. december 9, 2008, the five people alive, still most responsible for the killing, the wanton, lustful, murderous killing of over 3,000 people in new york city and in the pentagon were ready to plead guilty, and this administration came in and snatched defeat for justice from the jaws of victory. it just seems like somebody

owes an apology to the victims' families from 9/11 for taking a victory, from justice being done and throwing it away, costing millions -- some project hundreds of millions, maybe billions -- to try these terrorists who two years ago were ready to plead guilty. and now with the encouragement of this administration are ready to play games. very tragic. well, as the last minutes come to an end for this session of congress for today which will be the last for this week, i want to close, as i try to normally do, by pointing to

some history so that, mr. speaker, people will understand where we came from. there's no way to really chart a good path of where you're going in the future unless you honestly know where you're going -- where you've been without it being a deception. there are those that continue to say george washington, he was not a religious man, he was a diest. didn't really believe in religion, didn't practice religion and those are great lies. anyone can go read the huge book, "george washington: sacred fire," the same guy that wrote this, over in philadelphia. here is a -- a letter, text

written by the moderator by the presbyterian general assembly, reverend john rogers, in his correspondence with washington during the war about giving away bibles to the american troops. and here's what was written. the presbyterians as a group wrote, we adore almighty god, the author of every perfect gift, who on mount washington, george washington, had such assembly of talents, has rentered you equally necessary to your country in war and in peace, the influence of your personal character moderates the divisions of political parties. he had such integrity and character that it moderated through all the squabbles between the parties. they say on further, a steady,

uniform avowed friend of the christian religion who has commenced in sentiment and piety and who in his private conduct adorns the doctrines of the gospel of christ. that's not a deist. but anyway, the letter says washington adorns the doctrines of the gospel of christ and on the most public and solemn occasions devoutly acknowledges the government of divine providence. that's where we came from. they recognized his character. i read yesterday where washington's own order said that there could be no higher compliment to the soldiers than that think put on christian

qualities, the qualities of a christian. in june of 1985, in the diggets wallace versus jeffrey, unfortunately it was dissenting, william rehnquist pointed out the deception being talked about, and these are rehnquist's words, the wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. it should be frankly and explicitly abandoned and in the supreme court decision lynch vs. donnelly, the decision itself actually said, the constitution does not require complete separation of church and state. it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not mere tolerance, of all religions and

forebids hostility toward any. yet we find today, as we dealt with hate crime issues, the only group which it is becoming lawful and unfortunate to show prejudice against are christians, same people our founders kept talking about. patrick henry, correctly warned future americans the following, quote, bad men cannot make good citizens. it is impossible that a nation of infidels or idol ters should be a nation of free men. it is when a people forget god that tyrants forge their chains. john adams wrote, august 28, 1811, religion and virtue are the only foundations not only of republicanism, that doesn't mean our republican party at

all, it means the system where we have elected representatives. but they're the foundation of republicanism and all free government but of social felicity under all governments and all the combination in all society. this is just so important that people understand these things. harry truman stated this. quote, the foundmental basis of this nation's laws was given to moses on the mount. isn't it ironic, when this hall of representatives was built and decorated, above every door up in the gallery is a pro pro file of all of those that our predecessors believed were the greatest law givers of all time the greatest.

hammarabi. why is napoleon up there? the napoleonic code. the justinian code. but in the middle is the only face that's not a side profile. that's because he was considered to be the greatest lawgiver of all time. as it said under his face, moses. that's the moses truman was talking about. truman goes on, quote, the fundamental basis of our bill of rights comes from the teachings in exodus and st. math thusethue, isaiah and st. pule. -- st. paul. i don't think we emphasize that enough these days. if we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state. john f. kennedy said, quote, the rights of man come not from

the generosity of the state but from the hand of god. supreme court justice douglas remarked, quote, we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being. james madison said in november of 1825, the belief in a god, all-powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and man that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacity to be impressed with it. our history is so full, such incredible quotes. but those words that are carved into the jefferson memorial, so

powerful are these, quote, fwod who gave us life -- quote, god who gave us life, gave us liberty. can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed from their only firm basis a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of god? that they are not to be violated, but with his wrath? indeed, i tremble for my country when i reflect that god is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. that's why we begin every session, every day, in this congress with prayer. led by a minister. from that podium. going back to the unanimous

motion by benjamin franklin that unless the lord build a house, they labor in vain that build it. if we have the morals of woodstock, we can expect more tragedies. we can expect more greed and more avarice, more lawlessness, and more rights to be usurped by the servants that were elected and selected and hired, and we owe the future generations so much better than that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that the house adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes visit. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on monday next for morning hour debate.

monday next for morning hour will call the you can search any congressional built in learned status carried just click the congress that any will see the stretch right on the page. make your search as general or specific as you would like. this is washington, your way.

>> on july 10, c-span 2 and several other media outlets for a tour of some of the areas affected by the oil spill. you're looking at ground out, louisiana, where a lot of the beach operations are taking place. off the coast of elmer's island, you can see an -- you can see equipment that is being used for beach oil spill operations.

these are the booms to protect the barrier reef. you can see the south korean ship that has been converted into the largest oil skimmer in the world. this is the site of the deep water horizon them. this is where they are drilling the relief wells and many of the relief operations.

here, you can deceive the oil on the surface.

>> according to bp, boyle has stopped flowing in the gulf this afternoon. there were -- incident commander fallon face reporters earlier today. this briefing is half an hour. >> good morning everyone. welcome to today's operational update. today's update will follow the standard format, followed by comments. we will have questions from the room and then questions from the

telephone. >> thank you. what i would like to do this morning is give you an update. as you know, we took a hiatus- day to look at the implications of the test and evocations of the pressure and have exhausted every means of considering. i gave the orders to include some requirements some acoustic testing and to go ahead and proceed last night. the sequence on that was to proceed with the dq 4000. at that point, there was 3 wish for the oil to come out of the capping stack. that was to come out of the top, the killing, and the choke line.

-- the kill , and the chok line. -- the kill line and the choke line. ke line will have a variable well then we will be will to assess the pressure gradually. we discover there was a leak on the tow line. at that point, we had caused -- we had determined the cause of the leak and repaired it. we're ready we will again seize the production on the helix producer, which will force the oil up to the stack. there are only two ways for that to be released. it will start going out and kill

line and choke line. we will then kill the choke line and take pressure readings. to let you know what happened, this is the choke line off of the capping stack. this comes out of the assembly and goes up. if you have seen the video, this is a yellow device with a curved pipe that goes up with the oil coming out of it. it goes up to the capping stack with a flange and this is for the leakage was discovered. the choke assembly was removed and replaced overnight. they are checking this to make sure it is ready to go, and we will go into the process i talked about. we will apply pressure to this alve. close the kill vial o as i stated earlier, one of the

reasons we took a pause was to allow a set of testing procedures in effect to allow certain testing procedures, seismic and acoustic. the tests are scheduled to run for 48 hours. if we have reason to believe we should terminate the test, we can do that. the reason we would terminate the test is if we had a low pressure reading that would be indicative of the bull was being released somewhere out into the formation. we would not want that. we will continue to monitor it and every six hours will honor -- we will monitor it. at the end of 48 hours, we will go back into production of the helix -- felix producer and will evaluate other seismic runs over the area. this will take us to look at the

sea floor. it will see if there is any " will being forced out of the well bore. we have a time lapse map of the area conducted before the well was commenced to be done. there was another seismic run that was done on april 26. we did one in advance of this yvette's. the seismic run was not as clear as the original because there are a lot of obstructions out there, the vessels that are there, and the operations going on. it was good for us to understand that there were not developments on the sea floor or formations them be problematic. the goal after 48 hours is to do another seismic tests. that involves sophisticated sensing and our team is working on that right now, so we will be able to detect any oil or

methane gas that will be coming up from the sea floor. having said all that, we were producing yesterday and part of the time we were taking down the systems, but in spite of that we were able to produce 12,843 barrels, which was about over 5,000 barrels, and the helix produce a, able to produce 7,680 barrels. we were produced -- we replaced that this isn't -- that this has been deployed in the gulf of mexico. we will continue to do that. elsewhere, the prevailing winds and weather are taking the oil that is coming to the surface to the southeast of the well site. we are getting a break in the action as far as that oil going to the shore, which will allow

us to marshal our forces. it has given us a chance to consolidate and redouble our efforts on the shore clean up. i will answer any questions you may have. >> a question about -- early on in this process, were you able to get any kind of pressure reading, indication as to how that might go, where might that not begin until the integrity test begins? >> we had initial pressure test readings, but it would not tell you how a whole system was responding. the oil was still exciting. we had just started to crank it down when we solve all leaks, so we will not get out readings until we close that down. >> could this integrity test caused any kind -- you mentioned

the damage to the well bore. if something like that with the happen, could this affect the relief well processed? >> that came up yesterday and there was at an assessment done. here is what we did to mitigate the risk. we do not think there is a problem, but as close as the well is now to the well bore, significantly below where there may be a problem, what we have done is the relief well is between four and 5 feet away from the well bore. they need to go down another 100 feet to do the penetration, and there making our arrangements to put a key scene right down there -- a casing right down there. they pulled back to the last casing i. it was filled with mud, and will we -- we will have to hold right there until we know if there is an interaction there. i think that is a prudent step, so we will do that today.

>> morning. did bp have any sort quality- control on these parts before they install them on the cap that would have allowed them to detect a leak or anything like that, and if not, will there be in the future, or what were they, if there were any? >> we will get that information and get back to you. a lot of what is going on here has been designed for the first time to deal with this particular problem. the capping stack was a custom- made stack. i would call it a mini- blowout prevention. in order to meet this system up on the existing ricer package, after we removed the pipe that had been cut off, it created a

physical malodel. whether or not they practiced on the flange, we will get back to you. there was a systems testing that was done, and they created a model to put that package together before they put it into the water. >> how confident are you in a relief well structured and engineering in that that was not allowed as well? how confident are you? the relief wells are intended to intersect the current well. they are subject to the same forces and the same reservoir. that is the reason we will learn a lot about this test. it will help us in terms of containment, because we will have some options at whether we can shut the well or to another

effective containment system. that will allow us to shield the environment from what has been a massive discharge of oil. the ability of that well to hold pressure is instructed on how we will penetrate the well, the weight of the nod that can vary. and we may need to plug that with cement. there is not of an impact back on the relief wells being drilled. but as much as we could inform, the way we will conduct the killed itself, because of the pressure readings, we will understand peaks condition of the well bore. it did not look like i was responsive. right. the entire keep issue on this is controlling pressure from the reservoir. the pressure out of the

reservoir of right now, and i will give you a range, it is between 11,000 and 12,000 pounds per square inch pushing up into the well bore, as a result of the belt was thrilled. the issue is, how is the pressure being controlled? the lost pressure and that is what caused the event on april 20. we had a cap that has been recovering the will, but we have been venting will, and that reduces pressure. it allows the -- the easiest analogy is putting something on top of the hose. we have been using mechanisms to close off the hose, but we cannot do it completely because there is pressure down in the hose. what we are trying to do now is that physical evidence because we do not know the condition of the well bore.

the way you do that is put your thumb over the garden hose, and in this case it is called the capping stat. there are three ways for the will to leave, and slowly closed the third joke line down and do pressure readings. if we have low pressure readings, it would be the equivalent of putting your thumb over the garden hose and the water is going somewhere else. if we get high pressure, that would give us indications that the well bore is intact. that relates to how much blood and the procedures will be -- how much mud will be needed down the road. >> as the relief well drilling stopped, and there seems to be a current question as to was this solution or why it was this solution not considered earlier in the

process? >> i would say we are -- the relief well as over 100 feet above the proposed intersection point, but they are pulling the event back to the last cased section. they will withdraw it, they have the rest of the well bore filled with mud, and we will make sure there is not an interaction between the increased pressure on the well bore and a relief well being dug. we think is a prudent thing to do to stop and watch what happens. [unintelligible] they are going to drill about 10 feet at that time and use sophisticated electronic sensing, to know exactly where they are out. it is 2 miles below the sea floor, and the drill pipe is 7

inches in diameter. it is so slow and that is why we are not coming off the mid- august prediction for when this will be done. why was this not done earlier? you are talking about the capping stack? there had be time to bring it to the site and procedures developed, and there were weeks to fix it. there have been a range of tapping devices developed, the developed over different scenarios. in addition, there are systems integration testing and they built a model of this on land and tested before they brought it out here. these were corrected long time ago. we call them they were not -- we dance of happy the reduction their machinery. you can produce at the capacity that will cover a range between

35,000 and $60,000 -- 60,000 barrels a day. the capping stack on right now is part of the containment plan. while we had the opportunity to shut the well, if the readings are correct, this gives us four different outlands to increase the redundancy of the machinery and the capacity that will allow us to cover up to 80,000 barrels a day, which is above the we have now. wrate >> we can take questions from the phone line. >> thank you very much. can you give us an idea from what you have seen from this latest effort of whether this cap is going to work as it is

intended or if you will have to go back to full production with four vessels. what can you tell us about the outcome of this based on a leak he found, the delay you have had, and the pressure readings you have seen a little bit of? >> let me be clear on this. the intention of the capping stack was never to close the welle per say. it creates the opportunity if we have a right pressure readings to shot in the well. the best reason to shot in the ut in the well is it allows us to close the site in the case of a hurricane. bp gave us a plan to accommodate the flow rate which the government estimated and still estimates at this time to be 35,000 to 65,000 barrels a day.

together with the killed and a lines give us for outlets from which we can produce. from the produce b heat producer which will transfer to the shuttle tanker. the kilt and the joke line on the stacking cap will then be run to discover enterprise and they will produce off of those. it was the intention to create enough redundancy that we could handle the flow rate. as a side benefit, this that created, if it can hold the pressure, creates the opportunity to shut in the well. the design of the cap itself presents the opportunity to shut

in the well so we can abandon the site in the case of a hurricane. was that responsive? >> asked, pretty much. i am trying to get an idea of whether the capping stack is that a solution, or if you think your aunt had better luck the vessels on the surface. a lot of people put confidence in staff and everybody wants to know if it will work or if you will have to go to these other collection procedures you talked about? >> based against original task, if we have these lines going to platforms, we can decrease the amount of oil going into the environment by producing up to 80,000 barrels a day. shutting in the line was never an ultimate goal.

make no mistake, the number one goal is to shut in the well. this is an intermediate step. next question. >> good morning. i am sorry, but i am confused. i thought you said last week that this cap could shut in all the flow and that could -- if the test shows that could stand in he would not need to go to the four vessels system until the relief wells killed well. now you say this is a step toward the vault will capture system. has there been a change in your plan? >> there has not been a discrepancy. let me explain.

we went to b.p. and said give us a system that produces mechanical redundancy so we lose part of this is that we could recover up to 60,000 barrels a day, based on the revised flow rate estimate delivered 6 weeks ago. as a result, we were offered the opportunity, through the capping stack, to shut the well in. if that does not happened, bp will have produced a system which they told them to do which gives us redundancy to accommodate the current flow rate. all that is an interim step on containment, pending the finishing of the relief wells, killing at the wells with mud. all these steps are positive steps to remove in the flow from the environment, but they are precursors that deal with containment in advance of the relief wells being dug.

there's no inconsistency. if we can get to a shut-in, we would like that. the difference is more vulnerability to hurricanes and the fact we might have to leave the well unintended and discharging oil as we left the scene in back after the hurricane. there is no inconsistency in the two statements. >> if the pressure remains high you will still go to the containment system until the relieved well does it stop? >> not necessarily. we will test for 48 hours and evaluate the information we had. at the end of 48 hours, which will take down the system and go back to production, and then will get a new seismic reading that will tell us was there a change in the well bore or did he have will be cut into the formation and for a pocket that could be a precursor for

preaching the sea floor. once -- for breaching the sea floor. once we are satisfied there are no indications that we have compromised the integrity of the poor, we can -- bore, we can go back again. after 48 hours, we can consider shutting the well. that is a possibility, and we would like to do that. next question. >> since you know you open up the foul after testing for 40 hours, i wanted to check on the riser if they are already in the area ready for the connection? >> they are. the challenge has been how much can you do in two square miles

of ocean. we just finished the freestanding riser which connects the kill line to the helix producer. it connected to the top by a flexible hose. a second freestanding riser is built because that is part of a larger containment system. that was supposed to have been done about july 18, but that was slipped to about july 24, because of the sequencing of operations. they needed to get all the vessels out of the area so we could run the seismic vessel through to create quite yet. we're looking to be able to produce out of that right sir. number 2, around july 24, and at that point comeuppance -- and at that point, we would start to

kill the joke lines. >> one last question. >> admiral, to follow up, you got the discover enterprise sitting nearby with the new cap on it. how quickly could it moved into place and start recovering oil from the main valve > >> we have it standing by, 1,500 feet away, and it has taught at number 7 suspended. it could move in quickly, and within 24 hours, be able to cover the cap. the issue is we closed the middle ram on the capping stack. this will be a decision we would make after the testing. you would have the option to produce the discovered at a price to the riser pipe -- the

discover enterprise to the riser pipe. this would be permanently affixed to the wellhead and flexibility in trying to move in case a hurricane was coming. there is going to be a transition point and we may have to look at that where we will say we would not choose to do that, we want to go to the new production system. it would have to discover enterprise both run drawstrings oupling.and have a cu that is the process we anticipate with the new cappings that. as far as the discoverer enterprise, we are in a period where we could come back and put a cap back on their if we need them to do that, but we are to the point where, based on

readings, we would have to make a decision to go to the production model, and this will depend on the pressure test in the next 48 hours. was that responsive? >> is there another way to connect with ax = out anchoringe risers? >> you would envision the structure for the containment system, two vertical rise or pipes, and then drill strings being used to pull up a product from the kill and joke lines of the capping stack just put on. you could go back in and put a riser pipe with a stack over the open annulus. i am not sure it that would be the way to move forward. we would try to produce with the current system and put the

production scheme in there. we were pleased yesterday as we were bringing the helix producer up, we got an instantaneous rate of 24,000 barrels a day, which was that the combined -- which was the combined total. these floating production units, whether they helix producer, offers a tremendous increase in production capability, and the matter what comes out of this operation, we are going to be in a much better situation than we were for and terms of oil being recovered. >> i am still confused. you were saying the second floating riser necessary for the -- has been delayed to the 24th. i want to make sure, does the shed need that to connect, or could it be brought in quicker? >> no, it needs that to connect.

both rely on a system of transfer that is totally different. that is a flexible hose running from the kill and choke lines to a vertical rise or pipe, and then a flexible hose running from the top of the flooding riser pipes. once produced the product moves by flexible pipe to the dynamically positioned shuttle tankers, which are paired with a helix producer one. that is one set. the other twist is to kill the choke winds off the new stacking cap. we had intended to come up with an optimized production structure that did not

anticipate the kneecapping stack where we could produce the chip and the kill lines and the annulus. and including the helix producer, that would get us to 53,000 barrels a day. it did not give us a redundancy in machinery and capacity. the thought was we would put a new caping stack on that would allow us to go to the four production platforms later in july. we had a weather window, we brought in the capping stack that was made for the model into the current set up because the weather window to get it done. was that more responsive? >> yes, thank you. >> thank you very much for joining us.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> speaker nancy pelosi gave her weekly briefing for reporters today. she proceeded to lay out the upcoming agenda. she answered questions about the 2010 elections and actions that house could take to speed up economic recovery. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning. the senate today will take up the wall street reform legislation and we will soon be able to send it to the president of the united states. it is important to see this legislation and the context of

the president's agenda that was starting with the recovery act and the council of economic advisers said that the recovery act has saved up to 3.6 million jobs. that is what was came out this week, as you saw. this had a blueprint for new direction for our country to take us into the future in a way that would reduce the deficit, nor taxes for the middle class, and create jobs around three pillars -- investments in education and innovation, investments in energy security, and climate change, and investments in health care. we have passed two of the three of those pillars, and the senate will soon be acting upon their energy bill. we have done hours in the house. the fifth item on the agenda has been the wall street reform act,

and today again it will be passed by the senate and shortly signed by the present it. no longer whether recklessness on wall street caused joblessness on main street for the many. the party is over. no more will be privatizing the game and nationalizing the rest. no more will we have the attitude on wall street. because of the policies of the bush administration, over 8.5 million jobs were lost because of that recklessness on wall street. a deep ditch we were in. we are digging our way out. 4.5 million new hires of new people who had been unemployed for more than eight weeks. that was reported this week. in the first eight months of this year, we will have created more jobs under the obama

administration, eight months, then the bush administration created in eight years. again, this is going back to the president's budget, the creation of jobs, as we go forward we anticipate that will accelerate. loring taxes for the middle class. in april, when tax day came, american people pay their taxes at a lower rate than any time since the 1950's. all of this is being done in a way to reduce the deficit. we must be fiscally responsible. the president has his commission he appointed. pay as you go as well all of the l andand. asked the chairman of committees to put every dollar to the harsh scrutiny so we can get rid of any unnecessary duplicate of

spending. with wall street firm, we have transparency, we have protecting main street, and we have common-sense reform. i'm happy about it. this week, i mentioned the council of economic advisers report, hhs has issued new preventive care guidelines, and on september 23 , all new health plans will include -- must include free preventive care. prevention, an important part of the innovation we have in the new health care bill. we were pleased that yesterday the house passed and we are sending on to the president, congressman pat murphy's legislation. it cracks down on waste, fraud, and abuse, on government spending, saving the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars

preparing. what we hope that happened next year is the senate will pass a bill that will ensure that two not beingpeople are deprived of insurance because of this structure of the republican -- because of the obstruction of the republican senators. a report today confirmed unemployment benefits, including health subsidies, support 1.7 million full-time jobs. unemployment insurance is something we owe workers and our economy, but it is also stimulative of our economy. it injects demand into the economy. it creates jobs. now the economic policy institute confirms that is 1.7 million jobs that are supported by these unemployment benefits.

it is the right thing to do, but also very good for the economy. with that, i will be pleased to take questions. yes, sir, you had your hand up for a while. >> could you give us the latest on the relationship between house democrats and the white house, and has the white house giving you assurances, given what has happened, that they will do more to help you in november and there will not be more, it's like the one mr. gibbs made on sunday? >> you want to talk politics. i want to talk policy. we had a meeting with the focus yesterday on jobs. what the initiatives are, and we have taken in congress what remains to be done for the rest of the session. we talked about some choices

that have been made and talked about a fema as we go forward as we work together. there is no reason to think that the white house has been anything but cooperative with us in terms of our political efforts to retain control of the congress. s that, i canrked th tell you firsthand that the white house has been very cooperative with us. members have concerns about jobs, and that is the conversation we had yesterday with the president. i have nothing but praise -- as i said in a meeting, but was not reported, what ever comment may have been made, had nothing to do with what the president was doing and what the president was saying to himself. we have no better leader or advocate for america's working families who has a platform to

with democrats and republicans. the message that we are not going back is the message of the democrats in congress as well. i do not see a problem. but, it was unfortunate, but it is not to take us from the path that we're on for job creation, and if you want to go to the political place, the excellent job are chairman chris van pollin is doing, we have a solid organization, immobilization on message, on the management of these campaigns, and we fully intend to win. that, it can be interpreted, but from our standpoint, we are pleased with what the white house has been doing and what they will continue to do. >> heading into november, jobs will be kosher. can the democrats continue to

highlight the biggest evidence of job creation bills, the stimulus that was passed almost two years prior? with unemployment bills -- >> you present an interesting proposition. the fact is without the recovery act, i fear to think of what the position would be of our economy. the president came in and dealt -- and was dealt a bad hand. the financial crisis, the democratic votes, enacted the tarp reform. nobody wanted to vote for that. it was absolutely essential to pulls back from financial crisis. because of our insistence, the democrats insisted the tax payer is being paid back for that money. the recovery act took us from the brink of a deep recession.

it has been responsible for creating or saving 3.6 million jobs. we have to do much more. when you go to district to district, the waterfront in cincinnati, the depot in st. paul, minnesota, or other places, university campuses, you see the evidence of job creation and economic situations from the recovery package. should we need to do more? the republicans in the senate prevent us pull us completely out us by not pulling out us? yes, but we feel confident and proud of the recovery act, and members know what the difference is made in their districts. they will be the messengers about how many jobs were created by the legislation. what initiatives were started that had a ripple effect in

their district. again, the members are 250 of people inetales america. if we had health care center, if we had energy center, if we had the education bills and, they were the three pillars of job creation, and that would have resulted in more jobs created by now. but we have two-thirds of that now, and are on the way of getting a third one, and in terms of thinking of along and short term, we are proud of the recovery act. without it, we could never have dug out of the deep recession that the bush administration had taken a lesson. >> president obama the on the campaign now for house to democrats more now? >> more than what?

certainly. >> did he promise you that? >> the president has an agenda that he has put forward. we have passed it in the congress. it is important for the people to understand the success of that agenda and the president is the best promoter of his agenda. he will be doing that. nothing is different because of any, that was made. we were all on course and in tandem on what we believe is very important. we want the people to know that we are not going back. it requires we remind them of the ditch that the republicans had driven us into, that on all these issues -- health care for poor americans --republican

voted no. whether it was reform of wall street, which has cost us millions of jobs and over trillions of dollars in wealth, the republicans by and large said know. weather is reining in the oil, the republicans said know. it is about policy and the american people, and the policy set we will measure our success by the progress made by the american people. they have to feel some of that progress, so we have to talk about how we continue along the path of a new direction and that we are not going back. again, i -- i have been pleased about the cooperation we have had with the white house in promoting democratic messages, and the new direction for our country. >> yesterday, 59 house

democrats wrote a letter about fiscal discipline, cutting spending. the scene more pretty intent on stimulus spending -- the you seem pretty intent on more stimulus spending? the you see an appetite for that in your caucus since he got this letter yesterday? >> first of all, i disagree with your characterization of spending. the initiatives that you talk about were paid for. the context of the stability of that economy is in our states is essentials that we strive to give crier de in our investments that are -- to give priority in our investments that are paid for.

when we talk about teachers, we talk about the education of our children. we talk about the safety of our neighbors. we also talk about jobs and about them as consumers. we have been told by economists that if the state economies go down, we will go into recession that will be hard to dig out. we have to make a distinction about investments that we make and what they mean to taking the economy in a positive direction. i believe one of the post important ways to reduce the deficit is to promote growth. that brings revenue into the treasury. as the unemployment insurance, it brings revenue into the treasury. it creates jobs. the good-paying jobs. the letter -- i support the

principles and the letter. we have the president's fiscal discipline -- what was the title of it? fiscalsident's discipline commission, simpson- bowles. we have pay as you go as all of the land. we have a resolution that will call for our operations to come in $7 billion lower than the president's freeze that he asked for, and we are suggesting, as we always did, the spending of every agency to the harshest scrutiny. we completely share the value

that we must have fiscal discipline and the actions that are taken bowling in that direction. again, -- are taken, going in that direction. again, we have to remember how the treasury is filled, which is by the creation of jobs and allow the economy, and consumers are the blood of that. if we are chipper rising the stability of state governments and local -- jeopardize in the stability of state governments by not supporting them right now, that were not reduced the deficit. >> there are bills --more stimulus spending -- >> they are paid for. >> going forward, if you have more aid to the states, you will have to get your own caucus on

board. >> make sure you understand, apart from the unemployment insurance, most of these initiatives were paid for. the war offset or paid for. -- they were offset or paid for. they did not add to the deficit. let's stipulate to the same set of facts. i cannot believe unemployment insurance should be paid for. diminishes the stimulative effect to the economy. that is diminished if you have to take resources from one place to put it there. i believe in terms of the education and the other assistance to the states, it is on to be the central. 30 states have already balance their budgets predicated on funding. there has to be a way for us to work together.

i know members get tired of people outside of washington saying, all you are is the big spenders. they come in with their tin cup and say, give us more money. the fact is, it is not in anybody's interest, deficit reduction or job creation, for us to have the stability of the state economy is to be jeopardy ized. we have to be smart about the choices that we make. we have to justify every investment and make sure that we are not adding to the deficit. >> did you know you need to pass tax legislation by the end of the year? are you -- when you want that debate to occur, before or after

the election, and are you open to a temporary delay in the expiration of the top-end tax cuts that independent economists say would be counterproductive? >> i am not going to be making the announcement about when we will be taken up in terms of timing, but we will be taking them up. my position is middle-income tax cut are essentials for us to have. my position is that the push tax cuts to the wealthiest people did nothing to grow the economy during the bush administration. it did not create jobs. it did not reduce the deficit. one of the leading factors contributing to the size of the deficit. that is my view. thank you, all, very much. >> for a snapshot of washington

and a 111th congress, the c-span congressional directory. the president's cabinet, supreme court justices, all at your favorite caps -- peter caps -- fingertips. >> report on the actions of the ugandan government following attacks on sunday. also questions from the iranian scientist who arrived in iran overnight, and ambassador michel meeting with officials this week. >> a couple of things to mention. we understand uganda intends to send 2000 additional troops to support the amazon mission that has called on other african nations to do the same. they have reiterated their commitment to the african union

mission in somalia and will continue to provide peacekeeping troops. we commend the role you got cut and burn the -- or role uganda and burundi continue to play. on uganda, we have seen the arrival late yesterday of 63 fbi man, engaged in the investigation. will be there for several days as we continue to determine who is responsible for what happened in that tragedy on sunday. >> it takes 63 gusys to tell you that someone did it? >> thank you very much.

he will also meet with a quartet of on voice as well as the representative tony blair and the eu representative. on sunday morning he will travel to cairo, egypt, to consult with president mubarak. later he will fly to abu dhabi. >> what date was he meeting the quartet people? >> saturday, yes. the special representative for afghanistan richard holbrooke is in germany today where he meets with officials there and then he will travel to the region to meet up with the secretary as she departs washington early next week. a special envoy it leaves

washington this evening where he will head first for khartoum, sudan, to meet with officials from the african union to consult the sudan on voice -- envoys. he will also meet with the those whoarty's and are negotiating post referendum arrangements. in addition to the referendum commission. you have already seen the release today where the secretary marked the plata that the civilian response corp. has reached 1000 members of its anniversary. it is the only force in u.s. government dedicated to conflict prevention and peacekeeping -- and peace building. to bring you up-to-date on that you're quite lacrosse team, we have had conversations -- with

the iroquois lacrosse team, we have had conversations with the united kingdom. we understand that the united kingdom cannot make an exception for these travelers. we understand the united kingdom has offered to waive these requirements and accept the document if accompanied by a u.s. passport. we have reiterated our offer to assist qualified team members with issuance of passports. >> did you ask the brits to accept the letter without a passport? >> we told them that from our span point, to the point that the united kingdom would be readmitted to the united states. we clarified we would readmit the team to a united states, but

it was their decision not to give them entry into the the country. >> is this a surprise to you? >> cannot say it is a surprise, though. >> is there reason why the british did not want to let them in? >> that is a decision for the united kingdom at this point. this was their decision. it is based on their policies and procedures and security requirements that they put in place. >> what did they say their reasons were proof that they have security concerns, that they were concerned that these players might decide they would rather live in the united kingdom and united states? it is not my impression. >> we clarified through letters that were provided , we made

clear that we would admit them back into the united states. the swiss on the existing -- this was on the existing policies that exist under a united kingdom law. >> disappointed that they made this decision? >> we did our best from our point of view, to satisfy initial concerns that the united kingdom had, that they wanted to be assured that the team members would return to the united states and be readmitted. we felt we had done what we could do, and through these one- time letters of waiver. we and the british have the same view that it is important for these people and others that have travel documents that are

internationally recognized. from our standpoint, for those who qualify for u.s. passports, as we have said all along, the best way for them to assure the ability to travel freely around the world is that a u.s. passport. >> did you have a conversation with the pribrits? >> no. we indicated to them what steps we were prepared to take, but this was a decision where we had all the will conversations with british officials said yesterday and today. we are satisfied they looked at this early, but from their standpoint, they made the decision. it is their prerogative to determine and decide who qualifies for entry into the united kingdom. >> at one. -- at one what poitn did day in

the case -- at what point did the indicate this? >> we knew all along that notwithstanding the letters we were providing to the team members yesterday, and we emphasized in the briefing, it was still a requirement for the team members to apply for and received visas from the united kingdom. that was always clear, that the final decision on who would -- with the team would enter the united kingdom, that was a united kingdom decision. i cannot say we are surprised because we have had the same concerns about the existing travel documents. that is why we have said throughout this that we are prepared to issue passports to those team members who qualify. on that basis, we are not surprised by the u.k. decision. united kingdom, the united states, others, have strengthened requirements in

terms of travel documents that are needed in this day and age, but this was a u.k. decision to make. >> is there a possibility of reviewing the treaties with native american nations to look at this travel document issue, given the times in which we live? it seems there is a full class of american citizens that will not be able to travel. if they have trouble go to view aka -- to the u.k., then they will have the same problem traveling on their nation's passport. >> this is an issue that the united states government has had with state authorities, tribal authorities, for some time. much of this conversation and much of the species hrolf more around the department of homeland security -- and much of these issues revolved more

around the department of homeland the tree. we have confidence that it should be a secured document to identify those who wished to travel around the world. whether that tried it is working to bring its own internal documents up to this standard, that is a decision for them to make, and i will defer to authorities to describe what they're doing. it is important for those people who live within the borders of the united states, that they have dual citizenship. many people around the world have dual citizenship and carry passports from more than one nation. the fact that you might be a part of the the nation -- the iroquois nation and have a united states passport does not

diminish your citizenship in their nation. there are ways to accommodate this said that in the future you have the ability to travel world andwide. -- worldwide. >> is it up now to the tribal nations that they need to get the documents? >> at the heart of this, this episode is based on specific decisions that individuals and team members have made. many of them, not all of them qualify for u.s. passports. they have chosen not to get them. that choice has had consequences. >> the documents he gave them were specific to this tournament and could not be used in another case, correct?

>> this was a onetime only document, just to accommodate this term. >> [unintelligible] >> again, and i cannot say as i say -- as i stand here i cannot say what can of that name because some team members qualify for canadian passports. our solution applied to many members of the team and the delegation, but not all. i cannot tell you what decision the united kingdom has made regarding those team members to qualify for canadian passports. david? >> is the united states supporting in any tangible way this augmentation of troops in

-- >> somalia. >> are we providing logistical support or money? >> that is a good question. ugandan a surveys -- the uconn and other parties have made the decision. we have reviewed since sunday the support that we are providing to -- to be fed up. i would not predict if you can made that you gott decision. >> can you comment on the case to uphold the indictment of -- vs. lafayette. he was a member of the anti-

hitler coalition, and he is being tried for war crimes because he fought against latvian collaborators who were armed. he is being tried as a war criminal because he fought against the nazi collaborators. this is dangerous, because allies could be convicted of the bombing of dresden or hiroshima. this seems to be a turning of history upside down, where the whole allied forces during world war ii are in jeopardy of being held accountable as war criminals because civilians were killed during the war, but this is a case where the man was

fighting against armed civilians who were not see collaborators. >> i am not familiar with that case but will look into it. >> what is the impression about the meeting between indian and pakistan foreign ministers today? >> i do not have a readout in terms of what has been accomplished. i heard the meeting went on longer than had been anticipated. we certainly welcome this high- level meeting between the foreign secretary'ies. it is the kind of dialogue that we think will help address and resolve issues of interest between the two countries and a consequence as a region -- of the region of the whole. welcome this level of dialogue

between the two countries. >> [unintelligible] >> our discussions with indian officials are broad. i am sure when they see each other they will talk about bilateral talks. >> and the united states say ?hat he was a defector wh >> he chose to leave iran, he chose to come to the eyes states, he chose to go -- to the united states, he chose to return to iran. >> efforts to the indicted states undertake to convince him to stay? was their concern about his family's safety? >> this was his decision to make. he chose to come here.

we supported him in him coming go homed he chose to and we allowed him to detect -- to do that. he has returned to iran under his own free will. it is on that basis that we continue to believe that iran should release our three hikers, who walked up to an unmarked border. they are in custody. they have not been charged. we believe they should be released on humanitarian grounds. >> he was given a hero's welcome, it looks as if tehran is trying to use him for a very blatant propaganda operation against u.s. intelligence. how worried is the u.s.

government about this the element, and is their concern that perhaps iran put him up to defecting and coming here? >> he departed under his own decision. i do not know if we can say why he left iran, why he chose to return. i do not think there is going to be any particular propaganda value in this. it points out that dichotomy. we allow people to go here, to come home, we have citizens who travel to the region and are now in iranian custody. we're also conscious of robert levinson. we're trying to determine his

whereabouts and welfare, and received no corporation. his returning to iran should underscore that we should expect the same kind of treatment with our citizens when they travel to iran. >> said we supported him in coming here. what does that mean? >> made his way to the united states. >> was their money involved -- was there the involve? >> i will not say. >> yesterday, you said there was no swap. you are now being more explicit than in the past couple days about this dichotomy. are you hoping that you are allowing him to go back will

sway some of the iranians into releasing the three hikers? >> the two cases are not connected. >> you are connecting them. >> i will state categorically we have three american citizens in our iranian cost today who are not guilty of any crime other than crossing an unmarked border. we want to see them released and returned. this is an example where iran demands respect from the international community, but we have shown with an iranian citizen who chose to come here and has chosen to go home that he is free to do so. we would expect the same consideration when it comes to our citizens when they travel to the region and up to the border between iraq and iran. we would like to see our

citizens home. the mothers of these three hikers were in tehran. we assume they made a direct appeal to iranian authorities, but to the extent that the iranian people are seeing him return to iran, we would like that at the same opportunity to welcome home to our country the three hikers. >> he was not accused of any crime in the united states? >> and our three hikers are not guilty of any crime either. >> if someone did that here, it is a crime. >> i have great confidence that if people wandered across this border they would be swiftly return to the country from which they came. >> was in regular, -- regular contact with the state department? >> did we know he was here, yes.

he chose to come here. he chose to leave. >> if three iranians crossed the united states -- crossed into the united states illegally, the you think they would be sent home immediately? the situation with iran with its enemy, and the circumstances, if a member of a canadian member of the iroquois nation cross without a passport -- >> every day people cross the border and return them.

what do you expect mr. mitchell to do once he is done with meeting with abbas and the others? our direct talks going to be launched within weeks? >> this is a decision that is up to that israeli and palestinian leaders. they have to make a decision that after working on the details of the process, they have enough confidence to move into direct negotiations. that is what we are trying to do. i think we have a strong belief that at some point in time direct negotiations will be renewed, and whether that is days or weeks from now, we are not in a position to say. >> the reason behind this visit is to restart the negotiations? >> our overall purpose with any conversation we have the other

parties is to move to direct negations. this is no different than george's previous trips to the region. >> have you taken this up with the british government? does this have any bearing on your decision whether or not to launch the investigation? >> it is important to clarify that the negotiation between britain and libya on a prisoner transfer agreement, i believed it was done in 2007, 2008, that negotiation was well-known, and as to why bp chose to lobby the british government on a prisoner transfer agreement, who knows? bp has tried to explain that today and acknowledged they did. all the british and scottish

authorities made clear last year that the issue of -- was not connected to the prisoner transfer agreement. as we have said many times, including throughout last year's scottish authorities were making this decision. we felt the decision to release him was a mistake. we thought it then and think it now. it was a decision by scottish authorities where we will leave it up to them to explain that what they did then and what the factors that the evaluated -- i do not know if there is anything -- >> it does not sound like there is a basis for investigation has requested? >> will respond to that. as i said yesterday, it is unclear what there is to

negotiate. bp said today consultant with the u.k. government with prisoner transfer. they said they had no conversation with british or scottish of parties with respect to him. we will state that into consideration as we evaluate anything that we could do. we will respond to the senator. we understand they are concerned. we share that concern. we are unhappy that he sits in libya today as a free man. we understand the outrage that the families of pan am 103 feel about this. we share this frustration. as to whether this is anything to investigate, as b.p. clarifies what they did today, we understand more about what might or might not have happened. >> you said the british and the

scottish told you that his release was completely unrelated to the prisoner transfer agreement? >> yes. >> how is that possible? are you aware of any pre other prisoner -- >> go back to what the scottish authorities said last year. they said this was a decision made on purely humanitarian and medical grounds. we disagree with that judgment. we continue to believe that he should still be in a scottish prison. now you understand -- did they tell us this was an isolated about him and had no other barrett on negotiations they had with the libyan authorities? that is what they told us. >> and if there had not been an agreement, that he would still be in prison? >> these were questions that

should be directed to british and scottish authorities. we objected to that decision before and after that happened. >> without a prisoner transfer agreement taking place, if that was not there, would he have been able to be -- >> that is a better question to be addressed to british authorities. >> i am asking your take. >> we accept on face the you of what scottish authorities that this is a humanitarian decision they made based on medical information available to them. we said categorically this is a mistake, and that is our view today. >> have you raised this with the british authorities? >> i cannot say that we have had a specific conversation with them. >> there is no legal recourse that the united states can take? >> we were not a party to it.

he was convicted by a special scottish court, but it is to be convened. we recognize that it was within scottish authorities to make this decision. we regret it and objected to this decision. we told them not to do it. they did it anyway. we made clear our satisfaction on a number of occasions since. i cannot say we brought up today, but our view of this is well known to the british government, and well known to scottish authorities. we are looking into -- we have the letter from the senators. as the secretary said yesterday, we are evaluating what they have requested and will be responding. that is not predict what we will

or will not do as to what bp might have done or the quality of the medical information that was made available to the far east. we will evaluate. our position has been clear. we regret that the scottish authorities made this decision. it is up to them to explain why they did that and how they feel about this in light of other information that has come to light. >> [unintelligible] >> since last year, yes. in the recent days and weeks, i cannot say we have. >> did you oppose or did you not oppose his release? >> thank you.

>> the senate judiciary committee has proposed -- has put -- has postponed their vote on the nomination of elena kagan until next week. providing unique insight about the court. available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> now a senate hearing on working after retirement. max baucus of montana chairs the finance committee. this is an hour and 10 minutes.

>> george burns said that retirement at 65 is ridiculous. today we will talk about people who want to work beyond retirement age and how those decisions affect social security. when it comes to social security, people say there are only two ways to avoid insolvency. there are other ways, and these ways did not involve cutting benefits. for example, there is that tax gap. it is the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they actually pay. the last year for which we have data, 2001, the total tax gap, which includes a payroll tax, was about $345 billion every

year. this is tax that is not paid. in my view, as we try to whittle down the deficit, a good place is here. this, nine years later, is probably a lot higher. the point use within that three and a $45 billion there is also the payroll tax gap. $58 billion each year under the payroll tax, the social security that is note, collected. if that were collected, these are dollars that are legally owed that would help reduce the strain on social security. we have to do a lot more to collect those revenues.

it is a tough thing to do. i have put a lot of pressure on they haveecretaryies, not addressed this spirit today will -- have not addressed this. today we will look at facilitating work who want to resume work after they have retired from their full-time jobs or who want to face down the work before retirement. folks are making these arrangements are ready. today we will understand whether we can make it easier for these arrangements to happen. if we could increase the number of people over 62, the earliest in which one can retire to get cissus dundee -- to get says the security, we could reduce the

long run actuarial in balance by 5%. but it also reduce the medicare trust fund imbalance by 2% assign. there are many ways that these workers can continue to work voluntarily. all these methods are called phased retirement. workers can reduce their hours of work at their principal job. the current firm can hire them after they have retired for a period of time. they can go to work at and other occupation or to their current work at a different firm. one example is called encore careers. these are jobs who want to do something for the benefit of society. that job might be as a nurse or a hospital worker or a teacher. for an employer, there could be

advantages to hiring someone who is retired or allow a phased down before retirement. these workers bring a wealth of experience and are well-suited to training new employees. some organizations have seasonal or temporary work patterns and are looking for workers who want to work part- time. let me be clear, we are not talking about requiring people to work more hours. or pressuring people to work. we are making that clear. we are talking about additional work as a voluntary. unfortunately some workers today are finding they need to work longer and they want to make ends meet. these folks are not working longer voluntarily. phased retirement can help them as well. it can give them were job options.

increasing face retirement possibilities can be a winning proposition. employees can and employers can have more choices. and the trust funds can be extended. but as look at the folks who want to work after normal retirement years, but let us examine as whether we can help workers and businesses have more choices and see if we can help save it -- help social security and medicare. >> thank you. over the next two decades, the 18 of 78 million baby boomers will bring about a demographic shift. our nation will see the ratio of workers to beneficiaries decline. that means fewer workers brought that each beneficiary. all things being equal, this democratic shift -- demographic

shift implies a payroll tax increase of 34% or benefit reductions of 25% being necessary to balance the social security case flow in 2013. the purpose of today's hearing is to consider ways to encourage the employment of older americans and improve security long-term financial outlook, and it should not be necessary, but the chairman is right in emphasizing that we are talking about voluntary aspect of this whole question. when social security was enacted in 1935, it was agreed that if a person worked, he or she was not retired, and thus, not entitled to social security retirement benefits. over the years, the so-called retirement earnings test has been modified to allow many

people to work and collect retirement benefits at the same time. the exact amount depends on each worker's age and income. where roughly did this. we did this because -- because we should not have disincentives to productivity included in our security system, and we should not have any aspect of discrimination against older people be a part of the program. these modifications that i just mentioned represent a trade-off between competing objectives, competing -- limiting retirement and allowing those who are retired to supplement their income. much of today's testimony focuses on encouraging those who are old enough to collect social security to pursue a set a career on a voluntary basis.

the historical data shows a significant decline in labor force participation, particularly among men, of every age. as the testimony will show, between 1915 and 2010, the labor force participation rate between younger man fell by 9%. among older men, the rate fell by 14%. among those ages 65 and older, the rate fell by 44%. . .

>> in the long run, benefits would increase by 50 cents to 80 cents for every dollar of additional payroll, ultimately attaining a sustainable so security system will require beyond what we are talking about here, obviously, fundamental reform. but as today's testimony will show, encouraging more employment among americans of every age will make the test

easier than it might otherwise be. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. first is the chief actuary for the sole security administration. think of the coming today. next, marc friedman. he has some interesting things to pass on to us. next is marcia brown, who i have known for many years. very active, very helpful, a dedicated servant for the people of the state of montana. she is currently the chief operating officer for the national center for technology in you, montana. next is an economist and group manager at the rand corporation. thank you for being here. our final witness is the senior

vice president for human resources at [unintelligible] thank you all for today. as is our regular custom, i ask each of you to summarize your statements in about five minutes, roughly, and your prepared statement will be automatically included in the record. thanks for coming. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, senator bunning, it is a great pleasure for many years now to work with the fantastic staffers that you all have in developing material for these hearings and legislation and everything else. senator grassley, you characterize very well what i feel is perhaps the best way to

sort of identify what we are confronting, social security, and also medicare and all of the private pension and health systems that we have facing us in the future, that we simply have a very substantial demographic shift. it reflects the impact of increasing the normal retirement age, because of work in this room back in 1983, we are still going to be shifting from a position of 3.3 workers down to about two workers between now and 2035, just over the next 25 years. this is a dramatic shift. the reason for this is not really because we are living longer. it is because of the drop in birthrates that occurred after the post world war ii birthrate. we shifted from roughly three

children per woman down to two children per woman. even with the help of emigration, it is pretty substantial that we still have a much lower number of people entering our population, and that is causing the aging shipped we will be experiencing over the next 25 years. it is not just all about the fact we are living longer. as far as labor force participation rates are concerned, there is no question that there have been major shifts back to 1950 provided in the written testimony, some specific numbers. we often like to look on an age neutral basis, just look at what the rates are looking like in terms of labor force participation without the effects of aging occurring in the population, because given that people at higher ages 10 to work with a lower probability and people at lower 80ages. that will take our overall rate

of labor force but dissipation down to a lower level. if we look at an age neutral basis, doing this, we do actually have some good news. between 1950 and today, the overall age adjusted labor force participation rate for men and women combined in our society increased from 57% to 65%. we have actually had increasing labor force participation all told. the reason for that is because women have been doing the job. female labor force petitiopartin rates increased, while men declined. overall we have gone up, but it is because women have increased so much more than men. at age 65 and over, which is principally the focus of where our benefits apply and where we have some real possibilities,

the changes have been really the other way, even on the age adjusted basis. it has gone from 40% down to 22%. there's a possibility of making changes in that. on the other hand, women have gone from 8% to 20%, so they have come up. clearly there is room for possible change in those areas. in the future, under the intermediate assumptions of our trustees' report, we are projecting some modest increases at the highest ages. this is because of the methodology we introduce some years ago suggesting that as people live longer, there'll be some tendency even without specific actions taken policy was, for people to work somewhat longer. these are modest gains in the. we estimate they will be something about 10% increase of

overall participation rates of 65 and over. however, 3% decline at ages 45- 64, largely because of anticipated continued increases in disability prevalence in our society. social security financing, we are projecting even with all these future changes in work level, to be having the trust funds on a combined basis exhausted in 2037, at which point we estimate we will have 75 cents -- that is all would be able to pay, as you all know. the question is, can increased work help fill that gap? there is no question that it can. there are many people on the panel today who can help fill in the reasons and the ways in which we can try to encourage

that. let me share a little bit of what the implications will be, assuming we can actually get there. we have developed three hypothetical possibilities for increased participation over and above what they are already assuming. senator baucus referred to what if at age 62 and over we had an additional 2% increase over what the trustees are estimating in work and earnings for people 62 and over? as indicated, mr. chairman, that would result in a reduction of our 2% of payroll, long-range actual deficit by about 0.09% or eight r% reduction in net, if we did so well as to have more than 10%, say a 20% increase in work activity for people age 65 and over, we would have double that effect. so there is a real possibility of doing that. as you indicated, there would be a medicare effect that in terms of the% of payroll effect would

be similar, but since medicare has a considerably higher long- range deficit, it would have less of a percentage wise effect on reducing that deficit. we did look into other possible scenarios for increasing labor force participation rates that would be much stronger and a much larger potential effect. these were to answer a hypothetical question of what if we went back to 1950 labor force participation rates, but in a very special way? it both men and women went back to the mail 1950 labor force participation rates. given the amount of closure we have had since then, it is not -- it would be a strong change. if we had the rates of 1950 now return for males and manifest themselves similarly for

females, when -- we anticipate we would have an increase of payroll taxes of 15% in the long run, reducing our long-range deficit to about half. so this would be a very striking and immense change that we would have. another possibility, we looked atealizing that in 1950 we did not have a disability program and disability insurance benefits. we did have that enacted starting 1957. we would probably, if we had eople wanting to work as much as they did back in 1950, we would not return quite to the same levels of participation. there be somewhat less of that, and that along with some difference in terms of the age structure, we estimate that we could have perhaps 13.5% increase in the labor force if

we were trying something akin to the 1950 participation rates. that would reduce our long- range deficit by about 40%. the challenge in all of this is, how we make this happen? we do believe and understand that people will be living longer and healthier and how the capacity to work, so finding ways to encourage people, as you all have suggested, to actually go and do more work will greatly benefit the finances of social security, medicare, and all of the retirement aunt helped distance of the country. so thank you very much. -- retirement and help systems of the country. >> mr. friedman. >> ranking member grassley, senator bunning and this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i will pick up on the question of how we make this happen.

how do we make a virtue out of this esoterinecessity in a volu? i just want to step back to 1950 that mr. goss just talked about. in that year, the labor leader described determined as too old to work, too young to die. it was a very awkward time for people. in about 15 years, we turned this of course they into a version of the american dream. we created a new deal around shorter working lives that people could actually look forward to. people started retiring earlier and earlier, so they could get to this goal. now in the context of the two trends that you talked about, the demographic revolution of nearly 80 million baby boomers moving into their 60s and a near doubling of life expectancy of the last century, there's a question about whether that old deal is still sustainable, and

at an individual level, how many of us can afford a 30 or 40-year retirement. it is hard to support. i think we are at a point where we have to come up with the new deal around longer working lives that is as appealing as the old deal. a deal that people could actually look forward to and be part of a new american dream that is fitting for the 21st century in the way the last deal was for the circumstances of the last century. i think the way to do that is first to make sure that it protect people who cannot continue to work, but focuses on those who choose to work voluntarily, who want or need to continue to have another chapter of contribution in their lives. it is a trend we have heard has already been happening in the broad sense. i want to focus on a movement toward encore careers. already millions of boomers have launch second careers after the age of 50 in areas like health

care, education, the green collar economy, and government. we know from research a couple of years ago that fully 50% more want to follow that same path. i think an important measure we can take in the policy realm is to meet them halfway, to help them go from aspiration to action. these people want to work, who want to launch a whole second premier in areas where we no talent shortages will be increasing over the coming decade. in our testimony we talk about a number of ways to do that. one is to increase the investment in community colleges which at a low cost and expedited by can help people move into second careers as nurses and teachers and other high need areas. to fund the encore fellowships provision of the server america act, which helps build a capacity of nonprofits for bringing in people who have retired from the private sector career and want to apply their skills in these critical areas of need, and also to meet the

target goal of 10% of americorps members to help them transition to inouye on corkeron. we are interested in creating a new financing vehicle like the individual purpose account, which could be a corollary to the ira but helps people support themselves during the inevitable transition. you cannot just walk out and become a nurse or a teacher. you need to go back to school and get training. that can be a financial hardship for individuals. in addition to making changes to social security, providing additional flexibility for that inevitable transition time that i talked about before. then to invest in initiatives like the troops to teachers program, which is an extraordinary model for helping people who have completed one phase of service move into other roles for their equally needed. and of this committee has played

an extraordinary role in the history of the gi bill. i think of these adding up to a third age bill, a bill that would help people move from military service to a civilian service for, from abroad to home, from one phase of their working lives to a new one. one that would not just be another year or 18 months of work, but could be a whole 10- year career or longer. it could dramatically increase the length of their working lives. in doing this, and an individual level we stand to have -- the encore career idea is built around the idea up of continued income, people get up and go to work each day for daily many as for daily bread. a chance to use people's experience at a societal level. we can have improvements to social security financing in the

fiscal solvency of the nation. a windfall of talent areas that are high priorities, and also send a signal that longer working lives are not a punishment, but can actually be something to invest in and look forward to. i think if we pull that off, we would be doing at a time already and 10,000 boomers today are hitting their 60th birthday, but even more, new research shows that more than half the children born in this country in the developed world since 2000 can expect to live to 100. i think this is the beginning of a deal it could help better balance the joys and responsibilities and security of a contribution of or across a life span that is likely to be decades longer than it was in the last century. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. brown. >> i am honored to be here today.

representing the national center for corporate technology, and to talk about our organizations' efforts and success in recruiting and retaining encore employees, those working beyond retirement. i am particularly pleased to be here with my own senator, chairman max baucus. we are a small nonprofit organization with offices in iowa, arkansas, california, pennsylvania, and louisiana. our mission is to promote sustainable, small-scale local solutions in the field of agriculture and energy, with a particular interest in helping people who are economically disadvantaged. we have a highly educated staff, committed ship promoting our mission. we have a large diversity of staff and projects, but are perhaps best known here in congress for the national

sustainable agriculture projects. our staff is made up of a mix of agriculture and energy specialists, including agronomist, were cultures, livestock specialist, energy engineers, and architects. maintaining this work force along with operating an organization that is entrepreneurialism in developing new projects has required that we adopt the practice is to recruit and retain our workers. we were the proud recipient of a 2009 city ventures encore opportunity award for our efforts in employing older workers. there are three areas where nca t has been successful in recruiting and retaining older workers. first, employing what we call at jokes that, second, accessing singer -- senior training

programs -- employing what we call at junkeadjunct staff. this allows former staff the opportunity to come back to work on specific projects for a specific period of time. our adjunct played policy allows us to retain a pool of educated and experienced staff that can be called on as needed for projects with time limits that would not allow for a full and on-site recruitment process. it saves us money as an organization in recruiting, hiring, and training. for example, one of our long term employees left ncat to concentrate on raising flowers and vegetables for her farmers' market. she came back as an adjunct employee in has been working in the winter months as one of our horticulturalist.

ncat as an investment in the education and training of our staff. be able to bring them back easily allows us to retain their expertise after they retire and saves us from having to hire and train temporary staff. rosalynn, our library, was retired school teacher when she started work at ncat in 1978. she retired as our librarian in 1992 but returned to work in 1997. she continues as our head librarian with the very limited work schedule. rose says that she flunked retirement, and she continues to work even though she will reach age 90 this month. ncat also takes advantage of older worker training programs such as experience works, which trains low-income seniors for jobs that serve their communities. ncat as a participated for eight

years, train older workers to assist on our national hot line, helping low-income energy consumers. several trainees have become excellent regular ncat employees. i cannot stress enough how positive the experience works program is for an organization such as ours. ncat normally recruit nationally for positions. however, we had the opportunity a few years ago to conduct energy efficiency audits in montana, we needed to staff of more quickly than our normal hiring process would allow. we targeted our recruitment to a group of experienced into the engineers all over 50, who had either retired or been laid off from our local utilities. we now have a team of 12 staff with the older engineers mentoring the number staff. ncat as a multigenerational, diverse work force of 82 regular

staff, 36 of whom are over 50 years of age. we value their experience and expertise and make every effort to remove any barriers to the employment of older workers. including allowing flexible work schedules. many of our staff are working in encore second careers. i myself started at ncat just before my 50th birthday. this is my encore career. my bat -- my past professional life was as a staff member for congressmen. ncat make sure that training and professional development opportunities are available to all staff, no matter their age. one of those opportunities includes a testimony today, nearly 40 years after my first performance here in the u.s. senate. thank you so much for the opportunity to testify and put on the record the great benefits to our organization

has reached from using employees who have retired. >> thank you, marsha. i just wanted to know how much i and most people in montana appreciate your work. it is really quite something. i remember when ncat got started years ago, and it has grown into a very impressive organization, serving many people. it is a great outfit. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify. i will address my comments to the question of encouraging work at older ages, drawing on a recently published rand research. as the baby boomers aged and retire, the number of non workers relative to the number of workers in the population is rising. straying so cesarean medicare -- straining social security and medicare. the future depends a good deal on how long people choose to

work before they retire. fortunately, there is reason for optimism. the into the 20s century witnessed a profound change and determine behavior. for over a century, the labor force participation rate of men over 65 decline. at the end of the 20th century, it began to rise. work of older women rose as well. this historical turnaround was driven by rising education levels and technological change create jobs became less physically demanding. work at older ages is likely to continue rising in the future but it will be propelled by different forces. chief among these is the scheduled increase in the social security for retirement age which cannot be fully implemented until 2022. second is restricting an employer pension plans from defined benefit pensions was strong requirement incentives to 401k stalled pages that have no such incentives. legal barriers have only been partially relaxed.

third, the labor force participation rate of #women has risen over time. more women qualify for social security benefits on the basis of their own orchestra rather than their husbands. this creates new incentives for in -- for continue work of women. when women were over, so to their husbands. the ways in which men and women work at older ages has been changing, too. only 40% of those who stop working in their 50s and 60s stay out of the labor force. 40% return to work and 20% passed for partial retirement. self employment is also common. despite this good news, there is some potential challenges ahead. one is held. in many respects, while a 60 does seem to be the new 50, there is a possibility of reversal in the upper trend of healthy life expectancy. many older americans would apparently like to work but cannot find jobs. even before the current

recession, only about one-half of older job searchers found jobs within two years. one-third of them wanted part- time jobs, but these jobs were the hardest to find. one potential barrier on the employer side is the perception that older workers are less productive. while some aspects of cognitive ability to decline with age, other aspects are stable. productivity need not decline it would draw up -- of a job draws on stable skills. another challenge is health care costs. the extent to which it depressed over workers is done on, but may be substantial. even though part-time workers may not be given pension benefits, high turnover rates in workers nearing retirement make it difficult to recoup our in costs. employers might find it difficult to adapt to flexible part-time or schedules desired by older workers. the key question is how to support the forces already in motion and ease some of the challenges.

should we encourage people to delay retirement in the first place? are encouraged them to retire and later enter the workforce in a different capacity? perhaps both. in large part, this is because of leaving a long-term job for a new job open results and a wage loss, especially if the job as part time. most reentry jobs are part-time. if too many people would have worked full time now work part- time, we could even see a net reduction in work hours. policy options to encourage work at older ages include eliminating social security earnings test and formalizing retirement rules to encourage partial retirement instead of for retirement. policymakers could look for ways to help workers understand that when they claim early social security benefits, they lose nearly 30% of their annuity value. there may be ways to encourage employers to hire and retain

older workers, but caution is warranted. we do not understand with the biggest barriers faced by employers for with respect to perceptions about productivity, health care costs, high turnover rate, or an inability to accommodate part-time work schedules. it is also worth considering whether policies could be designed to attract middle-age women into the work force. this may pay a double dividend later on if it means her husband is more likely to delay retirement. thank you. i would be happy to take your questions. >> good morning. on behalf of the 11,500 virginia health support employees, i thank you for this opportunity to share in sun on how we attract and retain older workers as part of our 186th elsewhere -- health care act ministry.

our organization began in 1824 in paris, france and was founded by 12 catholic nuns. histogenesis of our name -- hence, the genesis of our name meaning good health. how older workers contribute to our success in culture and how we attract and retain them to create a culture of aging. we have 11,500 employes, seven employees, multiple and the tory care sites, and we take our mission of providing good health to those who need at heart. we can lead provide health care for over 50% of our metropolitan population. we also have an active caravan ministry that provides outreach services to mostly underserved or uninsured citizens, and last year we provided 12,000 of those

visits. our legacy for the culture of aging is about the poor sisters. many of the sisters aged 50 plus continue to work with us today and they service -- serve as leaders well into their 80s and 90s, providing strategic direction and guidance, including serving on the board of direction and leading the decisionmaking body. workers of this age are common and their contributions are celebrated. in our system, nearly 40% of our employee population is age 50 and above. of those, 18% are age 62 and above. the key to our culture of aging is our philosophy that we believe experience, wisdom, and institutional knowledge of our older workers is invaluable. in fact, it helps us make a more prosperous organization. let me share reduce story of patti davis.

for someone turning 89 in august, patti does not look a day over 60. she shines when she talks about her distinction as our oldest employee. she recently reflected on her life and her career as a nurse that continues today with her two-day a week job. she is also a regular volunteer for us in our gift shop. when asked about her career with the health system, patti said, i tried to retire, but soon after that, bon secours called me into work for them. we are committed to that culture and court named over the last 10 years by aarp as a top company for workers over 50. at the same time, people are starting to live longer and healthier lives. the majority of our workers are delaying retirement bid by offering phased retirement, flexible work schedules, and intergenerational program and, we have been able to

successfully retained older workers. research shows that workers -- nurses leave because of changing interest, being called on to care for aging members, family members, and work that is to physically demanding. we have been able to offer phased retirement. what does that mean? option number one, an employee may cut back to part-time work and continue to receive a pension check. an employee may receive a pension check at age 70.5 and continue to work. an employee may retire and then be rehired at a later date, continuing to collect a pension check. our older workers are eligible for medical, dental, vision coverage and other valuable benefits including tuition reimbursement. those workers age 62 and older, we are providing health insurance for them and they are not taking advantage of medicare at this point. are comprehensive and generous benefits are attractive, flexible, and creative.

grandchildren are eligible to attend our family center child care center. we offer opportunities for employees to take health risk assessments and to be monitored for health risk assessments. as a result we have seen over workers consistently see improvements in such areas as cancer, fitness, nutrition, stress, substance abuse, safety, and heart health. we have taylor are programs to telecommuting and job sharing and offer multiple work schedules such as two days a week, summers only, winter's only, etc. our mobility lit teams help with the regular turning of bed down patients. we have seen a steady drop in the number of injuries, a decrease in pain, and a reduction in muscle fatigue. when it comes to employee attention, we have several other

key initiatives. we are laying the foundation for program to reintroduce workers age 50 plus to volunteering through paid volunteer hours as they advocate in community issues representing our organization. we have an initiative called grant partners that appears employees, children, and are day care with elderly friends, employees, or spouses of children. in our journeyed to attract and retain older workers, we have made significant progress by constantly improving programs and policies. we continue to learn from other organizations in the public and private sector. in closing, consider the words of patti davis. i am the oldest employee at bon secours richmond. i do not have any plans of stopping soon. as long as i am able, i will keep on working. thank you for your time, and i

welcome any questions. >> the basic question i have is, and i will ask each of you briefly to answer, what are the main impediments that tend to prevent someone today from voluntarily working longer are going back into the work force part-time? what are the impediments to prevent a natural inclination for those who want to do more. i will just go straight down the line here and ask each of you to give one or to basics. >> there are a couple of things that occurred to me on this. this has been to a strong degree addressed by number of the other panelists. the most fundamental question really is the culture that we live in. those who are baby boomers understand that when the baby boomers entered the labor force, there were huge numbers of young

people available. employers began to offer early out retirement plans. this became a part of our culture, expecting people to retire earlier. frankly, we need to change that. this is a cultural change with anything else. if he can be done in a way not seen to be punitive, that would be excellent. if we can get the american people to think of valuing work over retirement, productive effort, working with your compatriots at the office, getting good things done as opposed to playing golf, has value, and people should enjoy and out yet. another small item is to emphasize social security benefits -- if you take your benefits at 62, you get a permanently reduced level of your monthly benefit for the rest of your life. kegan idylwild to start that benefit, you will get a higher monthly level. b.g.e. if you can wait a while to start that benefit.

if we could also possibly facilitate what we are talking about here, not just the encore career people moving to different careers, but another cultural change. i have heard people talk about it over many years now. we all tend to work on the basis that we advance in our careers and get better, but to higher positions of more responsibility. it is a one-way street. nobody is willing to accept that as they get older, as they desire to have more free time, maybe they should be able to that backed -- to step back. >> i agree that the cultural issue is very significant. there was an article in january that described the working age population as a 15-59. i was thinking that both of my centers are not in the working age population. it persists in a way that -- i

think another very important impediment is the transition for those people who want to have another phase of their career is a do-it-yourself process. i read an article in "the wall street journal" of years ago about boomers who were tapping into their children's accounts to pay for their own education. i interviewed a guy who wanted to become a park ranger at yellowstone. he had to go through this didn't conservation internship program with a bunch of 19-year-olds. >> what is the significance -- what are the significant doors? >> i think the same things we provide young people. one is cool. we have heard about moving into nursing, you have to go back to school. essentially, the internship idea. that is what the encore fellowships is, an internship for grown-ups with a can spend a

year in an organization in a different sector, so they can adapt their private sector skills into the nonprofit world or the government. we don't even have to be that imaginative. we can just take some of the things that we take for granted as young people make their shift and adapted for this population. >> ms. brown, you talked about removing barriers. can you tell us a little more little morencat has done to remove them -- tell us a little more about what' ncat has done? >> it requires that the employer be flexible, that you work with each individual employee and help them have fewer hours, work in the summer, work in the winter. as an employer, you have to be willing in order to keep that

expertise, be able to change -- >> are you finding employers are flexible or not? >> we have had to learn to be more flexible, and i expect other organizations have to, too. we have folks that only work two days a week or half a day a week, or work from home. i think being flexible, i would say, was one of the things employers could do the most. >> where roy to go very quickly here. >> -- we are going to go very quickly here. >> my research shows 70% of americans say it for retirement that they plan to work during retirement. this was before the current recession. many fear actually do work during retirement than said they wanted to. two things are important here, one is held. many people simply get sick before they can actually fulfill those plans. another important piece is jobs. older workers want part-time

jobs, but these are the hardest to get. but i would say that organizations today must learn to think about work differently. it is not the way it used to be. organizations must be innovative and creative and value of older workers and what they can bring to the organization. that would lend them to offer options around flexibility which are key to older workers, as well as health insurance. those are the two things, in my opinion, that will bring older workers back into the work force and keep them there. >> thank you very much. >> thank you all very much for your testimony. i wanted 0 win on the 62-65 age range. those -- i want to zero in. reducing benefits $1 for every $2, for money earned over

$14,000 this year. many view the retirement earnings test as a tax that discourages working after retirement. however, benefits are recalculated once a person reaches the full retirement age. a worker retires at 62 could receive reduced benefits until reaching the for retirement age. and then receive and reduce benefits for the remainder of life. except that it is hard to explain the retirement earnings test. it seems to encourage burning after retirement rather than discourage it. would you care to explain why so few people take advantage of the ability to receive reduced benefits while working between 62 and four retirement age, and then receive and reduce benefits for the rest of their life? >> if i am understanding correctly, we have over half of

people who are eligible to start receiving social security benefits are not if the rest -- if they start taking them and 62. to a great extent, that is because people believe -- there has been a culture of take the benefits that are available. people see that as a greater value. they do not understand that if they either way to get benefits or if they are working and have the benefits reduced for the earnings test, their lifetime benefits will not be reduced as a result we at social security and hopefully everybody else on this panel need to do a better job of getting that message out for people to understand that. another aspect is perhaps with the good work in this room to get social security and medicare back to sound financial footing so that people not concerned that it will not be there in the future. we understand that people want to take the benefits early because they think they need to take them now while they are available.

>> is anyone else have anything to contribute to that question? >> i would agree that in my experience, our older workers do not have an understanding of that concept. i think i agree that we need to do a much better job as organizations in partnering with the government on communicating that concept. >> i would second that, it seems the earnings test itself is not well understood at all. most people simply see it as a tax. >> you present some hypothetical calculations to illustrate the potential impact of increased employment on the ss system. it shows that when people work more, social security collect more taxes and pays more benefits. depending on the scenario, benefits would eventually rise

50 cents to 80 cents for every additional dollar of payroll taxes. you assume those who work more would earn typical wages, thereby leaving the average wage unchanged. there are a couple of ways of thinking about increased employment. workers would remain in their current job and return later or return and get another job. available data seems to suggest that those who stay in their current job earn higher wages than those who start a new job. it is true, how would that affect your calculations. does continued employment have a different impact on social security than reemployment? >> i think the question really is, the additional employment that people have, how would that affect the question of the average earnings level? if additional employment that we are encouraging people who are not working at all now and they work at a lower earnings level,

the taxes would be paid on that and there would be relatively little effect on benefits. so that would be relatively more positive effect on the trust funds. on the other hand, if people -- a smaller number of people work additionally and have an additional year of work at relatively high level, that can fall into their benefit calculation. they will not only receive the taxes but will receive benefit credit. that would be a lesser net effect on social security, as you well described. the way we put together these estes, where it -- these estimates, some other people who are already working during a given year, working more, and probably to the extent that we are able to encourage more participation, we have a combination of those two. there is a lot of

differentiation possible on these estimates, no question. >> senator bunning was the chairman of the social security subcommittee. >> it took us eight years to do away with the earnings limit. it to two residence and to the congress eight years to get the first b g e used to be $11,200 in earnings if you were 62. tax you $3 for every dollar you earn over $11,200. once he became fully eligible at age 65, they taxed you $2 for every dollar you earn over $11,200.

now that has been moved up, as question to earlier. but if you wait until your full retirement, you can earn unlimited, and that is where i think your organization does amiss service in the field, by not fully explaining to retirees what they are doing when they start at age 62 or 63 or 64, some now are 66 where their full retirement age starts. can you explain to me why that earnings test is not more fully explained to your field representatives that are dealing on a daily basis with retirees?

>> i wish i could. i am probably not the best person to try to address that issue, given the area that we work in. i do know that ssa has been making some serious efforts in the last year to change the message that is given to people when they come into the field offices. for instance, there is a concept of break-even point that people used to be told about. >> the always say, if you start at 62, at 78 you will catch up. >> i think a number of us felt that that was not being read the correct way. most people get their benefits one month at a time, and if you take your benefit that 62 as opposed to 65, at 65 you get a larger monthly benefit for the

rest of your life if you wait until that time. as if you start at age 68 -- i waited until we finally got the bill passed, the earnings limit totally eliminated, and i started my social security benefits at age 68. there are some very, very positive effects to your social security benefits if you start them later than 865. >> there is no question, back as recently as 1983 when we had a delayed retirement credit of only 3% that you got for every year you deferred your benefit as the normal retirement age. it was up to eight percentage points. now if someone waits until 68, they will get a 16% permanent increase in the monthly benefit for the rest of their life, by waiting those extra years. >> as the chairman and nine

know, most of the calls to your office or about social security. at least in my office they are. we get more calls on social security than any other issue, by far. let me ask one other very serious question. to the person from the rand corp., you mentioned in your testimony that likely increases in health-care costs for older employees could be a substantial determinate in hiring older workers. please explain this. >> as people age, their health declines and health care costs rise. so you have to think about people who are before medicare eligibility and after medicare

eligibility. >> at age 65 deep become immediately eligible for medicare. cracks right. so take a part-time worker who is 65. that person -- the employer is your required to provide health care coverage. >> before 65, it is the employer that provides the coverage. so you have an increasing number of workers in these older ages still pre-medicare raising average health-care costs. >> for the group. >> for the group. that is the mechanism. but at 65, everything shifts because medicare interest the picture. >> all i can tell you, and i have studied it as well as i guess anybody at this table.

all the vacant chairs do have people that sit here. the best and most practical way to increase social security benefits is something that the greenspan commission could have done, only they put a patch on it for 30 years instead of permanently fixing in. it would be to have increased from 65 to 70 the retirement age at full benefits. at the same rate they increased it from 65 to 67. somebody said that in 2037 we will have to go to 75% of the benefits. i believe it was you, mr. goss. but we would not have to do that if that money were to the -- were deferred for those three

years. we would be good until 2075 at full benefits if just that little change, and that does not cost the average american who is going to receive social security anything but waiting, or if they want to take it at 6566 or 67, they can with a lesser benefit. but i am telling you, most people are trying to stay in the work force at least pass 70, that i know. i don't know what percentage is all of you have of those that are at age 65-70 that are continuing into the work force if they are able to do it. do any of you have information

on that? cracks in my organization, 18% of our employees are 62 and older. out of 11,500. >> does anybody else have information? only 18% customer >> 40% are over the age of 50. >> i think is very important for us to look at the solution, not only of keeping those people in the workforce, because obviously the more money going into the funds, the more money available for those to collected. there is an upgrade you get if you lop off one of your 40 quarters when he made more than you did when you were 25, and you get an upgrade in your benefit every year, not

counting the possibility of inflation adjustment. you get an upgrade in your benefit at the end of november in a lump sum check if you have made over the earnings limit as far as what is paid in taxes and social security. so there are a lot of things that the field people need to explain to those people, and i ask you, mr. goss, since you have the closest relationship with social security, to please give your field people up to speed on that. thank you. >> we have about four minutes left, so i think we probably should wrap up here. thank you all very much. this is a big, big subject, and

one where you are in the vanguard, frankly. the major directions this country has to go to address these basic issues. thank you for your work, and i encourage you to keep at it, because we will need a lot of help in the next couple of years to try to solve this. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]