agreement. host: republicans othe house side want to cut funding. guest: and on the senate side. they just have not come up with an agreement how to do it. what particularly irritated the senate was, the chairman of the house transportation committee had included this rural subsidy provision in the house bill, and he said, i am doing this because we are stalled on the bigger bill and i want to get something done piece by piece. his intentions were good, but it looked like a giant chip on the shoulder of his counterparts in theenate, the chairman of the commerce committee. it would cut funding for airports in his state. the senate actually agreed to some of those cuts already, including rockefeller. mica added on a few other airports. one of them is in nevada.

again, he sort of did it on his own, without the typical, chordal back-and-forth that happens in congress. >> is transportation secretary ray lahood is asking for people to come back from vacation to deal with the faa. this is 20 minutes. >> array will talk about an unfortunate situation where, because of a refusal of congress to compromise, and do something

it has done without any problem 20 times in the past five years, seven years, there are 70,000 americans out of work at a time when we should be creating jobs and growing economy. decisions by congress are trying people off. without i give you the secretary of transportation. >> i think all of you in this room know the last thing the administration wants is a republican to be their spokesman. i am not auditioning for j's job. members of congress give a lot of great speeches. we have heard great speeches. about creating jobs. they talk the talk but they have not walked the walk. their speeches ring hollow.

to 4000 employees who are furloughed. their speeches about jobs ring hollow to 70,000 construction workers who are not working in the middle of the construction season on projects all over america. i was at one of those sites a few days ago. i met with these unemployed workers. they are ready to go to work. they are ready to complete the work, taking down the tower at laguardia. this is their season to work. this is the time when they make their money for their family so they can pay their house payments, they can buy food, they can make their car payments. four members of congress to give speeches about jobs and then go on their vacations while construction workers have vacated their jobs, it rings

very hollow. members of congress could easily have put 74,000 construction workers and faa employees back to work. instead, they went on vacation. congress turned a blind eye to these workers and their families. the shutdown of the faa is now in its 12th day. this means they are meeting without an ability to pay their mortgages and rent, to make their car payments, to take their own families on vacation for six weeks. projects around the country worth $11 billion are sitting idle. as i said, we are smack dab in the middle of the construction season. this is no way to run the best

aviation system in the world. this is no way to get the economy moving again. i want to just say parenthetically, in addition to the $11 billion worth of construction projects, $1 billion in uncollected taxes will not go to the federal treasury. you have heard all of the great speeches on debt and deficits for the last how many weeks about how we, everybody's concerned about debt and deficit. well, the wait to tackle part of the debt is to have this $1 billion collected which it will not be. congress needs to come back, resolve their differences, compromise, and put our friends and neighbors back to work. they should not leave 74,000 people hanging out there without

jobs, without a paycheck, until september. i am happy to take questions. >> you said in order -- one of your former colleagues said they are ready for a deal but it is the democrats who are blocking this. why hasn't the president on the phone to him? >> i will like -- let jay talk about the president. i have been talking to members of congress. i have been talking to them since this started. this is the thing the makes the public mad, the congress cannot do their job. when ordinary citizens here that their friends and neighbors ought to be working on a construction site of an airport and they are not because congress could not do their work, this is what infuriates the american people. congress should have passed a clean bill.

i urged them to pass a clean bill. they can still do it. they can still do it. the adjournment resolutions they have passed allow them to come back every four days and pass legislation. they could do it. i am asking congress to come back and do for the american people what they have been talking about. put 75,000 people back to work. that is will congress should do. taking a detour from their own vacation, come back to washington, and pass a clean bill. >> house republicans are clear that they will not change anything to do with union organizing, what democrats see as union busting. what do you say to that? >> do what you have done on 20 other occasions. pass a clean bill. that is what they have done.

when the house passes a bill and the senate passes a bill, there are always these disputes. on 20 other occasions congress did not hold hostage people. it passed the bill. congress could come back, they could come back today or tomorrow or next monday or tuesday. passed a clean bill as they have done on 20 other cases. people resolve their disputes. whatever they are. that is the way legislation gets passed. it gets passed by some people sitting down and the table. working out their differences. you have heard me say this. there has been a rich history of compromise. that is what needs to be done. compromise, pass a clean bill. where are your differences. >> is there any executive action

the president can do? you have to ask jay about that. i am working hard right now. >> any emergency action that can be taken to remedy this situation or to help these people? >> i will law answer that. -- let jay answer that. >> analysts have said that the president can grant you the authority to shift funds. that would help of the faa. is that something you would consider doing? >> what i want it done is what congress has done on 20 other occasions. send 75,000 people back to work and work out your differences. they have done it. they know how to do it. that is what they need to do. this is not fair to these people. these are people who work hard.

these are people that are in the middle of construction season. there is no reason that congress cannot do this. >> would-be presidents give you that authority? >> i am not going to speak to that. let me get a couple of other people. >> you talked about the impact on the 75,000 people. the american people d.c.'s this as a labor dispute. i'm wondering if you could put this into terms for the american people. how does this affect them in terms of flight, safety? >> the way it affects the american people is this, their friends and neighbors are out of jobs. look it, i used to represent a rural district. people on main street get this. they know that when their friends and neighbors are out of work, that hurts everybody.

for politicians to run around washington as they have done for the last seven months and talk about creating jobs, putting people back to work, this is not the way to do it. the american people see the fallacy in these hollow speeches. if congress really believes in the words they are saying about jobs, creating jobs, putting people back to work, stop your vacation. come back to washington. pass a clean bill. people get this. it is hurting their friends and neighbors. to me, people understand this. they really do. it is easily fixable. it has been done 20 times. >> the president gave a lot of ground in these talks about pledges. you think democrats ought to give up on the subsidies? >> congress ought to pass a

clean bill. yes, sir. >> with republicans, from your perspective they have been was unwilling to compromise. why doesn't the president of authority to do things on the rhone quite -- on their own? >> i am trying to keep morale high. when i went to look guardia, i met with unemployed construction workers. these people are hurting. they cannot apply for unemployment. there without paychecks. they do not know whether they are going to make their next mortgage payment, car payment. their kids are going to be starting school. there are costs incurred by people with their children

starting school. this is why people shake their heads when they think about congress. >> a dozen that speak -- doesn't that speak that they are now willing to compromise. >> there is a way for congress to pass a bill today. i'm calling them back. come back to washington. the year vacations! -- leave your vacations! help your friends and neighbors to back to work. >> whatever is action is necessary to bring these people back, if congress is not going to do this, would you accept the authority or an order by the president? >> i am thinking about how to

get our people back to work. i am thinking about getting congress back here. i'm thinking about our four thousand people who are without a paycheck for two weeks. that is where my time and energy are. sam. >> is that your position? >> my position is since both houses are in session, in pro forma, they could pass a clean bill. yesterday it was different because the senate was still in. i was trying to persuade them to do something different. today both houses are in pro forma. that is the easiest way to fix this. >> the leader of the house is john boehner. have you asked them to come back? >> absolutely.

i talked to senator reid a half- dozen times times. i talked to barry jackson more than a half-dozen times. >> what is their response? >> you can call their offices. >> can you guaranteed -- >> i can guarantee safety will never be compromised. we have the safest aviation system in the world. we would never compromise safety. the people involved in safety inspections at airports that works for the faa, many of them are using some of their run money to do their job, to pay their expenses. you know why? because they're dedicated employees who believe in their mission of safety. i can say without equivocation, safety will never be

compromised. flying is safe. passenger schedules should not be compromised by this issue. >> and many workers are out of jobs. there are many congressmen who must be getting heat from people in their district. are you hearing anything from around the globe as to what is going on in washington? >> we are hearing from people, we're hearing from our employees. i have not had any calls from any other transportation ministers around the country. let me take the second one.

>> we spoke during the debate that there were few members who were not willing to compromise. why would they be willing to compromise over this? >> hopefully the cloud of debt and deficit has been lifted. hopefully they're hearing from their constituents who are laid off whether they are employees or construction workers. many have their projects going on in the states. we are going to keep up our drumbeat and hopefully constituents will keep up their beat. hopefully they will hold people 's feet to the fire who love to give speeches about creating jobs and then send people home. mike. >> are you going to ask safety inspectors to work through labor

day without pay? >> we have a core of dedicated safety people. i am proud of that. there working every day making sure that airports are safe, making sure the inspections they do are done by the book. i hope the american people are proud of these people. look it, they are doing this, spending their own money to travel to airports and to do their inspections out of their own pockets. >> i do not understand. they are still on the payroll. they are essential employees. why wouldn't they be reimbursed by the government for their travel? >> they will be but they are not right now. they're taking their credit card, they're taking a fight

some more and inspecting an airport with the hope they will be reimbursed. we will reimburse them. ordinarily they would be using a government credit card. they're using their personal credit cards. how many of us to do that for very long? these are dedicated employees. >> if you see the difficulty on the house or senate side -- >> our difficulty is with congress. i hope you have seen my attention on congress. we need both houses. and your vacation for a couple of days. get off the beach. get out of your mobile homes or whatever you're traveling in. come back to washington. pass the bill. maybe i should have said rv's. come back and pass the bill.

thank you. >> in a few moments, a hearing on the african drought and famine. in less than two hours, congress examines nuclear power plant safety. after that, a subcommittee focuses on the soundness of the financial industry. on the "washington journal to, we will focus on lawmakers who look for budget cuts of a $1.5 trillion. our guests are john wonderlich and paul krawzak. peter coy will take your questions about his cover story titled "why the crisis is worse than you think." we will look at the african

family with a vincent vochetel. live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this month, c-span radio features more of the lbj tapes airing for the first time. this saturday, hear conversations between the president and senate armed services chairman richard russell. >> i am trying to get to peace in viet nam as quickly as i can. for that reason, i am not running. >> listen to c-span radio at 90.1 fm and online at c-span radio.org. 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,

1, zero. these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of god's children can live. where to go into the night. we must either love each other or we must die. vote for president johnson on november 3. >> we will look at the history of political campaign ads with robert mann. also former homicide detective james about on the day jack ruby kill the man under his protection and former speechwriters for nixon reveal how his messages were crafted. american history tv. kitty schedule -- get s schedule at c-span.org/history.

>> the food and humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa. was somalia having a drought, relief efforts have been complicated by the fact that al qaeda controls part of the country. this is less than two hours. >> i would like to focus -- called today's hearing. i am privileged to serve with my friend senator isaacson and i want to thank him for staying with me after the senate has adjourned to help preside over today's hearing. this is a children's crisis. there are hundreds of thousands of children on the verge of suffering from malnutrition.

senator isaacson and i agreed this could not wait. while many of our colleagues have returned to their home states and districts, we believe it was crucial we go ahead with this hearing and not let another months go by. the senator has been a true partner in highlighting issues and shared concerns. i appreciate his leadership. as everyone is aware, the congress has been focused almost entirely on the deficit and debt crisis. we must also consider global issues of humanitarian concern especially when millions of lives are a risk. today we have displayed images of the crisis in the horn of africa to demonstrate the rising human toll of the drought and famine including on children. in today's hearing, we will listed numbers to quantify the impact of the drought.

these images help convey the impact on human lives. i want to thank unicef for its work on behalf of children worldwide and for providing the photographs we're displayed. they have also submitted a statement detailing its efforts. the crisis has been caused by the worst drought in the region in more than 60 years, resulting in malnutrition, rising levels of starvation and famine. it is the most severe crisis in any generation, effective security for more than 12 million people across somalia, kenya, and the surrounding area as illustrated by a map i will submit for the record. according to unicef, at 3 million children in the region are not theirs. half a million are risk of imminent death. this crisis is expected to worsen in the coming months, eclipsing the famine in ethiopia

that elicited public outcry and then a great response as demonstrated by memorable events such as lie ahead. the public awareness appears to be absent today despite a worsening situation and need for aid. the situation is the most severe where rising food prices and fears of governance and security have exacerbated an already dire situation. given the ongoing problems, aid organizations estimate more than 1500 refugees are leaving somalia for kenya, flooding the compound which is well over capacity commandeering half a million refugees. hundreds of somalis are fleeing every day for other camps in ethiopia, also well over its capacity.

the international community and united states are working closely with the government of kenya, ethiopia, and the duty to address this transnational influx of refugees. i praised their efforts to accommodate these populations while their own people also face severe challenges from the drought. the country's impacted are among the poorest, suffering from higher rates of poverty. while the failure of to trainees seasons contributed to this disaster, the humanitarian crisis highlights broader capacity, infrastructure, and security problems. this drought was not a surprise. us aid predicted an impending crisis last year and worked closely with the government to enhance their ability to respond and position emergency relief. as the u.s. joins with its

partners in the international community, we must also consider the lessons learned in order to avert the next problem. to build a sustainable capacity and mitigate the impact of this crisis on future generations. in response to the drought, the united states has been the largest donor, providing four hundred $2 million in food aid, health care, and other things. the responsibility cannot rest on our shoulders along. the response to the crisis must be a shared obligation. according to the united nations, more than $2 billion will be needed to provide assistance. only 1 billion has been committed. the international community must join the united states in providing this critical aid. as we consider the international response, we must examine restrictions on access.

the united nations declared a famine. just yesterday, there was an easing of restrictions on humanitarian organizations operating in order to facilitate the delivery of aid. and look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. to hear more about the impact in response to the crisis, we're joined by two distinguished panel. we will hear from nancy. of mercyer president corps. she will also be joined by donald yamamoto and former ambassador to ethiopia. we'll hear from the deputy assistant secretary for population refugees and a former fellow at the council form --

foreign relations. on the second panel, we will hear from germany, -- jeremy, he is led recovery operations route region. next will be the director of africa center and a former professor of justice studies at james madison university. then we will hear from the assistant director for care international, somalia, who recently ran a returned to drought affected areas americans have demonstrated great leadership helping those in need domestically and abroad. i am confident we can partner with the international community.

>> welcome. >> i was here in tanzanian and ethiopia. i see firsthand what they do delivering a humanitarian aid as well as care like sustaining technique spherical -- is so critical. i appreciate care being here. and always proud to have a home team here. i am delighted because he can provide insights as an informed reporter.

you'll also be able to examine the extremists range that has gone through somalia. the severity of complexity of the region coupled with the u.n. in the united states alone hundred, make this a particularly challenging response. i am delighted that he called this meeting today.

when need to work together to bring humanitarian relief to people struggling in a terrible part of the world. thank you for calling this hearing, and i look forward to hearing the testimony of all of our witnesses. >> thank you. it will begin up with the opening statement of ambassador yamamoto. >> i have a longer version for submission for the record. i will read the short version. >> thank you. i would encourage five-minute statements, if possible and we will submit a careful statement for the record. >> senator, chairman, and ranking members of the committee, the worst humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa and 50 years has its roots in al-shababab, which until now has prevented the humanitarian assistance reaching those in need. it impacts vulnerable pastoral populations. we're working hard with our international and regional proctors to deliver quickly the

life-saving in short-term relief critical to those suffering the effects of this crisis. the u.s. government and u.s.- funded assistance has prevented the loss of millions of lives. at the same time, we cannot rely on emergency assistance alone to resolve the underlying long- term problems in the region. therefore, we're working with the governments in the region to support long-term political and food security in the region. let me be clear, the response to the drought has been complicated by the continued instability in somalia, especially due to the actions of the house about the -- actions of al-shababab. more than 2 million are trapped in their areas. they have largely prohibited international humanitarian workers and organizations from operating in the area it controls they continue to refuse humanitarian access and prevent the international community from responding quickly inside

somalia. at as we seek to take advantage of any current openings to expand aid distribution, we're also working with our partners to counter their ability to threaten our interests or hold the somali people hostage. at the same time, we're taking the necessary steps to support that urgently needed humanitarian need it to those who need it in the south central somalia, while working to minimize any risk of diversion. we have worked closely with the department of treasury to ensure that aid workers who are prepared with the u.s. government to help save lives under difficult and dangerous conditions are not in conflict with u.s. laws and regulation. it u.s. sanctions against al- shabab do not or prohibit the delivery of assistance to somalia, including those on the the defacto control of al- shabab.

regional security requires political stability. the u.s. has already placed a long-term process to stabilize somalia. last year we announced our dual track approach to broaden efforts to taking into account the complex nature of the somali society and also be more flexible and adaptable to our engagement. we tend. it would continue to support the peace process and the transitional government as a first line of efforts to stabilize somalia and expel al- shabab from mogadishu. the u.s. has supported the stabilization efforts by obligating to utter $50 million to amazon trading at an approximate $80 million to support the capacity to the forces. on the second track, we are partnering with a regional government and administrations through the central and south somali area. those who are not affiliated with the t.f.g. the u.s. plans to provide $21

million to support development efforts in the dual track policy. we have further information as we go on to the questions, and i will reserve my other colleagues to speak. thank you very much. >> thank you very muchms. lindborg. >> thank you. i appreciate your time to hold this hearing and raise the level of attention. the situation is deteriorating, and i think we all share a significant concern. the horn of africa has long been plagued by cyclical drought. what we're seeing now is the worst in 60 years. what used to be 10-year drought cycles are happening literally every other year, and the current drought is affecting 12.4 million people in somalia, kenya, ethiopia, and djibouti. the crisis is humanitarian and security related. we will hear from dr. brigety

about the refugees that are pouring across the borders. internally, more than 1.5 million displaced somalis are crowding into the northern cities that are ill-equipped to handle the increased population. the july 20 un declaration of famine in their regions of somalia would not have been made lightly and reflects the dire conditions of the people. it is based on nutrition and mortality surveys, data that has been verified by the cdc, and we estimate that in the last best -- in the last 90 days, 29,000 somali children have died. this is nearly 4% of the children in southern somalia. our fear and the fear of the international community and the governments of of one of africa

is the famine conditions in those two regions of somalia will spread to encompass the entire eight regions of southern somalia. even if the rains are good, we could bear witness to another wave of mortality in the south because of waterborne diseases. in ethiopia and kenya, the situation is grave, but we do not expect it to deteriorate into famine or result in the level of need as we are witnessing in the south. ethiopia and kenya have large areas of arab land, populated primarily by pasteur lists. u.s. aid has worked extensively in both countries to increase the resilience and food security of these communities and drought-affected areas. if we strengthened and early- warning systems, support an ongoing safety net and protection program, and work to increase productivity and arab land. -- and arrid land.

we have supported the safety net program. as a result, 7.6 million people have been removed from the emergency caseload. in the drought of the 2002-2003, the government of ethiopia stated 13.2 million people in ethiopia were affected by the drought. by contrast today, only 4.8 million are stated to be in need. the needs in ethiopia and kenya are serious and will require a sustained focus and attention, but the results of our paribas and development programs are paying off and we're seeing results. the early-warning system alerted us in august that a drought was on the horizon.

at that time, we began positioning food stocks, food aid, stockpiling food in djibouti, kenya, and south africa. this fiscal year we have provided for under $59 million of aid in the horn -- $45 9 million of aid in the horn, including water sanitation, hygiene, education, and assistance in the refugee camps. we are now focused aggressively on working to update the potential for mass starvation in southern somalia. we learned in the drought of 1992 in somalia that the leading cause of death for children under 5 was deceased. we're focusing on three key areas. first, the availability of food, including those therapeutic foods essential for

children under 5. access to food, and integrated health programs. in terms of key challenges, we identify three. first, time is not on our side. we have a small window to reach those in need or risk the additional deaths of several hundred thousand. we're looking at about a six- eight week window. access is in the worst affected areas of south somalia the primary obstacle to relief efforts. the world food program and most international organizations suspended operations in early 2010, and since 2008, world food program has lost 28 staff members. until now, al-shabab has restricted access and has given miscast as symbols -- they have given mixed signals as to whether they will allow aid. in the face of extreme needs, we have guidance on the provision of assistance to allow more

flexibility to a wider range of aid to those areas of in need. we could have clarified that aid workers are partnering with u.s. government to help save lives, not in conflict. the third challenge is scale. the emergency will outstrip the resources currently available in the international community, in the traditional donor community, so we're working aggressively to encourage all donors and nations to step forward with assistance. we cannot stop drop from happening, specifically in this region, but we can strengthen communities and their ability to withstand these national calamities. president obama feed the future initiative is focused precisely on addressing these were causes of hunger and under-nutrition, and working to strengthen the resilience of committees. the chores of the ability of the population to withstand drought through commercial availability of excess of staple foods, reducing the trade and transport barriers that impede the movement and sale of livestock, and harvesting

science and technology. we are seeing right now how these investments in the future make a critical difference. thank you, mr. chairman. i live like this testimony to signal to the people of the horn as well as the somali-americans i recently met in minnesota and ohio that the american people are very much with them in their time of need. thank you. >> thank you. dr. briegety. >> good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa. we appreciate the support and the attention congress has given to this crisis in the midst of some the other issues you have been grappling with.

i will discuss the current situation facing refugees, our immediate response. and our plans to work with the world community to meet the challenges and save as many lives as we possibly can in the coming months. i have travelled to ethiopia and kenya in july to evaluate the emerging refugee crisis in the region, where hundreds of thousands of somalis have fled. during my trip, visited refugee camps in each country, along with representatives from donor countries. i met with senior government officials, talked with officials from the un aid organizations and non-government organizations, and spoke with many refugees. it was clear the situation is developing into the worst humanitarian emergency the region has seen in a generation, at least since the great famine of 1991-1992. we must confront the refugee emergency within a protracted refugee situation. years of hard work by the host

governments and their international partners to address just the basic needs within established camps quickly are being overshadowed by the need to add new, broader border crossing facilities, new camps, and additional emergency services. both ethiopia and kenya are receiving record numbers of refugees from somalia, and both countries, refugees are arriving in appalling physical health. every refugee family with whom i spoke in ethiopia and kenya said they had walked days from somalia, with virtually no food and no water. brief visits to the health clinics and refugee camps revealed dozens of malnourished children, so nbc did and so weak that to the untrained eye, they appeared close to death. among the no rivals in the refugee camps in ethiopia, we're seeing up to 50% with acute malnutrition, reflecting the current state of affairs for children inside of somalia. camps in ethiopia and kenya are strained far beyond their

capacity in every way, with regard to space, staff, food, and essential services, as they try to cope with the record influx of refugees which continues unabated. somalis' represent the largest refugee population in all of africa. somalia's neighbors and eastern horn of africa now host 620,000 smollett refugees, some 159,000 somalis have sought refugees in ethiopia, with over 75,000 arriving just since january of this year. kenya hosts more than 4 per 48,000 somali refugees, with nearly 100,000 arriving since the beginning of this year. even djibouti has seen it and almost 20% increase in the number of refugees since the

beginning of 2011. we commend the governments of kenya, djibouti, and ethiopia for their generous support of the refugee populations, even as they themselves are currently struggling with the drought that maybe the worst in some 60 years. while the current crisis is taxing already stressed system, i am confident the governments of kenya, ethiopia, djibouti, and their international partners including the united states have the ability to confront this crisis had on and will be able to find new solutions to address the needs not only within the camps but also for those within somalia. let me give two examples of what i saw during my trip. first, the u.s. and our regional -- and our regional partners have helped wrap up emergency assistance. i traveled to the refugee camp complex on the ethiopian-somali border, accompanied by a u.s. ambassador, u.s. aid ambassador, government officials, country

representatives, and senior representatives from several donor countries. as we wandered through the refugee camp, talking with people had been there several days or only just arrived, we heard versions of the same story over and over again. one man that i met had come all the way from mogadishu, traveling nine days with his wife, six children, with very little to eat along the way. i talked with him as he sat on a hospital caught with his jaundiced child, a 3-year-old girl. as we spoke, she never stopped moaning. she could not get comfortable because of the heat and the flies, as her tiny bones threatened to pierce her paper- skinned -- paper thin skin. we saw many families with the same desperation in kenya. i spoke with one mother who had carried her polio-stricken seven natural daughter on her back for nine days, with little food and water, has her other six children trailed behind.

it was clear that a number of recent interventions such as the provision of hot meals are vital steps beyond basic camp services to assist those making this heartbreaking journey. i commend the u.n. high commissioner for refugees for finding ways to add these additional programs after he visited the area just a few days before i had. still, more and must be done. the second example is how the u.s. has increased overall refugee assistance through the region. the u.s. has long been a partner to governments and people in the horn of africa as they host to hundreds of thousands of somali refugees, providing approximately $459 million of humanitarian assistance just this fiscal year to those in need. this supports refugees, displaced persons, and other drought-affected populations.

out of this funding, the u.s. is providing approximately $69 million specifically to refugees through the state department's bureau of population. detainee access to somali's and neighboring countries is critical -- retaining access to neighboring countries is critical to saving lives. u.s. has supported the expansion of the camps and is now moving refugees into the new space following the government of kenya is agreement to allow the

opening of a new site. we're also urging can you to quickly open a reception at center capacity said that incoming refugees can be properly screened had registered. we will continue support of our country efforts to provide that assistance to somalis, including through the office of the world food program and other international organizations and ngo's. representatives from other donor countries who accompanied me were also moved by the gravity of the situation. they said they would work with her own governments to support the efforts of eight groups. rigorous and sustained diplomacy will be required in the region and with other donor capitals to ensure the international community and host countries take necessary measures to save lives in the coming months. we're also committed to addressing these humanitarian need inside of somalia, as my colleague spoke. there is an immediate need to reach vulnerable populations in sot of somalia so they do not have to travel long distances to save lives. unless we find ways to provide assistance to people inside of somalia, we will continue to see refugees arrive an appalling conditions and we will continue to see mortality rates in the refugee camps rise on a bit. this brings us to the security situation. al-shabab's activities have made the current situation worse. we expect the situation in somalia to continue to decline, especially southern somalia, where the u.n. has declared famine and the conditions worsen. there is not a simple solution to this regional crisis.

we're working to tackle it through a variety of means and mechanisms, including addressing the underlying causes. thank you very much for your time and attention and we look forward to any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. ambassador, if i may pick up where his testimony left off, being able to deliver humanitarian assistance within somalia -- southern somalia is vital to protecting refugees from having to make a long or week-long treks across the desert that are so difficult and stressful on them and their children. might understanding is that the eased restrictions on humanitarian groups in southern somalia. could you explain in more detail the modified policy, the extent to which it will increase the flow of data, and do you have confidence there is enough time left for humanitarian assistance to be provided in

southern somalia given the famine? >> that is a multifaceted answer. 60% of those in need are in al- shabab-held territory. the issue is it has been extremely difficult and impossible to deliver food into these al-shabab-held territories. with the u.s. has taken is on the ngo groups. they have heightened to diligent procedures, but essentially it is to allow ngo groups to enter al-shabab-held areas if they can, even if it means paying fees or convoy fees or what have you, as long as they have done their due diligence and are no other alternatives. bottom line, even with these measures and procedures, it really is, is al-shabab: to allow the deliveries? right now, if you see the

internal displaced people, about 100,000 in mogadishu, 1000 per day going into those areas, you have al-shabab troops and shooters going into the areas and targeting refugees. they're making it more difficult. amazon has done a pre-emptive measure to try to keep the corridors opened to these idp's. the question is how we stabilize the area, how are we going to allow free flow of food into these areas. i guess i would refer to dr. lindborg for more. >> time and access are the critical challenges we face. we're working closely with the international community to

explore a number of options that test the possibility of having greater access. there are airlifts bringing food into mogadishu. we are hopeful that there will be an opportunity to move more vigorously into areas where there is a willingness by al- shabab and others to allow assistance. i think the new guidance that was issued over the past few days creates greater assurance and greater flexibility, but fundamentally, this is a tough area to operate, probably one of the toughest operating environments globally right now, and it will take very seasoned humanitarian workers to be able to navigate through that environment.

>> ambassador, how would you address the international community's response to the crisis compared with the u.s., and how successful have we been to encourage the african union, the european union, other multilateral entities and groups that might be engaged? >> first, the response from the united states has always been -- it is not something we have responded because the effects of the famine. the of the last several years, the united states is the primary food supplier to the region. the horn of africa is our number one region for food around the world. ethiopia is our number one

country the last several years. the issue that comes in, another example, to give you the depth of the problem, and a good day in ethiopia, you have something like 300 kids under the age of five dying every day from preventable diseases. under this situation, the rates are much higher. so the response has been how to get more food into the pipeline, and sure its delivery, and working with the ethiopians and canyons to encourage access and expand camps. third is to work with the forces in mogadishu to make sure there is more feeding to the abilities -- fete -- feeding capabilities, and also making it easier for ngo's to operate. finally is to confront al- shabab, and how we can contain them or open up more corridors for feeding. >> ms. lindborg, you mentioned the imprints of harnessing science and technology, the role of feed the future. in doing the background reading, i was struck by ready to use food that is being deployed and

has revolutionized our ability to revive children become to the edge of starvation, and also the investments usaid has made on water drilling and how it has allowed people to sustain their lifestyle and still provide them with more water -- more reliable water supplies. any brief comments that you would like to add about our strategic investments in advance of this crisis and changing the ground and making this different from previous drought cycles? >> yes, thank you. i think the most striking is what i cited in my testimony. because of our work with the world bank and other donors and the ethiopian government cost community safety net, we have enabled 7.5 million ethiopians to not go into a state of urgent need. in addition, there has been significant work on increasing the ability of people to whether these droughts, through

improving the health of their livestock, their ability to trade. as we look ahead to feed the future, which is at the heart of president obama's vision for how to truly enable us to not have to mobilize large emergency response is every time there's a drought, we want to couple that with the kind of trade reforms and policies that unable vulnerable populations to have greater population -- greater productive capacity, and to use science and technology on issues like drought resistant seeds or better production techniques or livestock approaches. >> thank you. >> thank you all for testifying. ambassador, you said that sanctions did not inhibit the

delivery of humanitarian aid. i think you were referring to somalia and al-shabab. what do our sanction say regarding humanitarian aid? >> you mean the licensing? >> yes. >> when we debated the issue on deliveries and to al-shabab-held territories, the debate was payment of convoy fees to them to allow feeding in those areas. the second was what was al- shabab using the money and funding for? that was the second major concern. it is through this effort of feeding, are weaker contributing to the greater instability? .

are we contributing to the greater instability? the problem comes in with the famine and malnutrition is how to use liberalize and open up the ability of ngo's to allow them to get into this areas faster. the problem remains even with all of the procedural openness, will they allow them to enter? ethiopia and kenya have tried to open up corridors for feeding, pushing into somalia, but even those are not incentive enough given those remain in secure areas and dangerous. it becomes a big problem, how do you engage or open corridors or begin to feed in those areas where relief 50% of those in need are in al-shabab-held territories.

>> the problem is the corruption where the chokepoints of al- shabab would issue their payoff fees and the use those -- and the use those to finance the organization? >> yes, sir. >> are we telling ngo's that are willing to travel and deliver

humanitarian aid is ok to pay those fees? >> no, we are requiring them through procedures to do their due diligence, to find any way possible to be able to feed and provide food to areas. without paying the fees. but if it becomes necessary. >> is there any security for ngo's, from the u.n. or african union, in terms of getting the material into somalia? >> i will refer that to you, nancy. >> i know you have an ngo panel after us. they will have much to say. i think most groups operating have a principled approach to not paying taxes or polls, and many are able to accomplish this. the easing of the legal restrictions simply removes any concern that an accidental or incidental payment will not jeopardize them with any legal action. it is creating a greater sense of comfort with the partners that that is not a barrier to affecting assistance delivery. >> in somalia, still a dangerous place with al-shabab using violence to carry out its intent. do that ngo's have any degree of protection, other than their own provided protection?

>> i believe most of them choose not to have any protection, other than the protection of the community is welcoming them and hosting them and the provision of assistance. ultimately, we all need to the kind of access that comes from the committee is one thing and understanding the importance of the international effort to help them at this critical hour. >> the chairman and i have traveled to africa together, seen the scourged and corruption through the continent, and this is not related to this issue, but what the u.s. is doing to get democratic institutions to rid themselves of corruption in return for contracts and things of that nature is changing africa. this region, not necessarily because of al-shabab and other organizations, that is the single biggest inhibitor ic to u.s. investors in u.s. foreign aid going in through ngo's. doctor, let me ask you, i was in kenya two years ago. but that time, there were expressing their frustration with the pressure applied to them, the number of refugees they had said. your flyer said they are getting over 1200 every day and have expanded their camp. is that correct? other than providing the

additional land for expansion, what pressure is being put on the canyon's by this number of people to provide help and at what cost? >> that is the largest refugee camp in the world. it has been there since 1991. if you of refugees inside of kenya is very sensitive politically. they been very patient dealing with this refugee crisis for two decades. the order of magnitude, earlier this year, there were getting about 1200 new arrivals per week. it is now about 12 stoddert, 1300 per day. -- 1200, 1300 per day. they are asking them to open three major camps. there was an expansion, which we have long asked them to expand. when i was there three weeks

ago, i was on the ground with the prime minister, who had a public press conference with the international media. at the press conference, he gave his word of the government of kenya would allow the expansion to be open to, and the u.n. has begun to move refugees there and we look forward to the government of content -- the government of kenya to support that. the cost of the campus largely borne by the u.s. -- borne by the eight committees. the government of kenya provides some financial support through security forces around the borders, but the net is states has long been a leader in terms of supporting this. >> i think when we talk about tragedies like what is going on with the famine on the horn, we also ought to give credit to

those countries who are trying to help. the kenyan government and their people i've been supportive for two decades and are bearing an enormous brunt of the burden and the cost is significant. we need to acknowledge and appreciate what they have done. >> yes, sir, you are correct, and we do regulate. -- we do regularly. >> the other largest refugee camp in ethiopia, there were nearly 2000 somali refugees arriving per day up until a few weeks ago, but that has recently dropped. is there a sense of the cause of that? how do you assess the ethiopian government's increased willingness our capacity to provide support and the ongoing issues? >> when i was there three weeks ago, the arrival rate was about two dozen per day. it is now about -- the arrival rate was about 2000 per day.

it is now about to open a 50 per day. we did not know why, we're trying to understand the nature of that dynamic. in february this year, the major camps there had about 50,000 refugees combined. that number has doubled. at the rates we are seeing in mid july, it is conceivable that could double again by the end of the year. the government of ethiopia has been a very good partner in terms of supporting this refugee population, particularly since the onset of the current drought crisis earlier this summer. they have responded with alacrity providing additional staff, they have allowed ngo's to operate at the transit center. we engage repeatedly with the government of ethiopia, but the ministry of foreign affairs and also their refugee aid agency, to let them know we are effective aid partners and we're very pleased the extent to which they have extended their

hospitality to these people in need. >> it is hard for a senator from the state the size of delaware to grasp a camp of half a million people. that is the size of kansas city. how are the managing the health pressures and concerns and ensuring we do not have a follow on humanitarian crisis from disease? >> to be frank, the health pressures are enormous. the refugee camp complex, just can't, is now the fourth largest population center in kenya. having said that, there are a number of partners that provide health services in side of the camps. with the new refugees arriving, about 44,000 refugees are simply on the outskirts of the camp because they were not allowed to settle in the expansion and the other camps were full. those settling on the outskirts, where there were no

services or significant health services or others, are clearly suffering additional rates of all sorts of basic preventable diseases, including respiratory diseases. these are hot, dusty conditions, without shelter, and it is easy to develop the sort of problems. we're hoping the addition of this camp expansion will give people shelter, access to established health clinics, and other facilities that are already built. and we will continue to support both the u.n. aid and that the ngo's providing these essential

medical services, especially to treat these horrible rights of malnutrition amongst children under 5 years old that we are seeing. >> we're talking about science and technology. these nations are bearing an enormous burden in terms of the refugee demand. much of kenya's power is delivered by hydroelectric power, which due to the record drop has dropped by more than half. what is usaid doing to help deploy alternative power that might help provide electricity in ethiopia or can add to these camps or that might help reduce the strain on the host nations in terms of their electricity grid? is there anything we are going

to streamline the process? >> senator, how like to get back to you on the specifics of that answer. there are a number of conversations with can and ethiopia about ways in which we could work closely with them to mitigate the impact of future droughts. there are conversations under way and we would be delighted to get back to you with the details. >> thank you. the final question, what are we doing to avoid the significant security challenges facing somalia's spilling over into kenya, ethiopia? both of these nations have supported and sustained large refugee populations from somalia for a long time, and would have an understandable concerns about the possibility of a destabilizing comment either their nations, and last, the investment that is being made, is it sufficient from the u.s. and international community? what additional resources may be needed and how what might we be more effective -- and how might

we be more effective in gauging the ngo's and the international committee on top of their commitments? >> it is so complex. one at of every six somalis is in ethiopia. the issue comes in on security and stability. for ethiopia and kenya, somalia is a strategic interest because of security concerns. during the time i was there, 12 terrorist bombings in one year from groups emanating out of somalia into ethiopia. it is a concern for ethiopians, just as it is a concern for kenya, and is a concern for us. how do you ease the security concerns?

i think the bull track approach is one approach we have worked not just with the regional states but the transitional governments to stabilize that region. that is really one area, to look at the security by the somalis themselves. then the amazon troops from uconn that and burundi have done great steps and taking backed mogadishu -- and uganda. the problem as the security will be a long-term problem. do we have enough financialn is?no, but it is a partnership. >> if i may add, one of the principal crossing points is where the united states has long encouraged the government of kenya to operate a center. the government of kenya has officially closed their border, has for some years. we have encouraged the government of kenya to reopen the center, and we have committed some considerable funds to help them pay for that opening.

that will be a means to help them know who is coming into their country, in addition to providing assistance to refugees at their first point of crossing, before the have to make the additional 80 kilometer track. we hope the government of canada will continue and will open the center in short order. >> we are very focused on ensuring that the host communities around the camps also receive assistance. there are large drought-affected areas in ethiopia and kenya, and it is important that we work

to meet those very great needs as well. on the awareness issue, it is critically important, i think, to mobilize the resources of the the very generous private citizens as well as donors, including nontraditional donors, and there is a significant effort underway to do that. >> great, thank you. >> just one question, and ambassador, this may be directed to you. in our briefing memo from the committee, there is a reference to ethnic somalis living in ethiopia had access given to ngo's to provide them with food and a humanitarian assistance, the inference being it was somewhat restricted. what is the case with ethnic somalis in ethiopia and is the restriction in getting food and aid to them? >> during the time i was the ambassador there, i spent most of my time traveling into the area to ensure that the u.s. food assistance was getting to the right people. during the last year i was

there, we had something like 6 stoddert million dollars, 800,000 metric tons to deliver to the people -- $600 million of food, and we were able to verify about 70% accuracy rate of getting the food out to the distribution points. the problem was getting the distribution points to the beneficiaries. we were only able to confirm about 20%. the reason is not only security, but also the process of delivery of food into areas where there is insecurity and conflict. we have been working closely with the ethiopians to open access and allow the ngo's groups to go into the areas to ensure that food was getting to the right, appropriate people. >> there is some difficulty getting it there? >> yes, sir, there is. >> we would like to thank all

members of this panel. thank you for your testimony, service, and work on this important issue. we appreciate your testimony today. we now would like to turn to our second panel. we will take a moment while they join us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> we've been like to welcome the second panel. i encourage all three of you to correct my pronunciation of your names. we are grateful for you taking time out of your report work to join us today to add your testimony to the record and to the attention that is being paid by the senate and international committee to this concerning challenge in the horn of africa. i encourage each of you to try

to contain your comments to about five minutes for your opening statements and we will submit to the record an additional state that you may have. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. it is an incredibly important issue and we appreciate the focus that you and the subcommittee are dedicating to this. i am the director of policy and advocacy with mercy corps. i'm here today representing their relief and development organization that operates in over 40 countries, but for today's purposes, and three of the most affected countries in the region -- kenya, ethiopia, somalia at -- where we are providing drought relief. i think everyone has been shocked by some of the photos that have been coming out of the region, particularly out of mogadishu. there was a very striking and shocking photo in yesterday's "new york times" with enemy

seated child. as horrible as some of these images are, it is important that we recognize for every image of a child who has at least committed to a treatment center, there are many more children and adults to have not made it that far. that is a growing tragedy. it is also critical to remember that as much of the attention has focused on somalia, the situation in kenya, ethiopia, and djibouti is critical as well. our teams are doing assessments through kenya and ethiopia, and initiating programs, and finding vast parts of ethiopia and kenya in a state of extreme humanitarian emergency. we're seeing landscapes full of dead and dying live stock, which normally forms the basis of the people to feed themselves and support their families. villages are being completely emptied by the drought because people cannot get water and have had to go elsewhere.

they're seeing many families who are struggling to eat even one meal per day. that is a desperate situation. the superlatives that are being used to describe the crisis are not high broglie. this threatens to become one of the worst, if not the worst humanitarian crisis we have seen in a generation. the good news is that the aid committee has a good idea of how to fight the crisis. we have learned how to respond effectively to hunker crises at -- to hunker crises. the big question is whether we will have the opportunity to

apply that opportunity and understanding with developed. our entire sector is facing a massive shortfall in funding for the response. the u.s. has been very generous so far, the rest of the world also come up with some variants, but it falls far short of what we saw even if years ago -- a few yers ago. there does not yet seem to be global recognition of how severe the crisis is. we're seeing a fraction of the engagement and level of resources we saw after the haiti earthquake, despite the fact that the people at risk in the horn of africa exceeds the population of haiti. the u.s. is working hard to respond and mobilize resources. the teams that are working this issue at usaid and refugee bureau or the best in the business and we deeply appreciate their commitment and expertise. they need resources to combat this crisis. so far this year, the u.s. contribution, while extremely generous, remains under half of what the bush and administration contributed in 2008 to the last major drought, and we're very concerned as we look at the upcoming fy-12 budget debate that there are proposals on the other side of

the hill to cut the assistance from the u.s. government for the response to this crisis, specifically the international disaster assistance account, and food for peace. food for peace should be highlighted because that is our food account and that is a proposed cut of 30% of that budget over fiscal year 2011 levels, which would be a 50% cut from 2008. the other challenge to the u.s. response is the legal restrictions which were discussed on the earlier panel. it does not appear that the u.s. government is moving to -- it appears that u.s. government is moving to waive fees. we do have some remaining

concerns about how this will be implemented, which i would be happy to address during questioning. even as we hopefully move past this impasse, it is important recognize the fact that the administration issued this only several weeks after famine was declared in several months after when is something very bad was coming, it represents a systemic problem. i don't think it makes sense to point at any particular part of the administration is bearing responsibility for this. i think they were struggling to hash these things out, but there is a systemic issues that bears further exploration in terms of the interaction between some of our legal restrictions and priorities. to the question of whether we can get into the south and how that will work, we don't know yet. the waiving of the legal restrictions takes an obstacle way, but there are a lot of questions about what can be achieved in the south, what kind of access we will see. i think dr. pham will talk about politics. there were some success with unicef which gives us hope.

we have a posture of hope and cautious optimism but we're not naive at this point. >> thank you very much. dr. pham? >> i think you for this opportunity to testify today on a very important issue. as we meet the situation, as the other panelists have stated, it is especially grave. the u.n. refugee agency described it as the worst humanitarian disaster in the world, with nearly half the somali population facing starvation by least another 11 million across the horn are at risk. given the grim reality, the first concern of the international community is understandably focus where it should become getting relief to the victims.

however, in addressing immediate needs, attention should also be paid to the broader geopolitical context as well as the long-term publications of the challenges before us. since other witnesses testifying today are better positioned it individually or institutionally to address the technical questions relating to the humanitarian crisis, and its impact on a vulnerable populations, and the logistics of getting assistance to them, i will concentrate on four key points that i think policymakers and the united states and other international actors should bear in mind in assessing the current situation and determining adequate responses to it, as well as planning long- term engagement with the region. at first, al-shabab has a responsibility for exacerbating the crisis. while the group cannot be blamed for the climate change or

the meteorological conditions, the violent conflict it has engaged in, the economic and political policies it has pursued have certainly worsen an already bad situation. although in the past al-shabab has profited by diversion or taxation of a humanitarian aid, the amounts represented at most had been a small fraction of their broader revenue stream. consequently, it is heartening to hear that the administration is working to clarify the relevant restrictions to facilitate the work of humanitarian organizations. whoever, allow me to cite one example where the major funding streams of al-shabab directly impact the humanitarian crisis. for example, the industrial production of export, for export, of charcoal. it is estimated that somewhere around two-thirds of the forest which used to cover 15% of somali territory has been reduced to black gold, acted to

25 kg bags and shipped to countries in the persian gulf. one cannot underestimate the environmental impact of this, which has earned al-shabab million in profits that is recycled into violence and terror. if this were all not bad enough, once the famine set in, al-shabab leers have alternated between denying the crisis and preventing effective people from moving in search of food. whether or not it is a formal policy of the group, i have reports from sources on the ground in the last 24 hours of at least three holding areas in the area where al-shabab forces are either using force or the threat thereof to keep displaced people from leaving the territory and finding help. far from being -- secondly, far

from being part of the solution, somalia's transitional federal government, the t.f.g., is part of the problem, in fact, a not insignificant cause of the crisis. the regime's elected officials may be preferable to al-shabab insurgents, but they represent the lesser of two evils. the t.f.g. is of limited helpfulness in the face of the present emergency. leaders are likelier to see the crisis as yet another opportunity to capture rents, especially since their already extended mandate expires in two weeks and is for wont of a ready-made plan b, and the arbitrary extension of their offices for another year. no wonder the official position of the govern of the united states is not to recognize the

t.f.g. or any other entity as the legal sovereign of somalia. we need to pursue a resolution in somalia if we want to avoid humanitarian emergencies in the future. thirdly, the sheer number of people moving in and from somali territory will have enormous and possible permanent consequences for the region. the population shifts threaten to upend delicate police balances. if they are not to cause, however unintentionally, greater harm, response toss this mass migration need to be factored into these considerations. finally, amid the crisis there is nonetheless an opportunity to promote stability and stewart in somalia. there is a narrow window of opportunity during which it might be possible to weaken and

possibly finish al-shabab as a force in somali politics once and for all. some local councils and militias willing to accept help. the disaster has disposed divisions of some grooms within it, and factions. there are ways the international community can get assistance to these populations rather than requiring them to displace themselves. i want to underscore there are local n.g.o.'s with a proven ability to both deliver aid in hard to reach areas, all the while avoiding diversion of aid to al-shabab and other problematic entities. thank you for your attention. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, doctor. >> mr. chairman, senator, thank

you very much for the opportunity you have given us to testify today on this horrible situation we are facing in the horn of africa. i speck on behalf of a leading humanitarian organization fighting poverty. with six decades of experience helping communities recover after an emergency. we place special focus on women and children. yet again in this crisis they bear the brunt of what is happening. myself as assistant director for programs for care in somalia, i see first hand in my work the consequences that tens of thousands of people are facing today. i have worked in the horn for seven years now, traveling extensively in somalia both in the north and in the south. i recent ply returned from a trip to i.d.p. camps in

drought-affected areas in the north. what we see there is probably less dramatic than what we see in the south, but the stories are just as horrible. a woman i met in one of the camps with a severely malnourished child on her arm explained she didn't have any money to go to the health clinic to seek assistance. she was severely traumatized by the experiences in the south, and the things she had seen there. i met a father in another region who had recently lost his wife. he was there nursing his five remaining cows. the cows were bleeding from their noses, and he was trying to do something about it but not really knowing what to do. our staff said well this is a lost cause. these kinds of experiences my staff see on a very regular basis. they are stories that remain with us for the rest of your life.

our response to the emergency in the horn began to scale up in the beginning of 2011 when the early signs were clear that this was going to be a major crisis. today we are helping more than one million people in ethiopia, somalia and kenya with food, water and nutrition and other life-saving emergency assistance. we also support longer term things. the severity of the situation is extremely worrying. other speakers have spoken at length on that, so i will keep my remarks short. but the worry is it is not worst yet. the deepest part of the drought is a month before the rains come. we are going to see a significantly increase number of deaths due to diseases that affect this already weakened

population. as my colleagues have said, agencies know now how to dole with this kind of situation -- deal with this kind of situation. we need to focus on water, send tags, health, food and address those multiple causes of deaths in a famine crisis. however, unfortunately, there is still a major funding gap in the region of about $1.4 billion u.s. for the consolidated appeal of the u.n. this is notwithstanding the generous contributions from the various donors, and we appreciate the u.s. for what they have done. however, it is not enough. the crisis is so massive, it needs additional support. the issues have been discussed at length. the ongoing conflict in the

south is making it much more difficult to get access to the south. what we are seeing is that agencies already present there, local n.g.o.'s, other international n.g.o.'s that work there have an ability to negotiate some level of access, but it is limited. unfortunately, aids are at risk of becoming politicized in this conflict. it is important to let humanitarian principles guide our discussions on humanitarian assistance. we are determined to provide only assistance to people most in need. we have systems in place to ensure only those people get it. we are encouraging authorities in southern somalia to grant uninhibited access. but the crisis is happening now, but it needs thoughtful, careful diplomatic work of donors and n.g.o.'s to get aid to the victims of famine

wherever they are. now it is time to have space and reach out to all parties of the conflict and work to save the lives of tens of thousands of people and to avoid politization of the issues. we have been speaking with colleagues from the u.s. government about the legal issues that have concerned us, and we really appreciate the recent steps taken by the u.s. government specifically for programs funded by u.s. aid and the department of state. questions, however, remain on the ability of u.s. n.g.o.'s to program funding from non-us donors. n.g.o.'s get large sums of funding from the u.s. public, but it doesn't fall under the licensing being put in place for the n.g.o.'s. that would only be covered if you have funding from the u.s. government. other funding like echo and

dfid, those would not be covered for u.s.-based information g.o.'s. we need to start thinking about the long-term implications now. i am sorry i am running a little bit over time. these are very marginalized populations. they are most vulnerable to changes in weather pattern. we used to see a drought every five years. now it is a continuous cycle of missed seasons. people are finding it difficult to adjust. we know there are things we can do to help that, and we need to invest in that in years to come. our recommendation, just to sum up, the expansion and the speed of funding for the crisis is really important. the urgency is there, but we are seeing that major donors

take quite substantial time for funding to become available on the ground to support our work. we urge donors to be faster in their processes and moving things forward. we need to start planning for increased long-term support for resilience in these areas, and we need concerted thoughtful and careful diplomaic work of u.n. n.g.o.'s on the ground and support an effort for things to take place on the ground. the effort by the u.s. government for restrictions for u.s. funded work is appreciated, but it is not enough. we are at risk when we use other government funding and u.s. public funding. so on that last item. we really need some very urgent action forward. the n.g.o. community is ready

to engage the appropriate u.s. agencies, construct the options to control the famine. there are precedents for this in iran and more recently in gaza. that can be achieved in two ways. first, the issuance of a general license that would reduce the risk of prostitution -- prosecution. and secondly favorable and expeditious processing of specific license requests to n.g.o.'s. those things would help agencies place themselves in a position where they can start negotiating for access on the ground. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. al-shabab -- shaup. i hear a common theme. there are causes, cost-driven

for this drought and famine, but also those that arise from al-shabab and its control of the area. there is concern about the security and lodgistics of getting into the area. >> some unresolved questions about the license. would you expect a little bit as you suggested in your statement you would like to, concerns on implementation and clarity of the path forward for us to deliver assistance appropriately and in a

multi-lateral way. >> i would associate myself with mr. schaap's comments. we were only briefed on this yesterday afternoon, so we are still digesting this, and we have armies of lawyers reviewing it. our understanding is the license that has been issued would only apply to programs that are wholly or partly funded by the u.s. government. if our agencies are working there doing discreet programs that do not have u.s. government funding, that would not be occurred by the license issued last friday. >> so your concern from both of you is that relief efforts that are not directly funded by the u.s. government may still put your organizations at some legal risk operating there? >> yes. >> i hope that can be resolved. >> we hope so.

the other concern on the implementation, you say it has all the authorities and clearances it needs, and it is then how they translate that to them and their partners. that will be a discussion we will have in the coming days. >> all three of you emphasized that time is of the essence, that there are literally tens of thousands of children at risk. would a delay in solving these issues strike you and cruel and inappropriate? >> your words, not mine, senator. i would think that the administration is moving with great urgency. i hope that we are now to a point of detail negotiations rather than big picture political will, and i think that is the case.

but as i said in my remarks and as i expand on in my written testimony, i do think there is a larger issue here that bears exploration going forward by the congress and the administration of how -- why it even got to this point. can we find some ways of reviewing the law on this so that we don't have to go through this long, drawn-out bureaucratic process to do what everyone agrees should be done in the first place. >> doctor, let's turn to the question of al-shabab. understandably they are subject to sanctions by the united states. we have done everything we can to restrict their opportunity to gain funding for their terrorist activities. you reference in your testimony the real opportunity here because of some tensions within the organization. speak, if you would, just a little bit further about whether it is appropriate for us to be issuing broad licenses

and allowing humanitarian assistance in if it might further strengthen this terrorist organization? >> thank you. mr. chairman, the question of al-shabab really is to understand that it is not a monolithic organization. as its core is a very radicalized extremist leadership with very close connections to some very dangerous people in other parts of the world, and we need to be seriously concerned. they have operational reach and have shown themselves capable of carrying out attacks in neighboring countries as well. that being said, the organization itself is broken up. it is a marriage of convenience. some of the factions that are now in al-shabab a year ago were possibly with the government. next year -- they are clan factions and militias. this an opportunity. some of them have stated to bring us aid, we are willing to

switch allegiances. this is an opportunity. the secondary track two policy that assistant secretary carson announced last year, we need to get that going. we have announced it, but we haven't developed it. this is the type of program that by allow us to have the information to the partners on the ground to distinguish the areas we can work it. right now it is a theory, a concept, a very valid one, but we haven't worked out as well as we should have. >> if i understand you, it is a group made up of splinter groups, some that are hard-core jihaddists bent on international terror, and others aligned with al-shabab start of out of quoons. you mentioned they may be holding by force or athlete of

force thousands of refugees. why would you think they would be do doing that? >> several reasons. there have been several districts where they didn't exercise that type of control, and now they rule literally a desert. 100% of the people are gone. 100% of the livestock are dead. they have a desert to themselves. they can enjoy. practicing matically, if you are trying to seek control of a territory, you need a population. secondly, i think they have gamble as well that eventually aid is going to flow. this is where we have to be careful of how we allow that to flow. we have had this experience in somalia. i was there in the 1990's when it happened. the more refugees you have, the more displaced areas, the more resources you can flow to the area. some of them may well be holding people so they can

increase head count and rent-seeking behavior the >> one other country we haven't addressed is aratria, one of the most totalitarian regimes in the world. there is very little information from the ground. looking at maps, it was literally blank in terms of data. any information on the situation there? also the tension between the government situation and the humanitarian situation? >> just to give an index of howed bad the situation probably is there, slightly under 50,000 people have crossed the border into ethiopia. it is a mine-laden track, and these people have risked everything not just to walk across a desert but a mine field. these are the survivors. that just says something about the level of desperation.

i have met people who have made that package, and the situation is pretty dire. >> i have further questions, but i will yield to the senator. >> i want to ask you a specific question regarding what you refer to as a systemic problem regarding licensing? is the systemic problem too much bureaucracy? >> i think what we have, there are different agencies that different priorities and angles on some of these issues. the set-up we have right now in terms of the legal restrictions , what is prohibited in terms of what is considered to be material support makes it very difficult for those difficult agencies that all have a stake in this to resolve this sort of thing quickly. our suggestion would be to look

at, maybe as a first step -- to our understand the patriot act exempts medical supplies and religious materials from the definition of what would constitute material support. we would be interested in in exploring whether that carve out could extend to other things so it wouldn't require a long drawn out process to ebb able aid agencies to respond. >> on that point, dr. pham, you said in your testimony that local n.g.o.'s are better equipped to deliver aid than others. said is a group of women that deliver support in somalia but would probably be prohibitted from this because of u.s. delivered funds?

>> to cite that specific n.g.o., one of their problems was that they were falsely accuseded about a year and a half ago in a u.n. report of having made pay offs to al-shabab. they were exonerated in the subsequent u.n. follow-up reports, but that meant 18 months where they were cut off from international funding, and those were 18 months they lost. but they work very effectively by port nering with traditional clan -- partnering with clan elders. they were the only entity, governmental or not, that had operations in all 16 districts of the city. it is a tremendous organization today. the scale of what they are delivering is amazing, and so i want to pay tribute to them. i know my two colleagues are

somewhat constrained by relationships with the government. >> that is why i asked you. >> we are americans, and we focus a lot on perhaps obstacles in our own processes. i think we in fairness ought to look at obstacles on the international level. the world food program works on a three-month delivery cycle. i ask myself, how is it, knowing this was coming down the line, they didn't put more food in the region? over the weekend they had two flights that for all intents and purposes were for show. they took four tons of plumpy to one airport and 14 tons to another area. sahid in a month goes through 65 tons. four tons was helpful, but it was more for the cameras than

anything else frankly. >> i want to be clear, and i understand it is important that our administration and country do everything they can to prohibit u.s. aid getting into terrorist's hands and that is part of the reason for some of the restrictions. but when you reach a crisis point like this, it seems like there ought to be expedited procedures or else the people you are trying to help are going to be dead. that is the comment i was trying to get to. there is no question these organizations in africa operate on cash flow from corruption, and many of them are from organizations fill i amed with al qaeda or other nefarious groups around the world. it is important that we have an expedited procedure to the maximum extent possible. i noted that bob was supposed to testify today, but you are in his place. that causes me to make an

observation for the people today. mr. lapratt couldn't be here today because he suffers from malaria. it reminded me of my first trip to each open ya. my guide had malaria. i want to thank you for the risk you take in delivers aid. people don't sometimes equate the risk and exposure of your own health to help other people. so thank you for doing that. one last question for dr. pham. you talked in your remarks about al-shabab keeping people from getting help. they are actually stopping refugees from leaving the country to get help, is that correct? >> from sources on the ground that i have spoken with in the last 24 hours, there appear to be three different areas.

one that appears to be a camp of sorts where they are actually holding people. two are just areas where they have created enough violence around them morals to corral them in. so it is not a guarded situation, but it is a threatened one. it appears in two of those places, they preventing people from crossing to the lines held by the african peace keepers. the other area seems to be to prevent people from heading south cord kenya. >> and the goal of that is to strike fear into the population or what? >> i think it is several fold, and it is hard to disaggregate them. they as entire -- aspire to rule, and ruling empty land is

not something they want to do. and it would be of local interests of al-shabab congressmanners to have local resources. people will attract aid which they hope they will be able to tax, divert or otherwise tap into. >> one last question. one of the big problems in africa is a lot of the organizations will use rape and violence against women as a tool of accomplishing their engoal. do your people on the ground give you any indication that al-shabab is using that as a tool? >> i am not getting reports of anything specific. there are cases of violence against women clearly, and some of those are being documented, but not as a systemic attempt to exert terror or control as in other cases in africa. >> another point. in various camps in the region, sexual violence against women is a serious problem.

not just within somalia, but also outside. >> thank you very much for testifying today all of you. mr. chairman? >> i would like to follow up, if i could. a comment you made earlier in response to the earthquake in iran in 2003, that there was an exception to the licensing procedure that was granted more broadly that might be a useful example here. do you elaborate on that? >> i don't have the technical details as such, but we can get back to you on that. >> certainly from all of our witnesses we are looking for a responsible, swift and appropriate path forward. i understand that despite -- despite my comment earlier, i understand that different entities in the united states government are charged with enforcing different legal obligations, and that sometimes the desire for prompt and effective humanitarian assistance runs up against the barriers that we put in place in order to prevent assistance

from being provided wittingly or unwittingly to those against the united states or pose a threat to the order. first, about future planning, about how the united states can better assist countries in the region, particularly here in the horn of africa, where the climactic conditions seem to be worsening. how do we deal with these crisis so we don't deal with them more periodically. ????

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] stake holders would be invited to submit suggestions was eliminated from the staff effort. >> thank you very much, senator. the last hearing we had here, we did ask the chairman about this in depth, so i'll also get -- about his taking over emergency -- do not start the

clock yet, because i have another thing to do. senator, i'm just going to put this out here. he would like this answer in writing. if the commission delays actions on recommendations on the grounds you don't have enough information yet about what happened to fukushima to move forward, does that suggests that the n.r.c. also does not have enough information to move forward with relicensing existing reactors or licensing new reactors? that's a question he wants answered. we're going to have the second round here. i think the senator is coming back and senator sanders will have a second round. >> i just have one brief -- >> well, i go first. >> sorry. >> you are the chair. >> thank you for noticing. ok. here's where we are. i want all of you to know, we're going to have you back every 90 days until i know what you're doing. and we'll take all the answers you gave, how much you're going

to work to make this happen. a half a dozen, a dozen, a bakers dozen, whatever it is. and we're going to stay on this. i'll tell you why. after 9/11 we had all of these great ideas. everybody thought, great. the n.r.c. took decisive action and nine years later some of these things went into affected. that is not going to happen, or if it happens, the american people are going to know. here is the point. whether you love nuclear energy, don't like it or you're agnostic. it ain't going anywhere if it is not safe. it is not going anywhere if the public does not have faith in you. if the public thinks you are somehow not independent, not doing their business, they will not be happy. i have a question for you. i cannot say your name, forgive me. svinicki. in your july 19 vote on the task force report, you stated,

and i quote, the n.r.c. finds itself at the appropriate point now to move away from small group taskings including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation? you were an independent entity. what are you talking about? isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stake holder outreach meaning that the commission ought to have the benefit. >> you don't think that is up to stake holders to decide what we should approve. you're an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by the public. >> and chairman jaczko has laid out a plan.

to have broad input from stake holders and to have votes by october 7, 2011. do you agree with that? >> i -- as i indicated in response to your earlier question. >> i'm not asking you an earlier question. i'm asking you this question. chairman jaczko has proposed a process to address your concern. to move forward over the next 90 days. external stake holders and to have votes on specific recommendations by october 7, 2011. do you agree? it seems to match what you called for. now that he has put it out there, it echoes what you want do you agree? >> i support commission meetings. i'm not sure that all the task force recommendations could be decided on in 90 days. >> how many do you think could be decided on in 90 days? commissioner ostendorff has pointed out six. do you agree with him? can they be decided in 90 days? >> i proposed -- >> yes or no? yes or no.

do you agree with him? >> these could be decided in 90 days. i don't have a specific count. >> well let me just say your responses disturb me. when you say that the commission isolated, your role by statute is to be independent. chairman jaczko has laid this out. i want you to know i have got seven million people who live within 50 miles -- i went there with the wonderful friend sitting next to you. commissioner apostolakis. you know what they told me? i said what is your plan if there is an emergency? they said we have to go out on the highway. that's all we can do. escape that way. do you ever go that freeway? you probably have not. you can't even move an inch. i have 7 million people there. you're sitting there saying basically you can't move forward.

i want to compliment the members of this special task force. it is not red tape at all. it is 12 recommendations. they make sense and i am stunned to hear that you -- is there one you could say we can move forward before you hear from the industry, anybody? any one of these you can recommend? >> i agree that the task force identified the correct areas but i would like the n.r.c. staff that would be responsible for carrying out the recommendations -- i would like to have respectfully their input prior to deciding. >> that's right and chairman jaczko has laid out a path to do just that. but you say you won't be ready in october. what is the date you will be ready? what date do you think is good to be ready to vote on perhaps the simple ones that everyone else seems to think we could move on. what is the date? give me a date? >> my objective would be if some are less complex to move before 90 days. >> excellent. which ones do you think those

would be? what is less complex? i looked at all of these. most don't seem too complex. especially the ones that deal with making sure that the plants undertake more safety precautions, emergency preparedness and all the rest. which ones do you think are less complex than the others? give me a couple of the 12. >> i think relooking at the flooding and seismic requests is a very straightforward recommendation. >> you like the recommendation that every 10 years the operators of these plants have to come up with new assessments as to the safety? that's the recommendation. >> i was referring to the recommendation that asked the staff to relook at our basis on seismic. >> how about that one, the one i just said. it is very clear. they say every 10 years the operator of a plant that is

located near flooding and seismic has to do a relook at these problems because with science moving forward, commissioner, we have new information all the time as to whether the seismic problem is worth less harsh. right now we're very concerned because science shows us that it is moving in the wrong direction. more tsunamis. more earthquakes. harder. deeper. what do you think about that? every 10 years, the operators there ought to look at it. that is one of the recommendations. do you think that is complex? is that complex? >> i think that we as an agency constantly look at our state of knowledge in those areas as you suggest. >> do you think it is complex to ask the operator who is operating a plant on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami zone, to ask them every 10 years to reassess the safety of their plant? is that a complex recommendation? >> i would assess that we

actually require them to be looking at that constantly, if there is any new information that comes forward as is the case in california with fault lines off the coast, we require even in advance of a 10-year period. >> good. so you would support then an -- every time there is new science an overall new look at the safety of these plants. is that correct? >> yes. i require that now. >> are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? what you say you support? are you ready to go for that in the next 90 days? >> respectfully, my proposal asks that the n.r.c. staff come back and provide us with the path on these recommendations. i wanted before i made a final decision to be informed by that input from the n.r.c. >> all i can say is if i'm the people of california and i'm watching this right now, a i'm not so sure about whether i want that plant to operate.

because it is very simple. it is very -- and we have our plants there coming in to get relicensed. and i urge them not to do that. not even to issue -- not to move forward until they have studied it. you seem to be on my side and then you have to hear from everybody else. i would submit to you, it is common sense. there are certain things -- you should have more belief in what you say. because it is common sense. and i'm just saying we have oversight over the work you do. ms. chairman, i want to compliment you and say that the commissioners who were ready, willing and able to act in a time frame of 90 days, thank you. because if we don't do that, we're not going to see people supporting nuclear power. you have -- i take an opposite view of my friends on the other side today. the more you convince the people that you're doing your

job, the more they are going to be comfortable with nuclear power. if you give me answers like i have to wait and i can't tell and then you have a situation where it took nine years to put into place the last safety measures, that's ridiculous. so as long as i'm sitting over here and i have a voice, i'm going continue to call you before us. i mean, i really -- can get used to this because i think you need to know how important the work you do is to the safety of the people first and foremost and to the future of nuclear energy secondly. senator sanders? >> just a few questions. chairman jaczko, some of my republican colleagues have kind of suggested that you have initiated a bolshevik coup on the n.r.c., running a dictatorship to undermine

american democratic values. so i just wanted to ask you once again, do you believe and does the nonpartisan general council of the n.r.c. believe that you have fulfilled the statute in terms of your utilization of the emergency powers? and in terms of emergency powers, as i understand it, quite appropriately, after fukushima, you wanted to make sure that the -- was it 13 plants that we have in this country that are similar designs to the fukushima plants? you quite appropriately wanted to make sure that something similar to what happened in japan does not happen to the united states. is that correct? >> the primary focus is really on american citizens in japan. ensuring that we were doing everything we could to protect them as they were there.

that was in many ways the prime focus. most of the issues related to how we dealt with u.s. plants were really dealt with by the commission when it established this task force that was how we decided to go forward in that way. i didn't really exercise any authorities with regard to domestic facilities. >> just to protect the interests of american citizens in japan? >> right. >> does nonpartisan general counsel -- council believe that you acted appropriately within the statutes? >> i believe that is the case. >> say again? >> may i ask the general council if he could -- did he ask if he was within the law? >> yes, you can. please, sir, please join us. >> my name is steven byrnes. i'm general counsel, a career

federal employee. when the simple answer to your question is i believe the chairman's actions were consistent with the powers that he has under the statute. i received an inquiry from his office fairly early on in the event and based on my view and actually an assessment of my predecessor's view, actions taken during in response to 9/11 when there also was not a specific event in the u.s. facility, although a threat environment obviously to u.s. facilities, my view was that given the intentions of president carter and then the congressional endorsement under the reorganization plan that his actions were consistent with those of responsibility. >> you were as i understand a nonpartisan official. >> yes, i'm a career official. i'm appointed by the commission. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you coming up here. i hope that puts an end to the consistent attack against

the chairman. let me ask mr. ostendorff if i could, a question. mr. ostendorff, my understanding is that you are prepared to move pretty quickly on a number of the recommendations of the task force. let me ask you about their first recommendation, and that is the task force recommends establishing a logical systematic and coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection that balances defense and depth and risk considerations. that is an important recommendation. are you prepared to move rapidly on that? >> senator, thank you for the question. i addressed that specific recommendation in my vote in some detail. i think it needs to be looked at. there are some concerns that trying to embark on that now will distract us from taking the other actions that can and should be taken in the short term. i do support us taking a look at trying to improve the framework that we currently have. >> i just don't quite get that answer.

you see this as an important recommendation. no one is suggesting that you have to swallow hook, line and sinker. what is the problem with beginning that discussion right now? >> senator, i've been around the program for many, many years and have seen a lot of efforts in the naval seas command to improve reactor safety and seen how actions are implemented. i thinks this going to take a few years to do. i supported a second effort to look at recommendation one. i don't think it should hold us up in trying to take shorter term actions. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. >> ok. we're going to close it out. i have a couple of questions to ask of our commissioners and then i think we're going to vote here pretty soon.

this is a question for commissioner magwood and then ostendorff if i could. it is my understanding that the majority of you have asked senior staff to take a second look at these recommendations and you have asked these senior staff to provide suggestions to the commissioners on how to proceed with these recommendations. here is my question. and we talked around this already but i'm going to ask you just directly. since senior n.r.c. staff made these recommendations in the first place and are now asking other senior staff to come in and provide suggestions, why is this next step needed? and just explain that to me, why is it needed? >> i'll start. first, i think that -- i'll speak for myself here, certainly. my perspective is it is not simply another assessment by n.r.c. staff although i look forward to seeing what senior staff has to say about the

recommendations. for me the most important thing is to have the staff interact with stake holders in a direct fashion to understand what their responses are to the various recommendations and to hear what their suggestions are and then think about that and feed that information to the commission. i don't look at it as simply the n.r.c. staff looking at what the n.r.c. staff has already said, i think of it as them using the mechanisms we have in place, public meetings and across the table discussions in this a public venue, of course, to hear details about the reaction, the recommendation. that's really the normal, in large respect what we do every day. >> ok. commissioner ostendorff? >> thank you. i agree with commissioner magwood's comment. i will make just two points here. when i asked the director of operations how he thought we should proceed, he supported having his office, the e.d.o.'s office come back and give us

the integrated list. as i said in my opening statement, that was a key lesson learned from three-mile island. the agency did not do that. i think we'll get more bang for the buck and it will make a real difference sooner to call for that in 30 days. second piece is that not all of these recommendations are equal. some should be done now and some require more information. >> all right. thank you. chairman jaczko. a question on orders versus regulatory process. some of the regulatory tools that the commissions -- the rule-making process and apparently the issue of orders. could you just describe or compare both processes for us and for each one, what kind of opportunities are there for public comment and input from stake holders? >> well, generally, the orders have more limited opportunity for public involvement. they are usually activities

that either we believe need to be taken in a very prompt period of time for safety reasons or their responses to violations of our regulations. so they are not a preferred tool because they don't provide for the more in depth public engagement that a regulation would. one of the activities that i've challenged since i've been chairman is to better streamline our rule-making process so we can use that as a more viable tool and get things done in a more timely way but still have that stake holder input. generally, the orders -- in most cases when relating to a specific issue, we usually initiate a rule-making process as well so that eventually that same content of the order gets captured in a regulation. >> stake holders in the industry and in the environmental community have

shared, discussed concerns with my own staff about moving these recommendations through your order process. what has been the n.r.c.'s experience with expedited rule making and might it have a role to play with some of the parts adapted by the commission? >> well, i think everyone who comes in as chairman of the n.r.c., everybody wants to process to go forward faster. we have mixed success with that. a lot of it comes down to usual challenges and focus. we did recently complete a regulation from start to finish in about four months having to do with an issue related to how we deal with the fatigue and tired -- workers who may get tired at a nuclear power plant. i think there are ways to do it. we would change how we do our

regulations but i think it is doable. in my mind that would be the most preferable way for some of these things to do them in four or five months rather than the two to three years that it typically takes. >> well, the vote hasn't started yet. it looks like another hour or two. [laughter] all right. not that long. but what i would like to do is just do something -- it is my mother calling in to say haste makes waste. not really. what i want to do -- sometimes i like to at the close of the hearing ask -- we always ask you to give an opening statement. we ask you to respond our questions. sometimes i find it helpful to do a closing statement. i'm not going to ask for a lengthy closing statement but maybe something like given conversation that we have had and the questions that have been asked and the responses that have been given, just a

response before we go vote. commissioner ostendorff, why don't you go first? >> thank you, senator. i would say that we talk all the time. each week when we're in town. >> how often are you in town? >> pardon? >> how often are y'all in town? >> i would say with are all together to meet at least three weeks out of four. i would say it is clearly my perception based on discussions with all of my colleagues here that we all want to move forward quickly. we all want to do the right thing. i don't think we're as far apart as maybe some of the questioning might have suggested. i really think we want to do those things but not all of these are longer term actions. some are short term. some are intermediate. some require more information. i use the one example of the

hardened vents. that was asked about. i asked the institute for nuclear power july 15, the senior executive there, do you sufficient information in order right now support the order recommended by the task force to install those? he said no. the task force report itself said we do not understand whether or not the operators at fukushima actually operated these vents. i'm using that as a discreet example we can all understand. i think we need explore this area. it could be a month from now when we have sufficient information but that's just one example. there are some things that do require more information. >> ok. thanks. commissioner magwood. just a closing thought or two, please? >> i think commissioner ostendorff actually covered it. he said it quite well. the only thing i would add is i believe we'll move forward quickly. there is a lot of willingness on the commission to get this done. we're taking this very seriously.

i think we all were talking to each other during the fukushima event and i think almost immediately began to think about what lessons were being learned as we're watching it unfold on television. i see this as the conclusion of what started back in march. i feel very positive that we'll get this done quickly and do the right thing. >> all right. good. commissioner post lakice? >> i agree with my colleagues. i think the commission will act in a timely manner. it is just the details. i don't see any problem at all. >> i agree with what my colleagues have said thus far. in summary remarks there is a lot of overlap and commonality in the approach here. i think that we want to and can -- i believe it is possible to strike the appropriate balance between urgency and moving forward and also being a

thoughtful and getting it right. thank you. >> thank you. mr. chairman ? >> i would say i appreciate all the comments of my colleagues and i think there are -- there are far more areas of agreement than disagreement but i do believe strongly it is important for us to disposition these recommendations in 90 days. i think that is doable. i think there is perhaps more agreement than disagreement about that. >> good. in closing, one of my favorite people to work with here in the senate is a fren wyoming. his name is mike enzi. i know him from when i was governor. he is the senior republican on the health education labor pension committee and the senior democrat for many years was a guy named kennedy. ted kennedy. they were remarkably effective. the committee was productive. i would say you have one of the most conservative republicans

here work so productively with one of the most liberal democrats? you guys get so much done. regardless who is the chairman, kennedy or enzi. he said ted kennedy and i subscribe to the 80/20 rule. what is that? he said we agree on about 80% of the stuff. we disagree on maybe 20% of the stuff. what we decided to do is focus on the 80% that we agree on. as a result, we get a lot done. more times than i can count, i call on my colleagues on this side of the dice in the senate to subscribe to the 80/20 rule, and if we did that on a consistent basis, i think it would be not just a better place to work but also a better country. it seems like we got about 80% agreement on this stuff. agreement on what needs to be acted on more quickly and more promptly. so in donchese my mother, haste

does make waste and in the words of my father, work and what we allocate to a job. let's take a little more time. will you not -- but not more time than we really that having been said, we're going to wrap this up. you go eat and we'll go vote. this hearing is adjourned. thank you all for coming. >> we have two weeks to submit some more questions. if you get some more questions, please respond to them. thank you.

>> in a few moments, a hearing on the soundness over the financial industry. and on "washington journal" the bipartisan debt commission established by the debt ceiling bill. several live events to tell you about today here on c-span. a house foreign affairs subcommittee will look at the violence along the border of sudan and the new country of south sudan. that is at 10:00 eastern. and at noon, a forum onboarder security between the u.s. and mexico. >> this weekend on book tv on c-span 2. john farrell on the life and times of clarence darrow. attorney for the damned.

and an informant for british citizens who fought for the union and the confederates. and three hours of your calls and questions. in depts with ann coulter. how the liberal mob is endangering america. >> >> five, five, four, flee, two, one. >> these are the stakes to make a world in which all of god's children can live, are to go into the dark. we must either love each other or we must die. >> look for president johnson

on november 3. -- vote for president johnson on november 3. >> this weekend we'll look at the history of political campaign ads and also homicide director with the man jack rupe ruby killed under his protection, lee harvey oswald. american history tv on c-span 3. get the complete schedule on c-span.org/history. >> now a hearing on the soundness of the u.s. financial industry. a senate banking subcommittee hears from a panel of witnesses that includes nobel prize winning economist joseph stiglitz. this is a little less than an hour and a half.

i'm just honored the four of you still showed up and the staff and both sides showed up and have been helpful in the planning of this hearing. we will -- i will do an opening statement then and have each of you do the same. the questions and answers may be a little more free flowing than they might. in this another hearing. i'm going to ask you to respond to each other's assertions and observations. all four of you are highly respected in these fields and have reflected a lot about this and it should be an interesting discussion for an hour or so. the recent debate that we just

concluded and mercifully is concluded or at least round one obviously was fixated on the national debt, but it was more than just the national debt that we should be worried about. too many people in washington seem to have forgotten about the debt that put us in this deep recession and cost our country and almost everyone in it too much. the debt of the financial sector. the bailouts, decreased tax revenues, new espning programs and response to the troubled economy and interest payments will cost our nation some $8.6 trillion, meaning 8,000 billion dollars. meaning 15% of our g.d.p. we can't allow collective amnesia to obscure the role. that really is the purpose of this hearing. in nearly the last century and a half capital ratios declined

from 25% and all of you have written and thought about this a lot. declined about 25% to around 5% of total assets. in the last two decades, the two largest banks have nearly doubled their leverage. the time of the financial crisis in 2007-twit, four of our five largest investment banks were leveraged 30, 35 and one case 40-one. that means when their assets declined by the smallest amount, they were unable to cover -- to pay their debts. they were essentially insoent as we know. it makes the financial system so interconnected and interdependent that the failure of one firm can bring down the entire sector, if not the entire economy. it gives companies an to engage in what economists have called looting.

companies can risk bankruptcy at the expense of the rest of society instead of bearing the losses themselves. the 20 biggest banks were more highly leveraged than the community bank competitors. the largest banks are able to borrow more cheaply than they otherwise would because it is assumed that the government will step in to prevent them from failing. as a result the larger banks make bigger profits than those that do not enjoy government subsidies in one form or another. not surprisingly, the largest banks are often bigger than before. prior to 2006, the 10 largest banks held 68% of total bank assetses. by tend of 2010, they held 77% of total banking assets . bailing these banks out again would impose an even higher cost on taxpayers. this is not capitalism in any

sense of the word. the easiest way to prevent the need for future bailouts is simple. capital buffers simply require banks to fund themselves using their own money instead of other people's money. last tuesday the ranking member of the committee said one of the lessons of the financial crisis should be maintaining strong capital requirements, especially for large global banks. i could not agree more. at least the least we can do is ask the financial sector to cover its own losses. we require as much of our community banks. muchless a threat to our system. the the same rules should apply to everyone. that's why we're having this hearing today. greatest economic minds to have great insight into all of thsm let me introduce each of the four of you. joseph stiglitz. born in gary, indiana, in 14943. he taught at princeton,

stanford and m.i.t. he is now university professor at columbia and chairs the committee on global thought. he was awarded the nobel prize in economics 10 years ago for his analysis of symmetric information. he had a 1995 report on the intergovernmental program on climate change and shares the 2007 nobel peace prize. served as chair from 19945-1997 and became chief economist and senior vice president of the world bank. thank you for joining us. professor of finance at boston college. he had the bad judgment to leave ohio state university. currently he consults for the world bank and is a senior

fellow. previously he consulted with numerous agencies including the i.m.f. and federal reserve system. he has consulted for the congressional budget office, the joint economic committee and the technology assessment, when we had one, the u.s. congress. eugene ludwig is financial officer of the leading consulting firm for financial companies worldwide. he was vice chair and senior control officer of banker's trust deutsche bank. he served for five years as controller of the currency and the federal agency responsible for supervising their. preponderance of banks in the u.s. and last, paul flager, master philosophy in phd.

he has been keaching at stanford for some 30 years. his research is jointly pursued with another professor of finance at the g.s.b. his current research ks corporate governance, in addition to his academic research, he is consulted for various companies and banks and has been involved in risk models for yures by portfolio managers. dr. stiglitz, if you would begin. >> should inform our thinking about the appropriate regulation of banks, including

capital requirements and risk taking. the first is that when information isn't perfect and risk markets incomplete, that is always, there is no prudges that unfettered markets will result in efficient outcomes. the actions give rice rise to consequences not born by those undertaking them. there is a systematic misalignment of social returns. the very rational of the sector rises out of risk management and acquisition and utilization of information necessary for the allocation of capital. quent to the excessive risk taking. it is not just the cost of the bailouts and the millions of americans who have lost their homes but the literally trillions of dollars that have lost output in gap and the predictable fallout of the crisis. the resulting suffering including that of 25 million americans who would like a full time job and can't get one is

incal kabul. the result of the inevitable decline in revenues and increasing expenditures that follow. it is well known that recovery from financial crisis is slow and those like bank officials who are supposed to take actions on behalf of others who have a fiduciary responsibility with actions that benefit themselves at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. the second fundamental insights does not create value but shifts risk. if the leverage increases, the risk is placed on the equity base. in the 1960's and 1970's, i showed that the result was more general than what was out this. there were limitations too, most cautioned against excessive leverage.

if there were real costs to bankruptcy, as there are, it would increase the likelihood of these costs. the social costs are even greater because the society cost is so huge. the misalignment of incentives is more so in the case of too big to fail banks. the potential consequence of allowing them to go bankrupt poses an unacceptable risk. the key observation is that markets are not often rational at assessing risk. this is true even with the so-called experts but even more so with those that are financially unsophisticated. alan greenspan brought this up to congress. while he was correct in the conclusion that financial markets have done a miserable job at managing risk. i was surprised at his

surprise. after all, anyone looking at the incentive structures should have realized they had incentives for excessive risk taking. beyond that, greenspan made another error. if i mismanage risk, if i am irrational in my risk analysis, i and my family suffer. but if a bank and especially a very large bank mismanages risk, the macroeconomy can be -- it is these externalities that provide the government programs and it explains why it won't work. it is deeply troubling when the financial regulators do not understand the rational for regulation. increasing leverage and shifting risk. as we see banks trying to increase their leverage, there may be an uncertainty about what is driving this. is it because they do not

understand the fundamental risk? is it because they understand the fundamentals of risk but realize their bondholders and shareholders do not so they can extract more money for themselves. about this there is no uncertainty. excessive leverage has large societyal costs. banks need to be restrained. there are few costs if doing so. considerable benefits. lending is risky. the risk has to be born somehow. born by equity holders to lending institutions. it is better to have it better distributed among the large equity base given the high social cost of financial destruction. recent research provides considerable support for the views expressed here. even if there were some

increases in lending costs, those costs have to be offset against the benefits. there are very large societyal costs for bank failures. some have argued that even if it makes sense in the long run to increase capital requirements, doing so in the short run can be costly, especially at a time such as this when the banking system is all right weak. this is an argument for an increase in capital requirements and one which would not allow any dividends or significant buybacks until the desired capital ratios are reached. one should at the same time be aware of the large risk, especially under the circumstances of delay. it is because the economy is fragile, banks of inadequate capital in the aftermath of the crisis is more concentrated and

the risk of a financial catastrophe, the kind we experienced in 2008 is so great today. the downside risk of not doing something are especially grave now. i focused my remarks this afternoon on increasing bank's equity capital. there are a number of other risks. i noted the risk of the too big to fail banks. in the aftermath to have crisis, as you pointed out, the banking sector has become more concentrated and the risk proposed by too big to fail banks has, if anything, increased. we sought to this the crisis, the risks posed by the transactions such as the over the counter c.d.s.'s, everyone knew there was no way they could know through the financial position of most of the banks. while the bill improved matters, it went no where are

far enough. the problems continue. as long as they continue, the economy is at risk. we may never fully protect the economy against the risk of another crisis such as the one we have been through. our economic and financial system is badly distorted. resources were misallocate before the crisis. no government has ever misused researches on this scale. we have to begin making our financial system once begin serve the society it is supposed to serve. lending especially to large and medium sized enterprises is constrained. the risk to our economy continues. we cannot -- the self-restrain of financial markets. we learned that lesson in the aftermath of the great depression and the decades following world war ii.

the question is will we relearn that lesson in the aftermath to have great recession in 2008? >> thank you, dr. stiglitz. dr. cain, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, mr. chairman . it is an honor and privilege. >> is your microphone on? >> shall i start again? >> go ahead. >> the distributional effects of making taxpayers back up, treasury and federal reserve bailouts have been solvent and ungrateful financial institutions. during the housing bubble, in our representative democracy, the interests of foreign and domestic financial institutions was much better served than the interests of society as a whole as joe stiglitz has been saying. but why were taxpayer interests poorly represented?

huge loopholes into the capital retirements and regulatory definitions of risk. they are now supposed to keep instablingt in check. the dodd frank act left many issues open. it did not try to define systemic risk. implementation of its strategy for dealing with regulation and disciplining the lead institutions is left to regulators. the keeting 5 tell us how hard it will be for regulators to write rules that crack down on influential firms. sadly the same gaps and issues are in the basil and european union. to me, this means governments must do three things. redefine the supervisory missions of regulatory agencies.

rework incentives in these agencies and refocus reporting responsibilities for regulators on the value of taxpayers' safety net support. unless these duties are embraced explicitly and enforced in an accountable way, there is no reason to believe authorities will adequately measure systemic risk during future busts. let alone in this bust. as you know, most top regulators leave behind them under current appointment procedures a trail of debt they have to service. political debt. if it were up to me, i would establish the equivalent of an academy of financial regulators. they would be drilled in the duties they owe the citizens and how to overcome the political pressures. the public recognizes that the

fed and treasury rescue programs placed heavy and less than fully acknowledged burdens on the citizenry. high officials tell us their bailout programs were necessary to save us from an economic depression and actually made money for the taxpayer. both claims are false, but in different ways. bailing out firms indiscriminately. hampered rather than promoted economic recovery. reckless gambles for firms and created uncertainty about who would finally bear the costs of these programs. both continue the disrupt the flow of credit and investment that is necessary to trigger and sustain economic recovery. the claim that the tarp program made money for the taxpayer is half true. the true part of the proposition is thanks to the subsidized terms of these

programs, most institutions that were able to repay the obligations they incurred, but the other half of the program forced taxpayers to provide undercompensated funds to keep thely troubled institutions and that the largest most influential firms will make these firms bigger. authorities chose this path without weighing the full range of out of pocket and costs of indiscriminate rescues against the costs of programs such as nationalization. without do you meaning it across the population of this country, going forward, the problem is how to relate capital requirements to systemic risk. we do want to relate them to systemic risk.

outsiders regard the position as large enough to support the risk it takes. taxpayers become involved in capitalizing major firms. government guarantees supply as an option. a taxpayer put that soys as a balance sheet supply for shareholders. it was capitalized too much for taxpayer options. make sure that tough decisions favor str interests over those of the taxpayer. systemic risks can be likened

to a disease. to be effective, they want to see it adapted to take fuller account of firm's funding patterns and to treat a second and more subtle symptom. to ease the -- the ease that potential living dead institutions can hide risk exposures and to accumulate fresh losses until their insolvency becomes so immense they can drive regulators into a panic. so in good times and in bad, it

is embodied in a coercive investment by taxpayers in the firms the safety net protects. it varies with the risk that the institution might sustain losses. it is often called tail risk by economists and with thes percentage of this risk that the government is likely to absorb. defining systemic risk provides the metric for tracking systemic risk over time. that is the advantage of it. it would make regulatory authorities operationly accountable for the supervisory performance. studies using this approach show the regulators could attract the growing correlationor risks and

exposures as an early warning system for the current crisis. expanding the format to include estimates of the potential vary billity of their returns. and should improve the systemic risk and regulatory and supervisory performance. accounting standards for recognizing losses make evidence of insolvency under current rules dangerously slow to surface. efficient safety rate management requires more sophisticated framework than current methods of banking or accounting. to protect taxpayers and it should not focus on methods of tangible capital. it should include the intangible value of an institution's claim on taxpayer institution's claim on taxpayer resources.