south africa that is gathering now to determine how best to control our lives as was happening iney oatho and copenhagen in the past. they are meeting in durbin to try to find ways of issuing mandates to the people of the world in the name of stopping global warming. mr. speaker, i would suggest to the people of the united states they pay close to this. eisenhower isn't here to protect us anymore. the fact is our freedom is at stake and the globalalists would like to control the people of the united states and up to us to defend our freedom. the patriots will win if we stand together. and i now yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

chair recognizes the very distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. west. . mr. west: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. west: as we draw to the close of the first session of the 112th congress that we come back and do what i think is a yearly review on assessment. mr. speaker, today the 8th of december was the target adjournment day that the leadership of the new majority of the united states house of representatives hoped would mark the end of the first session of the 112th congress. yet, today we are short of completing some of the most important work we must accomplish. as we enter the final days of 2011 and approach the end of this first session of the 112th congress, i must take the time to offer an apology to the citizens of the 22nd congressional district of florida and to all my fellow citizens across this great nation. it is not because we have not changed the conversation here

in washington, d.c., but because i would have hoped our exertions would have been as a collective body a bit greater. failure to pass a beamed was a great disappoint -- balanced budget amendment was a great disapointment and lack of exertion. when i was elected to the house of representatives in november, 2010, i was one of over 80 new members that you, the american people sent to the house of representatives entrusting each one of us to come to capitol hill and work diligently and differently than our predecessors on the critical issues our country was facing during these challenging times. record high unemployment, a quickly growing debt, out-of-control spending that leads to budget deficits year after year, a spiraling foreclosure rate around the country and specifically back in our district in south florida. businesses shutting their doors, due in part to increasing uncertainty provided by the government from crushing

regulations issued by federal agencies in washington, d.c. and the list goes on. friends, neighbors, colleagues and our fellow citizens all believe our nation was on the wrong track, and we were concerned for our future. many of them felt our country's best days were in the past and that our future looked bleak. each of them wanted our federal government to take a different course of action. mr. speaker, i spent the majority of my adult life, 22 years, serving in the united states army. never having been elected to public office, i have dedicated my career to serving our great nation, but unlike many of those whom i serve with here in congress, i am not a career politician. i have led soldiers in combat on foreign battlefields and was ready to go to our nation's capital and lead in the front from this new battlefield. i know my political experience would fall short that my

military training would enable me to serve my constituents well in the halls of congress. because in the military we were taught a simple principle, mr. speaker, and i think you know it well. we work until the mission is complete. and on lks night of 2010, -- election night of 2010, i knew i was embarking along with my new colleagues on one of the most challenging missions i would ever face. the leadership of the new majority in the house of representatives created a calendar for the first session of this congress, and as a newly elected member of this body, i provided my assessment, stating that i believe the schedule did not provide the necessary days on capitol hill to address the pressing issues our nation faced. now, one year later, unfortunately it seems i was correct. on the eave of the holiday season, the united states -- eve of the holiday season, the united states congress is dealing with the most important issues, all pressed against the desire to be home and with our families and loved ones. mr. speaker, i along with you

spent many holidays away from our family and friends while serving our country in the armed forces. every time i was away from home during the holiday season, as well as i'm sure you did, i proudly put on my uniform and did my duty on behalf of the american people. and while i may not wear the uniform of the united states army any longer, i am proud to put on my new uniform of a suit and tie and spend this holiday away from home once again putting our country first so that we may finish the job our constituents entrusted us to do. now, i don't want people to think that i am not happy about certain things, because i am truly pleased that the regular order has been established here and return to the house floor. the american people are able to see vibrant debate on the pressing issues. legislation is developed by members and cleared through committee. we are slowly seeing a move away from megabills, but yet

these so-called omnibus bills do a disservice to the american people because rather than allowing elected representatives to vote aye or nay on certain provisions, these bills create a bill that includes hundreds of provisions aimed to clobber enough votes for passage. during the first session in the month of april i was able to bring to the house floor, h.r. 1246. this bill cut $35.7 million in paper production at the department of defense. the vote was 393-0, meaning that we were able to get unanimous support from both republicans and democrats. the american people expect they're elected to work together to deal with the issues of our nation. however, mr. speaker, we have witnessed over 900 days without the united states senate passing a budget.

900 days. when the house of representatives did our job and passed the budget on the 15th of april, 2011, democrats continue to use it as a political weapon since it finally addressed the exorbitant mandatory spending that's bankrupting our country and leaving critical programs like social security and medicare on an unsustainable path. americans continue to struggle with 9%-plus unemployment for over a year. in south florida it is even higher. but instead of debating the 20-plus bills passed by the house, many bipartisan, that address the anemic job situation in which we are stuck, the these bills languish on senate majority leader harry reid's desk while president bush continues to try to convince the american people that this is a do-nothing congress. it is indeed a do-nothing senate. one of the most important and

constitutionally important functions of the congress is to fund the federal government each year before the beginning of the fiscal year on october 1. this year of the 12 funding bills, the house completed six of those bills and the united states senate only completed one. congress did not finish conferencing any appropriation bills to be signed by the president by the october 1 deadline. this means that once again we had to pass continuing resolutions to prevent a shutdown of the federal government. i wrote the chairman of the house committee on appropriations suggesting that appropriations bills should be considered on a priority-based tiered system. i presented several questions such as what he believes should be considered priority bills and whether or not certain appropriation bills should cover a two-year period in order to provide more certainty in the marketplace. see, mr. speaker, the military, something that continues to fail means that it is broken

and when something is broken it must be fixed. our fellow citizens understand that the path we are on is broken, and they also understand that it is time to fix it. therefore, we must focus on structural reforms to our legislative and appropriations process. over the course of my first year in office, i have been asked numerous times why we refuse to compromise and why can't we just get something done. mr. speaker, i find it very funny that no one talked about compromise in regards to a $2 trillion health care law or $1 trillion stimulus package or cap and trade or card check. but my answer is simple. the house of representatives has tried to work with the senate and president obama. yet, they refuse to listen to the will of the people, tabling the cut, cap and balance piece of legislation during debate is a prime example. instead, they wish to remain on the same path that has proved to be a failure year after

year. they refuse to believe that we need major structural reforms. they did not heed the message of the american people of november, 2010. and while washington, d.c., has a budget deficit, the leadership deficit is even more disconcerting. mr. speaker, leaders take responsibility and rarely do they take credit. a simple lesson that was taught to me as a young captain in the united states army. a strong american leader would not take the misfor turns facing the american people and leverage it for political gain. and the facts speak for themselves. since january of 2009, more than two million americans are unemployed. close to 26 million are underemployed. national unemployment has been at or above 9% for 28 straight months, at or above 8% for 34 straight months, and it has doubled that in the black -- and it is doubled that in the black community. average gas has gone from $1.83

to over $3.45. the federal debt has gone from $10.6 trillion to over $15 trillion with three straight years of trillion dollar-plus deficits and the debt per person, mr. speaker, has gone from $34,000 to $48,000. food stamp recipients are up by 41%. americans in poverty up 16% with an increase of 6.4 million americans. the misery index is up 65%, and nearly 48.5% of americans are on some form of government aid. home values are down 11%, and health insurance premiums are up 23% from $3,354 to over $4,000. the united states global competitiveness is down from first to fifth in the world. we currently borrow 42 cents on every dollar, a dollar, which thanks to the insidious monetary policies emanating

from the treasury, may not be the best in the world. yet, with these abysmal statistics, all we hear from the beg megaphone of the white house is we need to tax people, particularly certain people more. we hear about extending a payroll tax holiday which is only a band-aid which provides a short-term impetus. no one is telling the american people, especially the seniors, is the cost of the payroll tax breaks continues to erode the funding of social security which for the first time was running at a deficit. when combined with the unemployment situation, we are speeding up the demise of social security in america. at some point there must be structural tax and unemployment reform, and we must incentivize our job creators. america is suffering, mr. speaker, from crony capitalism in which the government is picking the winners and the losers in the free market,

using our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. we have an obama administration which believes it is the preeminent venture capitalists in our nature and episodes such as solyndra and m.f. global to cause us all grave concern. see, mr. speaker, conceptualism is not constrained by class or cast. there are income levels in our country, but sound economic, tax and regulatory policies enable our citizens to transit those levels because america is about equal opportunity and not equal achievement where liberal progressives believe they are the ash tores of -- arbitors of fairness. there is no leadership emanating from the white house. instead, we have policy by election cycle sound bytes for the purpose is just to get re-elected. too many politicians are working on deceitful rhetoric and not developing visionary,

pro-growth economic policies for america. the obvious goal, it seems to me, mr. speaker, is to create more victims in america, an america of dependency, not individual independence. so, therefore, our nation is truly at a crossroad. there is an ever-widening ideological chasm of what we are going to become as a nation. shall america continue as a constitutional republic, led by men and women of courage, conviction and character, or shall america become a bureaucratic nanny state, ruled by manipulative deceivers, seeking their own political gain? is america truly that shining city that sits upon a hill, mr. speaker, or will that light be forever extinguished? the choice lies before the american people, and i hope they will choose wisely because our children and our grandchildren are watching as well as our enemies abroad. but, mr. speaker, for america i

say this, fear not for the guardians of america's honor shall ensure that the greatest days for this constitutional republic lie ahead. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. west: yes, mr. speaker, i provide a motion that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: all right. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house s

>> good morning, everybody. a couple of days ago, i said we are in a make or break moment when it comes to america's middle-class. we either have a country where everybody fends for themselves,

or we create a country where everybody has a fair chance and we ensure there is a fair play out there. one of the things that i talked about was the importance that we implement financial reform, wall street reform that was passed last year. a key component of that was making sure we had a consumer watchdog in place who can police what mortgage brokers, payday lenders and other non- banking financial entities are able to do when it comes to consumers. this is a big deal. 1 in 5 people use these kinds of mechanisms to finance everything from buying a house to cash in their checks. we passed a law last year that

said we need is -- this consumer watchdog in place to make sure people are not taking advantage of. we have nominated someone, the former attorney general of ohio, whom everyone says is highly qualified. the majority of attorneys general, republican and democrat, from across the country have said this is someone who can do the job with integrity, who has a tradition of being a bipartisan individual who looks out for the public interest and is ready to go. he helped set up the consumer financial protection board. this morning, senate republicans blocked his nomination, refusing to let the senate bill forward with an up or down vote. this makes absolutely no sense. consumers across the country understand that part of the reason we got into the financial

mess we did is because regulators were not doing their jobs. people were not paying attention to what was happening in the housing market. people were not paying attention to who was being taken advantage of. people were making a lot of money taking advantage of american consumers. this individual's job is to make sure individual americans are protected. everybody from seniors to young people looking for student loans to members of our armed services, who are more the vulnerability -- more vulnerable than everybody when it comes to financial practices. there is no reason he should not be nominated and should not be confirmed by the senate and doing his job right away to carry out his mandate and his mission. i just want to send a message to the senate. we are not giving up on this. we are not going to allow

politics as usual on capitol hill to stand in the way of american consumers being protected by unscrupulous financial operators. we will keep on pushing on this issue. the second thing i want to make clear is with respect to the payroll tax. you have seen our countdown clock behind us. this is about making sure everybody is doing their fair share and that the middle class does not see their taxes go up by $1,000 in 23 days. we have heard some intimations from the senate majority leader and the speaker of the house, the senate minority leader and the speaker of the house. they think we should do a payroll tax. the question is, what price they will extract from the president in order to get it done.

this is not about me. they should not extend the payroll tax cut for me. they should not extend payroll unemployment insurance for me. this is for 160 million people are going to see their taxes go up if congress does that act. this is for 5 million individuals out there looking for a job who cannot find a job right now in a tough economy who could end up not being able to pay their bills or keep their house if congress does that act. rather than trying to figure out what they can extract politically from me in order to get this done, they need to be focused on what is good for the economy, what is good for jobs, and what is good for the american people. i have made clear that i do not expect congress to go home unless the payroll tax cut is extended and unless unemployment insurance is extended.

it would be wrong for families. it would also be wrong or the economy as a whole. with that, i will take a couple of questions. >> i would like to ask you about two other reported issues in the news. republican candidates have taken policy, particularly the middle east and israel and accused you of appeasement. i want to get your reaction to that. did you personally intervened in the sale of the morning after pill to those under 17. do you believe policy trump's science in this case? -- trumps signs in this case? >> as osama bin laden if i engage in the appeasement. -- ask osama bin laden if i engage in appeasement, or anyone

out there. with respect to plan b, i did not get involved in the process. this was a decision made by kathleen sebelius. as the father of two daughters, i think it is important for us to make sure we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over the counter medicine. as i understand it, the reason kathleen sebelius made this decision is because she could not be confident that a 10-year old or an 11-year-old go into a drug store should be able, alongside bubblegum or batteries, be able to buy a

medication that could end up having an adverse effect. most parents would probably feel the same way. the expectation here is important to understand. for women and those over 17, this continues to be something you can purchase from a drug store. it has been deemed safe by the fda. when it comes to 12-year-old and 13-year-old, the question is, can we have confidence that they would potentially use plan b properly. her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly in a way than had adverse health effect on those young people. >> is the recess appointment on

the table? the new prime minister indicated he may be coming to the white house next month? do you think he and other european leaders are stepping up to clear up the debt crisis? >> i would not take any options offer of the table when it comes to getting him in as the director of the consumer finance protection board. i want to repeat what i said earlier. law was a lot -- past -- a passed by congress decides to -- designed to protect consumers. i do not think there is anybody out there who thinks we got into the mess we did because there was too much regulation on wall street. i take it back. there are probably some people in the financial-services

industry to make that argument. i am not sure they make it with a straight face. all of the families out there who have lost their homes after having paid their mortgage over and over again because they were told they could afford this home, they did not understand all of the documentation involved. this was peddled deliberately to them even though a mortgage broker -- mortgage broker might have known that they could not keep up with these payments. now they are out on the street because nobody was making sure there was their play and fair dealing in the mortgage industry. we want to have somebody to make sure people are being treated fairly? especially when not only is that family effected, but the whole economy is affected.

we have a congress right now, republicans in congress right now, who seemed to have entirely forgotten how we got into this mess. part of the reason was because we did not empower our regulators to make sure that they were ensuring fair play. that is what the consumer finance protection board is designed to do. the wife of general petraeus has been working to make sure armed services personnel are not taken advantage of. they get transferred to a base. the next thing they know they are taking out loans that they think are a good deal. it turns out they are paying 100%, 200% interest rates. why wouldn't we want somebody in place to make sure that does not

happen? it does not make any sense. the bottom line is -- you asked about the recess appointment. we are going to look at all our options. my hope and expectation is that the republicans who blocked this nomination will come to their senses. i know that some of them have made an argument that, we want to make some modifications in the law. they are free to introduce a bill and get that passed. part of what has happened on capitol hill, not just on this issue but every issue, is that they will hold up nominations. well qualified judges are not getting a vote. i have got assistant secretaries to the treasury to get held up for no reason just because they are trying to see if they can use that to reverse a law that

has already been passed. that is part of what gets the american people so frustrated. they do not feel that this thing is on the level. on the european debt crisis. i am obviously concerned with what is happening in europe. i have expressed those concerns with president sarkozy, chancellor angela merkel, all of the key leaders involved. i think they recognize the urgency of doing something serious and bold. the question is if they can muster the political will to get it done. europe is wealthy enough that there is no reason they can solve this problem. it is not as if we are talking about some impoverished countries that do not have

resources and are being buffeted by the world markets and they need to come hat in hand and get help. this is europe with some of the wealthiest countries on earth. collectively, one of the largest markets on earth, if not the largest. if they muster the political will, they have the capacity to settle markets down, to make sure that they are acting responsibly and that governments like europe -- like italy are able to finance their debt. chancellor angela merkel is making progress with other european leaders in trying to move toward a fiscal compact where everybody is playing by the same rules and everybody is acting irresponsibly. there is a short-term crisis

that has to be resolved to make sure europe stands behind the euro. we are going to do everything we can to push them in a good direction. it has a huge impact on what happens in the united states. they are our largest trading partner. we are seeing some positive signs in our economy. if we see europe tank, that could have an impact on our ability to generate the jobs we need here in the united states. i will answer one more question. >> you called on congress not to leave until they resolved the issue over the payroll tax cuts and the unemployment insurance. can you say definitively that you will postpone your on vacation until these issues are resolved? on iran, we have heard some sharper language from members of your administration recently. are you trying to wrap up pressure on iran?

are you considering other options? >> note auctions off of the table means i am considering all options -- no options off of the table means i am considering all options. >> can you tell us what those options would be? >> no. this administration has systematically and impose the toughest sanctions on iran ever. -- has imposed the toughest sanctions on iran ever. when we came into office, the world was divided and iran was moving ahead aggressively on its own agenda. today, iran is isolated and the world is unified in applying the toughest sanctions iran has ever experienced. there is extraordinary work done

by our national security team. iran understands that they have a choice. they can break that isolation by acting responsibly and for swearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power. or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world. if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, i have said clearly that that is contrary to the national security interests of the united states and our allies, including israel. we are going to work with the

world community to prevent that. with respect to my vacation, i would not ask anybody to do something i am not willing to do myself. i know some of you might have been looking forward to a little sun and sand. but the bottom line is we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure the american people's taxes don't go up on january 1 and to make sure people who desperately need on a plan insurance get that help. -- unemployment insurance get that help. the payroll tax cut is something that democrats and republicans agreed to last year with little fanfare. it is good for the county. independent economists agree

that for us to not extend its right now, to not extend the payroll tax cut and i extend unemployment insurance would have a significant adverse impact on our economy right at the time we are supposed to be growing our economy. when i hear the speaker or the senate republican leader wanting to bicker and wanting to see what they can extract from us to get this done, my response is, do the right thing. focus on the american people. focus on the economy right now. the suggestion is that somehow this keystone issue will create jobs. that is being determined by the state department right now. there is a process. here is what i know. how many jobs might be generated

by a keystone 5 plan? there will be fewer than the jobs created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance. get it done. have at, maybe we will white christmas here in washington -- if not, maybe we will have a white christmas here in washington. if not, i look forward to spending a lot of time with you guys. >> $1 an hour for your labor. that is the most expensive single element. no environmental controls, no retirement and you do not care about anything but making money. there will be a sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues in the 1992 debate.

the billionaire made two attempts at the presidency. he got more votes than any third-party candidate in u.s. history. he is our final candidate on "the contenders." >> december 7, 1941. a date which will live in infamy. history tv looks at the japanese the text -- a tax on pearl harbor at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. eastern. live call in programs with world

war ii historians. throughout the day, first-person accounts from servicemen and civilians. a tour of the visitors center and archival footage of the attack and its aftermath. >> this special inspector general for iraq said congress should create a new office to provide oversight to iraq and over seas operations. he said the position would save taxpayers millions of dollars. he testified before a house oversight subcommittee. this is about one hour, 20 minutes. minute hearing. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. and a little bit early, but we are well represented. i would like to begin a hearing

preceding the mission statement. we exist to secure to fundamental principles first americans have the right to know that money washington takes from them as well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them. or duty on the oversight reform committee is to protect these rights to read our solemn responsibilities to hold a government accountable to taxpayers the cost taxpayers have a right to know they get from their government. worked tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is the mission of the oversight government reform kennedy. good morning and welcome to today's hearing. oversight in iraq and afghanistan challenges and solutions. i would like to welcome randy never tierney, members of the subcommittee and members of the audience and certainly the panel for being here today. this is the sixth hearing addressing the accountability of taxpayers' dollars in the war zone. during the session this committee examined a number of issues including whether the state park that is prepared to oversee the surge and private contracting in iraq, whether

this department will be able to protect government employees and contractors in iraq after the military with straw, with the usaid and the state department can accurately track reconstruction projects and account for their expenditures, whether those products can and will be sustained by the host nations, whether the bill intended to the government of the systems -- direct assist program can and will be properly overseen, with a defense to prove that is working to ensure tax payers' money isn't exported along afghanistan's supply chain. in october, the full committee heard testimony from the commission on wartime contract and about its final report. the commissioners alleged between 30 to $60 billion had been lost in iraq and afghanistan due to waste, fraud and abuse in the contract in process. according to the commission, this is due to ill conceived projects, poor planning and oversight, performance by the contractors, criminal behavior and blatant corruption. this is unacceptable and while some may agree or disagree with

our engagement in iraq and afghanistan and is universally unacceptable to waste taxpayers' money. in each of the hearings witnesses have described the successive challenges of the oversight has a complicated environment. without a doubt, the task is difficult to refer it is critical that we get it right. today the inspectors general community will share its prospective together on one panel. the community plays a pivotal with the oversight of the federal programs. the mission is to promote economy efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the federal programs and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse. it also includes informing the congress of any corrective action that it needs to be taken. in addition to the defense steve and usaid the special inspectors general were established to focus specifically on efforts in iraq and afghanistan. each of these offices is present here today. the have produced noteworthy results, significant challenges remain. we will hear about a steady. we will also examine potential solutions, ranking member tierney has introduced h.r. 2880

which seeks to disband sigr for the overseas contingency operations. on the understand that mr. bowen supports this idea. i would like to hear the penalty when that legislation and how such office with interface understanding ayachi. ranking member of legislation is a good beginning. i look forward to working with them cut the agencies and the oig community to structure an effective solution. before recognizing the remember tierney, i would like to note that the defense department and the state's department, usaid and sigar will not have all agees in january. in may of this year i read the president asking him to move without delay to the appointed replacement. that was signed by senator lieberman, collins, mccaskill as the western allies, ranking member cummings and ranking member tierney. i would like to place a copy of the record into the record. without objection. so ordered. to my knowledge, the president has yet to nominate any of the

replacement, nor has he responded to this letter. i find that totally unacceptable. this is a massive, massive effort. it's going to take some leadership and help from the white house. these jobs cannot and will not be one of the president fails to make these appointments. upon taking office, president obama promised that his administration would be, quote, the most open and transparent in history. you cannot achieve transparency without inspectors general. again i urge president obama the senate to nominate and come from inspectors general to fill the vacancies and without the way. i'd now like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. timoney for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chaffetz and all of you for being witnesses today helping us with our job. this hearing also is a combination of a series of hearings of the subcommittee and the full committee with regard to iraq and afghanistan. we've heard from the department of defense, the department of state on the transition to the civilian led mission in iraq and

we've heard from the commission of the wartime contract income suggested reforms to reduce waste, fraud and abuse on the contingency operations and we follow the part of the defense to find delete to discuss the investigation earlier on the production of the afghan trucking industry. these hearings continue to highlight the challenge of the taxpayer funds from waste and fraud in the operations in iraq and afghanistan. the commission of a more time conducting fund billions of dollars had been wasted by agencies that have little capacity to manage the contractors or to hold them accountable. even worse, billions of dollars more have been dedicated to projects the were poorly conceived and our unsustainably host governments. the findings are consistent with this committee is to a oversight in afghanistan. last year the subcommittee investigation had over $2 billion in the the part of defense contracting in iraq and afghanistan. this investigation found the trucking contract found the vast production in which the war lords, criminals and insurgents extort the contractors for the protection payments to obtain

safe passage. a follow-up hearing held by the subcommittee in september showed that the department has made little progress ruling out bad actors who undermine the efforts in afghanistan. we know now many of these actors continue to serve as u.s. government contractors. in response to the findings of the billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse the commissioner of the wartime contract and made a number of input recommendations for congress to consider. one key recommendation of the report was the creation of the permanent inspector general for the contingency operations. as the commission stated, no entity exists with sufficient resources, experience and audit and investigative capabilities to transcend the department of functional stovepipes. taking up the recommendation of introduced legislation the chairman mentioned that would establish the special inspector general for overseas contingency operations. these efforts of the commission along with the special the inspector general for iraq reconstruction and special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction have shown the critical importance of the real time oversight in our

overseas operations. we need to preserve the unique abilities of these entities in a single permanent inspector general with a flexible deployable caught three of oversight specialists. i urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation to require all the legislation is designed to address future contingency operations this hearing is about oversight in iraq and afghanistan now. to that and i would like to address recent findings by the department of defense inspector general that shed light on some of the problems with one of four largest contractors and afghanistan. the report revealed that the supreme group, the prime contractor on the multibillion-dollar defense department of the system of contract in afghanistan is under investigation for hundreds of millions of dollars and overbilling. ayaan understand that there is now a criminal inquiry on the supreme groups overbilling. these obligations raise significant concerns about the defense logistics agency and their ability to properly manage the live skill contracts and protect taxpayer dollars from waste and fraud. they also raise concerns about the use of the noted plus

contracts that is common in the contingency operations. as we speak, the defense logistics agency is preparing to award tenderly and 30 billion-dollar contract to provide food and supplies for the troops in afghanistan for five years. so i'd like to hear from our inspectors general today about what more can be done to ensure that our federal agencies are doing their job to properly manage the billions of dollars being spent in those two countries. i also like to hear from you regarding what tools you have to ensure the company's mark overbilling the federal government for the hundreds of millions of dollars do not have the opportunity to take even more taxpayer funds in the future. so i want to thank you again for being witnesses and thank you mr. chairman for having this hearing. >> thank you. members will have an additional seven days to submit steegmans for the record. the honorable gordon as the department of defense inspector general. ambassador is the department of state deputy inspector general. mr. michael carroll is the usaid

acting and inspector general. the honorable stuart bolin is the special lens victor general for the iraqi reconstruction and mr. stephen trent is the acting special inspector general for the afghan reconstruction. pursuant to the committee will call witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. please rise and raise your right hand. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth >> thank you pivotal the record reflect the witness is answered in the affirmative. in order to allow proper time for discussion, we are going to ask that each member of the panel limit their verbal comments to five minutes. you're entire statement will be inserted into the record. i will now recognize the honorable mr. hadel for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, good morning. good morning, ranking member tierney and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss

oversight efforts and help with asia. as many of you may be where this will likely be my final testimony before congress as the inspector general to be effective december 24th, i will step down as the dod ing. in my first month alone at the dod ig i testified three times before congress. two of the three hearings dealt with critically important issues of oversight contingency operations and selfless asia. noting that the nation was engaged in the war and that we had a pressing need to strengthen oversight to protect the war fighters and the american taxpayers. i immediately and determined to make oversight the contingency operations in south west asia a number one priority. as a result, i instituted a number of organizational changes to the structure and focus of the dod efforts and to increase

hour in theater presents which is regularly augmented by our expeditionary teams. i believe strongly that the in the theater presents is absolutely essential to conducting oversight of operation and in beijing with military and civilian leadership in a theater to ensure that our oversight is meaningful and effective. in our audit division i created the joint and southwest asia operations tractor that and the afghan security forces funding. our audits and theater provide timely and relevant oversight and the auditors now have extensive experience in conducting complex joint audit with other federal agencies. in our investigations division, the defense criminal investigative service, vcis expanded its presence in southwest asia, and today, dcis plays a major role in southwest

asia by participating in the key task forces that tackle complex fraud cases. the dcis is already deployed worldwide and has the capability to immediately provide investigative resources to contingency operations anywhere in the world. another division of the dod ig, the office of special plans and operations has been a key contributor to providing oversight. spo has enhance our capability to provide expeditionary changed a southwest asia to conduct timely evaluations and assessments and to provide thorough out briefs to the field commanders enabling them to take immediate corrective action. i also appointed a special deputy inspector general for south west asia to coordinate

and the conflict oversight efforts. my special deputy has worked extensively with all of the ig offices represented with me this morning. today we are an actual, flexible, no-nonsense and aggressive organization oversight organization with a capacity to deploy rapidly anywhere in the world or on short notice, and the dod ig is prepared to respond effectively and aggressively in coordination with other federal agencies and internal dod oversight offices to address any future overseas contingency operations that a rise. i would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the work of the dod ig, and i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. thank you para >> thank you periera thank you again for your service in your

long career and the secret service and the work of the defense department. we appreciate your service and wish you nothing but the best and we will now recognize the honorable mr. gaissal. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify to the of the oversight of the department programs in iraq and afghanistan since standing up its overseas offices in 2008, the office of the inspector general, a white sheet, has conducted 31 investigations and issued 21 reports related to iraq, conducted 14 investigations and issued 22 reports related to afghanistan and issued 11 reports of activities affecting the department program and transition issues in iraq and afghanistan. our efforts during fy 2011 resulted in more than $200 million in question costs and funds put to better use. 16.6 million in investigative recoveries and 20 contractor suspensions.

these results demonstrate the impact that oig has achieved in the this publishing presence in afghanistan and kabul. as a result of congressional support, oig has fulfilled its commitment to vigorously oversee the department's transition and soon will be one of the few remaining oversight entities in iraq. the challenges the department faces in the transition to the civilian licht presence in iraq or significant. dod's planned withdrawals of its troops by the end of this month requires that the departments to provide security, life support, transportation and other logistical support that of the dod presently provides an iraq. our office of inspections has issued two reports, jul come 2009 inspection of embassy baghdad and in october 2010 compliance fall will preview which addresses the embassy's transition planning efforts. in response to the csrl, the department appointed a washington-based ambassador in february, 2011 to manage the iraq transition process to be we

also issued reviews in august of 2009 and may 2011 of the department efforts to transition to the civilian let presence in iraq. both reviews found that the transition was taking place in an operating environment that remains violent and unpredictable. the october 2009 report on the transition planning efforts recommend that in the seabeck data develop a unified transition plan and assign a senior transition coordinator in iraq establish a work force planned to timely completion of large infrastructure projects managed by the embassy determined what will to cut services and contract management personnel would be required and verifiable resources needed to meet the increased support requirements following the departure. all of these recommendations of the enclosed. the may 2011 report noted that the embassy baghdad in the department had still pushed planning and management mechanisms to transition to the

civilian blood presence. it also mentioned that while the department had made progress in several key decisions are pending. some planning could not be final and progress was slipping in some areas. we remain concerned that some reconstruction projects were still experiencing delays and were not expected to be completed until may 2012 and the distortion the viable diplomatic mission without the support and funding would require considerable resources, making it difficult to develop detailed budget estimates. the department generally agree with and was responsive to the intent of the recommendations. looking forward, we have to 15 investigations related to iraq and nine related to afghanistan. our 2012 iraq and ken astana oversight plans include six of its plus the proposed joint audit with dod baiji of programs and dhaka and kabul. in baghdad we will look at the world wide protective services

contracts for embassy baghdad, medical locations in iraq and the department's oversight of the task order in losel. we also proposed that we undertake a joint auditor of transition execution and iraq including implementation of the baghdad master plan. in kabul we plan to audit the task order for the embassy security force, contracts to build prisons and the task order for mazar-i-sharif. for 20 called our office of inspections as planned inspections of the office of the coordinator for counterterrorism and the office to monitor and combat the trafficking and persons. the office of what it is following up on its work in the region regarding treatment by contractors of the third country nationals and the office of investigations also are actively engaged on this issue. we will continue to provide the department and the converse with the copper inspector of audits and inspections and

investigations of post transition activities in iraq and preparations for the planning and operations in afghanistan. mr. chairman, mr. tierney and members of the subcommittee, thank you once again for the opportunity to appear today and i am ready to answer your questions to it >> we will now recognize the inspector general let usaid. >> thank you. ranking member tierney, members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to describe our work is generally and specifically in iraq and afghanistan if i could read it like to begin explaining how we are structured, uniquely structured to provide oversight. like the agency, the oig is a foreign affairs foreign service organization and more than two-thirds of the auditors and investigators are foreign service operators permanently assigned to usaid oig. so that worldwide availability gives us a great deal of

flexibility to put people where they need to be when they need to become and in addition to that, even though we participated in the process by statute we are exempt from countries staffing level feelings, so why this has never been an issue and i don't think it ever will be, we can put people where we need to put people regardless of what the situation is on the ground with staffing in the different embassies, and again, that gives a great deal of flexibility in over the past eight years a couple of examples or opening country offices in iraq afghanistan and pakistan, doubling the size of the staff in south africa to oversee the money for aids and infectious diseases in sub-saharan africa and then opening the satellite office on a small satellite office in port-au-prince haiti to help the regional office in el salvador oversee the humanitarian assistance and

reconstruction of the post earthquake haiti. so i think that regardless whether it is a contingency operation or just a standard agency coming u.s. aid obligation i think we uniquely situated to do that work to do the oversight work. in iraq we started the oversight in 2003 long-term and when the embassy got up and running and the mission got up and running we established an office of seven auditors and investigators so we have been there pretty much with sigr from the beginning. on the programs and iraq are sort of leveling off to the traditional country office machine operation at about $270 million we are going to reduce the size of the staff to the auditors to the investigators move the additional people over to egypt of the regional offices and then provide iraq, provide oversight of iraq from egypt and from

iraq. in afghanistan we develop a little bit differently. clearly the infrastructure wasn't available early on so we were doing most of our work from the philippines. we created a virtual country office in the philippines and we were literally on the ground full-time in afghanistan with auditors and investigators doing the work. as the program increased in scope and complexity we worked out with the embassy to put an office there and now we have seven auditors for the foreign service national auditors we have for american u.s. direct higher investigators, 14 and national investigator and we are going to put on one more investigator so we are committed both through iraq and afghanistan in providing audit oversight and investigated over side of the programs in afghanistan. with that, i would appreciate -- thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you and i would welcome any questions you might have about our oversight activity and the activities to improve that going forward to it specs before. we will now recognize the honorable steward bowen who is the inspector general for the iraqi reconstruction through 64 ranking member to me, members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you begin and address over oversight work in iraq, and also to take up the issue of improving oversight in contingency operations. i just returned to weeks ago from my 31st trip to iraq over the last eight years, met with might and auditors and investigators while i was there and we are busy still addressing significant issues regarding the substantial u.s. funds being expended in iraq. it's true the military is departing at the end of this month a footprint is shrinking, but billions of dollars in taxpayers' money is still being spent and that money requires firm and effective oversight for the coming year and the years

thereafter. on monday we appear before the house committee on foreign affairs to address the largest expenditure plan for next year by the state department and that is the billion dollars for the police development program. real questions raised about the preparation for that much work remains to be done to ensure that it can succeed. why why was an iraq i met with ambassador jeffrey, and our ambassador to iraq and the assistant in charge of the development program and they concur with our findings and taking action vigorously to implement them. however, i remain concerned about a couple of matters that occurred over the last month regarding our presence there and one is the review process at the state department is implemented to require us to get the information that we normally get for the reports back through offices here in washington which will impede our responsiveness. you've come to rely on the reports for the quick trip on

what's going on in iraq and we want to maintain a capacity. we hope that we can overcome that limitation and there's also been an investigation problem that all identified in my statement that's relative to the capacity to get information and carry out investigations. these continue the capacity to execute effective oversight in iraq. i also want to address the the government's capacity to execute effective oversight in contingency operations of the wartime commission in its final report a few months ago rightly recognized that the united states can improve its ability to oversee, oversee contingency operations recommending the provision of a special inspector general in other words personalizing what we've been doing, what's my colleague mr. trent and his staff are doing in afghanistan. and i concur with their recommendation because it will

provide funds, savings of money in iraq. that's the bottom line. in iraq, afghanistan, the contingencies going forward. the specialist victor general for the overseas contingency would save taxpayer dollars. we've done that in iraq. it's being done in afghanistan. would be done in the future contingency operations. but we take very quickly the three objections to it that have been raised. one, it would be a layer of additional oversight. the opposite is true. the experience of sigr in iraq has been that we have coalesced and focused oversight of the iraq reconstruction mission, and as a result of generated more effective work, more output, work that would have been more difficult to accomplish there had been three, four, five inspector general's office is operating, and we triet the iraq inspector general counsel and as was pointed out we worked very closely from the beginning and with the states and with the dod over time through the process to generate better work.

it has been a effective catalyst to sinner jul is oversight efforts in country, not the layer. .. >> and finally, and this is the most important thing, with the expenses or the costs be more or less than the current one? the answer is yes. we can operate on the current budget for a limited time until

the contingencies occur, and then would be directed by the congress to provide oversight and contingencies as they arrive. it would be a tool for the congress, a boon to the taxpayers, and save money in these times of $15 trillion debt. >> we will now recognize the acting inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. mr. trent, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues today to discuss ways to oversee reconstruction of afghanistan. if the budget is approved, it will bring total appropriations to $90 billion, the largest free billion -- the largest

rebuilding effort since the mamarshall plan. we have issued 49 reports and made 149 recommendations that have led to greater accountability and improvements in contacting and program management. just this year, our auditors have identified nearly $70 million that should be returned to the u.s. government. investigators have played an important role in detecting and preventing fraud. this year, our auditors produced $51 million in fines, penalties, forfeitures and savings. however, we can and must do more to strengthen oversight during this critical transition time in afghanistan. we have taken steps to focus our investigative work on the most critical areas of the reconstruction effort. we have developed a fiscal year 2012 on a plan that develops

critical areas to reconstruction. private security contractors, government capacity in sustainability, contracting, program results and evaluations, fraud detection and mitigation. we have also added inspections to provide timely assessments of infrastructure projects. these rapid reviews will verify if the work is performed correctly and achieved intended outcomes. most importantly, this work can help determine if projects are sustainable. we are also adding a series of audits to contract expenditures. these audits will allow us to more accurately assess whether the u.s. government is being billed properly. the consistently toward need to avoid duplicating each other's work. however -- coordinate to avoid duplicating each other's work. however, we know we need a more targeted approach. therefore, we are developing a

strategic framework for afghanistan reconstruction. we tend to identify the issues most important to lawmakers and policy makers, and use these issues to drive the results of the community to work. taking awe're leadership role in taking -- in holding contractors accountable and afghanistan. we have 111 ongoing criminal investigations, 68 of which involve contract or procurement fraud. criminal and civil legal proceedings can take substantial time. so we have enhanced the suspension and debarment program to address the need for more timely and targeted transactions. marron tried to make 80 referrals by the end of -- we are on track to make 80 referrals by the end of this year. other agencies have responsibility to strengthen

oversight of their own operations. to my recent trip to afghanistan, i met with high level officials to discuss what steps they are taking. i will continue to engage in these important discussions, which also help to better target our work. we listened closely to this committee's thoughtful questions about oversight and we are heeding your concerns. the congress has provided at -- has provided enormous resources for afghan reconstruction during a difficult environment. we're committed to protecting this historic investment and helping agencies produce better results. thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear this morning. ir. >> thank you for your service. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. heddell, let me start with you. the defense contracting agency is a little bit outside of our lane, but i'd appreciate if you'd offer to wartime

contracting and indicated they were praying 56,000 -- 56,000 contracts behind in terms of auditing these contracts. why is it? how is that the dod can be so far behind in this? >> mr. chairman, my office is actually done a lot of work with respect to dcaa. i would just say chocolate for stuff that i think they probably are underresourced and need help in that respect. but historically, dcaa has been a very challenged organization. they do a tremendous amount of work for a lot of agencies. not just inside the department of defense, but outside the department of defense. in the last three to four years the dcaa has undergone some

sweeping changes as a result of some fairly significant criticisms of their leadership, the processes and not meeting next patience. as a result of that, he has new leadership today with pat fitzgerald who is the director of the army audit and taken on a gigantic job and with the work my office has done to try and help them identify vulnerabilities and their management, in their processes and how to be an affect your organization. for the last two years their focus has been, and mrs. gordon heddell talking, more internal than external. so under ideal circumstances, they would've been focusing outward turning great work, doing lots of audits that very experienced and good leadership. they've had to focus inward to correct management decisions

pleasing vulnerability. that's partially a result of this backlog and nodded. >> and my understanding is they been participating and spending a lot of money and resources. if that expenditure gone up, help me understand what's happening with the actual auditors themselves because you have been appropriated my money. >> absolutely. i've been a fortune organization and in the last three to four years, the dod office of inspector general has flushed up $787 million, mr. chairman. i doubt that any other ig can say that. congress has been very supportive of me. and for that matter, so has the department of defense. >> have you been spending my money? >> know, the problem there is that the budget -- the $87 million that i have received

have not been annualized. and what that means is although i'm very fortunate to get these, i'm not able to use that money to hire permanent staff. so i can hire contract juries. i can do other things without money, but because it has not been annualized by the department, i cannot run the risk of hiring people and then having to risk them the following year for fear that i don't have enough money in my budget to pay them. >> out that $87 million in cotton, how much did you actually spend? >> well, we've spent almost all of it. >> but you hire outside contractors -- >> yes, sir. we hire outside contractors and creatively doing work that is positive and meets the needs of both the congress and the

department of the american people. but for instance, in the early 2000, there's two things that have been that have come to haunt us today. one is what we spent our military forces into southwest asia to fight two wars, there is a mistaken belief by many of the civilian agencies that they could fight those two wars in the continental united states. my own organization being one of them. it wasn't until three or four years ago that we came to realization you cannot do that. he must be present and you have to have the people in place. you have to have the footprint. the second thing that happened is that the department of defense budget doubled to about $650 billion. and at the same time the contract acquisition and contract management work for is in fact was reduced in size,

meaning that we lack thousands and thousands of needy contracting specialist that are not there to oversight these contracts, better not dare to raise their hand and say stop the assembly line. we are spending money that we are not watching. we are not surveilling it. those are two major issues. >> well, thank you. i think this highlights a multibillion dollars challenge and problems that we certainly need to address can fix because there's a definite need pervasive in congress, both have senate to make sure these functions are in place. with the monies appropriated is obvious he falling short of feeling. i've overstayed my time. we know recognize the ranking member, mr. tierney from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. chaffetz, i think we hollowed out collaboration seems in keeping at least the personnel on board and to manage

contracts every time we have a hearing on that respect. if we contract outcome which is not always a good idea, then at least we have to keep on board enough people to manage these things for everybody's benefit. in your report, mr. chaffetz, the sub prime contract for afghanistan used on while those are provided the projects required by the contract to defend statistics agency failed to provide contract costs performance. specifically you found the agency overpaid the vendor a hundred million dollars in transportation costs, pick another $455 million to jewish pressures vegetables without equipping core requirements and allowed to build over $50 million in costs would erode the perp reaching here. what recourse do you have this inspector general in the agency fails to properly manage a contract that leads to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses

to taxpayer. >> well, thank you congressman tierney. obviously this is an example of just about how bad it can get. and clearly this happened. this contract was created in 2005. it wasn't a well-designed, well thought out contract. what probably like many contracts during that period, consequently we spent some $3 billion on this contract. nics that, we overpaid the prime vendor in 90 days -- $98 million in transportation costs. we overpaid and 25.9 million travel cost of corrugated boxes and so on. and as you indicated, $455 million in services to air lift fruit and vegetables from the united arab emirates into

afghanistan without including not in the contract. all of that is a result of not cleaning properly and using our contract, designer contract does not in the best interest of the american people. now my organization has gone to the defend statistics agency and we told them i want that money back. and the defense logistics agency agrees with us. beginning in october they began this past october of 11, they began to make efforts to determine first about what are the fair and reasonable prices that should have been charged? imagine a contract created in 2005 and now and december of 2011, we are just now determining what should've been the reasonable and fair prices to pay. okay, david greig, mr. ranking member to do that and they are currently in face-to-face negotiations with supreme and

the timeline projections for a resolution on this and i would never hold my breath and get it all back. at a resolution for this is actually scheduled for december 9 this week. so i am hopeful that when we talk again, that i can say to you we've been able to recover a great deal of these funds. >> you recall that from a contracts that we look that make tracking situation in afghanistan. the lack of vision or ability to look at a contracts, subcontract some tiny detail of those who just never written in to begin with. so mr. bowen, and a special inspector general to help alleviate this problem is sending people in and getting partway down the road before you see these mistakes are happening? >> one, there will be focus and preparation in place at the time the agency begins to deploy.

there'll be a commitment to deployment. as my friend mr. chaffetz pointed out, with the other ig is in moving forward and be in. >> one of the licenses you have to be there to do the work. a special inspector general thought this would be hiring people who know when they sang on, though: deploy and carry a oversight in the conflicts on. finally this is a good example of how it could make a difference. something unique to a special ig that institutional toe house. that means i can dig into problems like this and find out if it's dod money being wasted or aid money, however that money may be going away we can get to adding it to a faster and thus save it. >> thank you, mr. chair.

>> i will recognize myself for five minutes. mr. trance, the obama administration increased rent assistance to the afghan government from approximately $665 million in fy 09 to roughly $2 billion in fy 10. this program is designed to provide u.s. taxpayer money quickly to the karzai government for purpose of carrying out reconstruction projects. is it logical to assume one of the most current governors will have proper stewardship of u.s. taxpayer money? [booing] it's a very good question, congressman. sigar has conducted a number of audits and has a number of candidates planned. a rtf in the past. looking on among other things than those capacity of the afghan government to administer afghan direct funds.

we have a significant and serious challenge in the karzai government in afghanistan. the efforts with corruption in afghanistan are almost insurmountable. clearly we need more of a concerted well by the government there and we need a much stronger and robust criminal justice which they simply don't have. so we do it we can to monitor those funds and will continue to do that. i can't say if i'm optimistic or not with regard to the corruption and control of those funds. >> what should we be doing? if you're not confident -- i'm not confident either. what should we be doing? you said something that we need a more robust criminal system. well, they all have one. it are not proper procedures are proper oversight people. so what should we be doing?

>> well, were doing about all we can. we need to continue with the rule of law efforts there. we can't give up on that, notwithstanding the corruption laws that we've encountered with that. we have to continue to bring pressure wherever possible on the government itself to show a concerted effort in the area and prosecute and continue to conduct audits and continue to work on the investigative side with the afghan authorities we can work with to pursue ascii or my others. >> mr. bhavan, right now the police development program for iraq going forward and there's some evidence that iraqis don't even want this program. the view your stats to ask iraqi police force if they need the program at the obama administration plan to spend the

development program click >> yes, we reported that in our last quarterly no damned the senior official said quote, she didn't see any real benefit from the police development program, unquote. i addressed that with him bananas in iraq a couple weeks ago and asked him, did you mean what you said? his response was we welcome any support that the american government would provide us. however my statement as quoted in your recent quarterly are still posted on the website. >> so why is the administration spending $5 million year to provide his program. >> there is a belief that security continues to be a challenging issue and iraq -- a well-founded belief given the events of this week.

killings of pilgrims again on the way to the eve of posture. the focus on trying to address those problems has been a widely scattered, high-level training program involving 150 police trainers who as we see again this week will have a very difficult time moving about the country. >> so what other problems have been found if any? >> several. he pointed out in our audit that found in the congress requires from iraq by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs has not been secured. that's a great concern, especially for a ministry that has a budget for over 6 billion. a government that just approved $100 billion budget for next year. it's not afghanistan.

this is a country that has significant wealth, should be all to contribute, that has not been forced to do so in a program is crucial as this. >> i know i've run out of time, that mr. geisel d.o. comments on this? >> well, first of all i am not going to second-guess my friend and colleague on by his people found. and of course the people you need to bring up here are the people from the state department to comment on what he found. i saw that the department published a document, a 21 page document that includes goals and measures of performance for the police development program. but if my friends baby, not nine. thematic thank you very much. i look at five-minute now to mr. welch from vermont.

>> thank you very much, mr. labrador. i want to thank each and everyone of you for the terrific work you're doing. a lot of situations here in covering reflect the impossible expectations oftentimes congress has and if it were as easy as writing a check and having police force in iraq and afghanistan be established could be no problem. against her better judgment sometimes we spend money and surprise surprise can you tell us a lot of it is being wasted. i really do applaud the work that you're doing. i am going to be introducing legislation that does stricker disbarment proceedings for contractors convicted of violating provisions of the foreign corrupt practices act. there is some debate between my office and the attorney general's office as to how strict that should be. that is a very critical troll

for you. my view is that the department of authority hasn't been adequately exercised in a war zone. i may ask you, inspector general trend. i know that sigar has her best suspension and disbarment programs, did you believe it dod usaid are adequately and appropriately using the authority within iraq and afghanistan? if not, what are the barriers to its use its use and how cool it worked for them to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not getting ripped off? >> congressmen, we do have aggressive and somewhat effective suspension department program in sigar. and i am somewhat aware of your pending legislation on me at cpa issue. with to my colleagues at these suspension departments, it has been a tool available to contract authorities acquisition

authorities and inspector generals as far as proposals for some time. in my experiences in the last several years in the southwest asia i felt that we could increase that use and when i came to sigar i took steps to do that. >> so it is an effective tool and should be used? >> congressmen, i believe it's a very effective tool and in the afghanistan case it is a tool in terms of corruption and contract management and implementation. >> let me ask you one more question. i just got back from afghanistan. one of the people we've met with was found the attorney general's office and the anticorruption unit. and they repair training afghan civil servants about how to detect corruption. when i asked the attorney general has a coin, he said we had to in the program.

he says because we're teaching them how to detect it they were using information to do it. [laughter] so that is a real challenge that we face. but when we visited the commanders sent home and in kandahar, one of the things they were promoting was the developments quick chat key dam which costs about $475 million in benefits are obviously implemented. a provide electricity, maybe some irrigation. but the question is it's not coming out of their budget. it would be a supplemental expenditure. it's not like the military would take it out of their ability to do their job. so they look a bit skeptical because it's easy to prevent the expenditure of somebody else's money. bottom line, that is the conflict zone and significant questions about whether this could be done. my question to you is does it

make sense at this point to as the taxpayers to spend $475 million on hydroelectric project that would have extensive transmission lines? olivet could be easily attachable by insurgents who doesn't make sense to put that on hold? >> congressmen, sigar does not look at the college at usaid has done work in that area. we have what god couple of power plants and energy sec or with audits, but specifically we have that. i believe my friend at usaid has done it to market my area. >> yes, sir. i'm running on the edge of time, but with the indulgence of the chairman. >> i think you're initially asked a political or administration question about

the utility of going forward with the program. would you consider the difficult environment in which it would be implemented. we have done a couple audits and in talking to ambassador crocker this week, it seems to be a priority at the embassy and government to move forward with that. it looks like the army corps of engineers is going to undertake a major part of the program and ait would also be responsible for doing work that ticky-tacky pm. so primarily, the problem up there has been security and now it's getting difficult to get contract are on the work when you consider the security situation that they are. so overall is the power sector and important sector? absolutely. but it's a very difficult environment to work in up there. >> wanaque five minutes to

mr. yarmouth. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank you offer testimony and appreciate the work you do also. we now face because of the debt ceiling deal that we did a possible sequester funds and large amount of that sequester funds in 2013 would come from defense department. secretary pineda has said the such a cut is project that under the sequester process would be devastating to the defense department and our security. and yet we listened to these stories can we talk about essentially the inability to get a handle on it -- on these contracts in real time. how are we going to know, mr. heddell, if the sequester is really going to have an impact

on defense when we don't have a grasp on the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars for spending no? >> although i can't comment on the sequester congressman yarmouth, i can tell you in the last three or four beers i has seen significant progress in inspector general community in terms of its oversight. and i love the same progress with respect to the way the commanders -- in fact they just got back from afghanistan myself. and i've seen progress in terms of the approach that we're taking. for instance, this year one of the things that we've started doing was assisting the mod and the emboli, ministers of defense and interior with respect to core capabilities, meaning

ability to manage government, something we had not done before so that we have a way of teaching them how to do it and then going back and making sure that they are accountable. and so we are creating systems and processes. i can't assure you that is going to work, but it's something we should have done before. the other thing, the inspector general community itself, which is a significant tool in overcoming so many challenges, four years ago the statement that if you've seen one ig, you've seen one night she was really true. today it is not true. once the amendment to the inspector general act was passed a few years ago, what has happened is similar to what is happening live enforcement. all of the big things in our tenant task force says. they are done in teams. where you have ig is now getting together to solve a common

problem. you have one person agencies working on task forces to address corruption. and by the way, you mentioned -- or it was mentioned earlier that the use of tool such as department -- while that's a great tool, but you have to realize that what happens when we do bari company in afghanistan, what happens is they just go back and change their name and reapply and get a new contract. that happens over and over again. so the answer is simply department. and obviously the thought almost no success in prosecuting companies in the prosecuting attorney in afghanistan. so we have to find ways to influence the leadership to do the right thing. i think what the oversight community we've done it. i can't comment on what the sequester enough funds might amount to. the department is working

hard -- >> them are interested in the overall process. obviously this is broader than just iraq and afghanistan, but one of the things that has occurred to me recently as we have a world that is moving at 80 miles an hour and we have a government that is structured to rent 30 miles an hour. it's taken this long in iraq and afghanistan to get a pm on this. seems to me we have a fundamental structural problem that we don't know how to keep up with the situations we find ourselves. we're habitually late. i said that earlier in my testimony. when we had four military services fighting in southwest asia in 01 and 03, civilian agencies are finding that were back here in the continental united states. it took us until 2,742,000 make you realize you cannot successfully fight a war unless everyone's involved.

it's taken us three or four years to get there, but i think were getting much closer to getting where we need to be. >> thank you. i don't have an answer to the problem. thank you fair match. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm going to give myself not five minutes and follow-up on most questions. one of the things that's most frustrating to me as a freshman year in congress is that there are some things that both sides agree on that we need to be working on and you're not doing it. i look at the oversight committee. i don't think there's a lot of difference. or maybe some small differences between the two sides, but it seems like we can identify things at the $500 billion was spent on iraq police force that they don't even want. we should be finding things in common that we could be saving on. if we could put on -- add transparency here in president

obama, i'm not using this to embarrass anybody, the president obama has sat on his website that he's committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history. he wants a window for all americans into the business of the government and that's something i want. i actually agree with him on this issue. but yet, this panelists representing ig office principle in iraq and afghanistan. as of january for the next year, for the hypothesis will not have an ig. i am concerned about that. i want everybody to comment. you know whether the president has nominated anyone to fill these vacancies? if so, who has been nominated? have you made any recommendations and do you think the absence of permanent ig's will actually harm our efforts in oversight and anyone can take this question.

>> i certainly like to comment. number one, i don't no the names of anyone that might have been nominated or who is being considered to be nominated. number two, i can tell you the nomination and confirmation process that we have is cumbersome and slow and it has an adverse impact on the leadership of these organizations. number three, when i took over as an act in inspector general in july 2008, the dod ig at the top had been vacant for so many years over the past 10, 12 years come you can't imagine hearing so to run organization using imap team inspect or general as a leader is for harding, you can do it for a few months, but she cannot succeed over years and decades. and that is what is happening. >> does anyone know why that has

happened? is there any reason why this seems like both sides would agree that we need a robust ig in all these agencies. does anyone have comments on that? mr. carroll. >> i can't comment on what the white house is doing. i went to assure you that i'm a usaid, one of the great things was that was truly a partnership between him and i criticize energy into the acting role, other than the fact that the workload issue for me, the workers on in the leadership philosophy continues. i just want to ensure the subcommittee that there'll be no degradation in our effectiveness or what our work is going to be for as long as it takes for the president to make a decision. >> i know that mr. bowen has been a staunch advocate of sunoco. is that something the rest of

the panel agrees is necessary? if you don't think it's necessary, why? mr. geisel. >> why didn't volunteer, but i'll be happy to tell you what i think. >> you look so willing to answer this question. >> i think in this testimony, the written testimony especially my colleagues made some very good points. one of the key point is that the concept is sigar and his own office has had a wonderful advantage or not is that they have hiring authorities and they have generous funding that the statutory ig didn't have. another way to approach that issue is to give us the statutory ig's those same

authorities and robust funding. now i can't complain about funding because since i came to the department in 2008, congress has tossed us out marvelously. at those hiring authorities would make a real difference. and i agree with what he said this authorities are crucial to doing the kind of job you like us to do. >> what concerns me about the idea is that something we do here in washington all the time, something isn't working. what we end up doing is creating a whole new agency or department instead of giving authority to the people already in charge of giving them the responsibility. it seems like we do it agencies. what we create is another layer is responsibility. i just find a way to use the existing authorities that are trying to create a reach.

but i do understand his concern and i think we all share the can and that we should be saving taxpayer money for the american people and there's ways we can agree to do it and we just need to get it done. anyway, i now recognize the ranking member mr. tierney. >> your timing is perfect. let's explore this a bit. it's a healthy debate and i appreciate iran's position on this. the special inspector general for contingency operations would not be duplicative if it's carried out in the way the legislation is drafted in the way it's intended. currently there's nobody responsible for the operations on a specially appointed on a case-by-case situation when it arises in the congress decides to implement. all of the existing inspector general said a handful of doing what they're doing within respective agencies. so if you are mr. heddell coming in the present moment with nothing to do.

i mean, their hands are full doing things within the area of failing on my and i suspect it could be busy for as long as they want to keep that position. so let's allow you to do some testimony on that. the sunoco concept would be different in what ways? would be non-duplicative in what ways? you mention your first testimony let's reiterate because i think it's healthy to know this. >> yes, mr. tierney, first and foremost, it would be cross jurisdictional. as hard as the congress might try as much as my friend and fellow ig would play, they have to stay within their stovepipe to do their oversight, which means each of them have to be present. as my friend gordon heddell noted. as we've learned in iraq and see in afghanistan, programs much

money. when they manage money, you'll ultimately have different ig is attacking it or perhaps no one addressing it because of the merger. pseudocode allowed to cross jurisdictional power. could be the primary mission to carry out this oversight. we know that in 2003 we would have averted the wasted billions of dollars. we know that had said to exist in a 2002 would have averted the wasted billions of dollars because the aggressive presence of audit on the ground that would've been there. third, you would have a staff that when they sign-up, they sign-up to go to conflict. that is not something my friends and colleagues can require of their staff now. they can say you're going to orszag to do oversight. that is a problem in 2005, 2006, 2007, getting people to volunteer. still is. afghanistan is today.

and finally as i said in my testimony, this would save money. that's the watch for this area. this is the oversight and government reform committee. the latter rubric should be applied when it can be applied in a money-saving way. sunoco would be one of those ways. >> manchester by my colleagues that all these different nagy is that the respective agencies and departments are busy all the time. so you have a contingency operation to ramp up and try to do other things you're doing consuming all of your time and going over to other areas. you're actually focusing another inspector general on a much-needed area to do that work on me constantly available to achieve it and get it done. i think that's a constructive part of that. there's other issues you raise, but i tank that you can use the

sustainability of products that my colleagues raised earlier, the whole wartime contracting commission, which incidentally we had to get over there because of the issues and contingency contract and get the imac to look way things were dredged out in the beginning. their final chapter sums up the whole issue of tragic sustainability by saying the commission sees no reason they are making adequate plans to ensure that those nations will deal to operate and maintain u.s. funded projects on their own. nor are they taking sustainability risk into account. just for the panel, to refinance still to be the case for other things being meant to include sustainability risk in their projects as they move forward and particularly in iraq is in the thought of that area in afghanistan and elsewhere? whoever might want to volunteer. >> as far as oversight of that question in every one of our

performance audit in iraq and afghanistan, we've been audit objective for sustainability. to be honest what we found to date is that it is sort of a mixed bag. i wouldn't say it's a very successful picture historically or even moving forward. but i think realistically to answer the question, yes, the agency is helping sustainability in the design of their projects, but you're dealing with the afghan government particularly going forward here and that's going to be problematic. we've been finding problems for sustainability and programs in afghanistan. >> the problem we have with the kabul power plant, where you do decide to spend $300 billion of taxpayer money and then decided that they could get electricity cheaper on that basis, to a know why that happened or what we missed i'm not?

>> well, i am not sure exactly why the embassy and aad decided to build the project way they did with diesel fuel that could or could not be shipped in and then decided to move in a different direction. the way it's described now is that the kabul power plant is that a fallback and a surge capacity with the larger infrastructure that they are putting forward. so i would say from sustainability pointing out that maybe with a well thought out, but i think you've learned since that time. >> i think i would be constructive if you note the areas and attend something that won't be happening again. at the church to you if you would. i guess you're not prepared to answer today. you can go back and find out what happened and this is about now a backup plan, something might add as an excuse. i think everybody novus on that. and now they're going to find

some region, but we need to ask you to go back and find that while iraq and put in place a plan to make sure it doesn't happen again. >> thank you. i now recognize mr. welch. two of the recurring questions about the expenditure of these monies is whether we have a reliable partner and whether security on the ground is adequate so that the work can actually be done. both of those are huge impediments. and i am just going to -- a constant conflict to some extent with policy object is, where let's say in afghanistan as desire to build a civil society. mr. carroll commuter departed there so much of the responsibility for implementation of some of these projects. it's a predicate question that should be asked and answered by

some authority whether a project has a reliable partner such that there can be a reasonable degree of conference to be implemented. i'm thinking very much about -- pardon me, the iraqi police training. or is there a security situation so the work can be done? that might be relevant to something like the dam project. if you like either or both of those, does it make any sense under any circumstances to do a mary pass on a major expenditure , hoping meadow have been just because we'd like it to have been. >> well, aad -- you are right. they are the meat and potatoes of civil society. his education and service programs. they do reconstruction in iraq and they've done it to an extent in afghanistan.

and i think it would be news if i were to say it was difficult to do development in the middle of a war insert after problematic through mr. bowen is on that thread afghanistan. you ask about reliable partners. aid historically has implemented their programs through nongovernmental organizations primarily. a lot of those are u.s.-based. some international, multinational agencies and that sort of thing. so they are reliable partners. it is now moving in a direction towards funding more development assistance through afghan ministries and they have a process in place to do some capacity assessment of the systems in place and the ministry's ability to do the work. as they convince themselves or as the data presented south

comment they move forward or not on their programs. the website for the traditional aid programs, civil society, democracy and governments, health education, that sort of thing. there are reliable partners. there is a willingness on behalf of the afghan people to make these things happen. >> i'm going to interrupt you right there. that is a meaningless statement. the afghan people. who are they? you know what i mean? in a general sense, the afghan people is desirous to have good things happen as we are. but there's not a structure. there's not a political implementation program. there's not sufficient security. you know, i've met contractors who are confined to basically the embassy compound. how do you manage your program?

it would be like mr. bell and bowen and auditing all done about iraq and afghanistan, mr. trent in afghanistan from capitol hill. i mean, it just doesn't work. you know, this is an enormous frustration are you, but i think there's an illusion and congress is the one primarily responsible because we will have the money go out under circumstances where there is no part goal possibility it will be well used and then we'll get angry at you when you report to us that hey, a lot of money went missing. so there is a predicate question here. we probably should be asking it. i'm wondering whether the organization might have to certify that for this project we have reliable governmental people or we've got sufficient security that can be done. >> already. i yield back.

>> thank you very much. i want to thank the panelists are being here and taking time for the work you're doing. have a great day, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's a convenient to listen to c-span anytime, anywhere, with the c-span app. you can listen to our interview programs, including q&a, newsmakers, the communicators and afterwards. c-span. it is available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org. >> house speaker john boehner and other republican leaders unveiled an agreement today

that aims to extend the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits, and move forward with a pipeline project. this is about five minutes. >> we would move a bill that would extend and reform unemployment benefits, that would extend the payroll tax cut, while preserving the social security trust fund. it would also address some of our jobs initiatives, such as the keystone pipeline. the president said the american people cannot wait on jobs. guess what? we agree wholeheartedly with the president. the keystone pipeline project will create tens of thousands of jobs immediately. it has bipartisan support in the house and senate. it is pretty clear that the president has decided to push this decision off for a year, conveniently, until after his next election.

well, the american people cannot wait, as the president said, and at a time when the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs, i think this is a bipartisan proposal the president ought to endorse. if the president is serious about his commitment to economic growth, he will sign this bill. this bill does not have everything that either side wants. from our perspective, this represents a bill that does make some progress. it continues to change the culture. this bill does ensure that we abide by the principles that we want people to keep more of their money. this bill does have some incremental steps towards continued efforts at economic growth, with the tax revisions for small business, business expense thing, if the president is serious about his commitment to work together on the things we can agree on, he will sign

this bill. >> we just give up a strong conference. one that we have been continuing with it to the american public. they want to keep what they earn and protect social security. they want to create jobs. they want to see washington work together with both parties. that is exactly what this bill does. if this president would stop putting politics ahead of people, we would pass this bill. >> every month that the president has been in office, unemployment has been at, near, or above 9%. the president's economic policies have failed. we have not, in this economy, saying job creation. mr. president, we will have some of your ideas in this bill. maybe it is time to try some of ours. do not be to of this jobs bill.

>> questions? >> in terms of support to the payroll tax, how are members more optimistic? >> i think our members received the discussion very well. i do not do vote totals. i feel confident about our ability to move ahead. >> repatriation is part of this bill. the you and mr. kantor agree on this completely? what we agree on the issue of repatriation. we agree -- >> we agree on the issue of repatriation. we do not feel this is the place to do that bill. as much as we would like to do it -- the tax code is the best place to do it. >> how is this bill being paid for. -- for? >> the bill is fully paid for. we are not jeopardized in the

social security trust fund. we will be moving it out next week. >> is there any movement from the president? the president saying that not wanting to keep the pipeline on the bill? is there any movement on your part? >> it will put tens of thousands of americans to work immediately. it has bipartisan support in the house and senate. as the prime minister of canada said yesterday, this is a no- brainer. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi said congress cannot go home before extend payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. she spoke to -- before it extends payroll tax cuts and

unemployment benefits. she spoke to reporters. >> good afternoon. this morning, we had a meeting with the house democratic leadership with president obama. without going into the particulars, it did afford us an opportunity to congratulate the president on his excellent statement in kansas about the strength of the middle class and what that means to our country. one thing was the president pressed upon us and we agreed is that we cannot go home for the holidays until we pass the payroll tax cut for working families in our country and extend unemployment insurance. these initiatives are the right thing to do. christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat. we have to put money in the pockets of americans. $1,500, that tax cut means to working families.

unemployment insurance for 6 million americans is important. it is not just the right thing to do, it is, from a macro- economic standpoint, essential. injecting this money in the pocket of middle income families, we will create jobs. that is what we have to do. it is three and a 30 days since the republicans -- is 330 days since the republicans took the majority. note job-creating legislation has passed into a bill. we did pass the bill about our veterans. that was the only part of the president's jobs bill that could get through. that is an important part. return home, it is

important we be in a job- creating mode for them. we owe them a future with the of the sacrifice that they made, that they are making -- they and their families are making for us. think of this, the congressional republicans are holding up the payroll tax cut that will help 160 million americans. they are holding that up because they want to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest 300,000. 160 million would benefit from the payroll tax cut, 300,000 who they are here to protect. this is not right. democrats are about reigniting the american dream. to build letters of success for

those who play by the rules. to remove obstacles of participation for others. i am afraid some people are thinking that reality of the american dream may be slipping away. we have to remove all doubt. that is not the case. as republicans are putting forth initiatives on the tax cuts -- we said, we are against it. then we made it too hot for them to handle. the president speaking to the american people. now they want tax cuts, but not without injecting seeds of destruction for their own bill into the legislation that they know cannot pass the senate or be signed into law. there is no time for this. there is no time for this. again, as families gather around the kitchen tables, deciding

whether they can afford christmas toys for their -- holiday toys for their children, or christmas presents for their families, whether they are going to be able to pay the bill come january, we should be sitting around the table, democrats and republicans, and invite republicans to join us to pass these tax cuts. we cannot go home for the holidays unless we get the job done for the american people. >> on the payroll bill, will democrats -- will you recommend democrats vote against a payroll bill if it includes keystone? with the wait for something else? does an appropriation bill need to be writer-free?

>> let's start with the second question. we demonstrated clearly that when there were no writers we could pass them in a bipartisan way. that is the sensible way to go. as i said before, we have to bring sanity to this process. in terms of the first, we have not seen what the republicans are putting into the payroll tax bill. i do not think it needs to be paid for. the stimulus of the bill, it is the right thing to do by putting money into their pockets which enables them to inject the economy. it is important. depending on how you pay for it -- if that is the way they

want to pass it, we are happy to sit down and find that. the president has said he will veto a bill that has the keystone pipeline in it. that does not make a decision as to whether you are for it or against it. it has no place on this bill. let's get serious. >> the republicans may pass this bill, the senate may send it back and pass the final version. your side has said you want to stay in town. >> made telling them to put it on an appropriations bill? -- are you telling them to put it on an appropriations bill? we still have to pass an appropriations bill. they cannot go out of town doing what you describe it, it is my point. you described a tax bill that they would pass and then leave

town. >> and then the appropriations bill. >> i am sorry, i missed that point. we have to be responsible about this. especially in the majority when you control the floor. most members would not want to answer back home for why they decided to leave washington -- the capitol without getting the work done for the american people. the republicans know the scenario you describe is not one that is going to be signed by the president of the united states. i am hopeful that we can reach agreement on the appropriations bills, one way or another, the members and committee are working hard to find a consensus on how we can go forward and pass something on the floor. we have not seen the full measure of the payroll tax cut.

if that involves the keystone pipeline, the president has said he will veto it. it is a non-starter. let's get to work. >> have you gotten any message from the protesters? >> i was just listening to the pounding on the building. [laughter] i do not know what that is. any message from the protesters? the protesters have made a strong statement. the status quo is unacceptable. we all agree with that. i like the president's speech in kansas for many reasons. i think it was a tour de force about who we are as a country, a non-partisan way. i particularly liked his statement when he said we agreed together, when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share. that is what has to be how we go

forward. that is not the case now. i think an important part of that is something he said further in his speech, about inequality distorting democracy. that is important to all this. we talked about it last week. we have to move forward to empower the 99% to offset the impact of the supreme court decision of money in campaign. we also have to move for voter production so we are given leverage to working families, both with their small contributions and their large participation at the polls. this support for the middle class, dennis -- fairness of opportunity in our society and

diminishing the rules of corporate money and special interest money are all connected. as you know, the president talked about going to kansas, president roosevelt -- listen to this, it is necessary that law should be passed to inhibit the use of corporate funds for political purposes. corporate expenditures have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption. president theodore roosevelt, 1910. much of that had been wiped away. the court restored it. it is part of the statement of these protesters. the status quo is unacceptable. you have to change the role of special interest money in campaigns. you must ensure total protection as we go into our elections.

>> what are acceptable pay- for's? >> let me take you back to the super committee. big --ourpproach was approach was big and balanced. there were many cuts that were made in the mandatory spending that we could revisit. let's go to the table. as americans are agonizing over the kitchen tables as to how they will make and meet -- make ends meet, let us meet at the table here in washington. this anxiety should not be there about the payroll tax cut. let's put some ideas on the table. do not put something that does absolutely nothing, like the keystone pipeline, and say that

is our price. let me say this about this peril tax cut, tell me if i am wrong on this, i know you will, one way or another, the you know anybody in the upper-1% who opposes the payroll tax cuts? this is not about the people. this is about the republicans in congress. this is not about the 1% versus the 99%. there is overwhelming support in the public. if we are all in agreement that we should have this $1,500 tax cut for middle income families, and they had rejected senator -- proposal because

they wanted to protect the wealthiest in our country, why would you put on the bill something like a keystone pipeline initiative rather than a responsible pay-for? >> the keys don't i plan has bipartisan support. they cite -- the keys don't have a plan has bipartisan support. the keystone-he pipeline has bipartisan support. they cite wafivers. >> they have to make a recommendation as to whether that could happen, that pipeline could cross from one country into our country. there are many other issues. i am not going to go into it. it does not belong on this bill. no, i am not afraid of that. and i do understand the various

pros and cons of the bill. >> you commented on the decision to maintain a prescription on the status -- only status? >> the secretary has said, we all agree, that any decisions of this kind should be based on sound science. i have the highest respect for the head of the fda and the recommendation she made based on science. it was not satisfactory to the secretary for young girls. perhaps more science is necessary to demonstrate, one way or another, what the impact would be on young girls. the decision should be made on science. >> the democrats have criticized

republicans for borrowing to pay for extending tax cut. the democratic proposal was to borrow from the general fund that which should be transferred -- fund, which would be transferred. >> could you remind me when the republicans wanted to pay for a tax cut? they did not pay for the bush tax cut. they maintain that the tax cuts would create jobs. it did not happen. all it did was create a deeper deficit. in the second year of the bush administration, where jobs were created -- in the second year of the obama of ministration, moret jobs were created than the eight years of the bush administration.

>> you said the payroll tax cuts would pay for themselves. >> i did not. i said it adds stimulus. that is not from me, that is from a non-partisan economist who says food stamps and unemployment have effects on the economy because they are putting people who will spend money immediately and in jet demand into the economy and create jobs. into theject demand economy and create jobs. this is about money and the pockets of people who need it immediately. >> you do not want to pay for payroll taxes? >> i am willing to pay for it. >> one of the proposals the

republicans put forth was to expand medicare. freezing the threshold that exists. when democrats favor some of that? >> i did not understand the second part. they want to test -- let me say, perhaps you can zero in more, medicare is an initiative that is being tested in certain aspects. part a, part b and d are means tested. if there is a way for people of my age and resources to pay more in a deductible or copay, that is something we should look at. i do not know what the but the killers of their proposal are.

this is something -- what the particulars of their proposal are. this is something. what are you saying? who is it? [unintelligible] >> they are buzz in putting a freeze on the cost of living adjustment. -- they are proposing putting a freeze on the cost of living adjustment. >> when we see what the proposal is, when we see what they come something like that, taken in isolation, i do not like to answer the question. we thought that was something that could be on the table as part of the big, bold, and balanced initiative. to say, we are not going to do revenue, but let's go after these initiatives. when you ask, is that something

that could be on the table? yes. in isolation, let's see what it is a part of. >> republicans are talking about drawing down unemployment benefits next year from 99 weeks by 40 weeks. is that a non-starter? >> we must pass the unemployment insurance. i do not think it should be paid for. it is something that is paid into. for many reasons, we should not pay for it. it may be that we have that on the table as part of a bigger package, we will have to see. it is absolutely essential for the well-being of these families, the impact on our economy, that we expand this.

i have not heard any figure as low as 40. that would be very problematic. decrease by 40. i have heard that one. that could be a couple doc problematic. it is not about the number of -- that could be problematic. it is not the of the number of weeks, it is how you do it. i would not support that. i do not think my colleagues would. there are other parts that are problematic, even if they were at a higher number of weeks that might be problematic in terms of any terms they might put on it. >> ahead in many of the early primary states, could you look at your goals are beginning the house back next year? is gingrich the candidates you would most like to see? >> i would never tell you the candidate and would most like to see.

that is a matter for the republicans to decide. >> what impact would king which have on the everett -- what impact would newt gingrich have on the attempt to regain the house. >> president obama will be reelected. this campaign will allow us to get out there and make the case for what a good president he is. how destructive the republicans have been in the first 11 months, no real effort for job creation. what is next year hold? supporting president obama, supporting his ability to get a job the american people. we cooperated with president bush. we had many more bills signed into law with president bush.

the republicans have the obstruction of president obama as one of their goals. our success contributes to the success of president obama. republicans will decide who their candidate is. we are very cut of president obama and look forward to sitting with him. we should president obama we were prepared to stay here and not go home until we pass the payroll tax cuts and extended ui. we will be here for christmas, hanukkah, kwanzaa. anything else? boxing day. we are prepared to stay here. how could we go home when people in homes across america are very concerned about jobs and their

ability to provide for their families? christmas is coming. that news is still getting fat. we want to put something -- that goose is still getting fat. we want to put something in the pocket. s. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> defense department spokesman torts little did not comment on what i ran in officials say is the u.s. from -- on what iranian officials say is a us drone. other topics included the dumping of all american troops remain in a virginia landfill and possible budget cuts. this is 30 minutes. >> we are here to address a

portion of remains of our fallen heroes. because of the conflict today, and widespread use of improvised explosive devices, the remains of many of our fallen are fragmented. we strive to return these fallen as intact as possible. if the medical examiner determined the remains are incomplete, the person authorized, usually a family member, must survive it -- signed an election statement. they determine how the -- the services ensure that the remains are handled in accordance with the family's desires. threat the process, we treat the fall and with dignity, honor, and respect. prior to 2008, with the

families and elected not to receive notification would take possession of portions of remains, the more tory affected of the beat is position -- affected normal standards. they were taken to a funeral home. the cremated remains were released to a private contractor to read the escort was present and witnessed this event. -- contractor. the escort was present and witnessed this event. in 2008, it was recommended that the service's employment a retirement at sea option. -- implement a retirement at sea option. our obligation is to treat our fallen with dignity and honor. to provide the best support to their families. that is the mission of the

mortuary and those who work there. we regret any additional brief to the family is that past practices may have caused. we are proud of the mortuary and the employees and their dedication. it is there dedication that resulted in the changes to these processes in 2008. >> you say you regret additional brief, are you reconsidering notifying the families? >> these families made it tough decision not to be notified of portions of their remains. to go back now and notified them would be going against their wishes. we have opened up a hot line, and e-mail account, any family that contacts us, we will address any questions they have.

our obligation is to that family and relieve any anxiety, we may have caused. >> all of these families asked not be notified? >> exactly. everyone of them asked, if portions, in most cases we are talking pieces of soft tissue or bone fragments -- they said, if you add but portions, we do not want to be notified. -- if you identify portions, we do not want to be notified. >> went to the families under the impression -- were not the families under the impression there would be dignified disposal? mike some families not think being bundled with medical waste did not comply with that? >> at the time, before 2008,

prior to 2008, we took the unidentified proportioned -- portions to a funeral home. they were cremated. the cremated remains were turned over to a contractor for incineration. if there was any residual matter, it was handled in accordance with the processes of the time. in 2008, our own inspection took a look at the process and said we can do better. here is a better way to provide dignity and honor. we developed the retirement at c process -- sea process. >> are you hearing from some families that they do not feel the disposal of their loved one puzzle remains -- one's remains was what they wished?

>> we have had nine calls. we know of one or two cases where people were concerned. we have only had one call since the most recent revelation. but what did they say? >> they asked the disposition of their loved one. i know we into the question on the spot -- i know we answered their question on the spot. >> have you know the number is limited to 274? >> we are confident in that number, starting with the tracking system we have for the mortuary dating back to 2003. we are comfortable for that number. >> do you think any more cases will turn up?

>> between those periods of time, no. prior to 2003, we cannot track those cases as well. from 2003 to 2008, we are confident to that number -- with that number. >> prior to 2008, it said it was with a contractor to request a two step process. >> -- contractor. >> a two step process. >> what has been reported is the but cremated and taken to a land fill. what is not accurate. the remains were incinerated -- >> not accurate. the remains were incinerated. any of the remains were disposed of.

the cremated remains were incinerated. >> i am not an expert. you can incinerate cremated remains and they disappear. >> we are into the science of how that reduces the remains. the intent of the incineration is to reduce them as far as possible. >> there was still residual material. that was taken and put into a landfill. >> that was given to a contract. we did not direct them to put it in a landfill. >> you were aware it was being put in a landfill. >> it was a common practice at the time. who knew they were going to a landfill, i cannot speak to.

>> you keep talking about the industry practice. everyone we talked to, they talked about when dealing with human ashes, they would never incinerate them and take them to a landfill. what industry standards are you talking about? but the contract we had with the company was to this -- >> the contract we had with the company was to dispose of the material. they were in the business of have to do -- how they were going to dispose of that material. the pope is the point to focus on, in -- the point to focus on, in 2008, the air force said, there is a better way to do this. we developed the retirement at

sea process. through our internal processes to better honor our fallen, we changed the way we did our processes. >> can you explain any other incidents in which -- any other example where somebody died, a part of their remains were cremated, and then somebody took them to an incinerator and a landfill? we cannot find any other examples. >> how you dispose of medical waste at the time, i believe that was being done with industry standards. the military does position, whether it was medical waste -- these are terms commonly

referred to. the family chose not to have the small portions of the unidentified portions returned to the family. >> there are concerns, they have been vocal on the internet, that ains areved ones' rem deemed medical waste? >> i understand. we do not want to do anything to reopen the wounds of a family that has said, we have buried a loved one. we do not want to do anything to open that wound. can we understand their concerns? you bet we can. we have friends who served in the military. nobody understands that better than we do. >> can you say how many have t sea since 2008t se

? >> we have had 14 instances. >> state for the record with the remains ended up -- where the remains ended up and did the air force know that is where they ended up? >> when they discovered where the final disposition was they took action immediately. >> they did not know anything until 2008? that was just being turned over to the contractor? >> i cannot say. the leadership of the air force, when they identified this process, they said, we can do better. they took steps to improve the process to better serve the families.

>> was the disposition deemed to be disrespectful? >> it is not the way we would have done it. that is why in 2008 we changed that practice. >> the 274 instances is a greater number that -- then had been discussed before. did the air force know this number and not come out? or is your education part of this process as well? >> we were asked the question the first time, it took us awhile to get the information. it was not that we knew the number, we were trying to make sure we had the eckert number. it took a significant amount of effort.

>> if the air force leadership found a about this in 2008, knew it was a wrong thing, why did not the public hear about it in two dozen 8 -- in 2008? >> the families had told the air force that they did not want to be notified if any subsequent portions were identified. in keeping with those which is, we do not go back to the families. they have closure. to open up that wound would be cruel. >> to protect the family? what we did not go back to the families because these families -- >> we did not go back to the families because these families told us -- they have made a tough decision. it is not an easy decision. once they struggle with that and make that tough decision, we want to honor that decision.

>> why did the air force not think this was a matter of public interest? to say, three years later, we knew at the time it was wrong. >> we believed the process was being carried out in accordance with industry standard. >> you said you knew what the industry standards were beforehand. if it were being followed according to industry standards, you knew before 2008, right? >> in 2008 when the new leadership was examining the procedures, they said we can come up with a better process. they developed a better process. >> earlier, you said it is industry stand it. -- standard.

youhat was the standard, would have known. >> i am not sure i'm following. >> i have another question. what did the air force tell the families would happen with the leftover remains? >> date: they would be -- it would have appropriate -- they told them they would have appropriate disposition. >> what is the language when they signed the consent not to be notified about additional remains? what was the language? >> i do not have a copy. we can get you a copy. >> some families opted to receive the remains.

when we are talking about in that case, they would be presented to the families and the families would be responsible for taking care of them? >> we would go back to the family and returned the remains. >> 274 families said no. >> we do not want to be notified at all. >> that has not changed? >> none of those 274 have come forward and asked us that they want to be notified. if they do, we will be forthright. we will tell them everything we know about the dispositions of their loved ones. there were nine calls that started a week ago.

>> there are 10 families who have said, i was unaware. >> no. a few weeks ago we set up a 24- hour hot line for people who had concerns about the mortuary. just recently, with the most recent issue came to light, there has since that time been one additional phone call. it was answered today. we do not have any follow-up that was required. i did not take the call. >> are these people people who signed the form? >> it is open to anybody who calls. the calls had mainly been from family members whose loved one came through dover and they have a question about what happened to their family member. >> they may not be among these 274?

what exactly. >> do you know if any of them are? >> the one call we had, i do not know if they were. we had one call today. it was a simple question. they answered it quickly. the previous nine i would assume were not. they were responding to other stories. the hot line number is 1-855- 637-2538. or email dover.pm @pentagon.af.mil since we did not have a system of record prior to 2003, it is difficult to reconstruct those records. they have been turned over to the services. there was not a central

repository. the information is not as accurate. it may not tell us everything we need to know. >> do you know when this process of integrating -- incinerating began? >> we have records from 2003 forward. >> no institutional memory? >> institutional memory would not identify it. >> people at dover, many of them have worked there for a long time. >> we have asked the folks. some say they remember that the process was going on, cannot remember how far back. others say they did not realize

how -- that was the process. >> charlie of cnn, why did the defense department of the congressmen that the exact dispositions se positio could not be determined? that is part of the issue. these various stages of release of information. they do reopen some wounds among the families. >> there have been many questions asked about the issue. some dating back as far as the vietnam war. the farther we get that, the less accuracy we have in the electronic record. the more difficulty we have reconstructing the history before that. >> the congressman was asking about this particular. at dover -- particular period

at dover. he was told it would be impossible to get those numbers. >> when we first looked at it, we thought it would be more difficult. we spent more than 100 hours to get the numbers we are talking about. arable is not to make this a signed project -- our goal is not to make this a sign spudded, it is to service the families in the best ways. that is the mission of dover. will you call the congressman and tell him you have made these new discoveries? >> i cannot address what in permission was passed to the congressman. -- what information was passed to the congressman. >> cremated and incinerated

remains -- from the private contractor it is in a landfill. somebody knows the final destination is a landfill. the leadership does not know. is that what you are trying to convey? >> in 2003, the leadership of the mortuary examined the processes and realized what was happening and said, we can do better. they establish the procedures we have today. the retirment at sea option, it is a much better option. >> the air force does know, somebody does no that is going to a landfill. >> i cannot recreate who knew that things were going to the

landfill. it is difficult to pinpoint a date of when this thing started. people move. people have come and gone. we have asked the question. >> it seems that though the landfill was unaware at the remains were being except it, should not that have been done? should someone have made the landfill aware? >> i cannot speak to the knowledge of what the private contractor knew. i did not have that knowledge. >> i wanted to ask, you were talking about your current process, how are you ensuring that families know how the remains are being handled? do you give them something? in these other instances, people had no idea what happened after they signed off. now when they sign off, how do

they know exactly how the remains are handled? >> we explain the process to them when they are at the mortuary. the mortuary has service representatives from all services who deal with the families of their fallen. they explain the causes and the options and help the family come to the decision of what options they want to choose. >> in the reporting, the timeline of when this came to light was around when the media ban on dover was lifted. looking back, did that have anything to do with making leadership able to be aware of what was going on? >> everything i have read, there is no connection between those two incidents. >> just to make sure i understand, they are cremated, they are still incinerated.

the burial at sea, as that happen every time? >> the subsequently a divide portions -- identified portions are cremated, they are placed in urns, recorded it with the navy for inappropriate time. -- we coordinate with the navy for an appropriate time. . 2011, the first time we had the option. in 2008, they approached the board in may the proposal. the board said yes, we agree with that. they procured the earned. -- urns. it was carried out in 2011.

>> this sounds like a burial at sea. >> the burial at sea is a more formal ceremony. it is a solemn ceremony. this is referred to as a retirement at sea. >> it is off of a naval warship. >> no, the navy warship is a specific term. i do not want to address what type of ship it was. it was a normal ship on a normal mission. >> what happened between 2008 and 2011? but it was a two year process. d'ivoire collette -- >> it was a two year process. they were collected and hell. >> there have only been 14. -- and held. but there have only been 14?

>> that speaks to what we are addressing. we are talking about small portions of subsequently a divide remains -- identified up 14s that only took urns. >> there has been one -- 14 urns have gone out one time. there has been one ship. >> what happens to remains that are not identified? portions of remains that are not identified? >> we treat them the same way. they are retired at sea. >> you said before, it was unclear how far back the process was. are we talking decades?

>> i do not think so. you are asking a definitive question. i do not think the process for dealing with remains has changed over the years. it has made significant strides. i cannot tell you how far back this process went. i can tell you that in 2003 we have accurate records. >> can i clarified, you have said since 2008 there have only been 14 instances or urns? >> 14 urns. >> how long of a process does that take? do you wait until a ship is available. do you keep the urns until you gather enough?

>> the process is with the navy so that when they have a ship going out, so they can accomplish the mission at the same time. >> they are co-mingled, each urn is not an individual -- the remains of an individual, is that correct? >> i cannot tell you that. i do not want to miss a beat on that. >> the reason i ask is, there are instances where you will find graves of commingled remains. there has been a plane crash, there were portions that could not be identified. they had a reburial. >> that is also one -- have a group burial. >> that is also one of the things that happened at dover.

>> if they do not give their consent, are those remains commingled? >> a group burial is made when it is difficult to identify the remains. when dna testing is not practical because you cannot get the result. if the family's consent, that is the factor for group burial. >> they consent to group burial. >> we are there to serve the family. the family gets to make a call. >> if the family were to call the hot line, what information are you prepared to give them? are you prepared to tell them where the remains ended up? i you prepared to apologize? >> absolutely.

we are prepared to apologize. it causes of to think we have brought suffering to a family. -- causes us payne to think we have brought suffering to a family. we know more than anyone else the pain that a conflict causes. if we have done anything to add to that pain, you bet we are going to apologize. we will tell them everything we know. absolutely everything we know. we put it out in press releases. we put it at an all the standard ways we can publicize things today. it has been on the internet. it is widely circulated. >> to you have any statistics on how many calls? >> we have had nine calls. >> we have had nine calls.