Skip to main content

tv   Washington This Week  CSPAN  June 9, 2012 10:00am-2:00pm EDT

10:00 am
and we will also have michael here to talk to us about a few research center its studies on america's values. that is on tomorrow. i want to thank you for watching. we will see tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. ♪ >> today on c-span, a hearing on anti-poverty programs. and the monthly jobs numbers.
10:01 am
and later, a hearing on corruption in afghanistan. next week, the washington journal will highlight the federal agencies involved in regulation and enforcement of the u.s. financial system. on monday, the securities and exchange commission. on wednesday, the focus is the treasury department. thursday, the federal deposit insurance corporation. and on friday, the consumer financial protection bureau. that is next week, monday through friday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> just talking about reform does not solve anything on the expenditure side or the revenue side. you have got to get specific about it. if everybody in this room designed a plan, i could sign on
10:02 am
to 90% of them. >> warren buffett tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> witnesses at a senate hearing urged congress to make changes to the 1996 anti-poverty program. it expires on september 30. the hearing also address the more than 1 million households living on less than $2 a day and the overall effectiveness of the program. it is about an hour and a half. >> we will come to order. robert kennedy once said, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil. nearly 50 million americans are currently living in poverty. that includes 16 million children.
10:03 am
in 2009, nearly 31% of working families were in poverty. that is more than 10 million people. our safety net is designed to give those in poverty a fighting chance. tanef gives people access to jobs training and education and it helps fight the evil of poverty. today, we will look at the program and the new challenges facing americans in poverty. until the reform law, welfare was open-ended. congress gave the system direction. it now focuses on jobs and promote self-sufficiency. it aims to teach people to fish. tanef helps people by finding child care, transportation and job search report. in 2005, the reduction act
10:04 am
changed the way states handled caseloads. those changes did not focus on serving families and helping people find jobs. some states use to the changes to artificially reduce caseloads and used the funds for other programs. we saw this come into play during the great recession. tanef did not respond to the recession as many of us had hoped. we wanted to make sure families were properly fed and had access to health care. tanef did not. people were not rising out of poverty. far less than in previous years. we want to see the number of recipients decrees and we want it to be for the right reasons, because people are finding work. we do not want it to be because
10:05 am
people are falling through the cracks without the assistance and without a job. tanef works well when there are jobs open for people to fill. when there are people looking for work, the program does not respond as well as it should. it expires on september 30. we have an opportunity to stranded as we work toward the reauthorization. we need -- we have an opportunity to expand its as we work toward reauthorization. -- it as we work toward three authorization. we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. readers cannot read if they are hungry. let us prepare for full reauthorization. let's remember, our nation is only as great as the least among
10:06 am
us. let us move forward to fight the evil of poverty. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing on poverty. with our economy struggling, poverty remains a critical challenge for our nation. the current economic recession is especially acute for children. in 2010, one in five children were poor in this country. that is up from one in six in 2006. it is an incredibly complicated issue, one the federal government can only address in a federal system that reserves most of these policy decisions to the states. there will be a discussion on the role of the federal government as it relates to
10:07 am
property. we can agree that poverty is bad for children and is a risk factor for child neglect and maltreatment. it is that correlation between poverty and the potential for child neglect that i intend to focus on today. according to data assembled by the center for policy, poverty is the single best predictor of child maltreatment. children living in families with incomes below $15,000 worth 20 times more likely to be abused or neglected than those in families of incomes of $30,000 or more. poverty does not cause neglect and the poor does not mean what is being a neglectful parents. but poverty does add stress to overly stressed families and create conditions detrimental to children. parents living in deep and persistent poverty are often tired, frustrated, and threaten
10:08 am
to, leading to a short tempers, sometimes directed toward their children. many parents in poverty suffer from substance abuse and are unable or unwilling to get support for these problems. this exposes children to real health risks. the programs under the jurisdiction of our committee designed to address poverty do not work well together even though they are essentially serving the same families. there is temporary assistance for needy families. it is a block grant for states to end dependence on government benefits and to promote child well-being. overtime, the focus has shifted from working with the job ready adults to a funding stream largely -- one related to child poverty. -- unrelated to tell party. it has been -- and related --
10:09 am
unrelated to poverty. the obama administration has failed to propose a comprehensive we all the resolution of these programs. and this committee decides to reauthorize tanef next year, members need to decide if we calibrate the program back to a welfare to work program. tanef spending is directed to low income children. we need to address the fact that spending is largely accounted for and the agencies do not coordinate their spending and services to child welfare agencies. i hope the years will bring much-needed reform to the child welfare bill system. the block grant will have to be a part of that conversation.
10:10 am
mr. chairman, i appreciate you holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. it is an important hearing. >> thank you. i am glad to present our witnesses today. dr. ron haskins. dr. laura lein and kay brown. that all of you for taking the time. i was going to act on something important relative to your testimony. i encourage you to be forthcoming and direct in five periods yours remarks will automatically be included in the record -- i
10:11 am
encourage you to be forthcoming and direct in five or six minutes. your remarks will automatically be included in the record. dr. haskins. we are going to time you, too. >> i will talk about spending in the program and what we should do about poverty. i included a figure in my testimony. it has done too big surprises in it. one is that we have made no progress in poverty since 1975 despite the fact that we are spending a ton of money. the rate of poverty for seniors is lower than for children in our society. those are facts that we need to focus on and we need to
10:12 am
especially concentrate on children. eshoo to -- issue two, we spend money on means tested programs. the idea that we are not spending enough money is probably incorrect. some of the programs might not be successful but we are spending $13,000 per port person. congress decided that is where they want to spend the money. 45% is on the poor. the nation has made a great commitment on helping the poor and it increases each year. four issues are especially important. the first is work rates. the work rate among young black males -- this is before the
10:13 am
recession. we have a real problem in the united states for reasons i do not think it is clear. females have worked more. more women have joined the work force since world war ii. after two recessions, the likelihood that they have a job is greater -- about 20% -- that it was before welfare reform. wages are astounding, at the boom of distribution. they are where they were 30 years ago. it is hard to make progress against poverty because we are going to have to a% of people -- have 10% of people.
10:14 am
it is a real problem to help people get out of poverty. if they work full-time at minimum wage, they still will not be out of poverty. it is the biggest cause of poverty. we have had a huge increase and the poverty rates are four or five times the rates of married couple. 75% of black children and 45% of white children are born outside of marriage. their probability of being in poverty is high. finally, education is a big issue. our education system at the preschool level, k-12 and post- secondary, needs a lot of work. let me talk about a few strategies to fight poverty.
10:15 am
i want to preface my remarks by saying personal responsibility is an absolute key. we have a substantial component of personal choices. if people do not make better choices no matter what you do in this room, we will still have a big problem with poverty. about the decision to drop out of school, decisions to work, decisions to get married before they have children. the first strategy is give the money. we did this in the 1970's primarily as a result of social security. this will not work for able- bodied americans. the second strategy is to do everything possible to encourage or even force people to work and subsidize their income.
10:16 am
this is a bipartisan solution. medicaid, child-care, i would say we have passed 40 pieces of legislation starting in the early 1980's to make the system of means tested benefits more in line it with working. -- in line with working. the two of the things i mentioned would focus on preschool. we have high quality preschools and that could make a difference. it is not controversial for the congress to be involved in preschool because it has for so long. the child care we spend a lot of federal dollars on is a high priority. that is where we can make some progress by increasing the rate
10:17 am
of child care. we can reduce teen pregnancy. we have reduced teen pregnancy every year except 1991. we have a lot of strategy is there. even in the '20s. we have comprehensive family planning services and mass advertising campaigns on the part of teen pregnancies. if we spent more money on those programs, we would reduce non- marital rates. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, doctor. that was good. dr. lein, you are next. >> thank the members of the committee for inviting me here. i am a social anthropologist and social work educator. i work on families and poverty and the institutions that serve them. i will try to highlight six
10:18 am
things and illustrates them with examples representative of the data i have worked with. before welfare eligible and welfare using populations are very. there are five subgroups. these groups have fairly different needs. second, welfare support and the income from low-wage labor leaders families struggling. families cannot sustain themselves on welfare alone or on low-wage work alone. those relying on these low wages have a cascade effect were a small problem triggers like changing events. one worker worked -- moved out
10:19 am
of welfare and into her own apartment. when her two your old bit another child at day care, he was asked to leave a child care and she could not find new child-care within the 10 days allowed. she could not work regularly and she lost her job and her eligibility for a child-care subsidy. she cannot pay herent and was evicted. 8 weeks from the by king episode, she was jobless and homeless -- from the biting episode, she was jobless and homeless. disconnected households which neither earned income or welfare income have increased. between 30% and 20% single parent poverty households are disconnected at any one time. one chicago won in a study had worked all of her life and had never been on welfare. as the recession deepened, her
10:20 am
hours were reduced and she was injured on the job. her employer contested her application for unemployment and she was not eligible to apply for tanef. her car was repossessed and she cut back on her eating to purchase meals for others. it was four months before she received unemployment benefits. more families are living in extreme poverty, leaving them debilitated by on treated medical conditions and extensive debt. as of the beginning of 2011, 1.6 million united states households with 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 in cash or less in income per day per person in a given month. the jobs available for most skilled or low educated workers
10:21 am
least the working poor particularly vulnerable. low-wage work was studied in retail and hospitality. successful applicants provide lots of availability. i can work anytime between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.. i might be a sign 20 hours per week with the timing and hours burying each week. my employer expects i can be available in the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. needing more money, i take on a second job. when that job conflicts with my second job, i am punished with reduced hours in my first job. it is called lethal time, no hours week. -- it is called full time, no hours work. there are a number of policies that can work for families. this echoes what we have just
10:22 am
heard. paid work is the core of family stability. there is the robust eitc and tanef for families facing a time limited periods of need. , a gradual diminution of welfare benefits as they receive benefits necessary for their stabilization. an emphasis on best employment practices so parents can work simultaneously. we also need to look on alternate care programs for parents physically or mentally unable to work. their access to support such as work placement and long-term rehabilitative assistance. we need programs that encourage fathers fiscal involvement.
10:23 am
training and placement programs for men. overall, we need opportunities for program experimentation and evaluation to support low income families and children. thanks very much. >> thank you, doctor. ms. lein, you are next. bring your microphone closer, please. >> how is that? >> great. >> i am please to be here today to discuss our work on the role of tanef in helping poor families. federal spending for the program has told $406 billion, representing a significant investment to promote self- sufficiency and to combat poverty. my remarks, based on previously
10:24 am
published reports, will focus on the program as a safety net, as a welfare to work program, and as a funding source or other services. first, on the program as a safety net. early years tanef's is well done -- well-known. many former welfare recipients increase their income through employment. however, much of the caseload decline resulted from fewer eligible families participating in the program. perhaps in response to the new rules such as work requirements and time limits. we are particularly concerned with a small but growing portion of families that were eligible for the program, but did not work, had low income, and did not receive cash benefits. more recently, we had the first
10:25 am
test during severe economic times. the relatively modest caseload increase of 30% along with caseload decreases in some states raises questions about the responsiveness of the program. for example, we recently estimated that four or near poor families that lost families -- jobs during the recession and used up their unemployment benefits, 40% receive food stamp benefits and fewer receipt -- received tanef benefits. the program is the primary tool to encourage families to work. 50% of work eligible families receiving cash assistance are engaged in federally defined work activity. states have generally engage your families in the revisions,
10:26 am
closer to 1/3 with little change over time. despite this, states can still meet their work participation requirements by rely on certain policy and funding options. they do not have the option to engage more families or to work with families with complex needs. lastly, an array of services. the program plays a significant role in funding for programs for services to low income families. in 2011, federal and state expenditures for purposes other than cash assistance amounted to 71% of the total. these purposes included child care, child welfare, tax credits and pregnancy counseling. we do not know enough about how
10:27 am
these funds are used and who benefits. this information gap hinders decision making in considering the success of the program and what trade-offs might be involved in the changes when it is reauthorize. in conclusion, the federal-state partnership makes significant resources available for families and children. with these resources, the program has provided financial support for these families, helped many parents step into jobs, and provided states with flexible funding to support programs significant with the program's bulls. there are questions about the strength and breast -- support program significant with the program's goals. work participation rates have helped some programs gain employment.
10:28 am
finally, states have used the program to support a variety of programs. we do not know enough about this funding and its flexibility and if it is resulting in the most efficient use of funds in this time of great need among the nation's low income families. this concludes my opening statement and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. my staff gave me a startling statistic and i would like you to respond and indicate what you believe these solutions are. we have already touched on it a bit. the statistic is that the united states rates 34 out of 35 economically advanced countries on a child poverty, just ahead of lithuania. 34 out of 35 on child poverty,
10:29 am
just ahead of romania. i take it is accurate. it is the census bureau. that is not good. dr. haskins, you have listed several causes. work rates are low, family composition is deterioration in. -- family composition is deteriorating. this number seems to reflect that. can we focus a little on the kids? how are we going to get more kids out of poverty? >> the first thing i would say is we are going to need resources. we will lose some of them when
10:30 am
the congress decides to deal with the deficit. the number one thing we need to do is slow the rate of poverty in the elderly and increase the rate of growth in preschool programs. we have abundant data that high quality preschools can increase kids' development and make them ready for school. there is a long-term impact for teen pregnancy rates and college admissions. that would be a place where we can invest. if we cannot get money to reduce the rate of growth, we should figure out a way to deal with the poverty resources. it would be much more productive to invest money there. secondly, you cannot get of
10:31 am
poverty in the united states if you are in welfare. you cannot get off of party in the united states if you have two or more children -- get awful poverty in the united states if you have two or more children or if you lose your job. the better -- you can i get off of poverty in the united states with two or more children if you lose your job. we made a number of changes in the child tax credit that made it more generous to working families. that is the only thing we have done that has produced a short- term impact on poverty. we have got to increase work for single mothers and subsidize their earnings.
10:32 am
we need to expand it and stick with it. >> what can we learn from other countries? what do other countries do that might be helpful here? >> i have never seen that number before. there are a lot of debate. it depends of what you have got. if you do is our official poverty measure, it is crazy. >> this is unicef, that is the source of this. >> it is even more doubtful. i am not condoning it. we should think about the problems we have in the united states. there are some things we can learn from foreign countries. for example, people think of europe as a bunch of liberal social lists. they have -- as a bunch of
10:33 am
liberal socialists. they have strong work requirements. they are following the principle that governments will not make it unless they have more people paid taxes and fewer people getting benefits. we have learned from them the importance of a social safety net. we have a reasonable social net. out other programs are expanded. poverty did not increase in 2009 despite the huge increase in unemployment. it was largely because of the programs of the government and having a social safety net. >> it is more than a tragedy that so many kids live in poverty.
10:34 am
i just think our country deserves a big black eye for not addressing it more efficiently. my time is expired. senator hatch has been generous. you can respond. >> we can learn how to coordinate early childhood education so that it is more universally available. secondly, to recognize that the cost of health care and the damage done to families by injury and lack of help train -- health treatment are considerable. that can make a change in our poverty level. >> can you give an example of that coordination? >> in our country, we have three basic systems to provide child care to impoverished adults for
10:35 am
their children. we have the headstart program, subsidized child care, and pre- kindergarten. each of those is for different subgroups of children and none of them are reaching all eligible children. our system has its more tied into public schools as a subsidy for the schooling system. in france, they have places where you can take children and it is universally available. >> thank you. in the most recent data from the department of health and human services, nearly 55% of work eligible adults are engaged in zero hours of activity. i would like you to comment on that statistic. the think it was the intention of congress and president clinton since welfare reform
10:36 am
that more than half of the welfare caseload would be doing nothing? >> i worked on the welfare legislation when i was with the house ways and means committee. there was no question that there was bipartisan agreement that more people should work and cash recipients should have employment. it is astounding to me that after 1996, the programs that were successful -- i do not want to say welfare reform was a magic bullet. it did a lot that people thought was impossible. if -- that was successful and was subsidized. i think we made a mistake. we tightened the screws on the state. i am not sure why we did that.
10:37 am
we put in a lot of requirements and i think it is difficult for states to meet them. at the same time, i would question the block grant structure. point out how that money is being spent. the states are allowed to spend that money however they want as long as it is spent on families. provide more works services for people are disadvantaged. they will have to get that money back and get it back from programs and that is difficult. that is a big issue. secondly, the work requirement is so stiff. i recently had the experience of calling all of the state tanef
10:38 am
directors. over half of them said that the paper wake the best paper work is so heavy -- the paper work is so heavy. i have heard it so often and it does not make sense. there are issues here and we can do something at the federal level about the requirements. not meeting the work requirement as it is spelled out in the current regulations and statutes. >> in your written testimony, you describe the need to form connections to an informal support system and to community and civic organizations.
10:39 am
what advice to you have for this committee on policies that can promote these types of connections? you need to hit your microphone, please. >> i think there are go to different kinds of approaches to take in looking at how you help families become seeded in the larger society so they can reach out for assistance and receive assistance in different ways. one is to support them in the kind of tight networks that deliver help in emergencies. that is one of the reasons i am interest in programs that would encourage the non-residential phone bills of these children to stay involved and become more -- non-residential fathers of these children to become an ball
10:40 am
and stay involved. there are ways to use shall support policies to encourage that involvement rather than discourage it. >> when states tried to expand their welfare dollars, a significant percentage of dollars are spent on services and activities characterized as "other." can you comment on what these other activities are and why so many of the tanef decisions are unknown? what can congress do to influence the expenditures? >> we are trying to look at all of these things that are spent through block grants that are not cash assistance. a large portion goes into services for prevention or
10:41 am
agencies serving high risk children and families -- prevention or agencies serving high risk children and families. i miss the second part of your question? >> what suggestions can you make for policy makers a we can get a greater transparency on expenditures? >> the tricky part of that is that we have heard already that there is a risk of expecting too much reporting and detail going to far so that the states feel that there is a barrier or encumbrance. right now, 71% of the resources for the block grants are not spent on cash assistance. it is important that we have a better understanding of what their resources are spent on. we are hoping we can contribute to that with the work we are
10:42 am
doing now. >> that is my hope, too. thank you. >> dr. haskins, i understand your main point we are making -- you are making is the best thing we can do is to subsidize earnings. is that accurate? >> that is true. training also plays a role. we should have more effective job search programs. the distinction between a job search, which includes tutoring in how you conduct yourself and how you dress and having a nice resume, and training. there is a continuum. we need more training and preparation for some of these mothers to do well in the labor force. and after they get into the labor force, they need to
10:43 am
advance. tanef should be used for that sort of thing. it is not just for subsidizing the income. >> what i am trying to understand is whether it would make sense in this reauthorization. for congress and the federal government to say, ok, this is a block grants, but you have to spend a certain percent of it doing a certain set of things. i guess, ms. brown, you are saying 29% of the dollars that states receive from the federal government are actually being spent in cash assistance. >> that is correct. >> so you have 71% that is being
10:44 am
spent in other things and you are trying to figure out what those things are and how much in each. if there are some things that are high priority uses and beneficial uses of the money, shouldn't we say to states, 50% of your money has to be spent either helping people get jobs, job training, cash assistance for people who are earning in the labor force or some set up things? dr. haskins, do you have a point of view on that? >> i questioned putting requirements on the states. we gave them a block grant and the idea that they would be irresponsible and handle the money well. maybe they spent the money on child protection. this committee has jurisdiction on programs for child protection. it makes sense to put more rules
10:45 am
on the states, but more rules need -- rules lead to more paper work. >> i think what you testified that the caseload has decrease in some states during the recession. that is a sign that this thing is broken. if this is a program that is supposed to be helping these folks, you should not have folks dropping out of the program when the economy goes out of the tank. in the programge is essential as part of a rewrite? >> i am not defending the status quo. i am wondering how you do it bang. -- do it. some states say that if they did not find work, it is their fault. people do find employment during
10:46 am
a recession. if we want the states to spend more dollars during the recession on cash assistance, which is the way we originally started the program -- we were supposed to give the states more cash during the recession so they would be able to pay more benefits. in some states, the work message is so strong that states are reluctant to draw people back into the roles. -- rolls / . you have a real philosophical conflict. there is a difference of opinion as to what the real cause is poor why people do not get tanef benefits. i would support anything that would cause the states to be more responsive during the recession because many of them were not. >> ms. lein, did you have a
10:47 am
point of view on this? >> we need to look at how tanef works in the recession when there are not enough jobs. people are going to find jobs that may not count in the regulations. it may take them longer to find jobs. >> in a period where there are not enough jobs -- that might be the new norm. we have had that circumstance for a number of years since this recession started. >> we need to look at what we want people to do if they are not finding jobs. one option is that they are not going to tanef because they know they cannot meet the requirements. >> can i add something to this
10:48 am
because it is extremely important? >> the states were given $5 billion in funds and they were given the option to create jobs by subsidizing jobs in the government and the private sector. the state is created 260,000 jobs. how did congress reward them? the money was gone. the states are highly motivated. they are subsidizing jobs in the private sector. 260,000 jobs is a great achievement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this important hearing. dr. haskins, i have been following some of your work with your colleagues of brookings. i am in treat by something i want to quote back to you.
10:49 am
he said that if families follow three basic rules, they are assured that they will avoid poverty. complete at least a high-school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby. based on analysis of census data, you conclude that if all three of these rules are followed, people have only a 2% chance of being in poverty and a 72% chance of joining the middle class. for those people who have violated all three roles, the chances of being poor are 77% and the chance of making it to middle class is reduced to 4%.
10:50 am
if those three things would be ways to raise the likelihood of people pleading poverty and joining the middle class, what can the federal government -- people leaving poverty and joining the middle-class, what can the federal government do? >> we strongly encourage work. we have to maintain that message. the poverty rate among kids with single-parent families -- where the highest poverty rate in the country is -- is still higher -- is still lower than it was before welfare reform. that is because those mothers are working. it was more than just welfare reform that did it. the second thing is, we are trying and we are doing some things. we can do a lot more. our teen pregnancy programs are
10:51 am
quite good. the administration is implementing about $100 million a year. that is extremely important. the house tried to kill it last year and the senate say did. that is an extremely important program because -- the house tried to kill it last year and the senate saved it. there is the importance in the comprehensive sex education program. expansion of medicaid to women so that their birth control is free. all of those have been shown to produce big benefits that outweigh their costs. that is another thing the federal government can do. i would like to see an expansion
10:52 am
of work requirements. we have the lowest percentage of people employed than we have had in decades, maybe even forever. maybe that is the future. we are not recovering in this recession very well. we should do everything we can to encourage employment. there are weak or nonexistent work requirements. >> when i was the attorney general of texas, i was responsible for child care enforcement, which was assigned to the state attorney general to establish paternity where necessary. dr. lein, am i pronouncing it correctly? i know you spent part of your
10:53 am
career at the university of texas. i would be interested to hear from either witness. what can the federal government do to enforce the child support obligation and assist the states? i will close with a quick story before i ask you to answer. i was in texas and got out of an airplane and a gentleman approached me and told me, you put me in jail when i was attorney -- when you were attorney general. i did not know what to expect next. he said, when we sued him to force him to pay his child support, his wife had denied him access to his children. the judge ordered him to pay child support and ordered his ex-wife to let him see the children. the child was a two time loser. did not get the fed to our loving support of both parents.
10:54 am
-- did not get the financial or the love and support of both parents. it ends on a happy note. the parents are back together now. it has a happy ending. there are not a lot of happy endings in this scenario. can you talk about the child support function and what we need to continue to do that we are doing right? if you would address that, please. >> in texas, it has been interesting because they have done interesting experiences -- experiments encouraging family child support. it includes punishments on the one side for not paying and also a lot of assistance for finding a job, forgetting placed in your community and in jobs, particularly if you have been jailed or imprisoned in the interim. the child support payments need
10:55 am
both of those. you cannot just punish non- paying fathers if they cannot get jobs and they cannot earn. you also did not want to give them the sense that it is not required that they pay for their children. other than having a thresholds, 'sving some of the father money go to welfare so that they see the benefits of that money going into the system other than having a system where they feel they are better off if the father pays under the table. >> thank you. >> all right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing.
10:56 am
dr. haskins, it is nice to be with you again. i served on the ways and means committee and went up against dr. haskins 16 years ago and lost most of my arguments and provisions. i joined the majority in supporting the tanef legislation 16 years ago. i think it was the right decision to get people out of poverty and get them employed. we have to a acknowledged some concerns. some of those issues have been mentioned. in a recession, we expect states to be able to respond by putting work-out there when the job market is more difficult. during the recession, the space did not have that option. they did not have the fiscal capacity -- during the recession, the states did not have that option. they did not have the fiscal capacity.
10:57 am
secondly, we can all point with pride to the number of people who are off of cash assistance. during the st. period of time, using the bid-1990's as our base, the number of children in -- using the mid-1990's as our base, the number of children in poverty has increased. we want to talk about the issue you have raised on the requirement with our states, giving them the ability to innovate and move forward. in some cases, we have not let that happen. there was testimony on the week -- on the ways and means committee talking about 30% of those in education programs and
10:58 am
the one-year limitation. many programs are two years. i just visited demint to colleges in maryland where they have two your education programs. a person who participates in the program would be prevented -- i just visited community colleges in maryland where they have two your education programs. the test should be whether people go off cash assistance and whether they are employed. we went for getting off cash assistance as the cast rather than employment. -- cash assistance rather than employment. the states have indicated the ability to innovate. they are asking for more flexibility. why shouldn't we give it to them?
10:59 am
sometimes i start to sound more view.the republican the why shouldn't we allow the test to be give -- getting people employed rather than getting off of cash assistance? demonstratet they they have the ability to achieve the goals we have set out for them in welfare reform. as we consider the reauthorization of this program, shouldn't we allow the states more flexibility in order to achieve it. ? >> yes, we should. i think we were right in 1996. the states made excuses like,
11:00 am
these mothers are not people who are working, and so forth. i have visited several offices in your state. the word welfare has been cast into the deaths. there have been a lot of big changes. under those circumstances, we should give more flexibility to the states. the relentless increase in state in the crews -- tightening the screws on requirements has unexpected results and they are not helpful to the mothers or to the states. we ought to look at this very carefully. now, a lot of these families, even when they try to go to school, they drop out quickly. it is the first is -- for this thing from their mind. there are a lot of families on
11:01 am
welfare that can benefit. those kinds of things, the state should not be doing that. we need to look at that very carefully and make changes. >> to other panelists went to respond? >> i think there are two things you mentioned that are important. one is the idea of encouraging the research and trying to find innovations an supportd states. the second piece is the incentives. as long as tanf is a block grant and the states have flexibility br the goals are aod, that is important because a lot of the resources are
11:02 am
going away because of the broad goals. i agree with the doctor that the way that state performance is being measured is not really helpful and there are probably a number of different ways you can consider new incentives to improve outcomes. >> my time is expired. i am at the mercy of the chair. >> thank you very much. >> dr., you remember that the change in the law was to ened welfare as we know it. looking at your --
11:03 am
[inaudible] [no audio] the child poverty rates are still lower amongst kids in
11:04 am
single-parent families. the strategy is still working someone. it is possible to see if the states have the programs that center carden described. i am somewhat optimistic that this economy recoveries. keep in mind that poverty among single mother families and among those children reach their lowest level ever and it is because of work. >> once the. income tax credit -- was the earned income tax credit supposed to be relief for this? why would you still have -- >> if mothers were close to full time at $8 or $9 per hour, the child tax credit, a food stamps, they will be above poverty if
11:05 am
you include those benefits. i give an example of this in my testimony. this is an american social policy. the combination of work which republicans prefer and benefits that are contingent on work, those two things that are highly bipartisan solutions, that is what we created. the system will work. if a mother loses her job, she not only loses earnings, she loses her -- i do not know what to do about that. that is a very serious problem. this is one of the best programs we have. >> that is a very good point. very good. >> i just wanted to mention that
11:06 am
we are seeing an increase in the variability of jobs so that people have jobs with variable hours and there is a great deal of underemployment. as that underemployment sinks, other kinds of benefits sink. >> at least even if they are underemployed, they have a chance to get the earned income tax -- >> they have a chance to get the earned income tax credit. >> let me ask you about the much maligned stimulus bill. one of the biggest parts of that, other than tax cuts, which often is overlooked, was to help
11:07 am
out the states with medicaid and also education. i know in my state, a huge amount of money went back to the state for two years to help them with medicaid. after two years, it cuts off. then the states did not pick up the responsibility after that. so you have this huge falling off the cliff after two years. what do you think and how does that tie into this? >> one of the problems that causes is that the low-income families have medical dead and that is a part of their financial life. families that have tried to orchestrate that do not have access to medicaid or to child health insurance programs and
11:08 am
they end up in debt. one of the concerns we have as medical insurance does not because of more broad is that more families will be hampered by the degree to which they're carrying medical dead. >> thank you. >> senator harbor. -- harper. >> very nice to see you. -- senator carper. >> very nice to see you. i appreciate the work you have been able to do. i have a chance to go into schools all over my states.
11:09 am
o, too.eagues d when i go to high schools and middle schools, there was a young women age 16 who becomes pregnant and does not marry and there is a 0 percent likelihood that she goes to poverty. if she ends up marrying, that is an 8% likelihood that she will end up in poverty. [unintelligible] i was in delaware in a hotel and we invited every high-school. to help us think about teen
11:10 am
pregnancy. the young people helped me draft we wanted to do on welfare reform in our state. we had a statewide campaign on teenage pregnancy to in change -- to change the way we think about it. it is important that we not only help people find a job but we help make sure they do not become parents. we help make sure they have help finding a job. whittaker by using resources to reduce teenage pregnancy. we make sure people have the skills that they need to find a job. that they are able to find a job, have child care if they need that, health care. the idea that the grand
11:11 am
compromise is to make sure that people are better off going to work. [unintelligible] these kids are pretty smart. they helped me to figure that out. i would like to know what has been going on with teen pregnancy rates in the country and i understand there is some encouraging news out there. i would like to know what is going on and to what extend can the ways we have moved towards welfare to work -- how that might affect the teen pregnancy rates? >> thank you. you may recall that we had something like 15 provisions in the 96 welfare reform bill that were intended to have an impact on family structure, teen pregnancy. we put aside $25 million for cash awarded to the states if you reduce their birthrates. i do not think any of that had
11:12 am
much impact. however, we have had success in teen pregnancy. teen pregnancy rates have fallen every year since 1991 except for a couple of years. congress has done a lot in cooperation with the it ministration to try new programs that are based on hard evidence that they will work. we are spending $100 million on those. we will continue to do what is required. here is the big problem. it is hard to figure of how to address it. if you look at the birthrates for the young ladies just above the teen years, those rates go up. it is almost as if young ladies can only avoid pregnancy for so long. i think there -- it is not a
11:13 am
stake all the time. they want a baby. their choices among men are problematic because many of them do not work. they decide to have a baby but not marry them. we need to focus on 20-year- olds. medicaid can play an important role by covering family planning rs arees and the mother i anxious to do that. that is one solution. that is something to focus on. >> can i ask the other witnesses to comment? >> i think it is worthwhile to think about focusing on men. the potential fathers of these children and what we are doing about their job prospects, what kinds of services they have available to them. and what kinds of health care and advice they have access to.
11:14 am
because, they are undoubtedly less served then the women in the same age bracket. >> i was just going to mention another point which is that we are still learning a lot about the concept of marriage promotion. there have been recent studies released that are not very encouraging. if we are talking about promoting marriage, i think we still have a long ways to go in figuring that out. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. the focus that you and the staff have been putting on poverty, and particularly the anti- poverty opportunity to address these issues, it makes a lot of sense. doctor, you have been doing work in this field for a long time. i am looking forward to --
11:15 am
we will put you in the use caucus, as well. i am looking forward to pursuing economic issues with you in the days ahead. i have a question on that in a moment. i want to take what we have done in oregon today your sense on one of the opportunities for reform. my home state is focused primarily on education and trying to find ways to keep families together. those are our special priorities. this approach coincided with a recession, which hit my state particularly hard between december of 2007 and december of 2009. nationwide caseloads went up 12%, but organ's went up 40%. two parent caseloads went up over 214%. now, we're looking at the prospect of $27.5 million in federal funds for not meeting
11:16 am
the work participation rate. the question i have is in the country with fewer jobs than job-seekers, what did not make sense to be -- give the states more credit for moving a public assistance recipient into a job rather than moving them off the role? it seems to me if we take that as the fundamental proposition, we could look at a variety of new approaches like perhaps give the states a waiver to start trying demonstration projects in this area. what are you thinking about that? >> i think it is a good idea. it is a reasonable thing to do. i am worried about the way you would actually measure is. it would give the states something new to report.
11:17 am
the there are a lot of issues about how to measure but i think it is a sound idea. as long as we did not lose the focus on work. a lot of people get jobs during a recession. what you say about the number of people looking for jobs and the ratio of number of jobs available is worse than any time since the depression. that is a consideration. it is harder to find a job but people still find them. it is like the original balance between reasonable policy and a policy that puts pressure on people to work. as long as that is maintained, your idea is good. >> that balance i am interested in -- that is why the approach of trying to let states that have been created, to get a waiver to try these approaches would be attractive. let me ask you a little bit about the economic mobility on
11:18 am
issues. i am going to be one of the co- chairs of the caucus, which will kick off very shortly in partnership with -- you have touched on a number of policy recommendations but if he would not mind, give us a couple of recommendations with respect to the economic mobility work that you have been pursuing because i think this is hugely important. we are seeing major regional differences, which i gather has been touched on before i came in. for purposes of my time, give us a sense of a couple of recommendations that you think are particularly important on the mobility issue. >> ok. the first one is everything we have been talking about because the way to increase mobility is to start at the bottom. those are the people with the most disadvantaged. if you look at the date on
11:19 am
earnings, the bottom is where it is stagnant. the bottom has been worse than stagnant, it has been declining. the federal payments from wealthier or more advantage people to low-income people has actually meant that over the last few decades, the bottom has been lower. a big part of that is that so many people work, especially single moms. the purpose of tanf is to increase mobility in the u.s. start at the bottom here help them first. secondly, we need to figure out a much better way to get kids into college. we are working on that. i would not false social policy at the federal or state level but we need a smarter focus on it. low-income kids are still at a disadvantage. they're less likely to go into a
11:20 am
college and more likely to drop out, despite the fact that they are less likely to enroll. the difference in achieving a degree between kids from the bottom and kids from the top is enormous. that is something we ought to focus on, especially because we have very good data where we can compare the income of kids to their own parents. it shows that the low income kids in the bottom 20%, if they go to college, the chances of staying in the bottom are cut by more than half and their chance of making it to the top is increased by a lot. a factor of four. this is an extremely important problem. we just have to figure out a better way to get kids into coverages, especially low-income kids. it big part of it is making
11:21 am
schools better. that is a big part. >> my time is expired. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. thank you for holding the hearing. important subject. thank you for taking your time to share your insights with us. let me ask -- why you think that the utilization of tanf has decreased? >> i think there are several contributing factors. i think it is hard to use and it is hard to use if you really do not think you are going to get a job. and you are not going to be able to use those work requirements. i think some people opt out for that reason. i think a lot of families are doing things and feel they have to do things and that makes tanf harder to do. they are drawing on their networks in ways. they are engaged in in formal labor markets, trying to make
11:22 am
ends meet. it does not mework well with deep tanf program. unless they see some sort of movement of your education and training, it appears they will be placedlped to put in jobs that will help. the second thing families tell us is that the tanf payments are only part of the picture. as long as they were using it as an avenue to medicaid and other kinds of support, it was more valuable to them. those have become separated. >> ok. >> i would like to add that one of the things that makes this more complicated in addition to the tanf program is that there are other types of investments that the states are making in
11:23 am
sometimes, states will take families that they think are not likely to succeed in the work activity program and move them into a separate program. so, they are not part of tanf. in tight economic times, it becomes more difficult for the state's. >> what reforms do you think congress should make to tanf to ensure that the states are more proactive in assisting families as they prepare for and find jobs? >> back to the point that it is said ballistic and complicated -- simplistic and complicated,
11:24 am
we need to look at the incentives and the success of the state's. having one measure that does not really tell you very much about whether the states are achieving what he thought is not going to encourage states to make changes. if you think about the basket of measures or measures that are more focused on out, or that gave states more flexibility for families that have larger problems, those are the kinds of things that we have seen making a difference when you are using a block grant. >> yeah. >> i think there are three issues. making more loans for opportunities for education and training that may extend beyond some of the limits in those
11:25 am
states, looking at coroneted programs that would increase by their involvement with families. third, looking at ways to expand people's ability to get child care during the time they're trying to enter the labor force and to keep that child care for some time afterwards. >> ok. one other question. that has to do with a gao report out that suggested that there is about $4 billion in refundable tax credits, payments made to people who are claiming children that do not live in this country and are here illegally. there is some legislation that would require greater documentation to prove that you are here illegally in order to benefit from the program. are those the types of reforms that you would support that you
11:26 am
think make sense? obviously, this is something that you have people who are not here legally benefiting from programs at great cost to taxpayers. >> i would support something like that. the itc, despite being a great program, has a very high error rate because of legitimate mistakes. in this case where people are undocumented and claim itc, i think it is illegal under the current law and we ought to have it deducted. the problem with the solutions for eitc, is trying to figure ot a way to get enough information about each individual case so you can make a judgment about whether or not it is legal that they're claiming the benefits. it is a very expensive thing to
11:27 am
do. i once had a two our meeting with the irs, specifically on this issue about what we can do and eventually, nothing was done. we discussed all kinds of ideas but they would have increased the workload of the irs. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. this is very provocative. very informative. we need to make sure that the next steps are instructive. i learned a lot from this hearing. thank you very, very much for helping us move towards the reauthorization of tanf. we return. -- we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> they are often referred to as the contents of the congress. i cannot think of a better name.
11:28 am
it is the heartbeat of the people. >> executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus on the role of today's bachus. >> he is designed to ensure that members of congress who are african-american can come together on issues that are plaguing the community at large and may be plaguing districts. we are going to come together to discuss legislative proposals to advance the causes of people that do not have a voice. >> more with angela rye at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> earlier this week, labor department officials testified on proposed rule changes governing early media access to monthly jobs report. currently, news organizations and others are allowed to see the report half an hour ahead of time. testimony include a labor department concerns that early access to data in the monthly
11:29 am
reports can allow for unfair market manipulation. it also looked at the issue of quantifying green jobs and representative beryl eisa accused the labor department of inflating those numbers. this portion of the hearing is about one hour. >> good morning. the oversight committee will come to order. we on the oversight committee exists to security of fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them is well spent. second, americans deserve an efficient, and effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our sole responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with his citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts
11:30 am
to the american people and bring reform to the federal bureaucracy. when president obama took offense, he promised the american people to have a more transparent administration. the most administration in this was a standard that the obama administration would be held to. almost two -- almost four years later, more and more it seems the actions of this administration say the opposite is true. the u.s. department of labor, led by secretary hilda solis, has unilaterally changed the method by which the media access is the bureau of data -- bureau of labor statistics data. this has serious freedom of the press implications. let there be no doubt that we
11:31 am
appreciate the need for a simultaneous release of this sensitive information. that has been accomplished for more than a generation through a procedure that was much more effective or as effective and acceptable to the media itself. the abrupt nature of this change coupled with the absence of a clear explanation and the lack of public input raises key questions about who made this decision to implement this change and why. did that individual have the authority of law? this is not the first time the issue has come up concerning the labor department's reach into the bureau of labor statistics. you will recall that the department received $500 million funds to train workers for so- called green skills. an audit by the inspector general found the program to be
11:32 am
a failure and represented a tremendous loss to the taxpayer. this included training for occupations that are hardly green, such as welder, sheet metal worker and a machine operator. certainly those are jobs that may be needed and the skills are valuable. but they are not all of the sudden green after all of the years of being around as a profession. aside from the excuse and waste that perpetrated the department of labor, they have used the guise of a green jobs to justify the ongoing funding of the president's green agenda. they are counting as a green job, in addition to welder, college professors are not green. environmental reporters are now
11:33 am
green. college professors in a think tank are now grain. lobbyists can be green. i have been in washington for 12 years. there are -- there is a lot of grain around lobbyists. -- green or brown lobbyists. septic tank and portable toilet industries have as many green jobs as in solar utility areas. what it is 60,000 of these green jobs are related to school bus drivers. using these tactics to manipulate the numbers to manipulate the american people is a betrayal of the standards president obama established for his administration. transparency begins with honesty. you cannot send out false propaganda and say you are
11:34 am
transparent. the truth is essential. it is on filtered if you are to be transparent. we appreciate this administration has an opinion and this chairman has an opinion that is sometimes different. we are entitled to our opinions. we are not entitled to our facts. is there any wonder back there are such -- is there any wonder that there are such concerns that secretary solis' departments wants to change how the press receives jobs numbers from the bureau of labor statistics? when invited to appear today to explain why this change in the freedom of the press will occur, secretary solis turned down all invitations and offered us alternatives. we appreciate those who are here as alternatives.
11:35 am
ultimately, if you are the secretary of labor, the box should start -- should stop with you. if it does not stop there, where can america believe it stops? it does not stop at the white house if the secretary allow something to happen and there is no answer. we will hear something about that today and i hope it will send a message to the administration. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding today's hearing. we are going to focus on two different topics involving the bureau of labor statistics. the first topic is the integrity of the department of labor's job in reporting. the department of labor strikes a balance between presenting the authorize release of key economic data and providing journalists with access to that data ahead of time so they can prepare their stories about the
11:36 am
and unemployment situation. this balance is important -- prepare their stories about the unemployment situation. they need to have the facts necessary to ensure they have a thorough and accurate understanding so they can place it in context. the leak of this data can have negative consequences. for example, in the hands of certain traitors, early access to this data, even if just by a few seconds, could allow their powerful computer trading algorithms to manipulate the markets and reap millions of dollars. that is why the department and other reporting agencies employ procedures to prevent unauthorized releases. the department of labor
11:37 am
authorized the laboratories that oversee the security of our nuclear arsenal to meet the new security requirements of our constantly changing technological environment. there are significant vulnerabilities in the department's procedures and recommend steps to mitigate those risks. those seeking to break current security controls are profit driven, technically sophisticated individuals or organizations who may have considerable resources at their disposal. acting on the recommendation, the department announced new controls on hardware and software in a locked up environment. in addition, the department has excluded specific firms that sell data to wall street traders a fraction of a second
11:38 am
before other traders see it. some have complained that the proposed changes were too restricted. these complaints appear to be the impetus for today's hearing. the department has worked with press outlets to accommodate their concerns while protecting security. we anticipate there will be additional announcements regarding this ongoing discussion soon. the second topic of today's hearing appears to be how the department of labor calculates the number of new jobs in the united states economy. this is the third hearing on this topic and the third time department of labor officials have testified before us. last july, the brookings institution issued a report on grain jobs with the following finding --
11:39 am
green jobs with the following finding. the green economy has expanded at greater rates than the economy as a whole. they went on to say the greek economy -- green economy offers more opportunities for lower skilled workers. this is critical for america's future. the bureau of labor statistics estimated that the number of green jobs is over 3 million and they have helped rebuild our economy. we welcome our policy makers in congress. this committee seems intent on challenging the methodology used
11:40 am
by the bureau of labor statistics rather than putting people back to work. i thank the witnesses for being here yet again today and i look forward to your testimony. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. although the ranking member mentioned the report, the report has not been made available to us under any circumstances. notwithstanding the gentleman's assertions, until the department of labour makes that report available to us, we consider it to be a cya document held close and from congress. we will issue a subpoena if they will not deliver that document, which is the impetus for his closing. >> i would be happy to talk about it. >> i thank the gentleman.
11:41 am
the members will have -- the witnesses will have several days to submit written statements. i welcome the general manager of the united states for reuters news. ms. lucy dalglish is the executive director at the reporters committee for freedom of the press. also, welcome. dr. keith hall is currently a senior fellow. last but not least, i will work hard on this one. ms. diana furchtgott-roth is the former chief economist of the united states department of
11:42 am
labor and a current fellow at the manhattan institute. welcome all. pursuant to our committee's rules, will you rise and take the oath and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. let the record reflect that all answered in the affirmative to the best of their ability. please be seated. many of you are returning to testify. for a couple of you, it may be your first. we have members who will be coming in and out. we estimate about half an hour for your opening statements tried to stay as close to five minutes as you can. we will have your entire opening statement and additional material you wish to submit
11:43 am
included in the record without objection. you only need to summarize because for the record all the you have submitted will be on the record. >> members of the committee, i thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and i want to express my particular appreciation to the committee for its engagement on this issue. reuters provides analytics to the senate -- to decision makers. bluebird news is delivered through the bloomberg professional service to television -- bloomberg news is delivered through the bloomberg professional services. we are sending getty in hundreds of newspapers globally. we cover the world with more than 2000 reporters and editors in more than 70 countries. we are experts at publishing economic statistics and
11:44 am
disseminating market information. media stakeholders are making progress with the department of labor in arriving at conclusions that will not reduce transparency and accuracy of critical data. while no conclusive agreement has been reached, the movement we have seen would not have been possible without the engagement of this committee and committees and members in both chambers in both parties. we are thankful to senator roy blunt for his engagement. on april 10, without being -- on april 10, there was a dramatic policy shift. reporters and editors would be required to use only government software and hardware and government notebooks. the use of modern new is
11:45 am
producing software with greater accuracy and context it provided would be prohibited. all transmission would be via the internet and not through secure lines. the department would control internet connections creating a single point of failure. although the policy change was unprecedented, it was presented and non-negotiable. news organizations were required to remove their software from the department by june 15. this proposal threatens the first amendment. the government would literally all on the big reporter's notebook. unlike other federal agencies, -- the government would literally owned the reporters'
11:46 am
notebooks. no administration anywhere should have access to a reporter's thoughts, draft, or notes on news of search -- of such importance. this threatens national security. it administration has spent a great deal of time addressing potential cyber security threats. protecting our financial markets from cyber attacks has been a key part of that discussion. for the department of labour to deliberately four-speed transmission of data away from secure, dedicated lines to mandated transmission through the internet is inexplicable. the vulnerability of the internet through accidental destruction is a large part of the reason why news
11:47 am
organizations have invested in their own secure lines. the prospect of potential market manipulation is real. in august of last year, the department of labor website went down following the release of the monthly labor situation. the report was unavailable for one hour. if the april 10 order had been in effect, the result would have been potentially catastrophic. this increase market vulnerability and volatility in the modern era of computerized trading, people compete in and it illustrates how small incidents can result in disruptions. when the department of labor hosted a conference call to announce -- to ask questions
11:48 am
about the new policy, i asked, what is the problem you imagine this will prevent? the department of labor's response was, i think we are gone to -- going to move on. operator, we will take the next question. ultimately, there was a report that has not been publicly released. the department has alleged its new policy is necessary because unauthorized people has planted the unauthorized equipment into the department's communications system. the report speaks of those who oppose the recommendations as
11:49 am
adver -- aversions. does the department believe the media is an adversary demo what laws do they think we are going to break? -- the need is an adversary? what laws do they think we are going to break? has been locked out been infiltrated by hedge funds? the public and the congress would be entitled to that information. they need to distinguish between an authentic news organization and a hedge fund. it is the root cause of an issue driving the assessment. why not just expel them from the
11:50 am
locked out. why threaten the first amendment. this proposal undermines the first amendment. it potentially reduces the accuracy of the data and increases the volatility and imposes a cyber security threat. given the labor department's refusal to extend the date for removing equipment, the calendar will be tight and we are seeking an injunction unless an overall agreement has been reached. texaco officials and technical staff at labor -- labor is still going to get back with us on a number of issues. until an overall agreement is reached, the order stands. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. doherty? >> thank you for allowing me to
11:51 am
testify on the policies and procedures the labor department's planning for its press lock out. reuters is the largest international news agency in the world. we have 2900 journalists in countries around the world. we have 600 td clients and over 35 million the visitors -- we have 600 tv clients and over 35 million the visitors on the website. our washington bureau chiefs were notified about major changes. the changes were covered in detail so i will not repeat those. we were taken aback by the planned changes. they were drastic and announced
11:52 am
without any advance notice. i want to be clear on two point. we believe locked out are extremely useful to promote dissemination of sensitive data. they help the media understand the information before disseminating it to the public. it guard against premature release of information. s. is in every one's interest despite that apparent success, the department plan would require us to use government equipment to do our work as a matter of routine. this is something news organizations fundamentally opposed. it would represent a major step backward for news organizations for the dissemination of critical data. that would imperil the ability
11:53 am
of news organizations to provide information to the public in a reliable, accurate, and timely way. to gauge the importance of that data to the public in general, one needs to look no further than last friday's on employment report. we are automating our software. to speed the delivery of crucial in relation to our readers and partners across the globe. we officially and accurately incorporate new material and provide historical data that put the material in context. this would be lost if the locked up participants are required to use the department's internet provider.
11:54 am
you could make an argument that it would increase the difficulties with dissemination of the data. because of these concerns, we joined with three other organizations in requesting a meeting with the white house to voice our opposition to the epoch 10 announcement. we are hoping -- opposition to the april 10 announcement. we have had a series of constructive meetings with department officials and staff and those meetings have left us optimistic that we can agree on procedures. they are not perfect and are not the status quo we would prefer, but represent a compromiseo disseminate information from the lock up quickly and reliably. we are not there yet. we are hoping we can complete an
11:55 am
agreement in time for the july 6 deadline. if not, we are hoping for an extension. as we discussed other issues and reach agreement, timing is an important issue for us. it is now june 6. the equipment start coming out on june 14 and 15. the new procedure goes into effect july 6. our technical staff thinks it is nearly impossible to do this the right way and be ready by july 6. if we are to reach an agreement, i hope the department will be flexible on these limitations. thank you for your invitation to address the committee and your continued interest in this issue. i would be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. ms. dalglish?
11:56 am
>> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i am lucy dalglish, executive of the reporters committee for the press. we have been protecting the rights of journalists and i am happy to testify today on behalf of the sunshine government initiative. sgi is a coalition promoting greater transparency in government. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. we strongly object to the changes the department of labour announced a few months ago. the department's approach makes the reporting of market information less secure and more prone to inaccuracies and less
11:57 am
equitable as it reaches the public. last month, we urged the labor department to suspend these changes, clarified the concerns with the current process, and work with us to address those concerns. since then, only your attention to this issue has helped bring about productive discussion between the media and the labor department. we are bewildered by the labor department announcement on april 10 without consulting with any of the media about these dramatic changes that will have a devastating impact on the analysts' -- on journalists' ability to inform the public. as you know, mr. chairman, since its formation after 9/11, we have worked with you and others on capitol hill and across the
11:58 am
executive branch to work with problems. we remain committed to working with the department on this issue. let me be clear. we do not wish the labor department to advance procedures that will advance it wants media department over another. we hope the labor department will address vulnerabilities in the lockup would ongoing dialogue. let me describe how the announced changes would undermine the integrity of the economic indicators released to the public. the announced approach raises ciba security concerns. it may allow -- the announcement raises cyber security concerns. a denial of services could delay release. the labor department also new approach would likely be less
11:59 am
reliable than the current practice. at least two media organizations have built a redundant system hardware. it's a circuit fails, a second system -- if a circuit fails, a second system reroute information. -- reroutes information. the department also a new approach would make errors more likely. without their own equipment, for a lotus spreadsheets, journalists -- all the equipment, pre loaded spread sheets, a journalists would have to type the information. no one begrudges the federal government for moving quickly to address immediate security
12:00 pm
concerns. the labor department should explain its concerns and considered permanent procedural. the media takes government interference very seriously. so does the constitution. the first amendment obligates the government to allow journalists to operate independently from government control. it requiring journalists to draft and publish stories using government own computers loaded with government control software simply crosses the line the first amendment drew to separate the press from the government. in conclusion, we are committed to working with this committee and the labor department to find a resolution that serves the public interest. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is keith paul.
12:01 pm
i am a senior research fellow. i was the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics. my testimony, i by to talk about the bureausally purpose is to extend its role in disseminating economic data. -- bureau of labor statistics and its role in disseminating economic data. its task is compiling economic data and also disseminating the data and explaining it. there are a number of principles which any federal statistical agency follows. and disseminate data in a transparent an independent manner with no bias of any type. there also test with creating a level playing field for the release of data. nobody has an advantage of getting that data ahead of other people. they are responsible for the security of the data.
12:02 pm
that is everywhere including inside the locker room. the bureau of labor statistics has the responsibility to decide whether or not to even have the data lockup. this is an agency, not the department of labour. traditionally, news media were considered by statistical agencies as the most effective distributor of economic this to sticks to the public. -- economic statistics to the public. press lockups were designed decades ago to provide the most important economic data to wire service reporters. wire service reporters will look at the data ahead of the release time under lockup conditions and get to ask questions and write their stories on a typewriter. then, when the release time came, reporters would call in their stories. that is how the lockup run state
12:03 pm
despite tremendous changes in technology. today, most new economic data is disseminated through the public through an website or by e-mail. the law but we did a lot of continues for the most important data but technology has made it difficult to maintain adequate security inside the lockup. in particular, automatic computer trading has made dls data extremely valuable. also, lockup participants may now have specialized computer equipment and software that links to automated trading modules. what i was commissioner, back in 2009, i read one particular article. this caused me great deal of
12:04 pm
concern. key economic indicators are released to financial markets. a trading model can now reassess the situation and enter into a trading situation immediately before the larger market has had time to read the release on news wires. the to become this -- to me, this raises concerns as to whether we have a layer -- a level playing field coming out of the lockup. i have a number of recommendations on this. let me mention that emerging technology is constantly changing and agencies disseminating data need to be able to take advantage of new technology. for example, social media is a new method of disseminating data. other agencies have pre access
12:05 pm
to use social media. i believe dls should be allowed to use social media and any new method of dissemination without having to compromise its position as an independent objective provider of data. and that is my first recommendation. secondly with respect to press lockups, i have a number of things i mentioned but it is common sense to have a lockup agreement. a number of those things have not been in place. they need to be put in place right away. one of the things i have a problem with its tv journalists can leave the room before the data is released. that is a concerted -- a security concern. most importantly, the labor
12:06 pm
department should be able to develop and maintain procedures and have the authority to implement confidentiality protocols for for dissipating news organization employees. the to some degree, this is not just my opinion. it is the opinion of the office of management and budget. omb federal statistical policy director number three and four make it clear that dls is responsible for determining a lockup and disseminating the data. they are the ones responsible for confidentiality. >> thank you.
12:07 pm
thank you for inviting me to testify. i am going to talk about green jobs. we just got the employment news on friday which shows that the number of jobs and the economy rose by 69,000. the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% and has been above 8% for well over three years. america may not be good creating jobs, but it xl says really bring jobs as green jobs. it is easier to redefine in existing job as a new job, a green job. how many jobs as our government relabeled as green? the bureau of labor the statistics decides which jobs are green. they identified 3.1 million in 2010. americans may have been aware
12:08 pm
that a federal agency made better get state -- designated chaffetz green. i would argue that we should focus on job creation rather than green jobs because we have over 12 million unemployed. our broadest trade is 14.8%. if people want to buy green products sucbecause the price of gasoline is high, they will do so. much emphasis on green has driven jobs overseas. there are just two examples. incandescent light bulbs, the ban on them has resulted in the closure of those factories and the new fluorescent lights are made in china. there are green jobs in china. many solar panels and wind turbines that are required by law are made overseas.
12:09 pm
coal is produced here but we are increasingly not allowed to use it. china is using our coal. they make the products with coal and send them to us which reduces our jobs. dls decides which jobs are green and sometimes these shrubs qualify for tax preferences or subsidies. for example, our transportation policy is based on green jobs. 20 percent of the highway trucks are reserved for mass transit. dls has defined three jobs as "jobs and businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources." or as "jobs in which workers
12:10 pm
involve making their establishments oversees more environmentally friendly or use your natural resources." an order for a firm to be considered green, they have to meet one of five goals. energy from renewable sources. energy efficiency. pollution reduction or removal. natural resources conservation. environmental compliance education, training, and public awareness. i was interested when i came in to see this cup. it says, we have the power to save energy. this fits in with number 5. in diameter compliance, education, training and public awareness. people who produce these cups would be considered to have grain jobs. that has not -- green jobs. it is just a matter of relabeling.
12:11 pm
in agriculture, for example, one of the main categories of work or organic farmers and growers. their work cut -- accomplishes conservation and creating energy. a farm that produces corn to eat is not counted as a dream job. when they produce ethanol, that is counted as a green job. it is possible to calculate the percentage of employment that is dedicated to ethanol or organic products. wood chips used for biomass, how many workers are employed by the candor industry to create woodchips? wood chips are a byproduct of milling and what milling is not a green job. according to a definition, the
12:12 pm
33,000 blood product manufacturing jobs are called green because companies can sell the wood chips. i have many other examples in my testimony but my time has run out. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. i am going to begin with you because you to see needed -- you do see need for reform in the lockup but what you said earlier is of concern for me. the office of management and budget has a set of guidelines. it tries to make sure that the bureau of labor statistics is independent. he is a political appointee, not confirmed, working for the secretary of labor and the person who came up with this policy. >> yes. >> ok. it is an being directed from
12:13 pm
the department of labour. this is not the independent agency intention that you work for and you have been very candid with us in the past. it is your job to cal to the green jobs you were told to count. you accurately account for the numbers. it is somebody else's decision about whether they are green or not. we have enjoyed your honesty. your honesty is supposed to be one way and it was not. >> correct. > i think the bureau of labor statistics should be responsible for running the lockup. >> would you ever have thought that the department of labor would be left to brookings and able to come up with more grain jobs? you are one of the companies that have invested in proprietary lines in order to send out things on a timely
12:14 pm
basis? >> as. >> you did so for two reasons. you did so to make sure your story did not fail to go out and that you got it out faster than anyone free to anyone else. >> we are not interested in getting it up faster than anybody else. >> you at least one to tie the fastest? >> -- i am assuming he wanted to. >> we have an interest in transmitting information as instantaneously as the lockup rules will allow. >> you also have an interest in absolutely positively not been beat to the new stand. >> our interest is to get the information out as quickly as we claim to all our clients within the rules of the lockup. >> you are representing the
12:15 pm
umbrella for a moment. dr. hall was very kind in saying that most of the statistics go out news wide. they're not important enough so they go out and everybody gets them at the same time. the most important are subject to this lockup, historically, until today. let me ask you one question. if in fact the bureau of labor statistics simply started pumping this all-out through their internet, wouldn't it be worse for these critical information in because then the hedge fund with the best computer diagnosing what is exactly the same raw statistics would then make the decision on market interrupted and trade during those first few seconds? doesn't the plethora of different news organizations with different opinions reporting in a different fashion reaching different conclusions on raw data actually negate the
12:16 pm
advantage of the hedge fund because ultimately, looking at any one of these services that not guarantee him any thing -- does not give them the wrong information as much as it gives them somebody's opinion? is an 100 opinions better safeguards against radical market move than a single piece of fact? >> mr. chairman, i have to confess i do not know a lot about how hedge funds operate. i can tell you that by having multiple news organizations in that lockup disseminating the information, i believe there are safeguards for the public and i believe the independence of those news organizations is a benefit to the public rather than having the government being the only source of information, whether it be to the public or the hedge funds. there is value in having multiple news organizations suggesting and disseminating
12:17 pm
this information. >> to the two news organizations represented, if you are given no tools coming information in a short time frame to report what you are given, are you an arm of the propaganda? the difference between propaganda and independent news is the value added that you are reporter -- your reporters can bring through experience or the information they bring in that helps them take raw data and turn it into an opinionated factual news? >> disick chairman, the advantage of the lock up as it is currently run at the department -- agencies descending statistics -- this allows us to publish information which as much context and supporting data as we can. what we publish goes beyond one
12:18 pm
headline and one number. we intend to tell the story behind the number come on top of it, and underneath. >> one important part of the april 10 report is that there was no internet access at all, even in the hours leading up to the lockup starting. that is important because it allows our journalists to see what is happening around the world. even if it is breaking at the last minute, with everything that is happening today in the eurozone, that is it for -- that is valuable information. >> thank you. >> it is good to see you. i just want to make sure we are clear because i do not want the wrong information to be on the
12:19 pm
headlines tomorrow. the bureau of labor statistics is a non-partisans statistical agency, right? . >> right. >> when did you leave the department of labor statistics? >> in january. >> focused on the development and advancement a policy of a methodology for -- >> they were good about letting us do our work. >> as i listen to the testimony, clearly, i understand and sympathize with the news organizations. i understand what you are saying. it seems like we have a question of balance. any time something gets out of balance, we run into problems. that does not mean that our security procedures are not
12:20 pm
equal to what technology can be used to with the data. it seems like there is, you know, -- it is hard to describe what is happening. th technology has changed dramatically since then. would you agree? >> congressman, the department of labor has a master switch that controls communication into and out of the room. no news headline or story can be published until the labor officials literally flipped the master switch. >> do you have a comment? >> that is true. one of my concerns and one of the concerns of the whole lot of room came from an extraordinary number of incidents he's over
12:21 pm
the last few years that involved struggling with technology coming on. >> that is why these discussions we have been having with the labor department are focused on that. our view is that the april 10 plant did not strike a balance. >> i am hoping that we can move that along so you can come up with an agreement. i think it is a matter of people sitting down and working out things. not everything has to be legislative. sometimes we have to depend on the legislature.
12:22 pm
according to a new statement in 2008 by the commissioner of bureau statistics, and the assistant secretary of labor for public affairs, data from the november 2008 the employment situation news report that was scheduled for release friday december 5 at 8:30 a.m. was inadvertently translated from the lock up 25 seconds early. the news release states that a similar transmittal occurred on december 3, 2008 involving the data on productivity. the news release clarifies that a chief informed us that his outlet has inadvertently released data from the lock up. the department of labor released -- your commissioner of
12:23 pm
the department of labor statistics at that time. is that right? >> correct. >> what can you tell us about how that occurred? how were the leagues accidental and what circumstances allows such accidental leaks to take place? >> as i recall, the news agency was allowed access to the room without any dls technicians. they have replaced the cable from their computer to that box. it turned out that cable bypass the security on the box. so, the company did not mean to do that. it was just trying to increase the connectivity. since then, we have tried very hard to -- we are trying to not let people in the room without a dls technician there so that sort of thing does not happen. >> were they detected at the
12:24 pm
time they occurred? >> no. >> you take embargo very seriously and you have always intended to comply with the department of lockup procedures. there was a defect in the equipment that resulted in an intentional or early releases of data. what can you add to what mr. hall said about how the leak occurred? also, there is a defect in the department's equipment. that led to unintentional early releases. was the fault with the department? >> my understanding is we did reconfigure or hard way.
12:25 pm
the way the interface with a lock box led to the inadvertent releases. the first release was not detected by anyone. the second realized, we make that known to the apartment. we worked with them to figure out what the problem was and fix it. we are aware of no other issues in the 3.5 years since. the department has almost 10 lockups a month. that is 350 or so sense that happen. >> do you believe that steps have been made to improve the security of economic data during the pre-release embargo, are those necessary? >> i think most of them are necessary. and the one aspect would be
12:26 pm
replacing equipment. that is a dramatic step. i do think that was worth considering. i do think that is a possible solution. it runs behind the website. such a rush tobe move trading inside the lock up room. i am not sure. it should be done. i think it should be considered. >> thank you. . >> thank you when these lapses occur, who was the president? >> obama administration but we had a lapse in november of 2008. i am sorry. >> ellenton make sure that we understand this was so long ago that president bush is responsible for the weeleak.
12:27 pm
>> you can watch the entire hearing on our website. you can find schedules for all our networks and -- coming up, the nominee for u.s. investors for iraq followed by a hearing examining corruption in afghanistan. then, they will look at reducing u.s. and russian nuclear weapons. later, a panel on preventing a nuclear-armed iran. >> you have to get specific about it. everybody has room to sign on to the 90%. >> inside into the american and global economies from berkshire hathaway chairman nancy duff,
12:28 pm
warren buffett. tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> u.s. ambassador to iraq served on the national security council staff under president george w. bush and president obama. he discusses the size and scope of the u.s. embassy in iraq. the current radical groups in the country, and regional water issues. it is about 50 minutes. >> at the time that our country -ecided -= there was discussion about the size and scope of that industry. the very fact that it was in a secure situation and the
12:29 pm
thought that we had ambitions that the embassy might be a fulcrum for activity throughout the area -- for the united states's ambitions. however, we still have that. it has been suggested in addition to the diplomatic people in the u.s. are affiliated with it. the troops are not on the ground in the numbers they were. i am wondering about your reflections having served in all of these capacities. the how do you plan to administer this building?
12:30 pm
this is a several-chapter answer, i appreciate, but have you given thoughts to security predicaments, likewise, not diminished conditions on our part but more hostilities on behalf of the iraqis. how do you plans to manage this? >> thank you very much. i've given a great deal of thought to this. in my last assignments i participated in every conversation about not only the plan to transition, but also how to get the size down. quite frankly, our presence in iraq is too large. there is no proportionality between our size and our influence. we spend diplomatic capital to
12:31 pm
sustain our presence. there is a process under way right now to cut our presence by about 25% by next fall and i agreed with the approach and think we can do more. the reason we are so big now is it was contingency planning. the department was not sure what we were going to face. where we are now, but i think we really need to focus, and that is why i have this four-point test. is it strategic, is it a core priority to advance national interest? is it effective? our programs getting results with adequate buy-in from iraqis and is it sustainable? if i'm confirmed, i will plug everything to that test. in terms of managing the day-
12:32 pm
to-day, i have also been involved high realize sometimes we need to discuss something with the security advisor and i'm often doing that shuffling. as i mentioned earlier, i have a very -- i am on a very strong team in iraq. with for aave worked number of years. the bulk would stop with me for every decision. i think we make a very strong team, but i can not discount the challenges ahead. >> i appreciate the answer very much and the specific thoughts examining each and every programs, but we are probably over-represented and the expenses enormous and it is an enormous impact on the budget, as you know. i appreciate that managerial
12:33 pm
idea. how're you going to advise the prime minister under the current circumstances to which he is not getting along with the opposition, to say the least, and the kurds are drifting off which interesting off by themselves? -- drifting off by themselves? >> that is a critical point. i've worked with the leaders and this leader in his capacity as prime minister. as i said in a written statement, i'm focused on working in an institutional way. if there was a new prime minister i would have the same close working relationship with him. we focus on the institutions. when you interacting deal with all sides there are different narrative's to the political process. the government does -- put in
12:34 pm
place in 2010, when finally put together, 90% of council representatives are represented in the cabinet, and that naturally leads to a lot of inefficiency, rivalry and intrigue. maliki will say opposition figures will not share responsibility for governing. opposition figures say melody is consolidating power. they are all right. we need to work with all of them to live up to their prior agreements and to work within the constitutional system to change the process. this is critically important. i plan to visit the region as much as possible. i would like to be a tear of least once a week if i'm confirmed because it is -- up there at least once a week if i'm confirmed because it is personal interaction that his sole important for keeping things stable and bridging areas
12:35 pm
of disagreement. the kurds are having difficulties with the baghdad government, and the baghdad government is having difficulty with them. we have to play an important role in mediating effort. i would just leave it at -- there is a constitutional system in place. this is the second parliament. the iraqis will fight through their politics under the constitutional rules they have devised. we cannot direct the outcomes when we try to do that the unintended consequences are enormous. we can help bridge differences, mediate back-and-forth, and be actively engaged. that is what i intend to do if i'm confirmed. >> thank you for a very comprehensive and thoughtful answer. i appreciate it. >> thank you, senator lugar. senator udall. >> thank you chairman risch and
12:36 pm
ranking members. i appreciate your service to the country. in april 2012, the special inspector general found in his report there was a record low amount casualty's for the month of march and the drop in violence or the last few months, specifically reporting 112 iraqis died as a result of violent attacks in the month of march, the lowest totals since 2003. do you think the iraqi government is on the right track to secure its government, and how has the fact that iraq is accountable for its own security changed the security of calculus in the country in the u.s. relationship with iraq? >> thank you, senator. at the very top of my mind is the safety of all americans serving in iraq.
12:37 pm
i trust this closely. over the course of this year, -- track this closely. over the course of this year, we have had on average zero-to- three attacks each week, almost entirely rocket attacks from the party in the north, and fortunately no casualties. that compares to about 1000 a week five or six years ago, which i remember very well. that is positive. we want to make sure the trend continues. the reason is there are five militant groups in iraq. first there is outside in iraq. they remain active -- al-qaida in iraq. they remain active. they're able to strike every 30- to-40 days. al qaeda in iraq is striking at a level that was about the same as last year.
12:38 pm
so, the iraqi government has not been able to deeper for lead -- de affiliate al qaeda in iraq. then there are three militant shia groups. the army is pretty much now part of the political process. those three shia militant groups since january 1 ever really gone to the ground, and i was discussing this with the general. it is interesting. we are watching it closely. our withdrawal seems to taken their ability to recruit to being depleted. they have almost stopped attacking us, however i would
12:39 pm
not bank on that. are remember when we took hundreds of rockets on the compound from groups that were laying in wait to strike us and i watched this closely. in terms of internal security and the iraqis being able to secure their country, they're not doing a bad job. they secured the capital to host a summit. that would have been honored of three-to-five years ago. they're doing very good internal security. they of weekend and external security, and that is where we are working -- weekend external security, and that is where we are working to close some gets. >> i am another couple of questions, but i think it will run over if i pursue those right now. >> senator, we allow an extra minute. >> ok. that is good.
12:40 pm
i'm changing direction here a little bit. i want to ask you about the future stability of iraq and its ability to read this sustainable water supply in the tigris in the city's river basin. this area is considered -- euphrates river basin. this area is considered one of the birthplaces of human agriculture and their ability to sustain ecology has been threatened. we see this in rivers across the region. how will you work with iraq's neighbors to develop sustainable use of water and how can the u.s. were to leverage scientific and engineering talent, especially those of the national laboratories, to find a long- term solution to the problem? >> senator, that is a great and over-looked point. the water situation in iraq and the region is serious. agriculture use to be the bread basket of the world.
12:41 pm
today, it is approximately at best 20% of gdp. agriculture in iraq uses 90% of iraq's water. that is not sustainable, and if we get agricultural going again, they will have a serious water problem. maliki and the iraqi government hosted a conference to discuss this with a regional neighbors and he said they face a crisis. we have a common way forward within the strategic framework agreement because it calls on cooperation between u.s. and iraq to address issues like this. to call on the expertise -- i know there is some of it in new mexico -- to help the think in a system-like way, do they need dams, water supplies, to work with turkey in particular -- all i will say it is it has been
12:42 pm
overlooked because iraq has been involved in a fierce war, and now that we are coming out of that phase these important issues need to rise to the highest priorities in our embassy. >> thank you. thank you for your courtesy, mr. chairman. >> thank you, the center udal. >> you can watch this entire hearing and others on our web site, c-span.org. just click on our video library. >> coming up tomorrow on "newsmakers" senators debbie stabenow and pat roberts discussed the farm bill being debated in the senate, and another program that would pay farmers its income from crops falls too low. that is sunday at 10:00 a.m.
12:43 pm
eastern and again in the evening 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. [applause] >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, on the "american history tv" mark the anniversary of the speech from west germany and also this weekend our series "the contenders" -- 14 key political figures in ran for president and lost but changed political history. the senate, republican candidate james blaine. "american history tv" this weekend on c-span tv. >> a subcommittee was told the u.s. spent $15.7 billion in afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks and a hearing on waste and fraud examine whether that
12:44 pm
-- whether aid is being wasted by a corrupt government. it is about 50 minutes. >> all right. we will proceed with our second panel which is composed of michele jeanne sison -- larry sampler jr.. he also served as deputy coordinator for reconstruction at stabilization with a joint appointment at both the state department and u.s. aid. he was a research staff member for the institute of defense analysis with a focused on -- with a focus on west bank and gaza. during 2002 and 2005 he served
12:45 pm
as chief of staff for the united nations assistance mission in afghanistan and prior to that assignment he was a consultant to the afghan government in support of the afghan constitutional, after which he was awarded a constitutional model by president hamid karzai. he did his undergraduate work in physics and electrical engineering at georgia tech. he is a master's degree in diplomacy from norwich university and is an army veteran that served with the special forces. you are on the hot seat now, but we appreciate you being here. we appreciate serious and frank dialogue. you may proceed with your opening statement, and we will go from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be brief and leave as much time as possible for questions.
12:46 pm
thank you for the opportunity to testify. i would like to begin the way i always do, thinking the veterans, the the military, state department, u.s.aid or even contractors. as you rightly noted, there has been tremendous sacrifice and i would like to recognize that both on the part of international community, but also the afghans who put their risk -- lives at risk every day to make afghanistan a better place. it is my responsibility to address as many of the concerns raised as possible, i also hope i can give opportunities for people to take pride in what has been accomplished and have some sense of optimism about the way ahead. as you noted, i've worked in afghanistan since 2002. much of that time was physically in afghanistan. i know firsthand a lot of the challenges that are faced and i
12:47 pm
am hack attack -- happy to share them is that as appropriate. before i talk about oversight, i would like to address some of the successes achieved with the support of u.s. taxpayers. i have to note that one of the best unintended consequences is that i get out washington i get to see what is working and a much progress there has been. under the taliban, there were less than 90,000 people in school, very few were girls. currently, more than 8 million are enrolled, more than one- third are girls, and after a decade of improving schools, we are finding a generation of young men and women graduating that much better critical thinking skills that will make them better citizens and much more resilient in their
12:48 pm
opposition to fought less or malicious doctrines. in 2002, only 9% of afghans have access to basic health care. today, it is over 60% and buy basic health care we need medical assistance within one hour's walk. life expectancy is 20 years higher than it was the end 2002 and infant mortality rates have dropped significantly, drawing attention to what the afghans have done right in that regard. our work in the energy sector has tripled the number of afghans with access to reliable electricity, not just supporting, but in a bleak economic growth. with usaid, the national power co. has increased revenue collection 50% every year since 20009, reducing the need of a subsidy from one and $7 million a year, to around $30 million a year -- $170 million a year, to
12:49 pm
around $30 million a year. we're focused on increasing senator growth in ways away from requiring foreign assistance like in agriculture, extractive industries and energy, trade and capacity-building for their government. we are reducing new infrastructure projects and focusing on maintaining the infrastructure they have. we are cementing gains made by women in the areas of health and education and increasingly focused on how to involve the private sector in our programs. we are focusing, in other words, on sustainable development. the successes that have talked about have been achieved by constantly improving how we do business in afghanistan. protecting taxpayer resources is a key concern of usaid and your the last two years we've taken
12:50 pm
measures to better track our funding, and hence accountability, and making sure our committees have the desired impact. we developed an initiative that the gao college referred to. is an extra layer of oversight recognizing that afghanistan is a high-risk environment in a war zone. requires mechanisms more carefully crafted to keep partners carefully constrained. involves partner-bedding for all nine u.s. partners, stronger controls for parsing of the money, and a closer, more professional oversight of the projects in the field. ultimately, our goal is that afghanistan can monitor and manage programs themselves. to that end, we are engaging in financial management training with partners at all levels, inside and outside of government and also supporting efforts to promote an effective civil service. in the long term this will improve accountability and reduce the opportunities for
12:51 pm
corruption. as part of our goal, we are working to concentrate more assistance directly to the afghan government, while at the same time tailoring oversight to make sure we have a high degree of accountability. we do not work with the government of afghanistan as a whole. if we work with specific ministries, and only engage after careful assessments have determined they have the assistance necessary to manage our resources. the primary method is the disbursement of funds on a reimbursable basis for costs incurred. the ministry does the work, we then did the work has been done, and then we provide the funds. finally, there are multiple independent oversight bodies that review our work, including the gao and usaid inspector general. these organizations have done 70 audits of our work since october, 2010, and some of these i would note were initiated at
12:52 pm
our request. in fact, the ushered assistance for afghanistan project was a response to an audit that we requested. we welcome their oversight and we have a good working relationship with all of those bodies and we welcome their in sight. we recognize the sacrifices in blood and treasure made by americans and afghans alike. we are under no allusions about the challenges we face, but we think they call for exercising more care and diligence and how we operate rather than walking away from the vital interest this supports. our mission of beating al qaeda in denying it a safe haven or place to rebuild is critical, and usaid programs are an important contribution to the deal, helping to build a sustainable afghanistan that will not require huge amounts of foreign assistance. i am happy take your questions or address questions raised by g.o. at your convenience.
12:53 pm
biggio at your convenience. -- gao at your convenience. >> thank you very much. i would say that contradictory set of images, but it was not -- i would not say it was contradictory, but not necessarily consistent. not necessarily consistent between the first and second panel. let me get into a few details. i appreciate how difficult your job is. let me just note that. i'm very pleased that someone of your caliber has taken on such a heavy irresponsibility and a difficult test. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i understand that. could we take a look, first of all -- let me ask you the
12:54 pm
question how much money -- 2002, to the present, how much money have we spend in american aid to a afghanistan, non-military aid? >> i had the advantage of having my staff look this up after u.s., and $57 million -- $15.7 billion. >> say that again? >> $15.7 billion. >> for clarity, that does not include all assistance, but it would not approach anything like the amount usaid has en given. >> ok. when you have money that is coming in, you are saying that you actually have tried to give this directly to people within the afghan government through you have determined have
12:55 pm
specific responsibilities for trying to achieve these specific goals. has the money -- has a our tax dollars, or the treasury money coming into this, would that have gone to the kabul bank? >> no, mr. chairman. with respect to kabul bank concerns, no u.s. dollars were associated. we did not even use your -- the electronic fund transfer system of the bank. we had just not been doing business with kabul bank. >> but we did have one of our great programs there to make sure their books were supposedly being kept right, but they were being paid by whom? >> bearing point had a contract as a part of an improvement
12:56 pm
program. >> with the contract come from? >> that was a usaid program. it was about a 95 million-dollar program over several years. this piece was about 8%, so about $7 million, roughly that was not used at kabul bank, but the afghan central bank, the institution charged with preventing things like a bull bank from happening. >> right. >> one of the issues in my opinion is the institutions in afghanistan are not yet mature enough to have prevented or to prevent adequately the times of afghan-on-afghan crime that this represents. the economic improvement program was supposed to help build ability to supervise these banks. >> so, you did not have anything directly involved, but you did
12:57 pm
provide a grant to lloyd to do its job, which was partially to oversee banks in afghanistan, and kabul bank what happened to be the biggest one? >> not precisely. i do not mean to quibble. it was a contract. they were not responsible for oversight. they would not have been able to because they did not have the language skills, for example, to review the documents. their job was to serve as mentors to the central bank examiners, working for the government of afghanistan, and the central bank examiners would of been the one that go out and do the investigations and inquiries at the private banks. so, it was not their responsibility. in fairness to our own inspector general, usaid asked for an investigation after the couple bank fiasco, and our inspector general disagreed with us.
12:58 pm
we said their responsibilities would not of given them insight into this afghan-on-afghan crime, and our inspector general thought differently, and they said in their report that we believe if they were doing what you told them to do they were missing precursors or indication of fraud and they should have reported that to the u.s. government. we took that on board, and we terminated the program because despite the fact they were not directly responsible, the program lost tremendous credibility because of the press associated with it. >> did you suggest it was more the $825 million? >> the bank fiasco, there is no question. they were caught up. >> were they serving as an ngo, or just a contractor? >> in this case, there were a contractor, to the best of my knowledge. i do not think they worked as an ngo. >> are right. it was this -- profit-making
12:59 pm
contractor. >> -- all right. his it was a profit-making contract. >> in this case, they were and are. >> in your testimony, you are talking with pride about how you have tried to go directly through the afghan government when possible to achieve the social goals and the development goals that you have set out for yourself. now, in the afghan government, there are people that have committed crimes. they have been shown to have been involved -- there were the fellows that let go of the taliban prisoners, etc. do you have a list, a blacklist
1:00 pm
of people you will not give our money to? >> we do, congressman. with respect to direct assistance, we do not give money to direct a individuals. we work with ministries, and we do not work with ministries money to ministries. if there are shortcomings, we provide technical assistance. there is no check written to an individual. >> the wrong guy that runs the church for the ministry is the same guy that was fingered for stealing money from some other organization. >> there are a couple of interagency task forces among all the donors. we certainly share information
1:01 pm
among the interagency is -- interagencies. we would have identified through this task force or the collaboration most likely that this person was of questionable repute. and there would have been some mitigation to make sure that he did not have access to these funds. to the best of my knowledge, there is no situation where one individual in in the ministry we worked with as signatory authority for funds. it doesn't work that way. they do the work. they say they have done the work and certified. we validate that the work is done and then we reimbursed the receipts for that work. these are lessons that we have learned the hard way. this is not the first corrupt place that we have had to work. >> i understand that. i will ask a little bit about
1:02 pm
ngo posh. there was a senior auditor procedure, james pearson who wrote a column for politico yesterday who suggested that the ngo's were taking too much money off the top of various programs to do this or that. they end up having enormous overhead costs. he suggested in this article that the struggle to keep ngo overhead costs below 70%. is that right? there early providing 30% to achieve the goal? >> i can reassure mr. peterson
1:03 pm
that we are successful at keeping overhead below 70%. i don't know where he got that number. i cannot speak for all ngo's i know the ones that have worked for and with for the last 10 years. they don't have anything better perches even 13%, certainly not 70%. i saw the article when it came out back in january or february and found it not be particularly credible. >> so you would suggested using ngo's is an alternative or one of the alternatives that would be a very viable alternative
1:04 pm
[no audio] >> this is part of what makes my job so interesting, to be honest, congressman. there are things that ngo's are better able to do and they are valuable partners all over the world. i constantly remind myself and our staff that our job is to work the international community out of a job, out of business. using international ngo's is somewhat effective of that, but it is more effective if we can find afghan partners with whom we can build capacity from the ground up. >> are you satisfied with the
1:05 pm
level of the competency and the level of corruption or lack of corruption that you found? >> if we're not satisfied, we don't use them, congressman. competency we can train been corruption, we cannot tolerate. if we meet with an organization that needs capacity to be able to do whatever we have asked them to do, the minister of public health is a great example. the ministry itself admitted some work. we created some technical assistance system to do this. the ministry and usaid work together to execute the programs. we could have done it with an international ngo, but that would not have done the same capacity-building value. >> my personal -- my personal observation of years is that the ngo comes in and a lot of them have drivers. they have to have very secure locations and sometimes the
1:06 pm
luxurious location to nest, depending on what country there are in good it seems that there are a lot of ngo's going out and it has not necessarily been what i -- although i am sure there are a lot of ngo's that do that -- there are a lot of ngo's that. >> the range from everything from small supported by one congregation in north and georgia to very large multi- national ngo's. is a true that karzai's brother profited from the failure of the bank? >> all i know about karzai's brother is what i have read in the press. >> you heard stories about any
1:07 pm
other members of the cars of a family. it is incredible to you that they might have been involved in drugs in some way? >> i have to stop that the credible to me part. i know that you know from your timing country that it is a country that has an oral tradition as opposed to a written tradition. their stories about everything and everyone in afghanistan. certainly, the stories were rampant. to be clear though, at no time during my duty experience there with high staff, with this department, or with usaid have never seen a credible story that is documented that we can take action on a point i'm confident, knowing the people that i've -- >> a caveat, that we can take action on leaves the door open. you're providing grants, are you
1:08 pm
not, to the various government officials and agencies in the afghan government that would be responsible for trying to ferret out that type of corruption. >> the most militant organization that i can think of that we support is the office of high oversight, which is their equivalent perhaps of an inspector general at the national level. so, yes, we do support the government of afghanistan itself to police its own. >> you haven't heard of anything coming from -- about the far side -- about the car the family being on their black list? >> no. >> or perhaps you have heard something that is probably not true. >> i don't know exactly how to enter that, congressman. the u.s. aid its's businesses with the government of
1:09 pm
afghanistan. with respect to particular families, be it karzai's or another, i could go back, if you wish, and find out what we have on our books. but i don't know the answers off the top of my head. >> he did give you a medal. >> he did. and i'm quite proud of it. >> i would be proud of a medal from afghanistan and he was representing afghanistan at the time. we're very grateful for the service your providing. part of that is being cross- examined by members of congress let me ask about this new agreement we signed with the afghan government. first of all, this has titus and relationship with an afghan
1:10 pm
government that i personally would question, whether we should be tied into to not, but does this agreement to your understanding titus into a relationship with the afghan government were 50% of all of our assistance will have to go through the afghan government rather than being given to contractors and ngo's? >> the agreement does call for 50% on budget contribution. we will not do that until we can assure ourselves that contribution will be properly managed. it has been set for us as a goal just as we have set goals for the people of afghanistan. >> we have tried to achieve that goal. >> that is correct. >> we have not agreed to do it. we have agreed to try to do. >> that is correct.
1:11 pm
>> that is a very interesting interpretation of the agreement. i will try to make sure that the wording is that way. i would like to suggest that we have been in afghanistan for close to 10 years. you're right when you talk about commander masood and some of the great leaders that they have. they have lost a million people in the last 20 years. many of whom would be providing the leadership, the honest and committed leadership, that afghanistan society needs. unfortunately, they are gone and we have to do our best without them. let me ask a little bit -- i have one or two more questions about aid and you do not have a specific list of people who
1:12 pm
work for the government who are on your blacklist, who you will not deal with. >> usaid, aside from our suspension and debarment, which is a corpus, does not have a black list of individuals. before we will work with a particular ministry, part of the assessment we will do, the preparatory assessment, would be working with this money and who will be the signatory. i have received information that suggests that a large portion of the aid we have spent in afghanistan in the sting years has gone to the southern tier of afghanistan, which is basically the posh june -- the pashtun territory. if that is true, why are we putting the lion's share of our
1:13 pm
aid their rather than with those who helped us defeat the caliban in the northern part of the country? >> that is not an uncommon question. the demographic distribution is somewhat skewed by the fact that cobble -- that kabul is itself in the northern part of afghanistan. the south and even the southwest have been identified as particular recipients of assistance, primarily in support of the military or the comprehensive approach to countering the insurgency there. in meetings with the governor of bamian, which has not seen much of the war lately, they lamented the fact that they are peaceful, law-abiding, have a woman governor, have led an admirable and administration, but they deny it the level of resources that they think they should get.
1:14 pm
we are constantly -- we did a poor follow review in the last six months. and part of the realignment is focusing on where do the resources need to go. we avoid political distribution. the resources are a determined by the u.s. government and then by the priorities of the government of afghanistan. >> your list of claims on which we can be proud of -- and let me suggest that, shortly after the liberation, when i went into afghanistan -- before the liberation and back to the irruption times, -- right after the liberation, drew from kabul and moser sharif. halfway through, there was a school tend said appeared to have to read it to you that one of the most inspiring sights i have never seen were those kids
1:15 pm
in that school where you have low girls and boys, both, and they had just come from society where educating negro would have meant that they would cut the head of the teacher -- educating a girl would have meant that they would cut the head of the teacher. that was very inspiring, helping schools and health care. unless somebody is the offering the money, like a suggestion. >> congressmenan, i am inspiredy the young people who look up to those men and their peers and aspire to fill their shoes. one of the things that excites me, young afghan men and women
1:16 pm
will not be led blindly into bad ideas, of 80 governance ideas are some other maligned doctrine. -- be they governance ideas or some other maligned doctrine. they will be better citizens, a better business people -- >> and these schools, are they in the southern part of the country as well? is this something you're focusing on next as we know, the southern part of the country, pashtun's are a dominating force. much of the taliban female aspects, the pashtun agree with them. >> it varies community by community. as you probably recall, they have a very tribal and clan- structured society, especially
1:17 pm
in the south. if the leadership of that community has had exposure, if one of their nieces or daughters or woman in a family has been educated and they can see that this contributes to the well- being of the family, then the patriarchs are able to help push that message out. but the other thing that makes this irreversible is the number of young women who have been educated and who will not be put back into the dark ages. in the radio programs, there were 15,000 independent british stations across the country that are quietly and slowly spreading it -- independent radio stations across the country there quietly and slowly spreading the message. there has been some brutal resistance, but i think that is on the wane in general. >> you mentioned kandahar and that has been a priority area. but it is also a priority area that has been dominated by the karzai family. what has been your experience
1:18 pm
with the karzai family in canada are -- in kandahar? >> i have no experience with the karzai family in kandahar. i would be will to say that the karzai tribe was a prominent tribe, but not the only dominant tribe in a part of the country. during my time there, that would have been 2004-2006, their plan or their truck was competing with others for resources and for dominance. i was not in kandahar and daytime -- in kandahar at a time that the cars the family ran the city. >> is there something that grows up in the countryside? >> you're probably speaking of opium. >> i and stan that. but kandahar is in that part of the country --
1:19 pm
>> in the south, if there's not livelihood's and value chains and access to market, opm will certainly be wrong. >> and know that you have got -- opium will certainly be grown. >> and i know that you have got a list of enterprises that we're trying to promote as an alternative to the opium trade. if you could send that to me in writing, that would be deeply appreciative. >> we would be happy to do that. >> you have anything that you would like to add? >> just one thing i would like to address with the -- with respect to the gao. i speak sincerely when i say that we appreciate your site the provide. i don't take a great umbrage when the gao finds mistakes.
1:20 pm
i take can pay particular attention to recommendations that we have not closed. so the diego finding a problem -- so the gao finding a problem is not great news to us, but it is not hard. we will argue with them vociferously about points of art and about the state of how we do this. but at the end of the day, their job is to point out weaknesses and our job is to address the weaknesses. so i think hearings like this are very useful and i think that the gao and the two aig's provide valuable resources. we had to 48 recommendations during the time we have been in afghanistan.
1:21 pm
they said we needed to do x, but for reasons why, we can do that yet. the only point i would make is that i view this as not antagonistic or adversarial but as parts of a whole and making sure that we are responsible with taxpayer resources. >> you have been in and that afghanistan for quite a few years. and you know about our struggle to develop the country. is the government structure that we helped put in place, that we pressured people to adopt, is that so centralized that, number one, he encourages corruption? we have now presidential system in which the president of the central government appoints all
1:22 pm
of the provincial governors and then the governor's appoint the other official's down under them. basically, we have set up a system where the president of the united states would be controlling all the durrance down to the local city hall. do you think that system lends itself to corruption? >> that is a great question. during the constitutional jurga, the international community debated constantly. but what we felt that on to in the end was that it was not our decision to make. there's no question that the international committee includes the afghan in the shape and form of their government. answering from a developmental academic perspective, i don't think that a centralized the current fosters corruption more than a decentralized government would. what prevents corruption is
1:23 pm
robust institutions. if the afghans had the capacity and -- capacity in the provinces and distress for robust institutions, there would be more room for decentralization. it is my personal experience, not the agencies, that come in afghanistan, that capacity is not their universal yet. it is growing. the schools are growing faster and has the provincial centers are able to restore -- to a door of capacity, they should. if you're asking me whether the afghan constitution, having the president appoints and the governors appoint the system, the only comparison that i can make is that it took us 12 years to go from the articles of confederation to a constitution that was the best in the world. even then, our constitution took 114 years as of yesterday to give women the right to vote. i think it is important that we hold the afghans accountable to a high standard, but it has to
1:24 pm
be achievable standard. and you know better than i have because you have grown that country with less constrained, their culture is incredibly entrenched and it will not be something that we can change in a decade, which is one of the reasons why i have been so encouraged to hear discussion about a longer-term investment. certainly at the missed levels, but the united states will stay the course in afghanistan so we don't make mistakes that we made after the last time we were working in a part of the world. >> the opposition to the current government from the northern sector of the country -- by the way, people have claimed that i believe in some sort of segmentation of the country and dividing the country, which i do not, just for the record. i believe that we have to have a system that does, in some way to
1:25 pm
address the basic culture, which is decision-making has to be made at the travel and village level as much as possible. but in terms of cutting the whole country apart, i rather believe that afghanistan -- what i believe is irrelevant, but the people may want this and they should be given the choice of deciding. the northern part of a country would rather have a parliamentary system to make sure that you do not have all the power in one man. and if you do have the president or prime minister of the country, at least that person has to rely on a coalition and said of everything from the top down. any thoughts on that? >> i think your recognition of local decision making is just as
1:26 pm
relevant today as when you were there. one of the lessons we have learned in our 10 years there is focusing on rule of law issues. rule of law to was means judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, it means corporate spirit rule of law means -- it means courts. there, rule of law means sitting down with village elders. that is a lot less expensive than courts. it is sensitive and recognizes the leadership that they have in their own communities. just an anecdote about the listed in the differences on how we see the world and how they see the world, after the jurga, i sat with the elders and started to presage a that the elections are coming. i have done all of these things, this is my grandson.
1:27 pm
why should his vote count the same as mine? i was a recent graduate from an excellent university in the united states and i didn't have an answer to that. what i have come to realize is that that can systems are not worse than ours in some cases. they're just different. and we need to identify their strengths and their weaknesses and make sure that we protect our equity, be it taxpayer dollars were people, and then let afghans get on with doing business in a way that is transparent and accountable. >> the only time i have been able to discern from the history is when they had decades-long of relative stability happen under the leadership of one of their beloved figures of afghan history. the reason why he was beloved and able to be leader of the country is that he left people to govern themselves at the local level and let the village
1:28 pm
and tribal leaders have their meetings and make their decisions. he did not try to govern the country by having a centralized army forcing everybody to do what his appointee in that area was insisting. that is how we succeeded in afghanistan having decades of relative stability after the communist efforts to unseat him and he was in exile in rome. i believe the greatest mistake we ever made was not bringing him back and pressuring him to bring karzai into a position of being able to be in power. right now, my analysis of what the structure looks like is i find difficult to tell the difference between the structure that we have set up, a
1:29 pm
centralized structure where one person is making the appointments and they are trying to build a strong army in the center and having foreign troops there to give added strength to the central government. i do not see it any different from when the soviets were injured when i first went into afghanistan 25 years ago -- soviets were in, when i first went into a afghanistan 25 years ago. they did not succeed and we will not succeed if that is what it is all about. i've understand you're doing your best to help the country's success -- to succeed there. i know you're doing your very best. i know our military people are doing our very best i don't think we have given the ground rules in a way that will permit them to succeed.
1:30 pm
the american people cannot go on like this. we may have signed a contract to be with them for another 10 years. the american people do not want to be in afghanistan another 10 years. we don't want to be providing for military visors there. we do not want to be providing foreign aid in there. we want those people to govern themselves, worked with the systems that work with bill culture, not try to superimpose things, and leave with a smile and say we are your friends, but we are not your keepers. thank you again for what you're doing. i agree, i am very happy that you started your comments. thank you to the men and women in the military who have sacrificed so much. you have sacrificed very much, too. i will give you the last word. >> thank you.
1:31 pm
>> i want to appreciate -- larry, i appreciate you being here. i appreciate the first witnesses. i think we had a really honest dialogue and discussion today. i think we will find some gems. with that said, i hold this hearing adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
1:32 pm
>> coming up, two panels from the armed association 2012 meeting. for, reviewing the u.s.-russia nuclear stockpile. later, author david limbaugh starting monday, former prime minister gordon brown and draws born. the hearing is investigating the relationship between government leaders and the british press. >> on wednesday, jimmy diamond -- jamie dimon will testify.
1:33 pm
>> just talking about reform does not solve anything. on either the expenditure side or the revenue side. you have to be specific about it .ppeare >> insight into the american and global economies from warm buffett tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> a former white house negotiator for the new start treaty says he is pessimistic about the next round of nuclear reduction talks between the u.s. and russia. speaking earlier this week, john will stall also rejected reports that budgetary concerns drove the obama administration plans for maintaining the u.s. nuclear arsenal. this is a little over an hour.
1:34 pm
>> good morning, everyone. if you confine your seats, please, we are about to get started. i want to welcome everyone to our 2012 annual meeting. i also want to thank and welcome those of you watching online and on c-span. before we get started, i want to remind everybody to turn off your similar devices so we are not interrupted. as the arms control association enters its fifth decade, we remain providing information and ideas to face the challenges.
1:35 pm
as mma -- has are many members here today know that arms control today -- our staff turnover on their regular basis offered opinion pieces and report on a range of topics on all available. our ability to do this depends on our individual members. if you are not a member or a subscriber, i would encourage you to doing so. but today's events on meeting the next challenges is one of the many events that we host each year on arms control issues. we have a very distinguished set
1:36 pm
of speakers from all around the world. our panel this morning will address two the most pressing arms control challenges that we face today. first, advancing -- to reduce the role of the number of the world's global stockpiles of nuclear weapons and second and more urgently to my dancing effective diplomatic solutions to prevent the spread of weapons to states like iran. we are honored to have the former secretary of state -- es
1:37 pm
to our first panel today, which will focus on the next phase of u.s.-russian nuclear reduction, we are added very important juncture in this issue. you will recall that back in 2009 president obama pledge to "put an end to outdated cold war thinking by reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our nuclear strategy -- in our national security strategy." in 2010, the administration completed a congressional mandated posture review that
1:38 pm
determined the fundamental role is to deter nuclear attacks against the u.s. and our allies. the president directed a study on how to implement that strategy. that study is due to be completed very soon. back in march, in south korea, president obama said "that study is still underway. but even as we have more to do, we can only say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need." we will have far-reaching implications for u.s. nuclear policy. and how we can reduce the enormous cost of the u.s. missile arsenal, which according to a new center study published in this month's issue of "arms control today," it is at least $31 billion a year.
1:39 pm
we have with this dirk jamison. he will give us his thoughts on these issues that i have just introduced. he is now deputy director at the chief martin center for corp. studies beenjon will give us -- cities. -- corporation studies. jon will give us his
1:40 pm
perspective. hart.so have trina flock par after each of their opening remarks, we will take your questions and we will have a discussion. welcome general jameson to the meeting. >> thank you very much, it is a pleasure to be here. note from the smattering of gray hair and talk of some unions that most of you have lived through a good portion of the cold war. and some of you probably are saying what was the cold war? it is also very reassuring to me to know that among all of you,
1:41 pm
i'm probably the least expert on the things they go on inside the beltway. i call myself an operator. by some strange occurrence of events, i ended up going through the cold war in positions that gave me a unique window onto the operational side of things in that sense, the urgency of finding a new way in this 21st century. i know it does not lost on many of us here that, in spite of what i saw on occasion up close and personal, close calls during the cold war, we are here this morning and we have somehow escaped, as a human race, a nuclear exchange. and there were close calls.
1:42 pm
something that needs to be kept in mind is that these things, these issues are an ongoing struggle to control the dangers of nuclear weapons. as a young lieutenant sending a nuclear alert, i stared at 10 green lights. each flight represented an enormous amount of destruction. and practiced hundreds of hundreds of times the execution and release of those nuclear weapons. we did that all the time. and my neighbors were flying nuclear airborne alert in b-52's on occasion. that was not a constant thing in those days, but it was frequent.
1:43 pm
and the nuclear subs were at sea. we had an enormous destructive capability. i think so as not unique among those men -- in those days, they were men. now, that is a generic term. but those people who were controlling those coming contemplating -- controlling those, in contemplating as we inventoried the execution plans, the consequences of actually executing, i thought about that many, many times. of course, it was heightened by movies such as "seven days in may" and "dr. strange love." everyone of you live through every bit of that. the truth is that we are extremely fortunate. later, as a commander in the
1:44 pm
1980's, my units were receiving new platforms that were capable of carrying more nuclear weapons at such a rapid rate that we often thought of it in terms of castro. you had to have one searching, -- one going and one covering up. it was really an accelerated time. the dialogue of deterrence in those days was that there was no escape for the enemy. if we go to war, they will suffer. and people did talk about winning a nuclear war in spite of the fact that the consequences would be so extreme as to make winning kind of a ludacris term. -- a ludicrous term.
1:45 pm
if the president said go under the extremely tight constraints that a president would have to make a decision like that, they would carry of the orders. there is no doubt in my mind. but the enemy of those days is gone. it no longer exists. this is a new time. the soviet union, with its massive capabilities, no longer resist. the deterrence calculus that has been with us may be as long as one alyssum or some of the art periods that were extant in those days belong reply or shouldn't. it should be rethought. we don't have that massive
1:46 pm
offensive capability in the soviet union and an ideology which was to dominate and to dominate us. people argue that that exists and that is wrong. we need to convince them that it is not the same. 21st century deterrents in my mind has much to do with our conventional capabilities, with emerging technologies, and a russia that is bound with us in a carefully negotiated treaty to reduce these weapons. i remember when we were confirmed -- concern with new start ratification. by growing concern and that of many of my fellow retired -- my grandson's as retarded -- general officers, flight officers was that the time that
1:47 pm
we no longer had a very capable inspectors on the ground in russia was extended, that the ability to gather data was being extended to the point where it didn't make sense. this process of arms control that i give such credit to people with back through, when we were doing things that seemed to make sense under that theory of deterrence, had the courage to say, wait a minute. making the or bounces no exaggeration. -- making the rubber bounce is no exaggeration. we need to review the plan and review individual targets and see what we were doing with the production of our development capabilities.
1:48 pm
it is a new time, but the u.s. and russia do have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. with my experience with the russians and i have a considerable amount is that we and they understand how much the utility, the operational utility of nuclear weapons has been overstated. and need to somehow preserve this arms control process. the groundwork that has been done in verification and data exchange that i am sure the secretary governor will talk about today. again, it is our good fortune that we made it to june 2012, in my mind. the revised calculus of deterrence that i talk about needs to be fleshed out. it is not really, i don't
1:49 pm
think, a civilian audience in business, but there is very much dialogue with the american people and our elected officials. i hope that it can be non- partisan. i am still hopeful that the political process will allow this preservation of long- developed arms control approach to continue. and that clearly, a new deterrent calculus will allow us and the russians to posture -- to secure and posture our nuclear weapons with further reductions and less danger. i am confident we can do that. i would say that, as we update
1:50 pm
our thinking, i don't at all go away from what ronald reagan said about trust but verify. i think we continue to put big emphasis on verify as we expand not only the discussion of our nuclear enterprise, but the other issues that others on the panel discuss, including, hope, all of the nuclear holders in the world and the issue of proliferation. thank you very much. >> thank you, general. we will now turn to jon wolfs thal. >> thank you. i got my start at the arms
1:51 pm
control association could i attended the meeting as a young member in 1990. i spent the last three years in the white house as the vice president's -- in the white house working on the vice president's issues on nuclear proliferation. the minutia can overwhelm you, but you have to understand it before tackling the larger questions of deterrence couples and stability and not worry about single-shot kill probability an exchange ratios, but thinking of the different services and constituents before you pick a number where you feel
1:52 pm
you should come out. i would like people to take away that the administration has been very careful to take the device that many of us have been given years ago. don't tell the operators have to operate. you don't need for submarines at sea. we need to work through with a tremendously open process. think through the big questions that were laid out in the president's strategy document, the nuclear posture, the prague speech, where do we want to go? what are the threats that we're trying to address globally? then figure out where the questions that nuclear weapons are necessary for, hoping to move on to the of the questions out of the nuclear arena. the president has said many times that he believes it is very much in the security interest to reduce their
1:53 pm
reliance on nuclear weapons and to reduce the role that nuclear- weapons, as we pursue a much more expanded and less aggressive nuclear policy, one that has more of a bearing on our security position than some of the outdated cold war mentality of nuclear parity with russia or any of the country. i'm sure many of you are very sad deep in the documents in the npr. i would be a very steep -- very steep in the documents in the npr. which countries need to be on the targeting list and which can be dropped off of the targeting list. those questions are the ones that really got to us. throughout this process -- and
1:54 pm
the vice president was very much involved in this -- is to understand is that, regardless of which no. you come out that and you have determined with the numbers might be, if it is one or 1,000,001, you still need a nuclear complex that is capable of supporting the meanness of that capability. you still need a bunch of scientists and engineers to take apart and see how it works. you still need to be able to dismantle the thousands of nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the cold war. that is something i will talk about, needing to get some general agreement that, whether you believe we need more or less nuclear weapons, there's a certain amount of investment needed for the nuclear complex. and i do not mean every bell and whistle. having gone through this in detail, everybody that has gone
1:55 pm
through this process understands that there is the perfect, the necessary, and a budget cutting that will go on at the top. but you still need some level of investment to maintain some type of nuclear activity. for many of the people in this room that are concerned about this issue, many have called me over the years to make sure you have done this and have you thought about that. you should take heart in the sense that we were wrestling with the same questions that you all talk about and that we all talk about on a regular basis. one of the threats that we face that absolutely require some sort of nuclear capability to address is how many nuclear weapons there really necessary to deter enemies and reassure france and what to the terms mean in the 21st century. how does that compare to 20 or 30 years ago? the guidance that this is still reflective of the deterrence policy in the late parts of the
1:56 pm
cold war. many have written about the different categories and i will let it into that. but it is clear that a lot has changed and we need to change your thinking in our deterrence cal) how can we reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons and with it not only ensures security, but advances it. for those who watched, the new start was about a lot of things. it was about getting to the bull is back on the ground in russia and providing insight into what is going on. was also about three harnessing and refocusing international attention on iran and not allowing the gap in u.s.-russian arms control to be a distraction from what everybody recognizes is the next set of security challenges. we also dealt very steadily with the question of how we deal with the aging nuclear triad. what do we need for strategic
1:57 pm
military vehicles and how much will it cost us? numbers ofet weaponry would be useful or how much money we had available drive the system. but we were aware the level of what it would cost to run these things in a budget-constrained environment. i know people have read a lot of the reporting that says the president has been after the pentagon for numbers that are at very low numbers. that is not true because i have been -- because i worked on writing that part of the guidance. in terms of what will come out, i am not sure how it will be ruled out. in terms of how this will impact
1:58 pm
the future of arms control negotiations, i argued against a rollout that included a number because i do favor a new set of negotiated reductions with russia. if you come out with a number, you basically are giving up your negotiating position. i argue strongly that we should talk about with the free markets, with the strategy is. how we are reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons. i will tell you plainly that i am a pessimist when it comes to what will come in the future with negotiate reductions. the thinking in russia is not the same as in the united states. senator kyl and i agree on this issue. i do not want to give the russians a veto on what we do with our strategic capabilities. knowing that we can go lower, that we do not need to be
1:59 pm
spending money in the nuclear complex, many that we need to be spending in other areas, i do not want to delay that area in going to lower numbers. it is clear that, like the cold war when it was the soviet union with capable threat, today, the threat is the weapons themselves. very few people reasonably believe that we will have a nuclear conflict because of some sort of deliberate decision to disarm the u.s. from its nuclear arms. there is a symmetry and stability. today, people recognize that, if there is a nuclear exchange, it is because of access. i do not wan

184 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on