had to close the business. >> i have not had a job for two years. >> it's difficult to find employment. >> when your ago, was laid off from a judge. >> i have to work part-time and order to make ends meet them sometimes i feel like i am a failure. >> good evening, this is the worst economic recovery america has ever had. >> those ads taking my words about small business out of context are flat out wrong. course americans build their own business. they sacrifice agreed apparel and create jobs and make our economy right. i said we need to stand behind them as america always has by investing in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology. i am barack obama and i approved

this message because i believe we are all in this together. host: barack obama.com has a ticker counting down the congress voted on his job back. -- jobs act. >> it presents bill's call the american jobs act and it has not been taken up on the house and weeks -- we don't expected to before this recess or the end of the year. it is kind of dead in congress. that gives democrats an opportunity to say the republicans are obstructing and unemployment is high and we have a chance to do something about it. host: that caller called about mitt romney's record. when you look at the two campaigns, what you see as the

difference with job creation? >> an observation i would make is that i've lived in washington 11 years now which is not necessarily a good thing. i am not sure that being the president is particularly similar to running a private corporation. both sides have tried to make this a big area of discussion. i am just not sure that even if you had the most successful ceo who had created 3 million jobs for his company, i don't think it would be the case that if you put him in washington, he would be able to jump-start a macro economy. i think those are different sets of issues. it would be more fruitful if people were able to spend a little bit more time focusing on the specific policies that the two different candidates would then act and whether or not they support those policies.

the issue of competence is important but once it is established at a reasonable level, you should not be focusing too much and whether or not a company created jobs in the 1990's. it is a different business environment running a private equity firm. there are policies now that they are proposing to do as president which are important. host: the next call is an independent from florida, good morning. caller: thank you for cspan. i am about 60 years old and i have read all my life about this stuff. i recall -- you mentioned we lost 8 million jobs out of 20 million or the last 15 years. in manufacturing. we can't account for a lot of the others. i recall reading that the american economy was supposed

to go into a third stage beyond manufacturing about 20 years ago. we were preparing to be the service economy. the service sector was going to take over and we would outsourced and this was a natural progression of the worldwide economy. now i see that the so-called fire sector -- -- is theestion is this federal reserve in charge of so much, such a massive amount of money in the whirlpool of money that they can actually be like a poker player at a table who is backed by millions of the other guy might have a better hand but he can love them out because they can't outbid. are we trying to take over with our trillion dollar amount of derivatives? is this a case?

guest: there's a saying on wall street -- don't fight to the fed because they have the ability to print an unlimited amount of money to produce the effect it wants in financial markets. in that sense, the fed is the poker player who never runs out of chips. not sure how to respond to the second question. derivatives are important but i would not get caught up on the supposed size that there are trillions of them. a lot of them offset each other. the real risk they pose to the economy is real and there but is more money. it is a number that is so large it does not make any sense so you should not focus on derivatives. the derivatives that are out

there they don't necessarily impart some sort of corporate control of ordinary activity. host: this is from twitter -- guest: that's a good point. i think there are disagreements with certain elements of the plan. for example, one big part would be to give money to help cops and firefighters and teachers to regain -- keep them employed. a lot of jobs lost in recent months have been the public sector but republicans don't necessarily want to strengthen many of those jobs. there is a lot of spending on

infrastructure and other things and republicans don't want that. they want to cut spending. they also don't believe it will help the economies of their fundamental disagreements. host: arizona is next, good morning. are you there? caller: this is a question to the people. do we want supply side economics and of the trickle down effect? it has not been working well. i think we want demand-side economics. that with the middle class gets the tax cuts and a 2% don't get these $1 trillion tax cuts. this is a republican plan. they want to give all the money to the rich. when mitt romney gets in there, that will be the end of this country. he will give everything to the rich.

the 99% will suffer. the republicans filibuster everything the democrats try to put through in the last 3.5 years. the jobs bills, outsourcing bills, buy american bills, everything filibustered. don't limit on harry reid. that is what i have to say, thank you. host: we have about eight minutes left. another phenomenon that should put stress on the economy is the drought in the midwest. the corn crops, the beef, the prices are expected to go up because they don't have anything to eat. the farm bill is in front of congress. this looks like this will also

not be attended to before the expiration date. guest: we saw some real bipartisan effort in the senate on the farm bill. pat roberts and debbie stabenow worked together. their work with senate leaders and they got a farm bill passed. there was some hope initially that the house will also act on the farm bill. the house of agriculture committee has its own version. speaker john boehner has signalled it does not intend to bring that up. there are talks in congress know about dealing with the drug issue separately. it is unclear how the lawmakers will resolve that. it is in doubt if it will happen before the august recess. >> they might be thinking of a separate package? guest: i think that's what they are thinking. debbie stabenow in the senate has said that the way to help these farmers is to pass the farm bill.

there is disagreement there on how best to proceed. host: next to say call from an independent scholar in albany. ♪ caller: i was concerned about our economy. we have differences in our tariffs. that causes us to borrow money. the light borrowing against the store. in host: i heard tariffs in those comments. is there a trade policy and are we playing on a level playing field? maybe you can pick up that

point. >guest: one of the big issues in terms of trade policy is how the u.s. responds and crafts its relationship with china. as of last year, the senate passed a tough bill to clamp down on the chinese currency manipulation. china would not call of manipulation, obviously. the bill was in the house but it is opposed by the obama administration. they don't want to hurt their relationship with china and house republicans have no intention of bringing this up. on the other hand, mitt romney has said he will declare china a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency. it is on clearview will follow through with that because there are real geopolitical consequences to that. that is something we are seeing in the campaign. host: back to the farm bill --

if there were an emergency measure, how would the politics of that play out? guest: this still too early to tell. in recent months, it has been tough to get disaster assistance passed through congress that is not paid for. this goes back to the question of increasing the deficit. when is the right time to increase the deficit? would it be for hurricanes or droughts? what the role of the government in this situation? host: mississippi, a democrat, good morning. caller: i was just calling -- host: you're getting feedback from the tv. caller: mitt romney is saying that he is running for

president and people are saying a lot of stuff on tv but if he really wants to help people, why can't he help them? i heard he has a lot of money. if the has so much money, he could just help people with money. i don't know how true that is that that's what they said. you know the people that need help, help them. host: calling for direct action on the part of what the candidates. we had a couple of minutes left and i will ask you -- what do you want people to take away from this discussion or your knowledge of this town about its approach the economic woes of the country? guest: i think the congress has done a pretty poor job of

resolving these issues. you see that reflected in the incredibly low approval rating of congress. the problem seems to be that although people disapprove of the congress, they still like their congressmen. the ability of these congressmen to get reelected is baffling to me. you see it everywhere. people like they're glad that they don't like the whole congress. people think -- need to type more seriously about whether their particular representatives are helping washington create solutions or are these representatives mucking things up. host: harrison, new york, republican. caller: i am a republican. hello? host: we are listening. caller: i want to talk about

wall street. i don't understand why they don't do anything about the speculation on wall street. the banks by the oil stocks, driving up the price of oil, and they can do whatever they want. it is a big business but they don't have an american consumer, they cannot sell their products. they need an american consumer. due to the speculation on wall street and high oil prices, we don't have any money. when-hit $3 per gallon, in pennsylvania, there were three reproduction places. they were big businesses. when gas hit $3 per gallon, all three of them went out. and the small business or big

business the oil prices have affected the economy. host: let me throw that to you. guest: i would say that the dodd-frank act that was passed in 2010 did have the intent to rein in a lot of speculation. there are people that this should have focused more on restrictions in the commodity market and doing things that speculators from driving up prices and oil to the crop markets, the legislation did not focus as heavily on that. some people but should. the have been pretty significant steps the last two years to reduce speculation on wall street. one thing you see as proof is that the bank executives never stop squawking about how much regulation thereunder. there have been steps taken by

whether or not is sufficient is still open to debate. caller: host: you get the last word. what do people take away from what washington is doing on the economy? guest: this is not necessarily what folks want to hear but i have counseled patience. the federal government's power is limited. we are climbing up a very deep wall. the 2008 financial crisis was devastating. whatever policies congress or the white house or the senate pursue, unemployment will be high for a very long time. growth is not going to be strong for a while. it is unclear what will happen. regardless of who wins, it is not going to be easy to turn the economy around. host: thank you both for being here this friday morning. we have one more segment ahead.

as the 22nd anniversary of the americans with disability act. we will use that for our america by the numbers segments. we will be right back. >> i never asked his son camera but i will do it now -- i need to get the latest thinking. television in the courtroom? >> television in the court that the reason i bring it up is that there are resolutions that were passed. >> why are you so against it? >> i was for it when i first joined the court. and switched and remain on that side of it. i am against it because i do not believe, as the proponents of television in the court a cert, that the purpose of televising our hearings would be to educate

the american people. that is not it what it would end up doing. if i thought would educate the american people, i would be all for it. if the american people sat down and watched our proceedings gavel to gavel they would never again ask why you have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court. the constitution does not say so but if you know what our real business is, if you know we are not usually contemplating our navels should there be a right to abortion or a right to homosexual marriage, that is not usually what we are dealing. we're usually dealing with internal issues and patent laws. there's a lot of stuff that only a lawyer understand and perhaps get interested in. if the american people saw all that, they would be educated but that would not see all of that.

what most of the american people would see is 15-second take out from our proceedings and that would not be characteristic of what we do. we see an article in a newspaper that is out of context of what you say. >> that's fine the people read that and say it is an article in the newspaper and the guy may be lying or misinformed. somehow you seal it -- you see it live. when you see it live as a much greater impact than showing a small clip. "washington journal" continues. host: our america by the number is issued this week deals with american disabilities. let me introduce you to our two

guests. we have a census bureau statistician in the health and disability branch and we have the director of the national disability rights network. this is the 22nd anniversary of the so-called adam, the america as with disability act. >> the americans with disability act is one of the broadest civil-rights actions passed in 1990. it affects just about every aspect of american life in order to bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society. host: why does the census bureau collect numbers on disabled americans? guest: they are involved with various government programs. they contribute a lot to the economy. they are consumers. they are buying products.

they are using the health-care industry. it is important that we follow the size and character risks of this population. your first slide is the definition of a decibel billy which is important. it seems that it would cover a wide range of conditions. guest: the census bureau has several definitions for disability depending on the survey we use. the report put out earlier this week comes from a survey and that uses a comprehensive definition of disability that looks at a number of activities, if they have trouble performing a certain activity or climbing stairs and if they said they did have difficulty, they would ask if they are unable to do that particular activity. from those kind of questions, we can devise -- divine both a

metric as to who has difficulty doing this kind of things and also a severity measure. we defined severe disabilities as those who are unable to do those activities. >> for our viewers, will open up our phone lines. we would like to ask you about the effect of the americans with disabilities act on your lives. if you're a disabled person or employer or if you are a citizen who benefits from things like curb cuts we would like to hear your story positive or negative. we will work that into our discussion. we also want to understand consumers who are investing of this. as a group like yours use these numbers? >> it is important to remind

policy makers of a large number of people in the united states that needs to be an integral part of our society. the whole series of federal parens benefits but also just the routine of daily life. a large number of people are enjoying the fruits of american society. host: our telephone numbers are devised geographically for this segment. we welcome your phone calls and you can also send the tweet. give us the overview. >guest: the report found there are 56.7 million americans in the united states with disabilities in 2010. this accounted for 18.7% of the

civilian non institutionalized population. as a fancy way of saying people in our community. it does not include the population who is in nursing facilities or correctional facilities. those get measured in other cases -- in other surveys the not this one. the 57 million, is an increase of about $2.2 million since the last time we measured this population. while the number increased, we found it tended to remain the same period >> as the population increase? >> yes. >host: the next one is about unemployment. guest: this is what we have seen consistently is that people with disabilities have low unemployment we found about four in 10 individuals with disabilities or they were important.

it was eight and 10. last night on our radio station, i heard senator tom harkin being interviewed who is a big sponsor of this resolution. his great disappointment is there has not been a great uptick in the number of employed. guest: i think the americans with disabilities act has changed the face of our country and we see every day many people with disabilities out there being involved in the community. i have to say that one of the disappointments of the americas sister act -- i think it is still an example of the attitude of feelings in this country said the stigma that people have still carry true with employers who incorrectly think that people with disabilities will be

difficult to perform the job. it will expand the circumstances unnecessary. all those things are not true but they are hard held. host: let's look at these actual numbers -- guest: in 2005, that is the blue bars. we see 54.4 million people in the united states had a disability in 2005. in the current numbers, we see that number decrease. we can also look at people with severe disabilities and in 2005, that increased by 3.3 million to 38.3. >> do you see statistics on the causation of the disability?

guest: we ask about the underlying health conditions for people. although we did not do actual disease surveillance, that is the purview of someone else. the actual individual conditions that go behind it, we're not trying to measurehat specifically but for people to experience difficulties, we will measure the kinds of reasons for why they ended up having that issue. the percentage of the population of people of this bill is remains the same. when you look at the severe disability, that increases from 12% to 12.6%. host: let's take our first call from indiana. caller: yes, i was curious about the papers they said they would be sending out.

when will they resending that out? i have them is on disability so want to make sure they get that. wendy do this statistical survey? guest: this survey was conducted in 2010 in the summer. this gets conducted every few years. we're still finishing up the panel, the actual survey. there's a large component of this survey still going on. we also collect disability data supposed surveys are also in the field and being collected. on a more regular basis. host: how many people tend to get survey did? guest: this survey involved 65,000 households. some of our surveys are larger and some smaller.

there is the current population survey which has about which is used for creating our income and poverty -- poverty numbers and unemployment. host: you are a graduate of georgetown university and currently serves -- pursuing your master's in georgetown. you went to hamilton college? guest: outside of utica, new york. i got involved because of my interest in the legal issues. it is not because of the personal experience. host: 6 next slide tells the older you are, the more likely you are to be disabled? guest: yes, this is just being confirmed with the death. host: walk us through how the

percentages increase. guest: on the left-hand side are a different age groupings. as you go down the chart, you get to older age groupings up to people who are 80 years and older. for the on this population, those under 16, the percentage of population with those children of his 8.4% but as we go to increase the population with disabilities up to 70.5 percent of people who are 80 years or older. they are experiencing the effects of aging? >> many people are living longer with better health procedures. the life span -- the life span of people with disabilities used to be much shorter. i think this is important for policy-makers to realize what

they need to do to prepare for this large population. host: 0 att asked thisweet is obesity part of your numbers? guest: we don't require any specific conditions. we look at if you have difficulty walking or climbing stairs. week that would be considered a disability and it could come from obesity or something like a congenital disease. host: what does it belong say about that? guest: is based on functional definition. the question of whether someone who was morbidly obese would fit that definition depends on how it affects their functioning.

these are people who have weight issues that could fit that definition. we have to protect them against the functions of your activities. host: i spent the little time with this because i wanted to understand what you did to this statistic. what do we learn from this? guest: this is a thing the census bureau has done to look at disability in the context of aging and different age groups. the point of aged justing is done across the health statistics. there are a lot of morceli rates but it is essentially comparing two groups that you want to be able to see what is expected with that issue. -the age effect. one thing we have is in 2005, the population was younger than a was in 2010.

what if the population in 2005 and 2010 had the same distribution? we applied to this formula to the disability number. when the to be a judgment, disability decreases. it gives a different take on the disability situation. host: people who are critical suggest that with broad definitions, more and more people are coming into the fold but the numbers look like they are decreasing? guest: we are all temporarily able-bodied. i think the statistic shows you that you may not need these accommodations are protections today but next week may find that it is good there is an

accessible building or you experience on discrimination. this lets us know that this is an issue that affects us all. host: this is from twitter -- guest: people will find a way to abuse just about any issue. we know that handicapped parking is one of those issues that people could take advantage of. that does not mean it is not necessary and important to the people who needed. there has to be better enforcement. there also have to be better review of that eligibility. that does not mean the issue itself should not have better

access to parking lots and businesses. host: here is another question -- guest: high would say the ada is not a current user but is recovering. we believe that people will experience addiction need to have assistance and help and our hope that they can turn our lives -- their lives around. these people don't just disappear if we don't treat them more work with them. you talk to police and you find that they know very well that putting these people out on the streets only causes other counts of public issues. host: the next slide looks at

disability by race. every time we show numbers that are sliced by race, we get critiques asking why the government does this. guest: understanding where the race and backgrounds of people with disability helps policy- makers target was the best way to deliver services and they can try to improve the programs that are already there. host: why is there a racial disparity in disability? guest: there could be a number of reasons. their health disparities, access to care, there are a variety of issues that come into play. one of the issues is also that there is different age distributions between racial groups. one thing we found in the 2010

census was that the median age for white non-hispanic saw was around 42 years. compare that to less -- has backs and latino or the average age was 27 years. host: caller: with that background, let's look at the percentages but population. hispanics and blacks were almost equal? guest: there was not a significant difference. for asians and hispanics and latinos, those percentages were not radically different from each other but were lower on the first two groups. host: is there a differential and access to services among various demographic groups? guest: we have done our reach to

some of these populations to help them identify that they have a disability and there are certain things available. my guess is that in those cultural groups, there are a variety of reasons that people identify themselves with a disability. sometimes there are cultural and religious reasons why a particular ethnic group is not comfortable having a disability. they begin to feel like it is a stigma in their culture. they are reluctant to speak about this. we have to do average of those populations. there are necessary and useful services they could benefit from. host: york, pennsylvania, you're on the line. caller: thank you gentlemen so much.

i used to work two full-time jobs, i took care of and raised my two children and bought my own house. all of a sudden, at 38 years old because of starvation as a child, my bones fell apart. i had advanced osteoporosis but i did not know that i had it. it left me permanently in mobilized. while i was healthy, i have the attitude of people not using handicapped parking. now i am so grateful that there is handicapped parking and that there are card so i can get back and forth in the grocery. i can't thank you enough. guest: i and she makes the point that even if you are having a good, healthy, secure life,

anything can happen to us as we age or have some catastrophic illness. look at the number of returning veterans coming back. they are still having difficulty adjusting to the concept of a person on disability and are returning to adjust to life in the united states as a person with a disability. it is important to maintain these protections and services as people begin to realize they may need the services. host: we posted these slides on facebook and also a tweeted them out. we have these facebook comments -- do they show up in your number of guest:? i don't have any numbers with me

today but the census bureau does measure that. host: are they in these numbers you have given us? guest: they are not actually in the report but we have that in the community survey evidence showed the percentage of people with different service disabilities in different places around the country. host: when we see that total, veterans would be a different number? guest: they would still be included in the survey but we don't differentiate and look at the specifics. guest: if you add people in nursing homes and in jails and prisons, it would be a much larger number for disability. many people find themselves in the criminal-justice system. host: here is another note on that -- guest: the promise and the

potential of the disabilities act is to make sure that those who can work and be productive are allowed to work so they can become tax paying members. they don't necessarily have to be dependent on services and benefits. as we begin to change the attitudes of the employers and reduce the stigma, i think we will see people with disabilities being a productive member of our society. here's another treat -- this next set of numbers might answer that question. guest: this slide shows a few of the types of disabilities that this survey covers. it goes through some of the activities that the survey asks. the first two and the top left

is difficulty seeing and hearing. this is defined by the searing question and whether or not someone is typically reading letters in newspapers. we look at some of the physical type of disabilities when the go down the list. host: i was surprised that the low number here, pre 0.6 million

using a wheelchair. guest: yes, but there is more individuals using canes and walkers and crutches. host: we see lots of people of realtors out about these days. are you encouraged by digital technology and science to address the to kill the the difficulty seeing and hearing? here is an example from "the washington journal." i heard last night about a store reversing blindness. where is medicine heading? guest: give is a great -- this is a great advance for the disability community, to have the ability to communicate with

their able-bodied peers. the explosion in technology is making great advances for people with its disabilities. with up to make sure they are affordable. many people with disabilities are at the poverty level. there have to be funding and services to make sure the benefit from these wonderful answers. host: from florida, go ahead. caller: my concern is with the abuse of thed ada. anytime you get a good program, there are people that want to take advantage of it to that should not. i have a granddaughter who was born with cerebral palsy. her father is trying to hold onto a job from a 8-5. this yea the cut her aid to be

with her while she is working. he has to come home and take over or pay the extra to ask someone to stay a couple more hours. on the other hand, i'm a person with people who are no more disabled and i am and take advantage of it because it is free money. i'm just so sick and tired of the abuse and fraud in this country. it is not fall upon. the people that rightfully need and deserve this service like this, they are cut back. that is my only comment. i wish someone could do something. guest: i certainly share that frustration. when people take advantage of programs and services that were designed for the general population, this demonstrates that to cut back on the person

the disability services, the responsible falls and family members. they sometimes have to leave their jobs which compounds the cost of services. that is a concern. my work is to see the other side of the coin, the number of people who are discriminated against to face neglect can face a stigma. there will always be those people who abused any program but we have to focus on the people who need the services to live their lives better.

let's go back to the number of children disabilities. guest: we think about disabilities affecting the overpopulation but there are children with disabilities as well. one of the things this report found is that 5.2 million children under the age of 15 had a disability and that was 8.6% of the population of children. some disabilities these children have include things like not being able to do regular schoolwork or difficulty with vision and developmental disabilities. host: we keep hearing about the rising cases of autism. would they be covered under this law? guest: the question on the survey asks if someone has developmental disabilities. todon't specifically families on that. the question of whether they are on the autism spectrum towards a

more functional side and whether or not the question is up for the respondent. host: let's get to employment status by disability. but does this tell us? guest: this chart looks at employment in two different ways. on the left, you see a snapshot of the employment situation for people with disabilities. on the far left is 27.5% of people with severe disabilities were employed at the top of the service. that compared to seven 1.2% with non-severe disabilities. the other aspects of this chart look at the long-term effects. we find that people with severe disabilities are much less likely to be employed for a consistent time. and more likely --time period.

guest: this includes boat people or unemployed and people not in the work force. host: this is important because it does to the trend since ada was passed. guest: the survey that most of his other numbers that come from does not have a long-term trend in it. this is the current population survey. this looks as possibly at a sub population of people with disabilities, those who have difficulty with the kind of work they can do. one thing we see over the last 15 years is that the percentage of people with work disabilities

who are working is going down. the unemployment rate has been moving along with the business cycle. host: the percentage of employed is going down for the disabled group? guest: host:. so that's the not so good news? guest: is a disturbing trend. we have to redouble our efforts to convince employers that there is a resource out there they can use. in the states with low unemployment, the rate of hiring people with disabilities is much higher. employers, when they need workers, will begin to change

their views of the ability of the population and begin to hire them. you've got to build on that experience to make sure that employers understand this is a vital resource that they are not not using well. guest: this slide shows the distribution of states on the topic of a plumber rates for people with disabilities. you can see that the level of employment for this population is not just constant across the united states. we see places in the north central aspect of the country which have a high rate of unemployment. there are areas down the south along the mississippi and alabama and tennessee and kentucky which have much lower rates of employment for different people. host: is that a progressive approach toward hiring? guest: that is something we want

to look at. we can go back and start to parts this out. there is unemployment with disabilities and not surprised in north dakota and neighboring states, people with disabilities are rising with that vote. this has been useful so we can go back to our members and say let's look at why this state seems to be this way. host: american hero twi to -- tweets - guest: this is a current and controversial issue. under the wage and hour statute, we have the ability to pay people less than minimum wage. unfortunately, we have relied on that as an ey way out.

we have over 400,000 people with disabilities in sheltered workshops where they are receiving minimum wage. that is well intentioned. there is the idea to get those folks into the workplace but it has now become a barrier to people. we want people with disabilities like everyone else. >> this next slide may be our last. guest: one of the outcomes from the decrease in employment and the effects on earnings is that people with severe disabilities have much higher poverty rates and individuals would no disability. the chart we see on the left side was 28.6%.

we can look at poverty overtime and see whether individuals with disabilities are remaining in poverty or staying out of poverty. we find that those who remain in poverty for two years or at 10.8% of people with severe disabilities. it was 3.8% to people with no disability. host: why aren't there more programs to give useful skills to people to allow gainful employment within reasonable expectations? guest: there is a variety of programs. there is issues of job training and rotations of are many programs. i would go back to the fact that we have prepared many people with disabilities to be very

good act of employers. we have not been able to break through the feeling of discrimination and stigma. host: our last call is from north carolina's caller:. good morning. i am currently on disability. from a swimming pool accident. i get a check for $1,200 per month for my disability and my bills and in come, as far as my bills, they are $1,000 and they take their health care away from us and our medicaid insurance. how can someone on disability take care themselves of that amount? host: the affordable care act, is there a change in the guest:? we feel very strongly that the

affordable care act as a missing piece. it does not deal with insurance, health insurance. it took 20 years later for congress to finally put that in and now we have no discrimination based on previous existing conditions, these are things that are critical to people with disabilities who might be using the health care service. this is the final piece of the nra of protection to people with disabilities. we appreciate the census bureau and the national disability rights network. we got the statistics with americans with disabilities and the things that have been enacted. that is it for our friday " washington journal." come back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.

eastern time, have a good weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> second quarter economic news out to date. the commerce department reporting that the economy growing at an annual rate of just 1.5% from april through june as americans caught back sharply on spending. the associated press reported growth at or below 8.2% is not enough to lower the unemployment

rate. we expect to hear more about that from jay carney, the white house spokesman. live at 11:30 eastern and you can follow that on c-span.org. former house speaker newt gingrich leads a group of conservative speakers at the clear blue loose -- clare boothe luce instituted and former president bill clinton will speak at the international aids conference. watch that live and 4: 25 on our companion network, c-span2. >> democrats are holding public hearings in minnesota this weekend, followed a few weeks later by their final platform recommendations in detroit. in august, republicans start their platform process in tampa, florida. cs and's coverage continues august 10 with the reform party in philadelphia, followed by the republican national convention, with live gavel-to-gavel

coverage beginning monday, august 27, from tampa. and the democratic national convention from charlotte, north carolina, starting monday, september 3. >> you know, it is the tradition of common law judges not to suppress criticism did we get clobbered by the press all the time. i cannot tell you how many wonderful letters i have written to "the washington post" just for my own satisfaction, and that ripped up and thrown away. you don't send them. that is the addition of the common law judge. you do not respond to criticism. >> supreme court justice antonin scalia reflects on 25 years on the bench in his latest, " reading laws." sunday 8:00 on "q&a." >> military suicides are at their highest levels in 10 years of the war in afghanistan.

that dominated the discussion at a joint house committee hearing this week. lawmakers said the defense and veterans affairs departments are taking too long to combine their systems for tracking veterans returning to civilian life. this is about 90 minutes. >> i want to welcome all of our members and are distinguished witnesses to today's hearing, which will focus on civilian work force requirements. i particularly want to thank our witnesses for their patience during this series of votes, and we apologize to you for the delay. the civilian work force provides an invaluable contribution to the dod mission, both at home and abroad. i welcomed this discussion today and the opportunity to better understand how the department of defense is forecasting its future work force requirements and balancing the critical

skills required across all components of its work force. additionally, i want to understand the impact of reductions. right now there are two possible reductions that could negative ly impact the work force and its short-term -- sequestration, and the proposed ndaa language prett. it would be expected to be an excess of 5%. based on the numbers provided in fy13, more than 35,000 full- timer would be eliminated. next is sequestration. it appears there is little to no planning associated with this legislative mandate. assuming an exemption from military personnel, we calculate there would be approximately 11.3% reduction

across all accounts. again, simple math would suggest that an additional 89,000 civilians would be eliminated. when you add the two figures, we are talking about more than 128,000 people. some in the pentagon have indicated that sequestration alone could be a a total of a quarter of the civilian work force. the result of any such course without any analytical underpinning would be long-term, irreversible damage to the work force. let us not forget the cost that would have to be calculated to implement cost from the first quarter of the year. in the case of the senate reductions and the- implementation of sequestration, both appear to lack any basis in fact or reason. that is why i believe the more prudent approach is to assess the requirements and then to shape the work force to meet those decisions.

i look forward to discussing all of these issues later in the hearing. where does that leave us? according to the statutory requirements, any involuntary reductions in force required notification both to congress and the employee. if sequestration were to take effect in january, dod would be required to notify us in september. what generally concerns me is the department of defense's planning for its future work force requirements, and negotiating the appropriate balance amongst the civilian, contractor, and military personnel. since 2001, gao has listed human capital management as a government-wide high-risk our reaarea. we know that approximately 30% of the dod work force and 90% of its leaders are eligible for retirement as early as 2015.

i will look to analysis dod is undertaking to identify skills and competency required in each component of the workforce, particularly should the reductions parker, and what recommendations gao has for that process. we were all sold recently notified the department just extended its civilian camp to fiscal year 2016. i look forward to clarification of how this cap is not in direct contradiction to the statutory requirements set forth which clearly preclude any constraints or limitation in terms of maximum number of employees. we in congress and at this subcommittee have exercised great oversight over civilian workforce issues to ensure that dod as the best plans for requirements. it directs a callista perspective across civilian,

military, and contractor personnel. i am not convinced we have and provide knowledge into our civilian requirements. we need to get exercise appropriate oversight of the process to ensure that sequestration -- they deserve to know what like ahead, and it is our job to ensure that the public is informed. joining us today to discuss the dod's civilian work force or two distinguished witnesses. mr. frederick vollrath and mrs. brenda farrell. i would like to recognize my friend, the ranking member, ms. bordallo, for any remarks sheet has. >> i appreciate your testimony before the subcommittee.

the department of -- testing -- the department of defense civilian personnel work force provides a critical support to our war fighters. the civilian work force is essential to making our country's military so effective. the civilian work force provides experience, matisse, and continuity -- experience, expertise, and continuity. i cannot emphasize enough how important the civilian work force is to our nation's defense. management of the civilian work force is especially important in an era of austere budgets. strategic human capital management is slowly evolving in the department of defense, but too slowly, in my opinion. congress has made it very clear that we want requirement-based management of the total force to

include military, civilian, and contractor personnel. in fact, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2006 calls for dod to develop a strategic plan for managing its civilian work force to knowledge gaps in capability. as late as last year, congress refine- further the requirements for the report to provide guidance for dod and in terms of total force management the most current strategic work force plan was submitted in march of this year. dao will complete its review of the most current plan by next month. congress has provided the dod the statutory tools necessary to shape the work force, but it is

is going to take leadership on this matter to ensure that it is gone right. having clear requirements-based civilian personnel management in place avoids the pitfalls involved in arbitrarily cutting the work force. i appreciate that ms. farrell in her testimony highlighted the risks associated with the last civilian work force downsizing. that was in 1990. those cuts to personnel were void of any requirements based -- requirements-based decisions, and dot took a significant risk with its civilian work force. this was never more evident than in the downsizing of the acquisition workforce and the problems that dod faced with acquisitions and during the middle of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in sequestration, cuts to civilian personnel would need to

be requirements-based, so that we don't assume more risks than is absolutely necessary. now that the current budget situation will require the department of defense to downsize the civilian workforce, but this process must be rational and not arbitrary. as such, i hope that our witnesses this afternoon would touch on the senate's proposed language in their version of this year's defense authorization bill that calls for arbitrary cuts to the civilian work force and what impact or risk is associated with this approach. i also hope that our witnesses can touch on the lessons learned from former secretary gates' efficiencies initiative, the impact of which are still being felt in terms of caps on hiring and targeted civilian

personnel reductions. what has been learned from these initiatives and having those lessons incorporated into the revised strategic work force plan? i am concerned that cuts to the civilian work force have been focused on meeting budget targets rather than a comprehensive analysis of requirements and capabilities and that need to be retained in dod. finally, before we see any further arbitrary cuts in the civilian work force, it is imperative that the department of defense provide congress with the inventory of contractor services that are supporting the department. we need more information to make the difficult decisions that will be required with our current budget situations. total force management is only successful when good planning, information, and solid leadership are in place to

manage human capital. again, i look forward to this discussion with our witnesses, i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for those remarks, madeleine. as we discussed prior to hearing, asked for unanimous consent be made in order to depart from regular order. i think this will provide a roundtable-type form and enhance the dialogue of these very important issues. without objection, that is so ordered. mr. vollrath, we would love to hear your opening comments. >> thank you. >> you might want to put that microphone a little closer, and they are a little finicky. >> thank you.

as with the future, we must continue to strive to achieve the most effective, efficient, and appropriate mix of our work force. the department's current plans, reflected in the budget request a coordinatedct approach that satisfies mission requirements and recognizes the fiscal constraints. our future plans require us to align capabilities and costs for all elements of the total force. as discussed in greater detail in my written statement, these elements cannot be managed in isolation if we are to avoid the hollow force an unnecessary expense. total force management is complex. it is a lifecycle process used to insure that the department's capabilities are able to deliver the requisite readiness while minimizing the cost.

the department must ensure that a sufficient number of this federal, civilian personnel are able to meet support needs of our military forces. the department must also prioritize and reduce less critical missions while we ensure that military and civilian personnel are performing all inherently governmental jobs. and that there are sufficient numbers to perform critical oversight, management, and readiness functions. the department sourcing decisions must be made on the basis of law, cost, and policy, and we're committed to ensuring that those decisions are made consistently, the gjelten requirements regarding workforce management. -- title 10 requirements regarding workforce management. we must have the flexibility and tools necessary to appropriately aligned workload and balance the department work force in an effort to significantly reduce

excess overhead costs and apply the savings to war fighting capabilities. forcethe department carried out a number of initiatives beginning in fy11. the fy13 president's budget request reflects an objective and reasonable approach that decreases spending on all components of the total force. however, we recognize that we operate in a dynamic and changing environment, and therefore must maintain the flexibility to adapt our work force accordingly. the current budget request continues to fund the civilian work force at fy10 levels, with some exceptions. while we continue to deliver a flexible, responsive to civilian work force that mitigates risks and ensures continuity of operations, permits to work and acknowledge we need to maintain, igiven the strategic

direction of the department, planned reductions among the uniformed force, and in order to meet the requirements of the budget control act, funding for civilian positions is planned to decline by approximately 2% over the next five fiscal years. we continue to assess whether further reductions and a realignment of personnel can be made in the context of adjustments to the total force and the new defense strategy, and we will keep this subcommittee informed of the results. the department, however, is keenly aware that the civilian work force is extremely talented and critical to success in meeting our strategic goals, performing key enabling functions for the faforce, and developing vital services that serve our uniformed men and women. changes in the civilian work force must be done in a way that preserves mizzen-essential skills and abilities over the long term, and in a manner that enables us to recruit and

maintain the most talented individuals. we also recognize the need to review and assess levels of contract support in order to ensure appropriate utilization of such support. additionally, with the possibility of the sequestration on the horizon, we cannot say precisely how bad the damage would be. but as secretary panetta noted earlier this year, it is clear that sequestration could risk hollowing out our force and reduce military options available to the nation. in summary, the department has programs in place to address our needs for an effective and appropriately resource to total four straight we continue to focus on life cycle management with a workforce planning, competency management, and work- force professional development initiatives to be ensure that plan to support for development is already for the civilian work force. this concludes my statement.

i thank you and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to address you and help work on the nation's issues. i stand by for your questions. >> thank you, mr. vollrath. ms. farrell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss a gao's observations on dod's civilian work force requirements. the work force consists of approximately 783,000 personnel , and performs a wide variety of duties, including some traditionally performed by military personnel. in 2001, gao placed strategic human capital management across the entire federal government on our high-risk list, and it remains there today. we did so because of the longstanding lack of leadership and in parts because critical skill gaps could undermine agencies' ability to accomplish

the missions. with long-term challenges facing the nation, reductions to the civilian work force may be considered to achieve cost savings. human capital has remained in critical missing link in reforming and modernizing the federal government cost of managing practice. g8 el has observed that the federal government has often acted as if people were to be cut rather than assets to be valued. my main message today is that strategic workforce planning is critical to help ensure get in dod has the right number of the civilian personnel with the rights bills, at the right time, to carry -- to the right skills at the right time to carry out their mission. my written statement is divided into two parts. the first part addresses mdot's prior experience with the civilian work force downsizing. dod's prior efforts in the 1990's were not oriented toward shaping the makeup of the force, resulting in significant

imbalances in terms of shape, skills, and retirement eligibility. fdot's efforts in the late 1990's to reduce its civilian work force levels wbelow that of 1987 were hampered by incomplete data and a lack of a clear strategy for avoiding skill imbalances and other adverse effects of downsizing. for example, dod used in complete and consistent data related to workers, workforce data, and projected reduction bit further, the approaches had unintended consequences -- the use of the voluntary attrition and hiring freezes mitigated some adverse effects of work- force reductions, but were less oriented toward shaping the makeup of the civilian work force. for dod, as was especially true of its acquisition workforce. dod was put on the verge of a

talent-drain on its work force after seven years of downsizing. now dod is trying to rebuild at work force. in 2001, we concluded that considering the enormous changes the civilian work force at undergone, and the external pressures and demands faced by the department, taking a strategic approach to human capital would be crucial to organizational results. as i will discuss next, this is no less true today than it was in 2001. the second part of my written statement addresses dod's current strategic planning efforts. dod has taken steps to identify current skills. congress required dod to have a strategic work force plan that included specific elements. gao has closely monitored dod's efforts in this area. 22 mission critical occupations, such as accounting and information technology

management, it identified as critical skills. however, dod has not conducted competency gap analysis for the majority of its mission-critical occupations. gap analysis is critical to develop specific strategies to address the workforce needs for today and the future. gap analysis enables the department to determine where they needed to grow and where they possibly could cut back. we remain concerned that dod lacks critical information it needs to effectively pass the for the work force requirements. mr. chairman, the last point i want to make is that the dod work force includes military personnel, federal employees, and contractors, and changes made to one of these groups may impact the other. thank you. that concludes my opening remarks. i would be happy to take questions. >> let me thank you both for your testimony and also for your written statements, which we will make part of the record. mr. vollrath, we are delighted

to have you to date you are the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for readiness. you bring with you a great deal of responsibility on your shoulders and expertise, and we thank you for that. all of us are concerned about sequestration. we are five months from that coming into place. as i look at the statute, it says that the same percentage of sequestration shall apply to programs, projects, and activities within a budget account, with programs, projects, and activities as delineated in the preparation for their beloved fiscal year, or four counts not included in a preparation acts. basically, we're talking about across-the-board cuts. now, noting that sequestration is the current law, noting that we're about five months out from one that comes into play, what would be the impact on the

civilian work force when sequestration hits? >> mr. chairman, i wish i could give you a definitive answer, but i cannot. there are decisions that could be made relative to the military work force. if sequestration were to be a fact, the civilian workforce money is in the onm account, and defense and other agencies cannot make decisions about where the priorities would be placed within that account. decisions would have to be made as to where the priorities are placed, but they would also have to be relative to what the overall objective is if sequestration hit. we would have to make some decisions about priorities on national defense.

once those were made, we could begin to make a reasoned decisions that would affect our civilian work force as well as the military. when that would happen, we clearly would have to take a look at the military, the support our civilian work force provides to it, and the back of the contract services -- the impact of the contracting services. there are three moving parts. there are that many moving parts to this problem. >> mr. vollrath, we know that sequestration is the law, not just something that could happen. on this it is change, it will be there no different than if -- unless it is changed, it will be there no different than if we passed a budget. can you tell us what specific steps you are taking on the number of moving parts that need

to be answered? >> the secretary of defense is still suggesting that this needs to be addressed. we need to work with congress to understand what the impact of this could be. i don't have details about that. i know that the deputy secretary of defense is slated to appear before the armed services committee on the first of august to address more robustly the potential impacts of sequestration. i do not have enough information to give you a straightforward answer. the implications, of course, if the sequestration were to happen, are significant. first of all, when decisions are made in terms of the impacts and where they are taken -- if you

translate that and bring it back into the government civilian work force, you will have mentioned that we have a certain legal requirement in terms of the process to notify. we also have other things we have to deal with. we have labor partners and contracts with them that we have to work. on the contract for services side, there are contracts we would have to adjust. and given the other authorities , to reduce the workforce and shape it intelligently, we would have to be with you and other members of congress to get some changes to the laws and the internal of the department of defense on policies in order to shape the force appropriately, said that we in fact avoid the kinds of problems alluded to in the 1990's. i have to tell you, i live that dream in the 1997 trying to downsize the force, take the

peace dividend, and shape. it was not an easy task and then. it is not going to be an easy task under sequestration, that is for sure. >> we heard ms. farrell said that the department has been criticized for using incomplete data, and as i recall, there was a lack of comprehensive strategic plan in terms of the workforce. can you walk me through the time in its requirements so that it will be required, because as you know, i come back to the fact that sequestration is not just some pipe dream. it is the law, on the books, scheduled to take place in january. can you tell us what the process is, and what goes through that, and the timeliness generally of that? >> the normal process would

begin by an intelligent review of the requirements. but in terms of timing and notification -- >> let's start with the intelligent review of the requirements. how long would that take? >> um, i would estimate the best case would be at least three to four months. i say that because an intelligent review has to be mission-based. >> if it were to take three to four months and we only have five months, does it surprise you that we not started and undergone a process that? >> no, because i don't think anybody has been able to come to grips yet with the severity of what sequestration means. >> is it your opinion that people in the department of defense do not understand that this is the law and it will take place in january? >> mr. chairman, they understand

it is the law. >> what i don't understand is it will take a minimum for your months to do the analytical review -- has anybody instructed you to begin that process, or has anyone instructed you not to plan for sequestration? >> neither. >> then why would your department not have begun this analysis if you know it is schedule to take place in january and you know it will take four months, at least come to do the analysis before you begin the process? >> as the secretary of defense has said, he intends to continue to work with congress to address the effects of sequestration, and i believe in much more robust discussion can be had around that question when the deputy secretary of defense appears on the first of august. >> i don't agree that we need to

have a robust discussion. we have been trying to have it for a year. you have for the senate say he they when not take any action, eased heard the president say he would veto any action and sequestration. it is the law, it is it coming. i would think that your office would have already been doing some kind of analysis so that they don't just hit us blindsided in january. it baffles me that we have done no analysis of all that ms. farrell says is crucial to do. does the department of defense continue to hope it will get change? >> i believe there is a lot of work to address the problem. >> can you discuss any proposal uc floating right now that suggests it will be addressed? >> personally, i have not.

>> who would make the decision within your department to start this analysis? >> that would have to start with the secretary of defense. >> the secretary of defense has given you know instruction at all to start that analysis? >> i personally of not have that kind of instruction -- >> but you would know if that took place, would you not? >> not necessarily, because this is a large strategic movements. know,if you wouldn't who would know about you? >> at this stage, i would defer to the secretary of defense and the president -- >> they would not do the actual planning paid to would know at the actual department to do-what plan?

it is to -- do the actual planning? >> i am not aware of any planning, but that does not mean there is no planning. >> well, help me with this -- your testimony that, if the planning were taking place, you would know it, and then you say you don't know it, but then you sit at the plant could be taking place. >> -- but then you say that the planning could be taking place. >> if that had specificity to it, i would anticipate i would be aware of that. >> and today you are not aware of that. >> that is correct. >> are you aware that anyone has told you not to do the planning pran? >> nobody has told me not to do the planning. there have to be some decisions, as i mentioned before, about the force and its shape, and the

decisions relevant to that. >> walked me through the tie lin -- to the timeline that we have to go through for the process. >> once a decision is made, and it is the decision made, we would give the employees that have been affected a 60-day notice period prior to those employees being notified, we by law must notify congress of our intent to conduct a reduction in force. that is a minimum of 105 days in order to conduct a reduction in force. >> that date, as i understand it, is from january 4, -- is that, to the best of your

knowledge? -- is, from jan yamar fourth, september 21 -- is it that, to the best of your knowledge? >> middle of september. >> you have done no analysis two-tiere -- determine if that would be? does not mean we would have a disproportionate impact on our other counts? you mentioned two of them, feel and training, specifically. what did not stand to reason that if it took four months to do the analysis, and we have not done the analysis, and you have to give the notices out by september 21, we would not be able to make that time frame -- doesn't it mean that sequestration would have a disproportionate impact on other accounts such as fuel and training? >> it could.

>> how could it not? >> of the decisions that would be made. >> give me one. >> where you take that back in the onm account. >> it would have to be somewhere other than personal. -- personnel. >> it is clearly, as you stated, a zero sum game. >> i am going to go now to ms. bordallo. we would love to hear her questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. vollrath, can you comment on the risks associated with the cuts proposed to the work force, what risks might be associated with that approach if they were

enacted into law. also with that question, today, what is the percentage of the civilian work force that carry out duties not available today with the military work force? if you could give me some idea, because i know for sure that there are particular positions and duties that the civilian work force carry out today that the military do not. >> let me begin with that we do not comment on proposed legislation, but in the face of reductions, we would encourage dod to look at their workforce planning, specifically to start with critical skills and competencies, and we would

discuss that dod has identified critical skills and that is the starting point for workforce planning. we identify the needs, then the competencies' associated, a measure that against your existing work force. now you can determine gaps or outrageou -- or overages. that would be my first infringement based on a body of work to look of the workforce planning. as far as the percentages of civilians during marla terry personne -- doing military personnel, that would be difficult. we have looked at in sourcing, outsourcing. the numbers, as you know, on not

clear in terms of the contractor inventory. we have looked at work regarding civilians deployed in iraq and afghanistan, and we are constantly monitoring that. we know that there are a number of civilians in those positions rather than the military force. i would have to do research to give you a more specific number. >> i think he partially answered it. -- think you partially answered it. there must be positions, because when you go in the military, you are there for combat duties mainly. there must be a great number of positions that are in particular positions in the civilian work force that are not being held by the military. if you downsize today, we would

be in a heap of trouble. >> dod does not have a strategy for the appropriate mix of personnel. the would-be military civilians and the contractor force. -- would be military, civilians, and the contractor force. it would be a requirement by dod to include an assessment of overall personnel. when we last issued a report looking at, we noted that dod had taken steps in terms of providing guidance to use the least costly extra personnel to achieve the mission using the military requirements. as you know, there's also a mandate for g8 out to look more closely at that guidance and do an assessment of the methodology that makes the determination of the least costly way to go about making that determination. but there is not a strategy or number in the strategic team capital plan that we ever

feare -- in the strategic team in capital plan that we have reviewed. >> mr. vollrath? >> the question, if i have it right, is what positions or jobs or skills to our government civilians perform that are more aligned with what they would be doing versus with the military would be doing? >> correct. >> in a simple step, it would be many of the base support requirements, acquisition requirements. when i talk about base support requirements, the way that i look at the strategic management of the work force is, once you decide what the military strength is going to be and youre it is going to be,

bring in the next look from the strategic perspective, the government's civilian workforce necessary to support that. last, you bring on the contract for services, where there would be cost savings, and things are not inherently governmental. let me go back to base support. another strategic way we look at shaping those forces -- if you look at the base, it to be army or air force. we tend to talk in terms of power production platforms. we look at installation as a way to go off to war, because we are not going to engage in combat, we hope, there. we use the civilian work force to support the power production platform. we look for any military skills that might have been siphoned into that base support, and try to move them back into the war fighting capability. i think we've done a very reasonable job of that the last several years. when we take that idea and move it into a contract services,

that is a supplement to both of those. some of those can be wrapped up or ramp down, depending on what our direction is and the use of our national strategy. combining all three is what we believe to be the strategic look at the work force, but it is fundamental to supporting that military. we have put out guidance, and very recently began, as the components and the services start to work their fy14 budget, that they be attuned to the shipping of the force cannto not make decisions that impact military manpower. if you don't properly identify the civilian work force that you need, the probability goes up

that the military might be siphoned off to take care of that gap. we are keenly aware of the historic problems that have been around when we do in these kinds of downsizings. right now the strategic look is to start with the military and build in behind it, and then use contractors for services. >> one other question for the two of you. what lessons were learned from former secretary gates' efficiencies initiative that could be helpful for developing a workforce management plan, and how are the initiatives associated it with that addressed in this strategic work force plan? >> yes, we have work underway looking at the current dod -- >> could you, a little closer to the mike, please?

>> can you hear me now? we'll look -- are looking at the current overall workforce plans to, and the requirements congress put in force for dod as well as events that have taken place the next few years. we're not in a position at this time to comment on that. these initiatives were of a much smaller scale and may serve as lessons learned for dod in the event that there are more significant reductions. >> mr. secretary? >> what we have learned from that is that we need to expand, and are expanding, some of the information tools to help guide us better. for example, the inventory of contract services was not robustly supported in the past. we now believe we have that

built, along with information technology support, to get a much better handle on what we are getting for those services. we also, as you have heard, improved and expanded the strategic work force plan and the support mechanisms to get greater fidelity in there for the civilian work force. that has in a military component, but bigger focus is to get a better handle on the civilian work force and is projected requirements. i would not sit here and tell you that we will have this totally figured out and it would be done in 2015, because i.t. is a moving target. it always changes. but we believe that as a result of the past efforts, with much better tools in place or about to be in place that will shape

the force better than we have been able to do in the past. >> in your opinion, mr. secretary, why has it taken so long for dod to develop the strategic work force plan? >> because of its complexity. a strategic work force plan -- it depends on how you want to look at what the strategic work force plan is. the big problem has been to try to get all three components clearly identified and, if you will, in a box that you can take a look at it together. it has taken time to shape the stools to get them -- to shape those tools to get them all in one holitstic l -- holistic look. gao has help us immensely to make this better. it is not going to ever be a thing of beauty, because it has

so many moving parts. as i mentioned, it is 3 work forces -- military, government civilians, contract. there are sets of laws associated with each one of them. the force is dispersed. and then you have the dollar dimension that is added every year that has to be taken into consideration. and then there is time. those are in a complex set of things that have to be considered in the strategy of managing the workforce. for example, cyber. if you look at the strategic work force plan, hugo black four years -- if you look back four years, cyber was barely a term.

in the civilian work force of one, what does that mean? matter of fact, in looking at cyber, the civilian work force is a real opportunity for us, because we can hire people with those kinds of skills. on the military side, if we want to build that kind of competency, we don't have the ability to hire midrange. the civilian work force of the department of defense is critical to national defense. >> mr. secretary, just going back on the original question, what do you think about the senate proposal on the cuts? havingrecommend against any particular artery numbered. if we ever do tha -- any particular arbitrary number.

that is not to say that for the sick of looking at potential impacts, looking at potential dollar cuts in the budget -- we cannot do it in a vacuum. we would prefer to have the flexibility to manage the force in more strategic view. whether -- if congress decides that we need to move in a slightly different direction, that is up to you all. it would probably be better expressed in terms of a budget number for our flexibility. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, madeleine. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you, both of you, for your testimony. i will talk about the civilian

work force, but not as it relates to sequestration, because it's not even personally, i think there is many other bases around the country that have a similar problem that i have that came out of the '05 brac, and a lot of it is pay parity. that is a huge issue in the civilian workforce, which they are asking to help our war fighters. when it was made, one side was in the philadelphia wage, and the lakehurst side was in the new york wage. it currently sits there for the wage rate employees. the general service employees went over to the new york wage grade. there is a huge inequity at

there that is left over from that. and we have to address that in this committee in the fy12 and fy13 ndaa. what i am looking for as we ask how we are going to do whatever we have to do when and if sequestration hits, we have another looming issue out there -- it might come to the fact where you have to back fill a lot of this with more civilian workers. but yet we still have this limit issue hanging out there. -- this looming issue handing out there. i would like your comment on what dod is doing to correct this situation like this. >> unfortunately, i don't know specifically about mcgwire decks and the wage grade, so i will take that question and get you an answer for the record. let me take that and go a step

further, because he mentioned the base closure and sequestration and the effects it has all the work force. clearly, if sequestration were to happen, that is another dimension of the decision process that we would have to go through. there are other dimensions. you talk about the work force at installation. we would have to do more work in terms of seniority. who stays, who goes. we would have to be careful in how we manage that size of the work force so that we maintain enough flexibility in that work force for the future. as the chairman mentioned, we have a very senior force, eligible for retirement. we are very cognizant of the fact that we have to work on bringing more into the middle and more into the bottom in order to mitigate that potential attack. -- effect. sam would be true during

sequestration. it would be a disaster to do a salami slice to anything. i understand the questions about wage rate. i don't have as this of the answer for you, but i will take it for the record. -- don't have a specific answer for you, but i will take it for the record. >> at the level of opm, anything we can do to do that, because when you interact with these civilian employees, a majority of them are veterans also. we are in that world of taking care of them men and women who take care of us. i thank you, chairman. i yield back. >> gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank you for being

here as well. i think we understand and accept that the civilian workforce forms critical work on behalf of our troops and national security. they work every day to build equipment that keeps our troops safe on the field, the battlefield, and they produce equipment oand have done their job and have gotten troops to the field when needed. when armor was needed, for example, the arsenal were 24 hours a day, seven days a week to produce life-saving kits that the troops needed at time. how've told me many times part of the work they are. it is examples like this that, i

am, like everyone here, extremely concerned about any proposals that arbitrarily cut the workforce without regard to the effect on our critical missions and capabilities. i think we are all in agreement about that. the secretary panetta has repeatedly highlighted the importance of protecting defense industrial base, in response to questions from me and other members of this committee, he says includes organic and private sector facilities and capabilities. it appears that the senate armed services committee attempted to protect some elements of the industrial base from the cuts mandated in their bill, but failed to include organic manufacturing facilities such as army arsenals. what assurances, if any, can you provide that dod leadership will protect the remaining organic industrial base from cuts that

would undermine our essential capabilities and reduce efficiency and with the department have the ability to base decisions regarding reductions on readiness and critical capabilities, or with the department have to take an across-the-border approach across facilities and dod offices? >> sir, is your question relative to sequestration or how we manage the force? >> how we manage it it it could be sequestration, it could be other cuts that come down the pike. >> as you correctly point out, we need to make reasoned decisions and set priorities. as we execute "strategic team strategicnagemen -- human capital management." there is guidance given in the development of budgets and the projected years, normally out

five years. that guidance is generally focused on those key and critical functions, particularly where the civilian work force is the backbone. so as t he process occurs, that guidances' develope -- that guidance is developed. i'm just not current on the guidance for that particular element that you highlight. i do know that we have guidance in the development for our next budget and for the palm out to ensure that we take care of that part of its that has to deal with the reset. >> i am concerned, obviously, about some of the cuts in the senate has been talking about. >>i have about four other

questions. i will submit those for the record to you. we have the least one for you. >> that will be fine. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for five minutes. >> i have some questions. i think of dod civilians and think of the military. can you tell me how many of the deity civilians have veteran status or have served in the military? they may not have their 20 years. >> i cannot. i know we have that information. if i can take that for the record, i will give you the information. a large portion has veteran status. in the hiring process, veterans

have some preference in hiring. that is how we fill the middle requirement in our civilian workforce. >> i agree with you. i think veterans, off the experience whether it is 20 or 30 years, being able to sit next to a true civilian who has never worn the uniform or in boot camp and can help, he will bring his skill set but he will bridge the gap between the civilian and the military. they should mold themselves to the civilian. the need to understand the military culture.

this has kept our culture so strong. >> there is a robust program across all of the federal departments to hire veterans. i sit on that committee and report how reached one of the different agencies is doing to focus on those veterans. >> can dod civilians immunize? -- unionize? >>yes. >> how many dod civilians have been fired? >> i do not have that number in my head. >> terminated. >> turn it for cause -- terminated for cause. i do not know that number.

>> typical things that would get you -- >> i understand. in terms of percentage of the work force, it will be relatively small. i will take it for the record and get back. >> what kind of tax breaks due dod volumes debt? lott has served in afghanistan erved in has serv afghanistan. >> i don't know what additional tax breaks they get. it is a voluntary work force. >> probably more more hazard pay. >> i do not know on top of my head. for military -- correct.

>> i was reading your bio. you are responsible for all matters of military personnel and so forth. our military personnel banned from attending political events in uniform? >> yes. >> there seem to be an exception to that policy this past couple of weeks where uniformed military personnel were allowed to march in a parade in california. did that decision come from your area? >> it did not come from my area. i'm not sure we characterize that as a political event. it was a unique event. i'm not sure it was a clear political. >> there must have been some concern that it was political

because it was very quickly noticed -- this was a onetime exception. do you have any internal discussion on who authorized that? do you think it went through the proper chain of command? i would think that would not be a general counsel. >> the people that made it have the right authority to do that. it is onetime exception, clearly. we do need to assess following impacts. but it was not ill advised or taken lightly. >> i see my time is over. tradition is one thing that has served the military very well. breaking with tradition i don't think is a good thing to do at this time. thank you for your testimony.

>> how can you say the proper people and the proper authorities made the decision when you do not know who made the decision? >> i know who made the decision. it was in the public affairs part of the department of defense. >> not with the chairman of the joint chiefs? >> i do not know. >> the gentle lady from hawaii is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have sat in this committee and asked many people in a very simple question, which is what the military of the future will look like. it to my surprise, no one knows. a general said all i can tell

you is we have been 100% correct in not being able to predict it at all. now i come back to what you both have said. you talk about a new defense strategy in terms of a civilian work force. the listen critical occupations. when you both say that, what is that new defense strategy that you are looking to the civilian work force to get to? talk about the occupation, what is the definition of mission and what makes a critical? getting with you, mr. secretary -- beginning with you. >> this is a framework for a strategy.

several years ago, thcyber would not have been on the table. it is now. we have now put inside the capability to have greater visibility of contracts for services, the civilian work force in the military side by side. this is a different approach from what we have pursued. i do not want to leave the with the impression that because of that we have a greatly improved ability to look out eight years and see with the work force is going to be. we try to push the limits out as far as we can. i mentioned cyber. one way is to complement that

with the civilian work force. the answer is yes, we can. we can input that taught much faster to accomplish a change that is coming. we are not any better because of the processes in defining what is going to happen six years from now. we are paid to try to do that. we are paid to come up with systems that would assist us in doing that. as we get better at this, we will make some guesses and not turn out to be right. we are now in the position to start taking the professional look further out with more information on which to make those types of decisions. >> miss farrell? >> it is in the national defense

authorization act that requires to include its goals skills for the existing work force as well as the future. the 2010 was an amendment and has been required since 2006 to develop such a plan. dod chose to use mission critical operations to identify their critical skills. they came up with those occupations through discussions at senior levels and with the functional community managers. the ndaa require dod to report their critical skills and competencies for the year that they are issued as well as seven years out. t not 10 or 20 or 30 years in the future. it is seven years from the issuance date of the plan, and

the plan is required for this year. we will project for seven years out. >> would you agree that what you're studying was basically their best guess in what we would need? >> they are not our identification. >> we need the dod's best guess in terms of workforce for the next seven years. >> we are looking for what decisions they are making that are data-driven. there are ways to gather data including information technology management. >> but it is still based their best guess. >> could be data as well as service to identify what those

critical skills that are needed today as well as what is on the horizon. >> will ask to be able to follow up in writing. thank you. >> let me close a couple of the gaps. you mentioned that you wanted to accomplish the change that was coming. what is the change? i can not sure that recall what that was about. >> you wanted to accomplish the change that is coming. that is what i thought you said. let me move on. you mentioned the department would prefer a modification to sequestration to implement the negative, to qantas associated

with sequestration. do you recall that? >> in the context with what the secretary of defense has been looking for in terms of relief? >> the deadline is early january. when it does the administration intent on providing that proposal? >> i would defer to secretary carter and the work he will do with that committee. >> have you seen any such proposal? >> i have not. >> would be the negative consequences? >> a compressed time frame to make some very significant decisions that affect the lives of the fine men and women that defend our nation. >> based on the previous work by

gao, do you believe it or been a defense has the confidence these and military to identify the requirements in gaps in resisting -- in existing work force? >> dod has mixed results from their plans and we are reviewing the latest that was iued march of this year. last year they did not meet the legislative requirements to assess the military civilians and contractors. they have taken some steps to identify the contractor inventory. they have issued guidance to determine the least costly mix personnel needed to meet military requirements. there is not an assessment of the appropriate mix.

>> report that was filed in march to be released in september -- what time frame was that for? >> that was their 2010 cuban capital plan and it was based -- 2010 human capital plan. >> the plant that was filed was for 2010 at it is not been released. it will be released in september. >> it has been released to us and we are currently reviewing it. it is two years old to begin with. we're looking to see if it takes into account the secretary's initiatives with the workforce. >> is a plan that is two years old timely enough to use in a

company fashion for planning strategically with our workforce? >> we would hope that dod would continue to work on their planning. i know that they are thinking about the next workforce plan that will be due. we would encourage them to move forward. >> do you feel that dod is in a good position to prepare for downsizing? >> it is work force planning and that's where we felt that an organization it should look to determine what their needs are. we did work back in the mid 1990's looking at organizations outside of dod that were considered to be successful during their downsizing periods.

17 private organizations and three foreign governments. each organization had to tailor its approach for downsizing. each of them had a common theme. workforce planning was essential for their downsizing efforts. lost morethey werould people without the workplace planning. >> you are being polite when you say we need to do this and we need to do this better. >> i know i sound like a broken record. we still have the impact of across-the-board reductions. if an agency does not know what its needs are, there could be severe harm.

we have not looked at these --at sequestration in packs. organizations that want to the downsizing efforts outside of the dod. >> there is a prohibit in terms of maximum numbers of employees. how is duty able to impose a cap on civilian personnel and extend the cap to fy 18? >> that is a good question. let me try to put that into context. these were set targets with exceptions. it needs to be in a context. that goes back to how you can best manage a force. pillars of the three

the support of national defence -- the military, the civilians, and the contract for services people. the military work force is defined annually in terms of end strength. reserves will have x. that is a finite number. there is a budget behind that. it is a finite number. on the contract for services side, we have now a capability to measure the contract for services in terms of contract fte's for comparison purposes. with your guidance and help, we have instituted that far more

robustly than we have never had. we look at end strength. now are able to account for that. it is still dollar driven. we want to have an intelligent discussion about the future. we need to include the number of government civilians in that mix. when it comes to execution, it will be impacted by the budget. let give you an example in my office. as you heard, yesterday the veterans affairs and from the president, we're standing up and implement a new veterans transition program to try to take care of our transitioning veterans. have overall responsibility in my office for that program.

we sat down and said, what do we think it would take to properly manage this program from the defense level? >> that is the difference from st. these are what we're projecting an between putting caps on, is it not? >> i did not think so. in my office, we said unconstrained we would like to have 21 people to do this, and constrained. then we have to bring it back into the reality of how many people do we have and what could we afford? that becomes a discussion. >> the management of such personnel in any year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation in terms of man years, full-time positions, or maximum numbers of employees.

how is dod able to impose a cap on civilian personnel at fy10 levels. >> i do not believe we have imposed a cap. i do not know how else you do that. if we give a dollar value, i don't know what that means. have to in terms of deciding the number of people that it takes to prosecute the mission. i need to have a way to look at that in some reasonable management effort. we're not told the services they may not increase their civilian workforce. we are looking at exceptions. language training, that is the most current one that has been working. >> you feel that you can can

impose whenever constraint you want as long as you have exceptions to that. ld agree.rt, i wouuld we do have a reasonable basis on which to have the discussion. >> i think what they challenge is whether we are complying with or theent or the levtter spirit of the law. should it deity -- it is based on two things. you talked about longevity and service. we're talking about a situation where 90% of the senior

leadership will be retirement age in 2015. there% of the duty workforce will be in retirement age by 2015. the other requirement was the veterans' preferences that few had. if you had those that are coming into your work force, how are you going to be analyzing and look at skills and capability gaps? >> as we take a look in the strategic workforce planning, one of the critical elements that we look at is the age of the force, and also the ability to hire. when we do the strategic planning and look for the skills and gaps that have been

discussed, those are the types of things that we looked at. >> have you done that strategic planning now to look and the skills and capabilities and what we need projecting out in the future? >> we are in the process of doing that. >> when did you start? >> we started in earnest in 2011 with disability. -- with visibility. >> we did not have the analysis to say what the capabilities are. >> we have started that and done it for a least 22 now. what we're doing is driving it further and further down and making it broader and broader. >> it is true that dod has

identified their critical sckills the existing work force. once you determine which your mission critical occupations are, then the next step is to measure those against the existing work force to determine where your gaps are. it has to be tailored to what is going on in that particular field. you have to consider how long it takes to train somebody. retirement eligibility may become more of a factor in your strategy to fill those positions. you may look back and emerging field and see that it is going up and down each year and it is not very steady. you may want to develop a strategy that requires to rely more on contracts.

we would like to see more gap analyses. dod did have a plan to have depth analyses completed. we would encourage them to expedite those analyses. >> we have not done that gap analysis. is that a fair conclusion? >> we have not completed it. we have started the process. >> it doesn't do you any good until you have completed it. >> we will learn as we go on. >> can you give us anything that we can look at to see what the gaps are. >> in some instances, yes. >> we supply to us when you have in terms of the gap analysis now/

certainly. >> why are we waiting when we'll have five months left before sequestration before we look at these impacts? >> i'll have to defer it to secretary carter. >> do you think that is reasonable to wait? >> at this point, i do not know. >> you don't know if it is reasonable enough for the department of defense, five months out to not be doing any planning on what kind of gap analysis we would have should sequestration hit? >> i will defer to secretary carter. i have no other opinion in terms of the mechanics would have to

work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a couple of questions. how does the strategic work force plan inform the work force on budget decisions in dod, if at all? >> it does inform the leadership on the budget. in that analysis we have in there and look at the military, and look at the government civilian, then we have the ics. that is used every cycle to try to get the best mix possible and for i will use the term

normalization or rationalization of a look five years out as to what we believe we need to ask for in the five- year strategic looked. so we're using that product and that process today. >> in your opinion, the work force would be adequately informed? >> the need for it workforce and what that work force is, i believe, we have good information to make reasoned decisions. we do not normally use that to inform the workforce, meaning public announcements, because that's not what it is design for, if i'm getting your question proper. >> how does the dod synchronize

and separate contractor funding decisions and insert the proposed savings from reducing one category are not offset by increases in other categories of manpower? >> we have drawn a line and said, you may not outsource those functions which are inherently governmental. we have guidance in law that not -- asay indicated in the president's budget submit. there is a relatively bright line for that right now. in terms of government workers and military, what we have said in terms of planning guidance is be careful, commanders, as you

build your workforce to make sure that you do not create the situation where you are forced into the position of having to use borrowed military manpower. if you have a legitimate need for which you have no other choice but government civilians and that is the answer and you should ask appropriately. you have that responsibility to ask for those exceptions. we need to make the right decisions for the people and in the context of national defence and the budgets that drive it. >> thank you. you've made that very clear. miss farrell, observations can you offer -- is the and limitation of management helping to identify the requirements by

workforce type civilian, military and personnel. what improvements could be made in the process to determine critical skills across the workforce? >> i would like to talk about the civilian workforce plan to begin with. itis key is key. the overall plan was far from being mature enough to make informed decisions regarding the mix of personnel or the trade- off that we're discussing today. there has been an update to the plan and we're looking at that. it is probably safe to assume that dod has not progressed at ee. rate would like to sa i keep coming back to the gap

analysis as key to determine what you need today and what you need in the future. that is what we like to see the decisions based on. the plan is based on leading principles that opm identified or key to identifying human capital management. dod has been reluctant to develop such a plan, 2000, 202, 2004. this is what we like to see for the overall plan and the senior leader work force and those at the top leadership in intelligence community and there are specific requirements that are based on leading practices

of how to develop such a plan for the acquisition work force. the plan includes appendices that address different sub components -- medical and these sub component plants are in different levels of maturity. the overall plan is not mature enough to make informed decisions. >> i want a direct answer on this one. is dod driving manpower decisions by resources? >> referred to work force planning as a way to determine what the size of the workforce should be and what the makeup of the work force should be. there are principles that help

it obtain the data and do the analysis to come up with that. management may have to come in and make trade-offs. we would encourage dod to have data driven analysis to make such decisions. >> i have no further questions. >> i like to thank all the members and witnesses. mr. vollrath, thank you for being here and for your expertise. i think you can see that we are concerned about this issue and we are united in being concerned about the fact that mr. vollrath, we appreciate your expertise, today we understand we don't have a gap analysis to

date to show us the gaps that we have in our critical skills and our competencies' today. that is before sequestration hits, is just five months out from today. at that point, we don't have an opinion of whether we think it is reasonable that we should be preparing for that. that is in message that i hope you'll take back to your friends at the pentagon. we are united in saying that we think it is crucial that we do a workforce analysis that we have some planet instead of pulling these numbers out of the air and moving forward with those. for all of your help and for all the members that are here today, we want to thank you for being here and with that we are adjourned.

leads a slate of speakers to>> newt gingrich will lead a group of speakers today. the commission on congressional debates will release details on the debates. the first takes place october 3 at the university of denver. the second debate will be a town hall format on domestic and foreign issues on october 16. the final debate takes place october 22 in florida. the vice presidential debate will be in kentucky on october 11.

all debates will be 90 minutes long with a single moderator. >> the political parties are holding their platform hearings. in august, republicans start their platform process in florida. c-span's coverage continues august 10 the reform party in a philadelphia fall by the republican national convention beginning august 22 from tampa. and the democratic national convention. >> the senate agriculture committee heard arguments that would set standards for egg

labeling. the provisions include phasing in a larger cages for hens. farmers described it as vital to the future of the industry. a witness said it would force many farmers to leave the in issue. this is just over an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good morning. we will call the committee to order. excuse me -- the agriculture commission and forestry committee.

i know we have other members planning to join us. i know we have many commitments. we want to move ahead this morning. this is a very important hearing. i appreciate your being here. we appreciate everyone's being here today. there is a tremendous amount of interest, as we can see from the overflow crowd today. as we consider the bipartisan bill led by senator dianne feinstein. we talk about this important nutritious product as part of america and our nutrition.

eggs are as much a part of our mornings as juice or coffee or bacon or our serial. -- cereal. when we talk about this important, nutritious product, is very much part of america and our nutrition and our foodeggs are a staple of thethe average person consumes 250i think i am above that, actually. they are also an important part eggs sales generate $15 billion for our economy. it is incredibly important our produce our food products. coalition of industry producers working together to request these changes. it is designed to give producers certainty from regulation. senator feinstein, the bill's author, is here to testify today, as well as egg producers from across the country. this bill represents a compromise. this bill was proposed by the industry and has the support of the humane society of the united states. we will hear today from those who are in favor of the bill,

and we will hear from those who have concerns. i look forward to this testimony from senator feinstein and the time. thank you to each of you for taking the time to be here for this important discussion on an important issue. i will now turn to my friend and ranking member, senator pat roberts, for his opening remarks. >> madam chairwoman, thank you for calling this hearing this morning. giving us an opportunity to hear directly from egg producers regarding a bill that would put a member of the federal government in charge of the standards of in which eggs are produced in this country. i truly appreciate the opportunity to hear from my friend and colleague senator dianne feinstein. we have spent a lot of years

together in the intelligence committee. i want to thank her for standing up for our country on national security. the long years of effort you've put on the committee. we have no greater obligation than the national security of our country, and i think you for your service. >> thank you, sir. >> let me say that i firmly believe farmers and ranchers are good stewards of animals. and to their care. one of the fundamental principles of the animal husbandry profession is that your animals get fed, watered, and taken care of, and i support you. -- the night before you had to the house. there is no excuse for animal cruelty. in particular, given the multitude of training programs and educational efforts about animal care for those who work with and around animals. producers understand the better

they take care of their animals, the more healthy those animals will be. second, i understand senator feinstein and the egg producers of california have a real challenge. california's proposition two has created uncertainty. that comes with leadership. i'm not sure this agreement between the united egg producers and the humane society of united states -- i guess everything has to be an acronym. i apologize for that. it addresses the unintended consequences as we to consider. when this committee considers any change in policy, impacting animal agriculture, there are a wide range of factors that should be taken into consideration like food safety,

animal health and welfare, the economics of food production. our international trade obligations. and most importantly, science. what is the best possible science? is this legislation based on that kind of science? when we deviate from science- based decisions, we have a difficult time to solve the issue. if the science says a smaller cage is better, will this issue be back before this committee in a year or two? positioning for a change in the law when the science changes? i also hope to learn why egg producers were solidly against any agreement before they were for it. what changed in the issue to bring about such a reversal in their position? i understand there are concerns involving antitrust issues at

the forefront of many challenges that egg producers are dealing with right now. is this agreement somehow viewed as payback for these -- as an escape hatch from these discussions? i wish, madam chairwoman, we had deregulators here with us this morning to explain how they would enforce this to become law. in addition to the implications on an interstate commerce and international trade, i am also concerned of how -- about how this will affect the price that consumers pay for eggs. european consumers saw the supply of eggs drop 10% to 15% soon after the inaction of a similar law, which led to the increase in price of 50%. -- 55%.

of 55% rise in the egg prices would significantly reduce the purchasing power of the recipient of these programs. madam chairwoman, i have other synopses of this legislation from the american farm bureau, a group of four international debt bureau organizations, and the -- that neri organizations vetinary organizations and the organization representing egg producers i would like to enter into the record. >> i enter that into the record without objection. welcome. we all owe you a debt of gratitude for the hours you spend literally every day in efforts to protect our country. thank you for that. thank you for being here as the

lead author of the eggs product inspection act, hs 3239. we would welcome your comments in relationship to the bill. >> thank you, madam chairwoman and ranking member roberts. i want to thank you for the time for this amendment. i wanted to just begin by pointing out this is a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by yourself, senators leahy, blumenthal, scott brown, kerry, saunders, vitter, wyden, and schumer. unfortunately, senator leahy could not be here this morning. he has a markup at 10:00 a.m. i am delighted to see the ranking member of the judiciary, senator grassley here as well.

the united egg producers represent 90% of the eggs sold in the united states. the humane society of the united states is the largest animal welfare organization in the country. i believe they have 11 million members. these groups came together to forge a compromise agreement that can ensure the future of the egg industry and result in a better product. you are right, senator robert. in 2008, calif. passed proposition 2 that created a requirement that hens be able to stretch their wings and turn around. this initiative passed with an overwhelming majority. similar provisions were put in place in michigan, washington, ohio, and oregon. the result of the state level initiatives is now a patchwork

of standards that make it hard for egg producers to know the rules of the road and to conduct interstate commerce. egg farmers nationwide are stymied as they attempt to develop their infrastructure. why grow when the rules of the road might change and invalidate your investments? why go to the market if the market will not be open to you in a few years? this legislation addresses this problem. the agreement establishes a single national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens. and the labeling of eggs. you are going to hear a lot in detail about it from the next panel. let me quickly, briefly explain what the bill does. the size of hen cages is made

larger over 10 years. the practice of depriving hens of food and water is outlawed. minimum air quality standards are put in place for hen houses. there are clear requirements for labeling so consumers know whether eggs are cage-free, caged, or otherwise. there are some who have concerns about the bill. this legislation only applies to egg producers and is the result of careful association between -- careful negotiation between animal welfare groups and the only industry that is affected. no other is affected. secondly, i have heard concerns that the bill will hurt small producers. that is simply incorrect. farmers with 3000 birds or fewer are specifically exempted

from the provisions of this legislation. organic, cage-free, free range egg producers will also be unaffected by the housing provisions, except that they will see increased sales as consumers are able to more clearly tell what is available on store shelves as a result of the labeling provisions. and for those who are affected by our bill, it will be up to 18 years. in this time, most producers, i am told, will replace it cages in any event, i am told. this legislation is endorsed by the leading scientists and the egg industry, the american veterinary association, and the two leading veterinary groups. studies show these new cages can result in lower mortality and higher productivity for hens, making them more efficient

for egg producers. finally, i want to set things straight regarding the cost of the bill. cbo endorses the legislation and find no cost. another study found that there would not be a substantial price effect on consumers. it is also important to note that this bill reflects what is already happening because of consumer demand. burger king, walmart, costco, and other companies are already phasing in new humane handling requirements for the food they sell. third, a research company and its broad support from consumers. specifically they found consumer support the industry transitioning to larger cages

with enrichments like perches by a ratio of 12 to one. i would like to submit for the record 13 pages of endorsements. from organizations in most major states in the country, if i can. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> you can tell how important this bill is to the egg industry, because farmers have come from all across united states to attend this hearing and show support. you will meet several on the next panel, including eric benson, from my home state of california. others are in the audience. let me mention a few. jim dean from iowa. farmers in iowa have a strong interest in seeing this bill pass, so they can access the

huge consumer market. the ceo of cowmain foods. it operates egg farms in multiple states. they will find it more and more difficult to comply with conflicting state standards unless we pass this bill. annie from california. peter and gary from minnesota. they represent smaller operations. marcus and roger sager from indiana. they have enacted state level production standards. they have to make decisions about infrastructure and wonder if they are going to be locked out of neighboring markets. mollie from ohio. she is trying to cope with new regulations imposed by her

home state. there are many producers who could not even get into the room to dead. -- today. they are sitting in overflow rooms around the corner. but they all came to washington to be heard. i would also like to add that the most recent list of supporters is up 13 pages long. it includes 14 agriculture and egg producing groups. the four major groups that look at egg-laying hens. five consumer groups. and many more. this is an animal welfare groups and a major industry working together and contains a reasonable time frame for consumers to implement new cage

sizes. 18 years. this is a practical, fair minded resolution that i think solves a real problem for the egg industry. i encourage the committee to support this bill. opportunity. >> thank you for your comprehensive testimony. we look forward to working with you as we move forward in discussing this issue. someone has a question for senator grassley, do you have a question? >> i would like it to go into the record, and i would like to submit a letter in opposition

from the southwest iowa egg farm -- cooperative >> without objection. thank you. i look forward to working with you and i appreciate your comprehensive -- remarks. we will ask our second panel to come forward at this point.

>> well, good morning. we appreciate all of you taking the time to join us today. let me introduce each of our witnesses and we will ask each of you for five minutes of verbal testimony. we certainly want any other written testimony you like to leave with the committee as well. then we will have around of questions. first, let me introduce our first panelist. david lathem, an egg farmer from pendergrass, georgia. our next guest is the president

of j.s. west & companies, eric benson. i am particularly pleased to have the next witness from michigan. poultryages herbruck's ranch along with his son and two brothers. they are a third and fourth generation family farm, very respected in michigan. finally, i am going to turn to senator roberts to welcome our final witness. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. may i introduce amon baer from lake park, minn. from mendelson egg co. when you look at the number of

baer family members in farming, you appreciate that amon became a family farmer out of necessity. he and his wife our family farm operators. they have nine children, all of whom are involved in the farming operation. together with two of their five sons, they own 300,000 laying hens, and the market 6 million eggs per year. and believe it or not, this is not a big operation. to the south, amon and one of his sons are partners in another farm.

and not to be outdone, one of his 14 siblings, three of amon's brothers are also forming in the red river valley region. you cannot get any more farm family than amon. mr. baer, if there was any more family in your operations, we may have trouble fitting them in this room. welcome. >> welcome to each of you. good morning. >> my name is david lathem. i am chairman of the united egg producers. we represent -- >> either the microphone is not on, or move a little bit closer. we want to make sure everyone has a chance to hear you. >> is that better? >> that is better.

>> ok. we represent 90% of all eggs sold in the united states. we manage almost half of the nation's laying hens. we support the bill and we appreciate the committee having this hearing. i believe the long-term viability of my family farm is in jeopardy without the bill. we cannot set up different production systems to meet conflicting standards in every state. we need production standards for everyone that are fair for everyone. senate bill 3239 allows us to take charge of our own destiny. this bill has the overwhelming support of our industry. not unanimous.

we are living in a time when the american public is interested as never before in all food is produced and where it comes from. we could see this as an opportunity rather than a threat. we believe senate bill 3239 represents a single future for all of us, but we are not the only ones. we have the scientific support of several professional societies. it has the support of the national consumers league. ag producing groups at the state level have come not in support from the farms and unions. if this bill has wide support. however, some to oppose it. some simply attack the humane

society of united states. they say you can trust hsus. it is no secret that our organization and theirs have been adversaries. we have disagreed on animal welfare issues for years. they realized that we did care about the welfare of our hens, and we realized that they did care about the survival of our farms. so, we began to do work, like everyone says you should do. look for common ground. seek compromise. the main thing some people have against us -- look for common ground. opponents of senate bill 3239 say this represents a slippery slope precedent that will inevitably force other animal industries into similar standards. this is not true.

there are two basic reasons why. first, we're all here because we as producers want this agreement. if hsus were for the agreement and we were against it, i do not think we would have this meeting here today. if we do not want a settlement with hsus, is that going to happen. the slippery slope argument suggests that regulators are incapable of making decisions between commodities. it is completely at odds with what congress has done over the years. congress has always looked at each commodity separately. you do not legislate the same program for cotton as you do for peanuts.

there are price supports. eggs have always been regulated differently from other animal products. the food and drug administration has a separate standard of safety for our farms, but not for beef, pork, or turkey production. by contrast -- the slippery slope argument ignores history and replaces it with hypothetical fears. the reality is congress has always made distinctions. i hope he will forcefully reject this argument. madam chairwoman, i genuinely believe the survival of my farm and other farms are hanging in the balance. we need senate bill 3239 in order to provide a fair

operating environment for all farms. thank you for letting me speak today. >> thank you very much. mr. benson, welcome. >> thank you for having us here, senator, and other senators. in here representing j.s. west & companies from modesto, calif.. we are family owned and operated. and third and fourth generation. we believe by providing the highest quality products to our customers -- for example, watching -- providing high- quality retirement benefits to all of our employees. you have seen the inconsistent animal welfare statues that began with prop 2 in california. i have always believed the

marketplace should make decisions their consumer demands and preference. the dilemma we face today is that consumers will vote with their hearts and buy it with their pocketbooks. we need a set of standards. we are willing to produce competitively as long as the rules are clear and fair. in here and support of the bill that are senator dianne feinstein has sponsored along with 15 of her colleagues. we're very proud of her work as a champion of our industry. i would like to spend my brief time talking about the system that will become a national standard once the bill passes.

we would make a multi year transition. at j.s. west we have taken a flock through the laying cycle with two more in production. if you want to know what it looks like, watch our webcam at jswest.com and see them in real time. not many of these systems are in place in the united states. what exactly is it? larger than the conventional enclosure. in our case, each colony contains about 60 hens. each is furnished with a nest box, perches, scratch areas. you can see an example where

these hens have perches. this photograph was taken out of our hen system blog. results of an encouraging. and mortality is lower. the small proportion that have died is smaller than in other systems. food consumption is a little greater, but we think that is because of the higher activity levels, and the birds definitely use the enrichments. senate bill 3239 provides for a multi year transition to the new systems. that being said, more than 80% of equipment being used today is capable of conversion to the

system. that means senate bill 3239 will not require producers to make a capital investment they were not already willing to make, albeit at a higher level, before. if you really believe that you can maintain the current conventional cage system forever, there is a cost to enriched cages. in california, we're pretty sure that is not case. if we cannot gain a consensus in favor of this enriched colony system, the future will lie with those egg producers that have the highest density of hens per square foot in a state where no rules exist and little concern is given for society's standards on hand welfare. i am convinced this colony's system and the standards that support it are the best compromise for the future of our industry.

the system has better animal welfare and efficiency than cage free or free range and reflects the best standards for egg production moving forward. i salute hsus for their openness and willingness to compromise on this issue. they recognize that you can improve animal welfare within the context of an economically- sustainable cage system, if designed right. it does make sense. the national welfare system that treats everybody the same and reflects our country's ideas of fairness and humanity -- that is what is required here and that is what senate bill 3239 provides. thank you, senator. >> thank you but very much. welcome. good to see you.

>> hello. thank you for the chance to testify today. my name is greg herbruck. our family farm faces the same challenges as others. grain prices have soared across the nation. the situation i will describe to you today is more serious for us. over the years, we have tried to meet the needs of our customers. we have been part of the growing organic egg industry and to partner with 20 other farms to supply a wide range of eggs through different production systems. we also use conventional eggs. there are good reasons our industry moves in this direction. animal health, protection from predators, and economic efficiency.

however, we alert consumers and voters do not make decisions based simply on science. most are several generations removed from the farm. they are customers. we got a dramatic wake-up call when california voters passed proposition 2 by a two to one margin. other states move to establish their own standards. madam chairwoman, we are aware of our state of michigan was one of those. in a few years, and farms in michigan will be required to provide twice as much space. we have a patchwork of state animal welfare laws that are

inconsistent and unworkable. these laws will not just affect producers in those particular states. this means a farmer in iowa will have to comply with california standards because a number of eggs sold in california come from iowa. eggs move across state lines every day. most farms are incapable of producing what the state consumes. our farms cannot maintain a separate henhouse standard for every state where we want to sell eggs. and yet that is where we are headed with the patchwork of laws that keep passing. michigan is differ from ohio which is different from washington, which is different

from california. it actually gets worse. it would be an impossible task to keep track of which eggs were produced in which state. you can see we're on our road to chaos. i also urge you to examine the house version of the farm bill. there is an amendment that encourages the exact opposite of a national standard. if herbruck's has to adhere to a standard in one state and others to not, this will mean it death for our family farm. unfortunately, the private sector cannot alone solve this problem. we cannot avoid the threat of future ballot initiatives, and 24 states have them.

we are convinced the only solution to this problem is a national production standard come up as contained in senator feinstein's bill 3239. it is essential that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible so we can stay in business. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. baer, thank you. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you for the opportunity for me to be able to testify today. and farmers of america, but the association of over a dozen operations -- senator roberts did a very good job of introducing me, so i will not introduce myself. thank you.

we have five primary reasons we are opposed to this bill. this bill will essentially kill the small family and former. this bill will result in the dramatic increase of cost to consumers. this bill is not necessary. he will be establishing a precedent that could affect all livestock industries. and 3239 is not justified by science. egg production is a cyclical, high-volume, low-margin business. this bill will benefit the mega operations to the detriment of the 1800 other family farms. the experience of my nephew is an example of why this is the case. he just installed new housing, investing almost $2.5 million. that equipment system has a useful life of over 30 years.

if sanibel 3239 becomes law, he will be required to essentially start over. his replacement cost then to maintain production standards would be almost $5 million. there is no way that young man will be able to raise that kind of money in 18 years. cost to the industry -- in 1999, the european union issued a similar directive to require farmers to enrich housing over 12 years. as predicted, many closed operations due to the higher capital investment required. european consumers saw supplies dipped by 20% and prices soar up to 55% higher. we can expect a similar result in our country.

by 2029, at 65% of production will still be in conventional cages at 67 inches. today, any producer who wants to produce eggs has the freedom and the ability to do so. they do not need a federal law to require this at this level. the law is required to force the small farmer out of business so there is less production. it sets a bad precedent. as a lifelong board member, i am sympathetic to the unfortunate situation faced by the egg farmers in california. eric benson mentioned a lot of money was spent. my family spent millions of dollars to california farmers,

trying to be proposition 2. i agree with the california congressman who said regarding the farm bill, "we have a terrible situation created by the voters of california with this a good situation. now that i am a retiring member, i can say i do not always agree with what the voters do." i certainly agree with that congressman. after the 1999 ue directive -- no study has resulted in an increase in food safety. in addition, the u.s. department of agriculture studied last july and found no single housing system gets the highest court on animal welfare parameters.

the american veterinary medical association issued a statement that "each of the additional features in the colony as the potential to malfunction, causing injury, harboring disease factors." before concluding my remarks, i would like to state for the record, i personally oppose this legislation and i and others have received threats. we are evaluating those threats with lawyers and law enforcement officials. thank you, madam chairwoman for your time. >> thank you very much. we will move to questions. could you respond a little bit more to the challenge of state regulations in michigan?

they have a voluntary effort. why can't we do this voluntarily? >> as a mention, we started in roughly 30 other states. with this expanding of state standards, we will have to have a chicken house for every state. it is impossible to manage the type of operation. what it takes to keep track of ohio eggs as well as getting eggs through system. if it is a warehouse, they will say, this has to go to ohio or west virginia or michigan.

a concern. >> thank you. and you really have been at the forefront of the pro-active reaction to consumer interest. we appreciate that. mr. lathem, could you talk about the prices of eggs? what will the consumer level impact on egg prices be, and are there provisions in the bill to ensure that egg prices do not dramatically increase? >> of course, egg prices always fluctuates. the last two years, eggs have been as cheap as 75 cents a dozen. today, they're probably $1.60. as we know, corn and soy have

gone very high. we did do a study. the work they did shows that over 18 years, there is only about 1.1 cents per dozen. even when we get through that phase in period, we are talking and 9 cents per dozen when everybody is in enriched cages. we think that is a reasonable number. we think that is very reasonable. >> can you speak to the price increases in the european union and what you have experienced? >> it definitely. we have done a lot of work on this legislation. one of the things we wanted to

do was in sure we did not have what happened in europe. so, we have a phased in, tiered approach where we raise the square inches per chicken. europe did not do that. europe had one final day you had to go from existing houses to new, enriched housing. our legislation as much, much better, more thought out, better planned. >> thank you. talking about the differences from the standpoint of a producer, when you look at things like the depreciation schedule and so on for the traditional hand cages, what provisions are in the bill to make the transition compatible with what you do in the normal course of business as to make decisions? >> we have a couple houses on our ranch. my cousin put them in in 1992 or 1993.

the equipment in those houses is in desperate need of replace right now. we do not know what we can put in there, but that is probably the uncertainty issue. they last about 20 years. the legs of the bottom of the cages is starting to rot away. where the eggs rollout from the hens is getting more weighty than it should be. the belt feeder needs to be replaced. and that was good quality equipment that we purchased. got our experience, we've to do this in 20 years. the equipment is not efficient. today's equipment is better. is designed stronger. is designed to last a long time. but once again, beyond 20 years, i do not think it is practical.

we need to do it anyway. as far asdon't think it is prac. as far as depreciation schedules, a lot of people say, what does it cost? ongoing operating costs are similar to what we will have today. the biggest difference possibly a little higher feed costs. the biggest thing is the capital. at some point, you're going to have to get that money but the rest of it is really no different. >> thank you very much. senator roberts? >> as a board member, did anyone from uep contact you and tell you uep was negotiating this agreement?

>> as a board member, i was notified but the uep membership as a whole was not notified about the negotiation rid of our brother has been a member for 20 something years and nothing about it. >> were you ever formally polled to see if he supported the agreement? >> i am sorry, somebody coughed behind me. >> that is allowed. [laughter] >> i am getting old and my hearing is not good anymore. >> that is allowed, too. were you ever formally polled to see if he supported the agreement? >> no, the uep membership was not. the only votes taken more board members. >> it is mandated, what will happen to your business? i think you answered that with her nephew who has expanded to million dollars to basically modernize his operation and your

indicating it could cost him $5 million. the folks to your left will say you are right, my left, but he has 18 years to do it. any comments? >> i guess i would like to say my son is also looking at taking over my operation. i would like to sell it to him. because my nephew prevent equipment years ago, he can produce eggs until 2029 at 62 square inches. if my son takes over my operation and puts in heavy equipment, he will have to produce eggs at 78 square inches, 90 square inches, 101 square inches, 113 square inches and 124 square inches and three- year increments. and because he is starting to years later, he will be locked into a more inefficient egg production system that costs more per dozen than his cousin and you'll be competing with his cousin disadvantage for the

entire time. my son will not be able to take over my operation and produce eggs for 18 years at that big a production cost efficiency. other producers were able to produce them at 67. >> you have a very diversified farming operation. the have concerns are regulation like this will just lead to more consolidation on what is already a very consolidated industry? >> absolutely. my son is a prime example. he will simply not be allowed to borrow the money to put in these new pages if he has to be at a competitive disadvantage to 70% of the industry. >> that was another question i had. how are folks responding? on your right? >> i have a lot of respect for them.

on this issue, we disagree entirely. >> you raise hogs. you mentioned you were worried about the precedent this legislation will said. will you talk about your concerns? >> yes, proposition two not only covered laying hens, but also hog gestation stalls, and the same issue is being played out. if congress starts the process of regulating on farm production practices, i do not think the animal rights groups or anyone else advocating for that will stop. they will continue to advocate and end of the federal government set standards for all livestock. >> mr. lathem, uep controls 90%, right?

they said welfare standards. >> correct. >> if you control 90% of the market and have a welfare standard that should be available knowledge to all consumers, why the need the federal government to set a new standard? >> what we found out is the public is interested in our industry like never before. we have an excellent program. it has been very well accepted. when we see now is that consumers, through ballot initiatives, customers developing their own plans -- we see people want to be involved in how their food is produced. what we need is a consistent level playing field, everyone on the same program. it is not right for some producers to stay in business while others go out because they live in the wrong states,

or a lot of the drop. we feel -- lot of the drop. we feel they should be produced humanely. the main thing, is this something we can all live with. >> if this bill were enacted and page sizes were increased, what is the benefit -- page sizes were increase, what is the benefit -- cage sizes are increased, what is the benefit to human health from the food safety standpoint? >> well, we serve very safe eggs today, the safest have ever been, and i do not see that changing. continue to have safe eggs. >> the proposed rule calls for 116 square inches. why are we considering a law that calls for 144?

who decided on this number? how do you know this is exactly the right number? >> it is actually 124 inches. the other number you called it was for brown hands. -- quoted is for brown hens. this is not a new system for here. we have relied on them, and their number is 116, and we decided on 124, which is close to the 116 number which side supports. >> he said the cost was $24 per hen for new construction, $20 for renovation, and another dollar per ton for purchase and scratch pads, so that would

equal roughly $8 billion. is this argument in favor of the bill that no one will notice such a dramatic cost increase if they are spread out over several years? and as a billion dollars. that is a lot of money -- that is $8 billion. that is a lot of money. >> that is on the high side. i do not come up with that figure. >> what do you think? >> i think it could be as high as $6 billion, but it is important that you realize that we will probably spend $3 billion anyway, so the incremental cost will be closer to the $3 billion, and when you spread them over the number of eggs, it comes up to 1.5 cents per dozen, and approximately 9 cents when we complete the transition, about 5% of the

cost of one dozen eggs. we think it is reasonable when the end -- at the end of the day all farmers are here to appease the public. we have to listen to the public and we hear what they want. [unintelligible] >> i cannot say, senator roberts, that our experiences around those numbers. $20.50 is the bid that i got to replace the equipment, and 24 is right, to build from scratch, but we do not plan to spend it all right away. >> mr. benson, let me see if i have that right. you indicated that costs are stable, and as a consequence you could figure out what happens in 18 years.

you are aware of the drought going on here, north dakota, down to texas, the second year for kansas. we pretty much burned up, and cattle and poultry are effected dramatically. i would expect that the consumer applications, while not immediate, over the next year could be considerable. i said could be. we do not have all of the usda figures. the chairwoman and i are very concerned about. he did not know what is when you have been in regards to your cost of -- you do not know what is going to happen in regards to your cost of production could >> cost of feed is one of our biggest cost, and that is a concern going forward, but we live in a very competitive marketplace, and the 5% that we are talking about, over 18

years, is a fairly low number compared to the amount of money, or the prices that have gone up and down over the past couple of weeks. these short-term fluctuations are one thing. the long-term trend has been toward better technology, efficiency, and more room for the hands. it is how long the equipment less, 18,-20 years, the we are aware of the longer term trends, and quite frankly, if there is money, people will expand production. >> i think they have talked about the situation in that you, when europe -- in the eu, when europe implemented this. they waited until the last minute, typical with regulation in the business community, egg prices soared 55% to i hope

that does not happen in the united states. >> thank you. before concluding the hearing, i would like to ask each of you with the biggest challenges are for egg producers in the united states and what you see as the future of the industry over the next 20 years. mr. amon baer, would you like to talk about what you think the challenges are? >> i think the short-term challenge will be a feed cost, as senator roberts explained. who knows where they will end up at, and it is 60% to 75% of our total cost. on a long-term basis, there will be consolidation. this bill would accelerate that. it is much easier for big operators to convert small percentages of their farms over.

that works to the detriment of individual family farms, like my nephew and my son, who when they make the conversion, they have to do 100% of the conversion right now, and that is why it does not work for the small family farmer. other concerns, long term, certainly, is the active as an from animal rights advocates and all of the issues that surround that. thank you. >> ok. mr. herbruck? >> yes. we have family. we hope to have a business we can share with our children and grandchildren for the future. as i mentioned, in michigan, we are in a tough spot. if we do not do something to change the path, we will be

significantly on profitable and not competitive because of our peers in neighboring states do not have to do things, and we do have to follow a standard that doubles capacity, our customers love us, but they will move on. the uncertainty -- that is why we need the certainty to make plans for our future. >> thank you. >> i am afraid he took my major point, it is that uncertainty, especially in california. it is not just the various rules that we have for the various states. it is also the way they will be interpreted, and the uncertainty we have and whether we are planning on doing complies with initiatives from various states. if they are not clear, much less if there is a level playing field, we did not know what we are doing going forward, and

that puts our family in a difficult bind. >> thank you. mr. letham? >> i would say they stole my point, too. that is why we are all here. we are unified. we do need to know that we have the future. we need to have a level playing ground. the number one thing that scares me is what kind of house do why build will not be able to ship eggs will somebody from iowa ship eggs to georgia because they cannot go to california? we as farmers and producers, our jobs are to look at the consumers and do a good job to produce abundant food that is safe. that is what we want to do, but we deserve and want a level playing ground. that is why we are here today. >> thank you very much. thank you to each of you. this is a challenging issue

because of what the states are doing. i know what you are talking about, mr. herbruck from the michigan standpoint. mr. lathem, you talked about coming together with differing views, and folks normally not on the same side coming together and finding common ground. we are used to doing that in this committee. that is how we got a bipartisan farm bill. we are proud of that and how we were able to pass it in the senate. i am hoping we will be able to come together and find common ground on this very important issue for egg producers around the country. >> it is important, and we do appreciate that. >> thank you. the hearing is adjourned.

>> and just under 15 minutes, a seminar and conservative leadership. newt gingrich leads off. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. president obama earlier today at the white house signed the u.s.- israel enhanced security cooperation act recently passed by congress but he also announced additional $70 million for the israeli missile defense system. >> listen, i want to welcome

these outstanding leaders to the oval office. i want particularly to acknowledge congressman howard berman and senator barbara boxer who have done outstanding work in shepherding through this bipartisan piece of legislation that underscores our commitment to israel. as many of you know, i have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with israel across the whole spectrum of security issues, intelligence, military, technology. in many ways, what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen really at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscores our unshakeable commitment to israel should carry. i am also very pleased this week we're going to be able to

announce $7 million in additional -- $70 million in additional -- excuse me, $70 billion in additional spending for iron dome. this is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for an israeli families. it is a program that has been tested and prevented missile strikes inside of israel. it is a testimony to the leadership of the folks sitting here that we will be able to lock in that funding and assure the program continues, and that we are standing by our friends in israel when it comes to these kinds of projects. let me close by saying the tragic events we saw in bulgaria emphasize the degree to which this continues to be a

challenge not just for israel, but for the entire world and preventing terrorism attacks and making sure that the people of israel are not targeted. i hope, as i sign this bill, once again, everybody understands how committed all of us are -- republicans and democrats -- as americans to our friends in making sure israel is safe and secure. leon panetta, our secretary of defense, will be travelling to israel to further consult and find additional ways that we can ensure such cooperation at a time when, frankly, the region is experiencing heightened tensions. with that, let me sign this bill. thank you to all who are standing beside me for their outstanding leadership and work on this issue. i will make sure i am using enough pens.

there you go. thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> have a great weekend. >> i am senator barbara boxer from california. this is congressman howard berman and we are both so pleased and so grateful to this president for signing what i consider to be the most comprehensive american-israeli cooperation agreement that we have ever had in this nation.

it is very broad and far reaching, very bipartisan. i wrote in it was several others in the house and senate. howard will go into the details of it just a little bit to tell you what it is. some of the main issues that we address here, an extension of loan guarantees for israel, an increase in our stockpiling of weapons from 400 million to well over a billion. the pledges cooperation on every single front and really stands strong with israel at the u.n. try to work on relations with nato and israel, so we are very, very excited. i am ever so grateful to this president for standing with israel as such a loyal and dependable friend >> thank you, senator.

basically, what the senator has said, this bill is in effect the manifestation of the president's word repeated now a number of times, the bond between the u.s. and israel are unbreakable. this codifies the extension of the loan guarantees, provides the statutory basis for the iron don't support, which is critical to deal with -- iron dome support, which is critical to deal with the missiles. it has proven effective. it creates another framework for ensuring israel's quality to military edge against all common nation of enemies in the region in terms of the weapons that we're willing in the security assistance we provide to israel, authorizes the aerial refueling tankers and a whole

variety of areas, storage and israel. the senator mentioned a number of them. by and large, these are all just different aspects of demonstrating once again the u.s.-israel relationship is a close, and credible bond between two partners, two allies in the fight against terror and the pursuit of peace and stability in that region and on some any other issues. thank you. >> we're happy to take any questions. >> is it coincidental the signing of this when governor romney is in israel? some say it may be political. a >> that is not true at all. john boehner and eric cantor set the timeframe for this in the house. >> the president has a certain number of days to sign the bill, and the bill just got to him last week.

>> you could talk about what time you sign the bill and what day, let me just tell you something. this president loves israel, cares about israel, stands with israel not just with words. words are cheap. but with actions. today we stood next to him. you should see his pride as he signed this bipartisan legislation. >> obviously, there's nobody from the other party here. were they invited? >> my co-author, johnnie isaacson, said he wanted to be here but his granddaughter was in a swimming meet and he was very excited. she is eight years old. he promised her. i don't know about the others. >> i would not read too much into that. the session ended yesterday. >> collins, she really wanted to go, but once the session ended, she caught an airplane. >> talking about the iron dome, he says $70 million then said

$70 billion. what will that money to accomplish? >> it will allow new batteries. here is a system that really about 90% of the time has been able to shoot down rockets coming out of gaza and the populated areas in southern israel. but there are only enough batteries now to protect certain areas. this is part of a major push, israeli efforts, and substantial american support, to expand the number of batteries so that a greater part of israel can be protected against these missiles. >> [inaudible] >> i think this is the next installment. this is the next installment of the larger authorization.

>> [inaudible] >> this provides the statutory basis the bill has not been enacted, also has its authorization as well. basically, this president was committed to this project. we did not need the legislation to do this, but the next president will now have the authorization and essentially, tells the next in ministration, which we will see who that is going to be but we have our preferences, to keep it going. >> does this send a message to iran? >> absolutely. i mean, there is other legislation that is more directly related to iran, but this gives meaning to the notion that iran must stop its

nuclear weapons program. iran must stop its support for terrorism. and so long as it continues, it is real and the other countries of the middle east can count our support against iran's violations of their treaty obligations and against proliferation of nuclear arms. >> let me expand. this president has gathered support in the entire world. this will be our last comment. this message -- i am sorry. this legislation sent the message to the entire world, including every country, including iran, that this relationship that we have with israel is unshakeable, as the president said. this legislation, in my opinion, is the most far-reaching israeli-american copper to of legislation i have ever seen in my life. as far as the sanctions on iran,

this president has started the strongest sanctions ever against any country. if you listen to the president of iran, he is complaining that this has never happened before. this president deserves so much credit, as does hillary clinton, for their work in bringing the world together against iran. another point i would say, is that in this legislation, is says the u.s. will oppose any anti-israel resolution at the united nations. this is one comprehensive piece of legislation. i am very excited. i think there should be cheering in israel today. certainly, in every corner of the world that supports the right of israel to thrive in peace and security. thank you very much. >> from earlier today at the why

house, the president has several campaign events in the washington area this afternoon. mitt romney in london for the opening of the olympics. and we are live at capital hill where the clare boothe luce policy institute is holding a seminar on conservative leadership. it will start with former republican presidential candidate and house speaker newt gingrich, who will talk about the impact of the 2012 health- care law. it should get underway momentarily. live coverage right here on c- span.

>> clare boothe luce policy institute in washington is meeting on capitol hill for a forum on conservative leadership. newt gingrich, former presidential candidate and house speaker will be coming up. he will be talking about the impact of the health-care law.

he will probably also talked about the economy -- growing at an annual rate of 1.5%. we covered the why house briefing, and that is in the video library, c-span.org.

>> clare boothe luce policy institute meeting at the capitol to hold this forum on conservative leadership. what the house and senate out for the rest of the week, and they will be back next week -- the house returning on tuesday

for legislative work. that will get underway tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. among the items next week in the house will be the extension of the 2001 in the 2003 tax cuts. the senate this week passed the democratic proposal that would extend the bush era tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. next week in the senate they will continue debate on cybersecurity legislation, which they started yesterday.

>> waiting to get under way with the conservative leaders forum hosted by the clare boothe luce policy institute. newt gingrich will be first up. looking at our road to the why house coverage this weekend, some of the speeches of this past week -- white house coverage this weekend. president obama speaking at the veterans of foreign wars earlier this week. and speaking at the national urban league, a portion of his comments were the talk about guns. and a look at mitt romney as the olympics got under way and his role in the salt lake city olympics. that is coming up saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> good afternoon, everyone.

thank you for bearing with us for a few minutes. welcome to the 2012 capitol hill seminar. my name is catherine rodriguez and i am the elected director for the clare boothe luce policy institute. as the nation's premier organization for conservative women, our mission is to promote leading conservative women and prepare women for leadership. we do this through a variety of unique programs and events like this one to expose young men and women, college students like you, to some of their conservative heroes. we also help students bring conservative ideas to their campuses through our campus lecture program. our speakers include great women speakersbay buchanan, michelle malkin and kate obenshain -- some of whom you will hear this afternoon. if you are interested in hosting a conservative speaker or would like any other information on how the institute can help you fight the left on

your campus, give us a call last 888-891-4288 or visit our web site, cbpli.org. i know you are all looking forward to the speakers today so i will not hold you up any longer. we will have the opportunity after each speaker for q&a. we have two of the student in turns holding microphones -- one on this side. raise your hand. at one on this side. if you would please line up behind them. they will hold the microphone up for you to ask your question. >> i would like to welcome our luce institute in turn laurel conrad to reduce our first speaker. >> welcome. my name is laurel conrad and i am a student at cornell university and a summer intern at clare boothe luce policy institute. i would like to introduce efforts speaker, conservative leader and former speaker of the

house, newt gingrich. he was inspired by an early age by his experiences as the son of a career soldier to dedicate his life to his country. he is the architect of the contract of america which led the republican party to victory in 1994 by capturing a majority in the u.s. house for the first time in 40 years. when of the numerous accomplishments that took place under his leadership, with congress passed the first balance -- balanced budget in a generation. "the washington times" has called newt gingrich be indispensable leader and time magazine named him man of the year for 1995. his background includes a commitment to academic achievement. he received a bachelor's degree from emory university, master's and doctorate in modern european history from tulane university. before his election to congress in 1978, he taught history and environmental studies at west georgia college for eight years. he represented georgia in congress for 20 years, including four years as speaker of the

house. he served on the defense policy board under president george w. bush. in 1999, gingrich was appointed to the united states commission on national security 21st century and the -- commission to examine national security challenges. he is also committed to developing free-market health care reforms centered on the individual. in 2003, he founded the center for health transformation. he and his wife host and produce award winning documentary films together and author the author of books. his daughter has spoken at the luce policy interests -- institute and has written policy breaks for us. he has written 23 books, including 13 "the new york times" best sellers. during his leadership he used his incredible background to be one of the strongest, most compelling and innovative conservative leaders on the stage. join me in welcoming this extraordinary conservative

leader, newt gingrich. [applause] >> thank you all. some housekeeping. i will give you a very brief talk so we can spend most fun -- most of the time questions you want and at the very end we will take two or three minutes to take pictures. i noticed several of you kept jumping up and taking pictures. and those of you trapped of the year could not do it. i am delighted to be here and i am very interested in sharing ideas. the reason i agreed to come because i think developing the next-generation of conservative activists and leaders is very important. i just got a note today from the young america foundation, i think i have spoken in 19 out of the last 20 meetings. and i do that because i do think the education matters and i do think getting people

committed matters. i want to give you three or four big jumps -- think of it as an outline. first of all, my younger daughter jackie and i wrote a book of "five principles for a successful life." it is aimed at people younger than you but the principals our universal. these are things i actually develop out of trying to think of what i had done in my life that was successful. the first is to dream big. the second is to work hard. the third is to learn everyday. the fourth is to enjoy life. and the fifth is to be true to yourself. let me tell you why i say this. you are at the right age to dream big. and if you don't have the courage to dream big at your current age you will not acquire it at 45. it can be anything. it could be having a family. i have a 12-year-old granddaughter who wants to be a ballerina. i have a 10-year-old grandson who will be 11 on saturday who thinks he wants to either be a

chess player or a sniper. he is not sure. at nine years of age he read -- "seal team 6." think about who you want to be a and b the courage to not leave with your teacher tells you are parents or friends. understand -- and this is where i disagree so deeply with president obama -- the key to success is to work hard. his comments the other day birgit on irrational. or just left-wing academic -- verged on the irrational or just left wing academic. tenured faculty -- nobody actually creates the money but they are happy the alumni showed up for you show up with the federal government pays -- shows up to pay them. a slightly distorted view. people who are successful all work hard.

this is the primary thing to get locked in your head. if you want to play a big game, you are going to get to practice, and in order to practice you have to put in the time. it gets me to my third point. enjoy life. i learned many years ago -- i did a course and as part of the course we had one of the most famous inventors of restaurants in america. norman brinker and then it tgi friday's, steak and ale, the salad bar -- the waiter walking up and in introducing yourself. we interviewed him and he said, when people come to ask him for career advice, no matter what their age, the number one question is, what do you like doing. the reason is, to do anything really well you have to do it so much that you got to like it. nobody can will themselves to do

something consistently they don't like. so, i really encourage you to think about it. life is not mean it is always fun, but that you have some deep sense of satisfaction that this is a good way to spend your day. i spend virtually all of my time either learning or teaching. i teach in speeches, in books. i just wrote an e-book called " no taxation by misrepresentation" taking on the tax bite. we did it as an experiment to see how e-books work. i just did a paper that was submitted to politico an hour ago arguing it was legitimate to ask questions about national security in terms of the muslim brotherhood. i am constantly either reading, listening, writing, speaking, doing media. and that is probably 90% of what i do.

obviously i am half irish -- i like talking, i like reading. i like learning. all of this kind of works pretty well for me. then, i think, you have to recognize -- you got to learn every day. the reason you have to learn everyday is twofold. first, the world is really big. i am 69 years old. i have worked at politics since august of 1958. and i learn stuff every day. i traveled a fair amount of the planet, and i am looking forward to my next trip. because there will be things i'd never seen before. i am currently working on a novel and potentially a movie about george washington as a young man. and i am back real engaging and rethinking about washington -- somebody probably first encountered when i was 9 for 10

years old. i have a grandmother who taught me american history when i was very young. now at 69, i have a whole new set of questions and a whole new set of understanding and back trying to learn again. you've got to say to yourself, if i going to achieve a big dream, i have to work hard, learn every day, and i have to enjoy it. if you find attractive something where you say, i don't enjoy this, you have to have the courage to change. it is very important. which gives me -- gets me to my last point -- you have to be true to yourself. the fact is, if you are not true to yourself, you'll just crumble. you can't be true to somebody else. it can't say, they get to the fine for me whether or not i am ok. adam smith in his first great book which proceeds -- proceed to the wealth of nations talk about the idea of looking in the mirror. when you look in the mirror, and you see the person you want to be. if not, candidly, the person who

has to change is you. not other people who validate you. it is a very hard thing to do. i've done things in my career that absolutely involve people thinking that i was not. some of the time, by the way, they were right. which is one other point i would make about working hard. it doesn't always work. i just lost a presidential nomination. you probably know this. i ran for congress twice and lost, in 1974 and in 1976. i had a project starting in december -- in 1970 to create a house majority. we have been in the minority since 1954. i thought 21 years was long enough. the project i was running, we lost in 1981, 1982, 84, 88, 90, in '92. there were people -- the week before the election were election day of 1994 that we were nuts.

i just saw a guy the other day who said to me that the two great surprises of his life was you actually could have a republican speaker of the house and that the berlin wall fell. he put them in the same league. i had to be willing to endure two losses in congressional campaigns in order to finally win. i had to be willing to endure a losing year after year, getting back up and say, what didn't quite work, and going back added. i coined a phrase in that period called cheerful persistence. both words are important. anything you really want to achieve, you have to persist. if you want to be effective, you have to persist cheerfully. in a free society, you attract people by being cheerful. if you are persisting but you are grumpy, people hide from you. if you're depressed, they ignore you. if you're angry, they try not to get near you. but on the other hand, if you are cheerful, they will tolerate

you. think about people you know personally. cheerful persistence is a disciplined behavior. i want to -- a couple of books i want to recommend. i would urge all of you to buy a copy of peter drucker "the affected executive." his argument is in the information age, every worker is an executive. knowledge workers by definition are about executing. it is about 160 pages long and it is an astonishing book. i urge -- 168 pages long and it is an astonishing book and it is the best single book about being effective i have seen. he starts with a very important point, which i believe deeply having spent my whole time studying it. effectiveness is a learned have it. it is not about genetics, it is not about i.q.. it is not about personalities. learning a set of patterns that work. and then being disciplined about resupplying them and resupplying them and learning in

the process -- re-applying them and re-applying them and learning in the process. let me talk briefly about where we are as a conservative movement. i think we are in the middle of a tremendous amount of change and i don't frankly know how quite we will get the where we are from -- to where we are going. the conservative movement really began in its modern form in a reaction against the republican establishment and against the national establishment, which are parallel but not identical. if you go back and you look at the rise of goldwater, it is really taking on both the national system -- the welfare state, lyndon johnson, etc. -- and it is taking on the republican establishment -- nelson rockefeller, the northeast. it had a huge impact. there is no question that it changed the underlying pattern of the republican party decisively in ways that are still true to this day.

at the same time, it created the framework within which reagan could rise. but it is important to remember, if you go back -- this is why i am a historian and not a political scientist. any social science that has three lines is inherently unlike the real world. because the real world does not have street lines. in 1972, when richard nixon one a decisive election -- won a decisive election and carried virtually every state, there was the zeroth reason to believe ronald reagan would become president -- there was zero reason to believe ronald reagan would become president. the vice president with spiro agnew. there was ever a reason -- every reason to believe after nixon that spiro agnew would be the republican nominee. there is a great book, i think it is called "a heartbeat away" about the discovery that iran

agnew was a crook and about getting him out of the presidency, which led nixon to pick gerald ford. nixon then resigned. ford becomes president. ford then makes to the huge mistakes. he treats the reagan with contempt -- which just makes reagan irritated -- and he picks nelson rockefeller to be the vice-presidential nominee. had ford picked ronald reagan to be the vice-presidential nominee, history would have been totally different. reagan probably would not have ended up running for president. he would have been on a ticket and the ford that either would have when they were lost, and if it had one ford would have served as president. the guy who tells the story beautifully is one of the leading analyst of american polling. he always says that he learned about campaigns being real because he was convinced to

leave his job and go to work for teddy kennedy and kennedy was like 30 points ahead. and the week after he left to work for kennedy kennedy david interview with roger mudd in which roger mudd asked a to a -- ask a trick question. kennedy is running against jimmy carter. roger mudd asked this very unfair trick question -- why you want to be president? kennedy couldn't answer. badlyldn't answer him so -- you could probably google this -- that his campaign just started to collapse. charlie cook is the guy who tells the story. charlie cook is the one who left his job to be a field organizer for kennedy because this is going to be the winning campaign. he watched it disintegrate. but there was no point in 1979 where you would have said reagan is inevitable. at this stage in 1980 reagan with nine points behind carter.

i am just giving this as a way of thinking. you don't know how the movement is going to be bold and to the next phase. you don't know what will happen decisively. but let me tell you what i think the three great needs are. first, we have to win the cultural fight to take back the campuses. we have allowed the left to develop a bizarre domination of american intellectual life, much of that reinforce the by course of behavior. -- reinforced by coercive behavior. how many of you are on a campus where it is the size of a painful to be conservative? ok. why should it be true? conservatism is the dominant dog you structure of the american people. why do we tolerate academics who are not -- nuts imposing their view and false history. teaching stuff that's not true. you want to understand why

barack obama has such wacked out ideas, he is the perfect representative of the academic class. he really believes this stuff. he thinks he can get there on your own. he thinks government is the magic thing that should work. i thing he was genuinely shocked to discover the shuttle ready jobs were not shovel ready. to live in america and not figure out bureaucracies are not exactly agile is truly being out of touch with reality. but he lives in that world of people -- they have nice cocktail parties and talk about the latest weird book they read -- [laughter] and excited because a highly esoteric poet is coming by hill was last read by 11 people but who hates america and has this wonderful new crop -- problem called "why i hate america" which is filled with a deeply powerful meaning. my describing the world some of you know? ok. one of the great challenges of

the conservative movement of the next generation is a had gone all out fight for the academic world. those of you who are attracted to that, i would urge you to get a phd and find a campus and start a war. for an't have to argue countervailing bias but just argue for facts. a fact-based society destroys modern liberalism because modern liberalism is based on such a large number of fantasies and highly inaccurate things. second, we desperately need a generation of innovation. one of the sad part about my not being more competent as a candidate is that we really need a whole range of new ideas. let me give you a quick examples. brain research -- alzheimer's, autism, parkinson's, mental- health, traumatic dream -- a traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorders --

the research is the biggest area of break through in the next 25 years. it will have more impact on human lives, the federal budget. we have all of this effort on aids, and i understand the importance of aids and i understand the political power, but the fact is alzheimer's is massively bigger, autism is massively bigger. why is it we don't have the same level of focus and investment and why aren't we having the kind of breakthroughs we are having in brain research, which covers all of these aspects? second, we got into a brawl about it -- i meant what i said about going into space. the weakness we got into was my opponents probably said, well, nasa is so incompetent, how could you possibly throw so much money at it? that was the right question, but then they cut off the answer. what we need is a new model for going into space that uses the private sector, it uses prizes and entrepreneurship. my guess that the people pretty

knowledgeable about this, those with 30 years of experience, they believe a private sector effort to get to the moon would cost about 5% of what the federal government plans to spend. the model i tell people are the right brothers -- wright brothers. a practice five years, spent a total of $500 in 1900's money -- they actually had 500 flights that failed. december 17, 1903, the first four flights failed. they flew on the fifth flight. so, they discovered how to fly. for $500. the smithsonian got a $50,000 grant from congress to build an elaborate fancy airplane, launched its offer of a boat of potomac and it went into the water and sank. $500 private sector, two guys who are passionate and a $50,000 bureaucratic project.

and the smithsonian was so mad at the wright brothers were succeeded that relations were so bad for 37 years the wright brothers when i give them the original plane. -- would not give them the original airplane. some of you interested in doing this, we need a generation of innovation. we need to apply a six sigma for the federal government. it would say trojans. we need to fundamentally overhaul the congressional budget office which is a disaster. it is a bastion of liberalism propping up models that don't work. we don't have the intellectual horsepower of engaged in these kinds of fights. the third thing we need is something we have a fair amount of the probably need 10 times as much -- we need a lot more noisy people. we need people who are prepared

-- there are so many fronts to have fights on right now. and of course, some of it is cultural and some of it is dealing with the changing real world, and some of it is dealing with the obama administration. but we need more people on b logs, twitter, talk radio, tv, more people writing books. two last examples -- we are now going through a revolution in energy. there's an american energy opportunity that by itself is going to remake your life. you should be dramatically optimistic. if we can beat obama this fall, we will see a takeoff of the next decade that will once again make america the leading country in the world. we will be the dominant manufacturing country in the next decade, the dominant provider of energy. people forget, we are an enormously and doweled country. when i first thought environmental studies in the 1970's -- this would be a great

case study for someone who wants to do an interesting book when they -- we use the popular book called "the limits to growth." it have been developed using fancy computer models at mit and was seen to be very advanced. garbage-in, garbage-out is a very important part of computer work. everything they describe as wrong. this is the problem with modern left wing environmentalism. every single prediction. you get a copy of the book -- it is just wrong. the most recent vivid example of the left being wrong is the concept called peak energy. how many of you heard of peak energy or peak oil? one of the things academic leftists love talking to people about. we are going to run out. -- there is a funny movie called "the last car" i think, in 1980, i think, and it is like jimmy carter's world coming true.

only enough gasoline leapt for one car and the whole rest of the country does not have cars -- only enough gasoline left for one car. a black utopia, if you will, where everything the left dreams of has happened and it is really miserable. in that context, innovation has changed everything. we now have a combination of what is called fracking and horizontal drilling which enables you to go down and get oil or gasled tights and shale. we knew there were gas and oil after index and foundations -- formation but we cannot get them. let me give you two numbers to illustrate the scale of the american energy opportunity. the amount of natural gas recoverable in the united states

went from seven years in t yearso 100 -- in 2000, to 125 years today. for most of you -- a few of you may live more than 125 years -- but for most of you we have found that natural gas to get through your lifetime. remember, this is assuming we don't find more. the numbers for oil -- 10 years ago north dakota had 150 million barrels of reserves. the current number is 24 billion. north dakota this year passed california and alaska and is now the second-largest oil-producing state in the united states. this is what is wrong with liberalism. if you went 10 years ago and said north dakota will be the number two or of the state, they would say you are crazy because they live in a polaroid snapshot world. but history is made dynamically, it is made by inventing things,

creating new potential. how many of you have a phone that has a video camera? i rest my case. just think about the dynamics of what is happening to your personal capacity to deal with the internet. so, there are things we can do when we need a generation of innovation, and we need people to be noisy about why we should get it and we need to reset the country on a belief that we could have a dramatically better future. i think that is the challenge for you generation. let me, if it is ok, toss it over to questions. [applause] and i gather you should ask the questions into the microphones of a nice spin people know what is going on. -- the nice c-span people will know what is going on. >> what do you think is the most effective way for us to encourage young people to join the conservative movement? >> i think the starting points

are two things. one is -- do they like having a job? would they rather live in a future where there are a lot more jobs, opportunity, and take-home pay and a lot more choices or one where we all come to resemble downtown detroit? second is a question of freedom. do they want to live any world where they get to define their future and make their choices or do they want to live in the world or somebody in washington, d.c., and an unknown bureaucracy issues. regulation that the deregulation is to define their life? would that work? ok. i am not a young person. i don't know what works. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from north dakota state university -- >> that is why he kept nodding, yes. >> thank you so much for pointing out the successes we have had. -- and the state of north

dakota, especially of the energy in this day. but to take my question in the different direction -- how do we when the culture war in this country and win the cultural battle for conservative soul of the nation? been a very good question. first of all, about -- >> a very good question. first of all, about -- about north dakota. vote left will start whirring about north -- north dakota, because you know when there is an oil boom there are not enough -- there are so many jobs, too many jobs. having no jobs, and no roads -- if nobody puts a truck on the road, the road last a very long time. just think about it. just watch the way the left will react to north dakota. western north dakota has to many

jobs, to many people, too many folks striding around. it is a small town that has one traffic light, it's a long time to get through because all of these people are there. so, you have this constant complaint, either why can't we all lived in detroit where they are going back to farming in downtown detroit because half the buildings are unoccupied or the complexity of succeeding. it is a very important part of life. if you succeed, there will be changes. i bet all of you have had this experience. you go back home with folksy went to high school with and you try to describe your new life and for a fair chance for some of them you live in two different worlds. my impression is most north dakota andns are happy to have so much will produce they have a $3 billion surplus -- most north dakota residents are happy to

have some much oil produced. i think the greatest the lustration of winning a cultural war in a very direct way is abraham lincoln. there are a couple of books by a theologian, one only and that the greatest speech, about his second inaugural, -- one on linkedin's greatest speech, and one as president, and one called cooper union. if you want to understand being persuasive and you want to see a cultural fight, studied abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln in 1850's, there is a very unformed argument in 1850's. should slaby allowed to expand, does it matter? -- should slavery be allowed to expand? you have in abraham lincoln's somebody who is very carefully moving public opinion

extraordinary -- in an extraordinarily well thought- out way and it all blows up in his face and you end up in a war. and he then has to mobilize and sustain the north, despite huge casualties. we lose more people between the north and south combined in the civil war and then all of the other wars combined. and from a much smaller population base. if you read abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, it is a campaign document. no president has been reelected since andrew johnson -- and dejection -- andrew jackson in 1832. the gettysburg address we looked at as a historic, cultural -- read it as a politician speech. basically saying to the north, if you vote against me, your son was killed in vain. now, are you prepared to let your son's death be meaningless or are you on the side of freedom?

it is really designed to take this cultural fight. callista and i have done a series of books on american exceptional is in and we are doing it to pick a fight with the left. either the declaration of independence matters or it does not. if it matters it is a real document and it says your rights come from god, you are endowed by your creative. this is a cultural fight we want to have a country because the hard left of not believe any of that. you get in a very serious question on the nature of america. and i think you want to get people down to first principles and you want to get the down to facts. is it a fact that we now have a lot more oil because of innovation or not? this is why i am reading this piece on the muslim brotherhood. is it a fact that there are people on the planet who said -- say they would like to kill us? let's start with that. if you are on the hard left,

they will say it is just political language. you would think after 9/11 or this week's bombing in iraq or the car >> -- car bomber in times square, maybe people who say i want to kill you actually mean they want to kill you. it is a very important core level argument and we have to be more prepared to wage a those kinds of first principles fights. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i am from florida. i became a citizen last year and recently ran to be a delegate for the rnc convention and was told by the good old boys i could not make it. the young people could not become a delegate. i became an alternate delegate but as of the republican party need a transformation for the next generation? do we need to go back to the 1980 idea of ronald reagan expressing a genuine message to be inclusive and open? >> sure.

of course, we do. if the old timers say there is no room for them, beat them. marco rubio did not wait and line. he beat the incumbent governor and he said i want to run for the u.s. senate. i knew him before he became speaker of the house. he had a very methodical campaign to become speaker when he was clearly too young. politics in thend -- there is a very good book of "plan unkett of tammany hall." plunkett later in life told this reporter about how things worked. you find an office you can win and you beat somebody. then when you won, you are somebody. you are now a real person. in the age of information -- let

me give you two examples. i did jay leno the other night. did any of you see it? what did you think? ok. i saw snooki and i had a serious and meaningful dialogue. seriously. snooki exists because she exists because she exists. this is part of the nature of the modern world. you could have a brother or a sister and do your own tv show and three years from now if it catches on, you make money. if it doesn't, don't make money. so, part of the trick is to be noisy. part of the trick is to take yourself seriously. i first appeared asking for a zoo in the city of paris for what i was 10 -- harrisburg when i was 10. i had people my whole career

thinking i was too noisy. my attitude is it is nice to have an occasional republican willing to debate and argue and be in the media. but for a large part of our party, i was seen as so guy -- why doesn't he just be quiet? there is a famous book where the title was "tell newt to shut up ," and it was a quote from john boehner. go back home and be it rather than complaining about it. fill the vacuum with their own energy and courage. you better'd like than snooki. i am michael, going to law school in boston. i have been doing research on campaign finance. as you probably know, you have a world in course in it this past year. what do you think of the state of campaign finance and how would you fight the left on

things like the disclose act and other things they have been attacking super pacs for monday utilize the in the 2008 cycle? >> i think the ideal campaign finance system would allow any american to get any amount of after-tax income if they filed on the internet every night and they gave it to. i think it would clear up all the current bologna, the current red tape. the way the system currently works, if you are rich enough -- if you are mayor bloomberg, you can buy re-election. but he is writing a personal check. he spent so much the it -- getting reelected for mayor of new york that it was virtually impossible to give -- compete because if you are a middle- class candidate you could not raise the money. i think it would be healthier, instead of the money going to the supers -- super pacs that are so all outside of the system i would have the money went directly to the candidates and the candidates have to take responsibility for the advertising, and i think you would have a much cleaner

system. every night reporting on the internet, you know who gave what to whom and just relax and get away from the mess we're in now. campaign finance has consistently made the system worse and it had diverted incumbents' toward spending so much of their time raising money that they have far less time to think and far less time to work with the legislators then they did 30 years ago. than they did 30 years ago. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for this wonderful speech. i am currently with the foreign affairs committee. i want to shift the dynamic of the discussion and ask a foreign policy question, if you don't mind. recently, in the last few days, there have been a lot of reports from both sides that are

sort of taking this critical view of candidate romney's foreign policy, saying he does not have a specifically defined foreign-policy, and that is because president obama has had almost more aggressive foreign policy to some extent than president bush. i wondered if you could comment on that and what is your view in terms of this upcoming election, and in particular, how do you define it republican foreign- policy in the next foreign -- coming election? >> that is a good question. i think it is actually an advantage that romney does not have an automatic sense of what he would impose on foreign policy, because i think the world is evolving in ways we don't understand right now. i would just give you a couple of quick examples. i was at a speech in singapore

in june and i went early to listen to some of the speakers before i talked. one of them was a chinese in economist who pointed out in the next 10 years, india will add 70 billion -- 70 million workers and china because of the one child policy will lose 70 million workers. i went back to rss who works -- russ for me here, i asked sen meet the comparative numbers. 70 million workers added to india is the equivalent of the gentleman and british work force combined. nobody here -- our foreign- policy establishment in both parties doesn't think about a world in which the addition is bigger than germany and great britain, and yet that is the reality.

if you look at the build up of military force in asia and the decline of military force in europe, there are very substantial changes underway in ways we don't fully understand. in fact, there was an article this morning about the iranians by new technology to try to maximize their first 648 our capacity to inflict damage to the u.s. navy -- 6 or 8 hour capacity to and flood damage to the u.s. navy. if i were to say to you what is the most dangerous country in the world today, what would you pick? china, russia -- i am going to give you two countries not on that list. the most dangerous country in the world today is pakistan. pakistan probably has well over 100 nuclear weapons.

it had a growing islamist factions. it is a very precarious, very complex country. it has substantial terrorist organizations operating all over the place. the pakistani intelligence service funds some of those operations. i mean, it is truly complicated. we all worry about iran might get a nuclear weapon. pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons. iran -- ahmadinejad talked about eliminating is a row, so from that point, but there are a lot of people in pakistan who would like to eliminate somebody. whether it is india, what have you. the second most dangerous country from our standpoint is saudi arabia. it is the largest funder of wahabism in the world, a radical islamist position totally incompatible with your lives. this is one of the conversation

nobody in our elites want to have. none of you women would be in this room. he would not be allowed to be here. you have to look carefully at what does this all mean. i don't think today that we have designed systems that fit the realities of the world that is emerging, and i think one of the things i would recommend to a president-elect is he really methodically rethink -- and not just assume that he wants the right wing version of the establishment but that he actually wants to rethink what are our principles, goals, and what kind of systems we need to get there. i think the changes in the world around us are that big. i think are some of -- i am about to get the hook. >> one last question. i want to ask you about electromagnet pulse. i know you have written a little bit on it. it is such a frightening

prospect and we had a taste of it if you weeks ago when the power went out of the storm. the you know people in the private sector working -- do you know people in the private sector working on it? >> that everything that are the most immediate threats to your lives on a grand scale -- assuming there is not a nuclear war -- is cyber warfare, which we don't understand very well, and an electromagnetic pulse and of the two, electromagnetic pulse is much worse. we clearly know the technology because we first discovered it in the late 1950's when we set off a hydrogen warhead in the south pacific and 28 miles of -- 20,000 miles away in hawaii it knocked out lights and telephones. if you launch the weapon at the right out the to be potentially can knock out in large part of the country. the reason it is so formidable is if you burnout elektra

generating systems can't replace them. -- electric generating systems, began replace them. you going to a pre-elliptical world. -- pre-electrical world. if anybody wants a sobering the deduction, michael author wrote a great book called "one second after" actor -- where he shows you the town of north carolina after an electromagnetic pulse event. it is one areas, if i was looking at restructuring our national security system, we should have a very methodical program of hardening our systems. and you can hardin all of these large generating systems so an electromagnetic pulse would not destroy them. and also think through how you harden and of stuff that if there was an attack you could rebuild the system pretty fast. today it would truly be a nightmare. let me just say, i hope all of

you will get active and stay active and be engaged and i hope you will be engaged in an aggressive and direct way, and don't be too patient. we need people who are pushy and willing to work hard. do we have a couple of minutes to take pictures? who is my leader? you are my leader? the you want them to take pictures outside? -- do you want them to take pictures outside?

>> some of the attendees at the

clare boothe luce policy institute seminar lining up. we just heard from newt gingrich and we will hear next from mary katharine ham who will discuss her journalism career and the importance of speaking out as young conservatives and becoming activists. then we will hear from kate obenshain discussing the phony conservative war on women and how the left is really waging this war. in the meantime, let's take a look at what congress is up to next week. "congressional quarterly" reports that the debate over extending the bush era tax cuts will move from the senate to the house next week with a measure to extend the expiring tax cut as well as legislation to help establish an expedited timelines for congressional consideration of the gop plan to overhaul the tax code. the senate goes into executive session to consider the nomination of robert bacharach from oklahoma to be a judge. and lawmakers macon sinew situation of the cybersecurity bill