ultimately the success of a nation depends on the character of its citizens. as president, i had the privilege to see that up close i saw in the first responders who charge up the stairs into the flames to save peoples's lives from burning towers. i saw it in the virginia tech professor who barricaded his classroom with his body until the students escape to safety. i saw it in the people in new orleans who may boast to rescue their neighbors from floods. servicemembers who keep our nation safe. franklin roosevelt described the dedication of a library as an act of faith. i dedicate this as an unshakable faith in our country. as brave and is no was the united states. what ever challenges come before us, i will always believe our nation is best -- our nations

best days lie ahead. [applause] god bless. [applause]

[national anthem] ♪

[applause] >> captain family, united states navy, will deliver the benediction.

>> may be prayed together. gracious god, we acknowledge your work in the affairs of humankind and nations. our prayers that we as a people will listen carefully, respond appropriately, and lives each day aware of the needs for your guidance. you grace us with men and women who leave, prompted by the power of arsenal conviction, to help shape our national conscience, and provide examples of extraordinary leadership.

words like justice, freedom, liberty, opportunity, sacrifice. ideals not nearly of our own making but of your creation as you implant in each of your children the intrinsic values. granted this day that the george w. bush residential center will forever help inform our national dialogue for good and always remind us that our nation and world's best hope for an optimistic future requires nothing less than our very best human effort yet ultimately rest in your providential care. the knowledge the spirit of freedom and opportunity we celebrate today is often in need of care.

so we remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and those who this very hour stand in this harms -- then in harms way. our prayers and the anticipation of lasting peace. we give thanks for all those present today who have in the past provided faithful national stewardship and grant to our leaders today, especially president obama, the gifts of wisdom, strength, and the encouragement of your care. and out president bush, mrs. bush and their entire family with your blessings and our eternal goodwill. may you bless our nation and all of your creation. amen. >> thank you. awesome job. thanks for coming. >> what an honor.

♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming today. this concludes our program. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> senators john mccain and charles schumer on their bipartisan immigration bill. (in power, more about immigration legislation from representative op goodlatte, chairman of the house judiciary committee. after that, house democratic leader nancy pelosi's weekly ofefing followed by a group house republicans encouraging the administration do reassess employee furloughs affecting air travel.

on the next washington journal, homeland security policy with republican representative jason chaffetz. -- jason bobby scott will take your questions about how the fbi has handled the investigation of the boston marathon bombings. we will look at trends and homeownership with the u.s. census bureau and the urban institute. washington journal is live on c- span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend on c-span, before saturday night's white house correspondents dinner, selective dinners from the past three administrations starting saturday at 3:00 eastern then live coverage of this year's dinner starting with red carpet arrivals at six -- 6:15.

then the dedication of the george w. bush library and museum. withdedicate this library an unshakable faith in the future of our country. the honorable -- designer honor of a lifetime to leav lead a coy as brave and noble as the united states. i will always believe our nations best days lie ahead. god bless. 10:30.day morning at on book tv this weekend, donovan campbell on building a platoon of marines in iraq sunday night at 8:00. on c-span3, reconsidering the trial of mary todd lincoln. part of american history tv, sunday at 4:00. john mccain and chuck schumer on the immigration bill being proposed a bipartisan group of senators referred to

as the gang of eight. the arizona republic and and new york emigrants spoke with reporters at the christian science monitor -- the arizona republic and and new york senator spoke with reporters at the christian science monitor. >> i will be very brief and make a couple of points. first, on the immigration bill, the number one reason we are here, i want to salute john mccain, who has done an amazing job of leadership that would not have happened without him. he stepped up to the plate early on. one more point not related to immigration, but harry reid has this idea of a joint caucus where john will tell what happened to him during vietnams that has never been talked about before. it is an experience i will never forget.

it impressed every member of the senate who was there. it was one of the amazing experiences i have had. it as an honor to be with him. on immigration, those few reporters who have an ounce of cynicism running in their bloodstreams -- it is not many of you, all optimistic, positive, and looking forward to the future -- but you would have been impressed by our meetings, our 24 meetings, many of which went into the midnight hour. for eight people of different viewpoints, of different stakes, even needs, if you will, of trying to reach common ground to come together in the middle, and it was an amazing thing to me. it gives you a lot of faith. it is a fine product, and i am optimistic it will pass. i will not get into the details. one other point -- there is a lot of talk of how did boston affect our bill. some of the facts that have come

out in the last day show our bill would have strengthened security, because we require a machine reading of any person who leaves the country where comes back into the country.-- or comes back into the country. as you know, tsarnaev, his name was misspelled. he was on a customs watch list, and that is why janet napolitano mentioned that. even though he was on a wider list, that did not show up because his name was misspelled by aeroflot. on our bill, the name would of been read by passport, and we would have known he was someone was leaving and entering the country, and it might have made a difference. our bill strengthens security.

the events in boston should importune us to leave status quo and go to a proposal like ours. we are interested in other improvements, but those who say in my judgment let's wait on the bill because we have to see everything that happened in boston and see all that, it is an excuse. the only people who are saying against they are against the bill were against it before the boston bombings. >> i would like to thank chuck for the leadership he has displayed in getting together different views, even within the group, and different priorities, and chuck and i worked on the attempt to avert a 51-vote vote in the senate, because of the dissatisfaction that is

understandable on the part of harry reid, and we have worked on other issues together, and i appreciate the opportunity to be associated with him since the american people are very intested in seeing some results from the congress of the united states. i am sure you saw a poll about favorability of different aspects of our lives, and members of congress right below a colonoscopy.-- ranked just below a colonoscopy. we would like to be above a colonoscopy. to comment a second on what chuck said about the tragedy in boston should somehow impede the progress of this bill -- we are having hearings, we will have a markup in the judiciary committee, and then move to the floor where there will be weeks i hope not too many weeks -- of debate, amendments, and we will have ample opportunity if there

are lessons to be learned about the boston tragedy to incorporate into legislation. this is not the final product. on the issue of the final product, we have agreed that if we feel that the bill can be improved by various amendments, we will support those amendments or feel free to support or oppose. if it is an amendment that is designed to kill the bill, as happened in 2007, we will probably vote together to prevent the bill from going down, because these are fragile compromises that have been made. let me again -- and i will stop with this -- we think that america will be much more secure with the passage of this bill. we will have a more secure border. we will use technology such as a radar that was developed in iraq that will help us identify

people as they come across. we will have a e-verify, which will send a message sooner or later south of the border, around of world, that if you get to the united states of america, you will not have a job when you get here, because of these stiff employer sanctions in e-verify, and i would also point out that exit-entry will help us with our national security as well. at the press conference that we had the other day, i would like to conclude with this -- one of the reporters asked, what makes you optimistic now whereas in 2007 you failed? i pointed to the group of people behind us. we are a coalition that has been assembled. we did not assemble it, necessarily. from labor, business, chamber of commerce, evangelicals, the catholic church. when you look at the broad spectrum of support that has

been expressed for passage of this legislation, it is a coalition we did not have in 2007, and i believe those people are extremely active. 70% of the american people support a path to citizenship as long as the people are here legally, pay back taxes, pay a fine, learn english, and get in line behind everybody else who came to this country legally, and that is an important factor in american approval or disapproval. that is what this legislation is all about. thanks for having us. >> talking about how this is not a final bill, that the bill would have made the boston situation better, have you

discovered anything so far that tells you need to make further improvements in the bill? senator graham has an amendment requiring those who are deemed higher risk to undergo more checks. are you seeing anything as a result of boston, where you wanted add stuff to the bill that is already good? >> it is way too early. we do not have all the lessons. we're finding new information on a daily basis. i am sure that by the time this bill reaches the floor we will reach conclusions and we will include provisions like that, if we feel they are necessary, working with the administration, by the way, and some of the smart people at the fbi and the other agencies. we are completely open to amendments that would in any way prevent what happened in boston. nobody has any illusion about that.

>> about sequester and flight delays, there is a dispute about how to handle the airline delays because of the sequester. a report said some democrats want legislation that will deal with the air travel portion of the sequester. majority leader harry reid is working they have a sequester the sequesterave itself repealed. can anything be done about the air travel delays? >> yes. look, my best solution is to undo sequester and replaced it with more rational types of cuts, and that would be leader reid has an amendment which got the support on our side, not on the other side, and having said that, i noted last night jay carney, the president's spokesperson, said he would be open to a solution just for faa. the transportation department

has probably the worst lead on --questration, because so many the worst squeez oe on sequestration because so many of their employees are not affected because they are funded in part by trust funds. in other words, the highway trust fund is not subject to sequester. it squeezes the air traffic controllers. no know that rockefeller along with senator thune was meeting yesterday with a faa to come up with a solution. i would certainly be open to it. >> have had hearings in the senate armed armed services committee and we have heard from everybody except the navy. the kinds of hearings we have, every one of our uniformed service chiefs have said it cannot defend the nation if we continue with this sequester. i'm terribly uncomfortable with the delays of faa. i think it is a terrible thing. i have been subject to it

myself. we are looking at a virtual threat to our national security. we have got our priorities upside down. i am hell-bent -- if we're going to take care of airlines in the past years, why don't we take care of our national security? the world is a more dangerous place than i have seen ever, in many respects. every one of our uniformed security chiefs say they are not going to be able to defend the nation within a year. we have got our priorities upside down. i will go along with whatever the faa thing is. it's criminal and scandalous that we are ignoring the effective sequestration on our national security, how we can believe -- if you don't believe uniformed service chiefs, that is fine. i happen to. they are presenting graphic illustrations of the problems

that they are facing. i'm glad to see all the focus on whether we have to wait in line longer, or there is flight delays. i wish to god the congress of united states would focus on the threats to our nation's security. and keeping good and qualified young and then women -- men and women who are now considering getting out because they see no future, at least a predicable future, which at least we'll them. >> one other point -- owe them. >> one other point. faa is causing problems. it causes economic loss. we have lots of other cuts. john mentions the military. i hate to see nih be cut, cancer research. i certainly agree that would be a lot better to figure out a better way to undo the whole sequester as opposed to doing it piecemeal. i certainly would be open to an faa solution.

the transportation department is under an undue amount of immediate squeeze. >> you talked about republicans, how they can appeal to hispanic voters. there is still a lot of fear i am hearing. how do you convince him that that risk is worth taking? >> i believe if we pass this legislation, it won't gain us a single hispanic vote. it will put us on a playing field where we can compete great right now we cannot compete -- compete. right now it cannot compete. all i can try to do is show my

friends, particularly in states like mine and the state of texas and others, where the demographics should be convincing -- by six or eight years from now, we will have a if not a majority, near to a majority hispanic population in my state. it is a demographic certainty that if we condemn ourselves to 15%, 20%, 25% of the hispanic vote we will not win elections. i have no illusions about whether passage of this legislation will gain hispanic voters. it won't. it will put us on a playing field where we can make an argument, as i do with check everyday for smaller government

chuck every day for smaller government, pro-life, pro- defense. that is the argument i think we can make to gain hispanic support. >> i will make one other comment. i was sitting with marco rubio with two conservative leaders. one of them said, schumer, you are doing this so you can get more democratic votes. i said, the first one will be allowed to vote in 13 and a half years. if you republicans have not solved your problems with the hispanic community in 13 and a half years, you are finished. >> i called paul ryan yesterday to thank him for his outspoken support of immigration reform. >> tom? >> senator mccain, can you tell us what paul ryan told you? >> i said i think my comments are important. he agrees with what i just said. thanks for calling, and -- once you run for president -- no, he did not say that. [laughter] >> the other day that lindsey

>> the other day that lindsey graham said the goal is to get 70% of votes in the senate -- >> we need that, and i think it's doable. >> senator schumer? >> if we were to pass this bill with over 50 democratic votes -- normally eight or nine republican votes -- it would pass. we would get the 60. it would bode poorly for the house. what we are looking for is getting a large republican vote.

we did some very interesting things. senators hatch and rubio, feinstein and bennett were part of the section. it was a point where most agreed with our proposal. southeast ag did not. we knew there were a lot of republican senators from the southeast who might vote for our bill, but if their growers portray -- were very much against the bill -- their agriculture is a bit different. we worked out an accommodation. we are looking not to get 61 votes. it would be wonderful if we could get a majority on both sides. >> follow-up on that. >> i think it's very doable. yes, sir.

>> just as you discussed, getting 70 votes is important for what happens in the house, how many conversations -- could you describe if you have spoken to your colleagues in the house about if they're working on their bill. and for senator schumer, you discussed trying to curry up republican support. can you'd speak about the diversity and what happened to that?-- diversity visa and what happened to that? talk about what happens in the diversity in the negotiation process. >> we've had conversations with some of our colleagues in the house. i think the time to do that is probably after we finish on the floor of the senate with a completed package, so we can go --er specific voice with them.

points with them. we've had several conversations. we've encouraged their negotiations, which in many ways are particularly given the makeup of that group, somewhat encouraging. >> on diversity visas, i was the author of it back in the 1990's. i care about it. we had strong opposition from both republican colleagues on our gang of eight as well as house republicans. diversity visas were designed to bring in immigrants from countries that could not get them through family connections. 86% of the legal immigrants who come into the country, 84% or 86% are family related. related. or so were job-

diversity was an effort to bring in people from europe and africa, who were the majority of the ancestry of americans, but who could not get in because it was their fifth cousins who could come. it was successful for a while. now it has shifted. the majority of people who come in are from central -- certainly the plurality, the highest number is from central asia, no longer from europe or africa. given that and the opposition of our colleagues, we decided we could not continue diversity visas. the cbc cares a lot about this, the congressional black caucus. in the system we have is a point system edge lindsey graham pushed for -- which lindsey graham pushed for. it makes future legal immigration more job oriented. that is the consensus among most of us. there is plenty of room for family there, too. the number of africans, because

they have so decreased under the diversity visa, will increase. that's not to mention the number of caribbean-americans who will first become rpi's and then citizens under the bill. >> you said they will increase. why will they increase? >> in the point system, questions that are underrepresented get points -- countries that are underrepresented get points. >> [indiscernible] what reassurance can you give to parents and students and mid- level professionals that this wave of immigrants will not drive down wage? we are talking about across the full width of university education, including environmentalists and journalists.

>> we need a whole new group to come in and straighten things out. >> we're talking primarily stem. >> primarily stem. that is over half the postgraduates. people ought to be given an opportunity to remain in the u.s. there are job requirements for those people. there is no doubt that they are not being filled. if the united states is going to remain the number one nation in the world, we had better be able to keep the best talent in the world. those people are people who are attending the best universities in the world, which happened to be ours. >> a couple of things in there. unemployment level for college graduates across the board in america is about 4.5%.

it is obviously not like high school graduates. it is certainly in double digits there. because of senator durbin's work, they have to be paid a significant wage, level two wage. that is going to be a deterrent to anybody who wants to bring in somebody, non-stem, college graduate, for these other professions. they have to post the job. if a qualified american is available, they have to hire him or her. we have a lot of safeguards for the non-stem people who are college graduates. >> in the house, you say that the path to citizenship, there is a nonstarter there. i'm wondering if you think there's going to be a big problem there and if you see any other path way to getting this bill done. >> there's no way of getting this job done without giving people a path to citizenship.

a lot of our friends in his panic community, when they look at what's her -- hispanic community, when they look at what's required, they're not very happy. and we're talking about a $500 fee, and another one after five years, and all of the hoops that are required here, including border security, there's going to be pushed back from that side as well. a legal status is not something that someone should have to remain in unless they want to. to say that you can have a legal status but you cannot have it has to be a citizen, i just don't think it fits the fundamental principles of fairness in our society.

i know that opposition is there. i don't think it's valid. i don't think it is held even by a majority of republicans. >> it's a nonstarter. in the european countries where they have done this and people don't feel they have a chance to become part of society, there is huge discontent. we have seen that in the results of economic unrest, in terms of american dream is that youthat. can become an american. you have to follow certain rules. you have to pay taxes. we even say for the first time, you have to learn english. you should be able to achieve that american dream, symbolized by the beautiful lady in the harbor of the city where i live. it is fundamentally important. most americans support it. the majority of republicans supported.

>> as long as -- >> there is a path. you earn it. >> right. >> for the hispanic community, it is a nonstarter. for most democrats, it is a nonstarter. the one thing that the four of us insisted on, there has to be a path to citizenship. john and the other three said it has to be a qualified, earned path to citizenship. they insisted that people go to the back of the line, not gain any benefit from crossing the border. we have achieved that. >> effective control of the border. >> any attempt to say in the house that you will not have a path to citizenship will be a nonstarter. it will not pass the senate. i don't think it would get a democratic vote. >> michael? >> what happens to immigrants who are on the path to citizenship if benchmarks are

not met? >> they would remain in a legal status until they comply with all of the requirements -- illegal until they comply with all of the requirements. in 1986, i voted for simpson mazzoli. million people illegally in this country. we give them amnesty and then we will never have this again. now we have 11 million people who are here illegally. i'm not going to stand for a third wave. that means that we not only have to have a secure border, but 40% of the people are here illegally overstayed their visas. we have to track that down.

the most important aspect is that if an employer knowingly hires a person who is here illegally, they will be penalized for doing so. we will have their ability to authenticate it through tamperproof documents. the one thing that bothers me is the demand for drugs. drugs will continue to come across our southern border as long as there is a demand for it. that is a problem that we have not even addressed. it is separate from illegal immigration. we cannot have a third wave. we owe it to the american people. the only way you do that is a combination of e-verify, exit entry, secure border, and penalties for employers who hire people that don't have the proper documentation. >> let's make a couple of points. i agree with john. the american people will support common sense, balanced solutions

to legal immigration and the 11 million who are here only fdr - only if there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration -- if they are convinced there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration. our bill is stronger than anything that has been envisioned. the border metrics are real. john took us to the border. we passed the bill, the two of us in 2010. it puts $600 million into the border. some of my constituents said, we don't need anything on the border. that $600 million raised effectiveness rates from 68% to 82%. everyone who attempts to cross they either catch or turn back, 82%. now we are spending another 4.5, and then another two if that does not work.

one thing we insisted on, that these metrics not be spaghetti. they be achievable, concrete metrics. listen to this. on their border in arizona they only have two drones. they can only fly them eight hours a day because they don't have the personnel. it's a vast border. it's nothing like new york. [laughter] you don't have to catch them right at the border. you have these drones like and follow people across the border. they see everything that crosses. they can follow them for 25, 30 miles inland and catch them there. the one who got in the news, the one lady we saw trying to cross the border, they did not apprehend her. she was climbing over a fence.

they said, we will catch her in 20 minutes. and they did. these metrics are really going to be more effective than people think. we are going to secure the border. and they are achievable. let's say a president comes in who is anti-immigration. they cannot use the system. they cannot game the system to say we are not creating a path to citizenship. >> technology. in about a month they will be 120 degrees on the arizona- sonora border. it is very tough on people, sitting in a vehicle in that heat. we developed radars and capabilities in iraq that will allow us -- if deployed correctly, will allow us to surveilled the entire border. withinintercept people some aisles. -- some miles.

we developed a radar in iraq which not only identifies people at the time, but they track them back to where they came from. it's a fascinating radar. i'm convinced the technology and surveillance capabilities as well as the drones will allow us to have effective control of the border, which might have been impossible 10 or 15 years ago. >> [inaudible] >> we will know in five years. remember this is a 10 year cap. year path. if we have not met those requirements in five years, we will convene a convention and they will spend additional monies. if they do it right, i am totally confident. also in this goal, 40% of people never came across our border. they just came on a visa and overstayed.

we are addressing that side of it, that aspect. >> a lot of people have questions. >> make your answers shorter. [laughter] lady in theta, the stripe top whose name i don't know. jordan. that's probably as far down the list we will get. alex. >> the u.s. chair of commerce endorsed or legislation. but the cap on visas for construction workers -- >> everyone is unhappy. but they signed up. everyone is unhappy. but they signed up. you're going to have to show me a major group that is in opposition.

of course they're unhappy. on the other side they're very unhappy as well with the provisions of the bill. that is what compromise is called. >> next question. [laughter] >> senator schumer, would you accept a 50% increase in the number of visas, h1 -- >> this is a carefully negotiated package. i talked to tom donohue a great deal. he is from brooklyn, too. we basically said -- that's what jeff flake said. >> they speak a different language. >> he said, the lady at the border heard my new york accent and already thought she was in new york.

[laughter] anyway, basically we said, we're going to be quite generous on high-end, college graduates, stem and all of that because those jobs, there is a consensus that there is a shortage. lockheed martin tried to hire 500 engineers in syracuse. they have rit 100 miles to the west, rpi 100 miles to the east. they could not get the engineers. generous on the high end. much tougher on the low skilled end, with the exception of agriculture, because we know americans don't do that work. it's a pretty deft bill on the low end. it provides for needs that people have -- tough bill on the low end. it provides for needs of people have. even the smaller construction industry, they have said, we want to change, but we're not going against the bill because nobody really is. john said, nobody really wants

to go against the bill. the bottom line is that it is a carefully balanced situation, and i think everyone's going to go along with it. >> one of the reasons they went along with it is the status quo is totally unacceptable in america today. it's unacceptable to have 11 million human beings in our society without any of the rights and protections of citizenship or a least a legal status. >> it sounds like you would vote against -- >> i'm not going to nail down on anything specific -- nailed down on anything specific. >> [inaudible] >> can you speak up, ma'am?

>> [indiscernible] >> we decided you can't do individual bills. people say, what about me? they tried that in the last congress. senate.owhere in the community said, what about us? the hispanic community said, what about us? the agriculture community said, what about us?

what we found is, ironically, the best way to pass immigration legislation is actually a comprehensive bill. that can achieve more balance. everybody can get much but not all of what they want. i think the idea of doing separate bills is just not going to work. it's not worked in the past. it's not going to work in the future. >> dick durbin, to his credit, his advocacy for the dreamers, always one to bring up the dream act. which is fine. and now let's secure the border. it has got to be a comprehensive approach. >> changing the subject, the marketplace fairness act is before the senate this week. i spoke yesterday to [no audio] to abandon the current internet laws. california has an economic presence law. amazon is also concerned that some states would retain their current laws, not opt in to the national system -- states would

national system. >> when it came to committee, i was reluctant to support the bill because it did not allow for the different systems within the state, particularly new york. i negotiated with new york --ate, senators durbin and they have made changes in the bill so that states would have a different system but still collect the sales tax will be allowed. now new york state supports the bill. but new york will not have to change its system. the bill will allow new york state system and other states to continue as is. >> anita. >> i want to switch topics. i wonder if you can comment on the gun legislation from last week.

if the obama administration did all they could. well, look, i have been involved in gun legislation since 1994. i was the house sponsor of dianne feinstein's assault weapons ban when it was in the senate. i think it is unfair to blame the president. the president worked really hard on this issue. you put political capital on the line. he made it one of the centerpieces of his state of the union address. he went all around the country to try to rally support. my view, the weight to change the votes on the gush -- gun issue is to, besides filling of the conscience of people, it plays a much larger role than many people credit for. theneed to change underlying table.

is how are happen we able to pass these bills in 1984? the broad middle rows up and said, we want rational laws on guns. why? crime was ripping america. that past and elections occurred. were blamed for democrats losing control of the house and the senate. then for 20 years not much happened. i think we are at a turning point. this is my own view. i think the average person, we know that the pro-gun folks have intensity and the safety people have the numbers. i think the numbers are getting more intense.

when i went around my own state last weekend, for the first time in very conservative areas, i heard from pro-nra people who said you are taking away my rights. i also heard people who say, cap added. i never heard that from those areas before. -- i also heard from people who said, keep at it. i never heard that in those areas before. i think you might find some changes out there. thought senators who it was safe to vote against it because of the intensity. i'm not show sure anymore. -- so sure anymore. >> i want to apply the senator toomey for senator coming for him with a bill i thought was common sense. i think we needed to find that

internet aspect of gun sales a little better. i do agree that i think the issue will come back. the also have to address the fact that we are not putting criminals -- prosecuting criminals who failed background checks. we are not addressing the issue of appraising people who are doing terrible things whether it be in tucson, arizona or aurora, colorado or newtown, connecticut. that is probably the toughest part of this issue. ende do individual rights and obligation to protect the population begins? we need to have that national discussion i think in more depth. can you talk more on the administration's role? what they know could've done. i do not know what more -- whenever one of

these things fail, we point the finger and blame. but i don't want to do that except to applaud manchin and tommey who have very sizable and influential second amendment defenders. >> last question. >> thank you. this is a segue back to immigration. can i ask both of you senators -- with you think is the most useful role the president obama could play in this immigration debate? >> i think the role that he is playing now is that he has encouraged the group of us that came up with this legislation. he has expressed his public support of it. time, he has not try to dictate the terms of it.

i think that his role has been very appropriate. if we get it to the senate, i think he will again weigh in to try to convince our colleagues in the house to move forward with it. i think his role has been exactly appropriate. completely.ith that i asked the president on several occasions to give our gang or group of eight or whatever space. we were coming up with a bipartisan compromise. the president views on some things are some things that i would agree with personally, but we can i get a bipartisan compromise on. he was terrific. i would describe his role as just about perfect. >> i wouldn't go that far. >> i know you wouldn't. [laughter]

hehe him pertained us -- asked us to act. he gave us the space to come up with our proposal. that is what we will need again. it has come from a bipartisan group in the senate. he is playing the role exactly right. >> thank you to senator mccain and senator schumer. >> can i -- ino sense a slight change the environment in the senate. i think there is a willingness to address some important that was a fashion not the case to in the last four years. we have averted 51 votes and the buster and moving forward -- and filibuster and

moving forward. there was every opportunity. i emphasize opportunity for a grand bargain. for the first time in some time i harbor some optimism of a chance for a bipartisan approach to some compelling issues we are facing. >> i agree with john. there is a different mood in the senate. i hope and i think john does, too, that our system goes through effective models by coming to bipartisan agreements. there is a desire among majority of people and both parties -- not everyone -- but the majority to do that. i think the session will be a lot more productive than the last few. >> which is not a high bar. [laughter] [indiscernible]

>> i think it is the extreme dissatisfaction american people have expressed in our polling data. we all seek approval. that is part of the reason why we do the things that we do and to serve the people effectively. the majority of americans think we're not doing that. sooner or later that does have an impact. the approval ratings are at all- time lows. if it continues along this path, we will see a third-party in the u.s. the overwhelming increase in voter registration in independent registration. they are voting independent because they do not find a home in either party. that dynamic will affect the political landscape. >> thank you. >> thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] goodlatte began introducing their own immigration bills. he spoke to reporters for half an hour. >> thank you for being here. i'm bob goodlatte. america is a nation of immigrants. everyone among us can go back a few generations were several generations to find relatives who came to america to search for a better life for themselves and their families. we are also a nation of laws. it is important that any immigration reform bill honor

our history as a nation of immigrants and a respect for rule of law. unfortunately our immigration system today is broken. past efforts have failed and today we have 11 million people living in the shadow. this issue is not about abstract patristics and concepts but rather about real people with real problems trying to provide a better life for their families. well we agree we need to fix our immigration laws, there are many ideas about how to get to a solution. regardless of one's position on the larger debate, the way forward is for congress to pass immigration reform through regular order. in addition, we need to take a closer look at immigration

reform to avoid making the same mistakes of the past again in the future. by now we are aware of the failures of the 1986 immigration overhaul. while politicians assure the american people it would fix our immigration system, promising tougher enforcement in exchange for the legalization of roughly 3 million people, it is created more problems than it fixed. the american people want to know how congress plans to avoid this to mueller outcome in the current debate surrounding immigration reform. -- to avoid this debate in the current surrounding immigration reform. we welcome ideas of all members of the house. we have been reaching out to those members with three things and educational meeting sessions. now close to 100 house republicans have participated in those briefings where we take them through what legal immigration is, what the law is, what the challenges are with regards to enforcement of our immigration laws. and we take them through a discussion of the different ways to address the needs of the country as a whole and the fact that we have 11 million or more

people who were unlawfully present in the country. we are in the process not drawing any conclusions about the best solutions to move forward. we are very interested in what you send ng of eight has written -- in what the senate ng of eight has written. -- gang of eight has written. we believe the appropriate thing to do is for the house to begin this process. starting this week, we will be introducing individual pieces of the overall immigration puzzle. we are also very interested in what the house gang of eight produces. they have been working on this process for a long time and we are very hopeful they can reach a bipartisan agreement on what will be done to address these major aspects of immigration reform. legal immigration reform, enforcement, and what to do about the legal status of the 11 million or more people who are here unlawfully.

once bc but the house group produces produces, we will also be focusing on that and look at how the individual bills we are going to start introducing this week, and we will have a number of other individual bills, work with what the gang of eight produces and what the will of the house judiciary committee is. we look forward to this process but we are going to take a positive, affirmative action at addressing broken -- a broken immigration system in this

country. it is in bad need of reform in the committee and tends to examine all of the various aspects of that. this process can be long but it allows every representative and senator to have their constituents voices heard. by taking a fine tooth comb through each of the individual issues within the larger immigration debate,, it will help us get a better bill that will benefit americans and provide a workable immigration system. members of the house will introduce a series of stand- alone bill that tackle issues within our immigration system. one that creates a temporary agriculture guest worker program. in other requiring all u.s. employers to use e -- verify. and we will follow with a number of other issues in coming weeks. the house judiciary committee plans to hold legislative

hearings on these bills soon the members can ask questions of the legislation and look for ways to improve them. i want to emphasize that is what we have decided and agreed to do at this point. we have made no decisions about how to proceed forward in terms of legislative markup, whether it would pertain to individual bills or a larger bill. at this point, we think we can help of the process forward by beginning to examine the legislative details of various ideas that members have brought forward. ofs is only the beginning the process. we welcome comments from all interested parties. other bills will be introduced soon and we will have hearings on it legislative language on those two amount members to carefully vet them. immigration reform is not an easy task but a solution is not out of reach. we must make sure we get immigration reform right this time so we don't have the same problems in the future that we have had with past immigration reform bills like the one passed in 1986 or immigration

reform efforts like the one that failed in the senate in 2007 because it was driven from the top-down and not brought from the grassroots. the house representatives is that she -- is the people's house were each member listens to their constituents, bring their ideas forward and in a good legislative process works together to find common solutions. there is no doubt that the ultimate solution to this process will have to be bipartisan and address a number of different issues. no one should take the limited bills we are introducing here this week to be in any way an indication of our overall interest in solving all of the various aspects of immigration reform that are before the and senate. thank you and i now want to yield to the chairman of the

subcommittee, trey gowdy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the resultant process to me are inextricably intertwined. the best result or product in the world is sometimes mitigated by a process that is less than confidence inspiring. the is true in the civil to stem a justice system and legislative system. even ideas that enjoy broad support need to be examined in the public square. it is more time-consuming, it can be argued it is more fraught with peril but those of us interested in a remedy that will sustain us for a lifetime, i'm convinced the extra time spent examining all aspects and suggesting them to cross -- and subjecting them to cross examination will be well worth it. thank you for letting me be a

small part of this process and the yield back to the gentleman from virginia. >> we are happy to take questions. [inaudible] >> we are not to that point yet. but if we talk about adjusting the three aspects of immigration, you have to get to that point. we are looking with interest to see what the senate is doing that. we are interested in what house members are negotiating in a by partisan fashion have to do with that. we are in no way able to tell you how that will unfold at this point. >> is there an expectation [inaudible]

but it is our hope we will be able to accomplish that. at this point, because we are taking a step is to approach and spending a lot of time holding hearings and listening to members, making sure we hold hearings on specific legislative language and ideas and because we are waiting to see what the house gang of eight produces, it is not possible to give you a legislative markup schedule but we are very intent upon getting ourselves to the point where we can do that. >> a member of your committee has said if it does not get done this year, it will not happen. you are emphasizing the need to go slow and do it right rather than fast but do you agree with that assessment? is it year or not at all? moreection years are

difficult and nonelection years but it is far more important that we get this right this time. then we live by any particular timetable. i will be cautious about setting in a kind of arbitrary limits on when this have to get done. [inaudible] >> is your committee committed to [indiscernible] >> i have the courage the gang of eight with their work. but they can agree upon in a bipartisan fashion will be very helpful and informative. again, no decision has been made regarding how we would proceed with that legislation or individual pieces of legislation which members of the committee will be introducing over the

next few weeks. >> give us a number. like there will be several. we don't know yet. >> you mentioned inclusion of ag guestworker program. 10 years after the 1986 law, a small percentage of those coming into the country legally under the ag worker program state and agriculture. many of them went to more lucrative jobs. you expect to offer any specific things to limit that problem? the u.s. territory, do you see inclusion of the more permanent status? >> the legislation we are introducing is for the purpose

of getting ideas and responses. we do not use anything we are introducing as a final product. it is a work in progress. each one will be considered and viewed that way. you will be informed by what the bipartisan negotiators -- we will be looking to interest to see what is done in the senate. the agricultural worker program that followed the 1986 act did not work. our first goal is to make sure we have a worker program that works for agriculture because the issue of people staying in that the culture will be an important one. i would expect that if we had a program, it is not going to restrict people to where they work. some of the people who work in agriculture today who may not be here lawfully may not

continue to work in agriculture. one of the key components of an immigration reform bill will be to have a good agriculture worker program. i think that is fundamental to the overall process. we will look at that but that is something we will have further discussions about. we will look at that, but that is something we will have further discussions about. >> a couple of different bills [indiscernible] >> i think the value of introducing individual bills, it allows us to examine how those pieces will interact with other pieces and then how they can fit together in something larger, if we are able to find something that could have the kind of support in the house that would be necessary to pass it. we are not passing any judgment on how that will all work out in the end, but we do believe the

process needs to move forward and as it moves forward, we will be looking at a lot of issues. i would imagine that people who are working on this elsewhere will be interested in seeing what is introduced by members of the house judiciary committee, just as we are interested in seeing what they produce in the senate and in this bipartisan discussion going on in the house. >> what would you prefer though? >> i am not stating any preference at this point. this is a way for the committed to move forward on fixing are broken immigration system. >> as chairman of the house judiciary, can we get your thoughts on the boston bombing? [indiscernible] >> this is really about the immigration reform process.

if you like to speak with our communications director, all be happy to talk to you about that at a different time, but we don't want this to become too far raging. there are a lot of issues we are working with right now but i think we should limit this to immigration. >> there has been a lot of discussion as to whether those attacks are relevant to [indiscernible] thingsink there are some we can take from that that are related to immigration. for example, the question arises, what kind of information is used in the vetting of the naturalization applications of both of the brothers. inyou know, one succeeded getting naturalization. the other was held up, and i think it would be very worthwhile knowing more about that process and what the considerations were by the immigration service in terms of

making the decisions about that. i also think that it is instructive to note that immigration reform should include consideration of how, not just the fbi, but how law enforcement at all levels working together can help make the legal structure were better than just relying entirely on the federal government to carry out and forced -- and enforce immigration laws. that is not included in any of the bills we are introducing this week, but it's certainly a matter of discussion and to review what took place in boston, where i think it was widely viewed as very collaboration between local, state, and federal law enforcement that led to the speedy apprehension and getting under control of the situation

in boston. >> following up on the did you think the process of granting asylum should be reformed? >> we certainly will be that as part of overall comprehensive immigration reform. we made no decisions yet another bill that we have at this point deal with this, but that is certainly possible and will be addressed. we will look at what ideas the bipartisan groups have and we will be discussing this among ourselves and listening to other ideas, because obviously, when you talk about the issue of political asylum, people who are being persecuted elsewhere in the world, asylum is designed to give them a safe haven in the united states, but if there are people getting asylum because they are in the minority but a engaging in aggressive tactics in their home country, that may cause them to be susceptible to doing the same thing elsewhere. that obviously ought to be part of our consideration in granting political asylum, to avoid situations like boston. >> [indiscernible]

>> thus far, these are pieces of legislation that will have bipartisan support and they will not always necessarily -- we are going to have co-sponsors of the legislation, but the primary sponsor will be members committee and so far as they are house republican members, but we expect there will be bipartisan support for these efforts. we welcome bills from anyone who wants to introduce them, and some democrats have introduced bills already that have been sent to the committee. so we certainly would welcome their legislation, and depending upon what it does and what the house gang of eight is doing and how it fits with what we are doing on the committee, certainly be willing to

look at those as well. i have stated previously there is a wide range of solutions to what to do with 11 million people who are not lawfully here, and that i prefer not to see a special pathway to citizenship, but the status that would give them some kind of legal status, is something we should consider, but it will very much depend on the enforcement mechanisms that can be included in legislation and what is done about legal immigration reform, because all of these things very much in to relate to each other. what exactly can be done there remains to be seen. >> how you respond to critics who say -- accuse you of taking your time with all these individual bills? >> we have been working very hard on this and we respect the efforts of others, but we

encourage all of them to be giion very closely,e understand how each component of relates to every other piece, so we don't get the unintended consequences taking hold in this matter. theuld point out that health group, the bipartisan group that has been negotiating this has been negotiating it for about four years. we want to see a product from that group, but we recognize, and i am sure they recognize, how difficult it is to work on this issue, and therefore making sure that we take our time is an important part of this process. as i said before, it is not whether you do it fast or slow, it is that you get it right that is most important. i think that is going to be the hallmark of the work that we do on this legislation.

[indiscernible] can you tell about being from south carolina, states that got a lot of attention with regard to immigration reform? >> with respect, they have done a fantastic job with members of the staff from house judiciary. there have been very interactive, a very well attended, with respect to the budget and the debt bill of 2011. that has been wonderful. obviously senator graham has been on the tip of the spear, so to speak, on the senate side. nick mulvaney has recently become more engaged on immigration.

i represent a district with less than 2% latino voters, so this is not a political exercise to me, which is why i appreciate the approach the chairman has taken. i would like a remedy that sustains us for the remainder of my lifetime, so i am much more interested in the process being one that is confidence inspiring than a political remedy. i did go to jeff denham is district, which is very different from south carolina. i am looking to travel more, if my colleagues want someone that talks slowed to come to their district, i am happy to do that, too. it is good for me to see that -- surprisingly, the thread that weave through all of these districts is a desire to make sure this is the last time we have this conversation as a country.

>> let me add to that with regard to your question, this education process is a very important part of getting this done right, because we have to have by and from members of congress to understand the nature of the problem in the first place, and in the various ideas to solve it. most members of congress do not have a tremendous background in immigration law. we are fortunate on the committee to have three members who have practiced immigration law prior to coming to congress. that is not true of the overwhelming majority of members of the house on both sides of the aisle.

as a result of that, these educational sessions are very important. as we noted, we or close to 100 who participated, but that still leaves about 130 who have not. so it takes time to get members to put this on their schedule, to know how important it is, and i think our function in moving legislation into the committee so that we can look at its and hold legislative hearings on it, which we are now beginning that process, will be a wake-up call to those who have not come, to say you better come down and start looking seriously at what we are doing on immigration, because we do have broken immigration system and the house does intend to play a leading role in making sure this is addressed. >> [indiscernible] anything that does not star with more security is going nowhere. >> first of all, i think that when you look at the senate bill, one of the things we have to consider in the house is, we going to be able to assure those members and a great

number of the american people that border security component, which is being worked on by chairman mccall and homeland security committee, that is primarily their jurisdiction, and the interior enforcement issues. there are other interior enforcement issues which we think will be addressed in legislation that will be introduced into the committee in the not too distant future, are very important. i think that any discussion about what happens with the legal status of people has to look at, are those things going to happen? let me give you this one example. for 18 years we have been waiting for the immigration service to produce an entry-exit system so people will know when they enter the country legally -- and by the way, 30-40% of the people who are not lawfully

present in the country today entered illegally under a business visa, a student visa, and simply overstay the time they are allowed to be present in the country, that type of enforcement mechanism and the promise of it has to be more than just a promise in this legislation. looking at from the standpoint of assuring folks these things will be in place before start giving legal status to people is part of this discussion, but it does not have to be all in one separate bill and then come back and revisit the other later. it can all be looked at in one piece of legislation or several, as we have pointed out ad infinitum this morning. >> are you bringing in any outsiders, and who might they be?

is that you would like to go across the country, is anything sked or in areas that you would specifically like to visit to help better understand this? but the last time i went to a party of was not invited to, i did not have a good time. so i am waiting until my colleagues invite me, but i have made it clear -- in fact, i have invited raoul, i want my colleagues to hear his perspective. i will go anywhere i am invited, keeping in mind my first preference is to be in south carolina with my family. but i will certainly go to -- i am happy to go to texas or illinois. i will go wherever i am invited, but i don't want to inject myself and someone's district absent an invitation. >> ditto to that, and in regard to your first question -- we have not had outside guests come to attend those sessions,

but we have not preclude the possibility of doing that going forward. right now we have rather intense education and very complex subject that takes quite a bit of time and allows an even greater amount of time for members to interject and ask questions, make comments. that is really what we are trying to stimulate. >> on the dream act, and if you would support something similar to that. >> as we look at the overall issue of immigration reform and the status of those who are not lawfully present in the country, it should be obvious that people who are brought here by

their parents are in a different status in the eyes of a great many american people than people who willfully violated the immigration laws either in crossing the border or entering the country legally and then overstaying their visas. but it raises a good point that you don't have to consider the 11 million as one body of people. they are not going to be covered by any legalization program. different number of categories of people that could be looked at four different treatment, but no decisions have been made about how to do that at this point. we will take these two and then we will call it quits. >> how important is the issue of payment of back taxes by these people? >> first of all, the cost of doing immigration reform is

going to obviously be something that not just the committee but the entire congress will have to look at closely. one of the things you can look at is what would be required of people who gain legal status in order to address the fact that there are lots of government programs, lots of costs, but also perhaps there can be some help in meeting those costs. again, no decisions have been made about that at this time. >> i wonder if you could comment on the proposal in the senate bill with the new agency that would determine numbers of low-skilled labor? >> we are looking at that. as you will see, because we will be introducing agriculture guest worker bill this week, you will see that there is an interest in addressing the when you haveise certain sectors of our economy of workers,ortfalls

and we want to make sure that citizens whor u.s. want to work in those areas and employers to have shortages of workers so they can meet them, but beyond the agricultural work, no additional decisions have been made. we will be looking closely at what the senate bill includes. with that, we thank you all. this is the communications director of the committee. those who did not get to ask a question or have a follow-up question, see catherine and we will try to accommodate your interest. thank you all for coming out today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> of next, nancy pelosi's weekly briefing. she spoke for about 20 minutes.

>> good morning. is this it for bring son and daughter to work day? >> [indiscernible] welcome. >> [indiscernible] >> i thought yours were all miami of ohio when you bring them in. thank you for being here. democrats, led by -- oh, one more. hi, how are you? welcome. i did not bring the chocolate candy. come to my office. democrats, led by our ranking member on the house budget committee, chris van hollen, have introduced a resolution calling upon speaker boehner to appoint conferees to reach a budget agreement. we want to resolve the sequester. the sequester is harmful to the

education of our children, the nutrition of seniors -- 4 million meals on wheels cut out of it -- workers on unemployment benefits are reduced, all americans in terms of travel for work, family reasons, for recreation, parks -- we can resolve the sequester issue. we can resolve the sequestration by going to the conference table. it is important to know what appointing conferees means. it means you go to the table to resolve your differences. you do so in a fair and open process, transparent, in public view, and open to the press. it is the regular order. regular order is something that the republicans have requested over and over again, except when it is time for the regular order, they walk away from it. perhaps it is lack confidence in the power of their ideas. perhaps they can't take the scrutiny of the american people seeing the difference in our

budget priorities, a budget much like what president obama has put forth and the democratic budget bill, about investing in jobs and reducing the deficit in a fiscally sound way, a very positive budget which is a statement of our national values, which a budget is supposed to be. what are the republicans afraid of? why do they not want to have this discussion in the open? again, our members are supporting mr. van hollen's call for conferees, as you have seen senator reid do as well in his house. instead of going to conference -- we are wasting time. for two days we have been debating a bill that could have

been passed by unanimous consent, the helium bill. wasted time on a health bill that was ill advised. they did not even have the votes on their side. they had to pull it. that is our work product for this week. poor use of time is about obstruction, obstruction of legislation to create jobs, to deal with the budget, to end sequestration, and obstruction on gun safety. last week mike thompson was here with me. since then, he and peter king have sent a letter to members asking them to be co-sponsors on our bipartisan house bill, which mirrors the toomey-manchin bill. it is important to know what it does. what it does is it is requires

enforceable background checks on gun sales, at gun shows, on the internet. what it does not do is create a registry. in fact, the bill prohibits a federal gun registry. prohibits it. so it is supported by the international chiefs of police, a bipartisan majority in the senate, and 90% of the american people. if you are against criminals having guns, you should support the background check legislation. there is no time to hold back on this. again, we all say we are going to react and make change following the gun violence in our country recently. i do not want to go into it, but we have to push forward to get the job done. we're not taking no for an

answer on this subject. this bill had command of the sponsors in the senate and in the house, representatives king and thompson, for threading the needle just right fit for what gets the job done, which honors the second amendment, but protects the american people. and so we call upon the speaker to give us a vote on this legislation. i will be pleased to take any questions you may have. >> what roles have you played in the talks to exempt congress from the health care exchanges? do you know anything about them? do you think that is a good idea? >> i support the affordable care act. i think the federal employee

health benefit plan could be a plan under the exchanges, and i am in close contact with mr. hoyer as he is in those conversations. >> is that at all hypocritical? >> no, i think the reading the legislation carefully as to what it calls for and what an exchange is and how the federal health benefit plan is compatible under the exchange, we just have to look at all of that. one thing is for sure. i do not know what the motivation was in writing that piece to treat some members of congress and some employees differently, if you work for a leadership or committee you are treated differently, or if you work for members of us -- i think whenever the outcome is, people have to be treated the same.

>> chairman goodlatte said his panel is going to start the immigration on a piecemeal approach. he said he was personally opposed to a pathway to citizenship. would house democrats support a bill that does not include a pathway to citizenship? >> i can tell you, overwhelmingly in our caucus, legalization and citizenship is an important part of our principles. secure our borders, protect our workers, unite families, and a path to citizenship, as well as the visas, where the stakeholders between business and labor, farm workers and growers -- those stakeholders have worked out agreements that are part of the bill, and it is a very, very good bill. i do not think we want america to be a place where we have two

kinds of people in our country. we make comments about other countries that have workers come in and they are in a different category no matter how long they have lived in the country, how much they economice to the success of that country. but i do not see the house democrats supporting a bill of that kind. but i'm optimistic that the bill that the senate passes their bill, if and when, there is strong bipartisan support in house for a path to legalization and, hence, to citizenship. >> in terms of the health care issue, are you worried the way republicans are spinning this that democrats in congress will

not to subject their own employees on the health care law. could that have ramifications -- >> that will not happen. that will not be happening. the bill has been written. it is a question of interpretation, and we want everybody to be treated the same. i do not subscribe to the notion that we did not win the care bill. if we did, for tens of millions of americans to have health care was well worth any of our political careers, in my view. yes, sir. >> about the house intelligence briefing, did the suspect stop talking after being read his rights, and are you concerned that valuable intel might have been lost because of that? >> i am not able to covey to you what was happening in an intel briefing. i have confidence in our law enforcement and intelligence leadership at work on this, and we have to fully investigate it, and we will find out at the end of the day who said what, when, whether in the investigation, or before.

it is not to me to tell you what happened. >> you spoke about sequester. of the things we have heard about -- [indiscernible] one effort might be to try to diminish the impact of these in the faa. what route do you see for this? >> what are you suggesting they're suggesting? >> i have been told that they might try to do some amendments to handle the furloughs differently, or give them more flexibility. >> is the money coming out of the sequestration money, or is it going to another source? >> that is unclear. >> the answer to all of your questions, whatever they may be, is to go to the conference table. i saw somebody said the sequestration is not hurting

safety. well, two things on that score. we will not harm safety, but it does have an impact on the effectiveness and moving the american people from one place to the next. if you are suggesting there should be faa money within the faa, within the sequester, then you may start affecting safety, because where will the money come from to cover what the shortfall that the sequestration has caused in one part of it? the other suggestion is to take money from other accounts of the transportation department. i find that less onerous than within sequestration. you know what -- we are just fooling ourselves if we think that we are doing the american people any favor by not finding a real solution. a real solution is to go to the table and have a reconciliation of the budget.

let the american people see and compare whose budget is one they would identify as reflecting their values, as jobs-creating, deficit-reducing, and something that takes us into the future. that is what the republicans fear. they fear the scrutiny on their budget. it is based on false numbers. we know that now. it is based on a premise that says if your deficit goes to x percentage of gdp, then you have to cut. no, that is how we got to the high deficit in relationship to gdp. it is exactly turned upside down, and i think that the clear analysis of the premise on which they built this budget shows that if you want to reduce the deficit, cutting investments education and public sector

investments that create jobs, inject demand into the economy, again creating jobs, more jobs, then that would be the path to grow. this is a debate that i think -- that is why we come to conference. we have differences of opinion. usually, we can reconcile them, but you have to be at the table to do that -- unless you fear the public awareness of what you are proposing. what is being proposed is something that is anti-growth, anti-growth, anti-growth, with jobs. that is the standard that i think the american people want any budget to meet -- growth

with jobs as a way to reduce the deficit. yes. >> when you see republicans stretch a helium bill that could -- you see them pull it frantically, somebody who has been in boehner's position, are your thoughts about that series of events? >> what do you think about it? don't you think it is ridiculous? the fact is there is a use of the time of congress. there is a use of opportunity to find a solution for the american people. the helium bill is a fine bill. it should have never been anything proposed earlier on to necessitate the bill, but the bill is there, it could have passed by u.c. on the floor, or

put up on suspension. that they are dragging this out is a waste of taxpayer dollars, it is a waste of the time on the floor of the house, it is an opportunity cost of bringing other legislation to the floor that will make progress, to take us forward. it is just to fill time so they can say they have x numbers of days of legislation that congress was in. it is almost a frivolous use of the congressional schedule. >> i want to ask about the health care bill that came up yesterday -- the club for growth and heritage action made it a scored no vote. that has happened with several other priority bills for the leadership, and then they went away or they failed or had to pass with democratic support. how important do you think these groups are in shaping what is happening on the floor? >> let we say this bill you talked about on the floor yesterday was taking money from the prevention fund and put it into a high-risk pool, giving the illusion of doing something for people -- false. wrong. not right. it is similar to its cousin that is coming down the road in a couple of weeks, which is the comp time bill, which is really an assault on working families, while making it look like they

have some say in whether they have comp time or overtime, and it is an assault on overtime. again, it is their softer side, which is really a facade that is not real, it does not help people, but they want to give the impression that they do, while just putting it right in the category of all the things they do. we want tax cuts for the rich, but we do not want to raise the minimum wage. we want fiscal responsibility, and we probably should be cutting food stamps, but don't let us raise the minimum wage, which would eliminate the necessity of people having to put food on the table by having food stamps. i wonder what working people ever did to the republicans that they so have it out for them. no increase in the minimum wage, almost insulting them for

relying on any public support, which is necessitated by not having a livable wage in our country, which they oppose. this was something that was an illusion that even the republicans even saw through. it was a fake, as is this comp time bill. judge it by the company it keeps. no increase in the minimum wage, and let's take care of the budget deficit, but not by everybody paying their fair share, but by marking people who rely on assistance. so that is what i think of it. ok. i will see those of you who are

coming by for bring your children to work day. thank you. house republicans called on the obama administration to be more flexible to avoid employee furloughs the dara affecting air travel. -- furloughs that are affecting air travel. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. this weekend i am going to hop on a plane and fly to washington. i will join millions of americans who spent the past gatesitting at airport and waiting for hours for their flight to take off. this is happening because of the way the president and the faa has chosen to implement the

sequestered. this problem is entirely preventable. the faa has known about the sequester for nearly two years. we gave congress was done a week's notice from plans. now they have chosen to implement in the most counterproductive way, and americans are paying the price for it. today our attorney general announced there would be no furloughs at the justice department. on march 1 there were threats we would have long lines getting through tsa. at a time when families are traveling across the country to see their kids graduate from college, a slide to take care of their elderly parents, and take business trips to take care of elderly families, these business

trips are inexcusable. i had a group of school kids from spokane who spent most of the day and night getting here, and they miss their capital to work because they were late. the chamber of commerce flew out yesterday, and it was a long trip. this would have been prevented if we have worked together to replace the sequester, but now we need to look forward to solving the problem, and it is time for the delays to end. it is time for the president to stop playing politics with the american people. said when the president and the faa have the flexibility to solve this problem, but they implemented this in the most painful way possible to the american public,

to our airline industry, and i believe the american people are seeing through the. secretary lahood was talking to our colleagues to try to find a limited six. i continue to believe the faa has the flexibility to move money within to not have these for the flying public. they should look first to the people who work in the back office those and other places for safety for the american people. needieve we do not legislation, and it should be and to give them flexibility to not have these

furloughs. delays are costing the company's money, and it will cost all americans money. the delays have been irresponsibly implemented. i urged the faa and the president to figure out how to do this without affecting our economy. thank you. >> this administration is being passive aggressive, or in the words of the chicago tribune editorial, intentionally imposing air-traffic slowdown. it is ridiculous. this is no way to run things. the administration is being incompetent. they have had in months and was upon warning this them, and they chose a very late hour to come up with this

remedy. it is the third to treat o'hara fashion in the same waterloo, iowa is treated. it is ridiculous. the irony is barack obama signed into law the passenger bill of rights, which admonishes airlines for imposing delays and with massive fight on them prefer if they fail to comply. where is the remedy for the public when it is their very own

government that is failing at such an epic level in >> the f.a.a. already has the ability to make these adjustments. two solicitor generals for the bush administration and clinton administration have stepped forward and said the f.a.a. has the ability to make these adjustments. when the blueprint for the current sequester was implemented, f.a.a. had a reduction during that time period. there were no furloughs for air traffic controllers at the as well. this has been done before. in addition no that, multiple airports are being treated the same way. you have airports that have air traffic controllers than are required for the basic standards, you have others that have less. they are being treated the same way across the board. this is a silly way to apply this. and the frustrating thing is f.a.a. folks are being used as

pawns by this administration to be able to implement maximum amount of pain on the american people when it does not have to be this way. >> to tag along with what my colleagues have said, the f.a.a. modernization bill had specific language granting the flexibility. jay not understand how carney can get up day after day and say this is across the board with a straight face. one of my colleagues said that eric holder is not furloughing anyone from his operation. well negotiate is vice president biden because they have the flexibility. we had janet napolitano announce there were going to be 5,000 border guards furloughed and somehow magically they don't have to be furloughed. this isn't across the board. to impose this pain on the american people when the flexibility language is there is unconscionable. it hurts afternoon every day people who are trying to fly. >> when my children were small and growing up and they wanted to start making excuses for why they did not get something done, i would look at them and say could have, should have, would have does not solve the problem. that is basically what we are saying to the f.a.a. they knew that this was coming. they've had 18 months to make their plans. it is out of selfishness and

foolishness that they have chosen to ignore what was coming their way. they've known it all along. their goal obviously is to make life uncomfortable for the traveling public and to be inflicting uncertainty on the 15,000 air traffic controllers. they knew it was coming but they made a decision not to address who was in front of them. instead they are inflicting a time tax on every member of the traveling public. it is requiring more of their time to get processed on those flights and to their destination. could have, should have, would have. they made their decision and now people have figured them out. >> l.a., san francisco, san diego all three of the busiest airports in the nation, people traveling large distances. not only constituents being

delayed as they travel or come to washington, d.c. but more importantly i've been talking to company that is utilize air travel to transport organs or plasma and the delays that they are causing can also have devastating effects on your communities as well. lives are at risk when government decides to arbitrarily pick a mode of transportation and start playing around with those dynamics.

>> yeah, all the usual

this hearing on foreign affairs will come to order. we hear from the heads for the usaid, and together, these agencies account for $21.3 billion, or 41% of the president's $52 billion international affairs budget request. especially given our chronic federal deficit, we must be

rethinking how and where and why we provide foreign aid. to be justified, the bar is high. aid must support our national security, and it has to support our economic interests. and it must be efficient and it has to be effective. it must advance democratic principles and develop reliable trade partners, and it must be implemented in a way that breaks the cycle of dependency. over the past decade, usaid has seen its mission chipped away. the global aids coordinator who manages the largest health program in history is housed in the state department. the mcc is created -- has been created as an independent agency with a mandate to reduce poverty through economic growth. so it has been a challenging time for usaid. indeed, the bush administration stood up mcc, millennium challenge, as an alternative, a way to break with the tired old

development approaches that for decades have failed. but mcc has had its challenges, too. so-called compacts, in the early days, were big, they were complicated, they were overly optimistic. this has improved some, but mcc must stay true to itself, getting pulled into countries where you don't belong could ruin mcc's recipe for success. by demanding that countries we are aiding have good policies in place, by strictly monitoring and elevating impact, mcc has served as a lab for what does and does not work. it is getting countries on a path towards graduation from foreign assistance. and that is why many of the administration's new initiatives are borrowing from the mcc model. this is progress, if it is well implemented. the president's proposal to

reform the international food program, helping more at less cost is a bright spot in the budget request. for much of our food aid, this proposal would remove conditions that commodities be u.s. bought and u.s. shipped. studies have shown that these conditions only make for a slow and inefficient program, and i will add that in terms of being u.s. flag shipped, those ships are owned by foreign carrier in scandinavia anyway. it is elementary that buying food closer to where the humanitarian crisis is taking place is faster, it's cheaper, it helps save more lives. only in recent years has the u.s. been able to experiment with a small pilot program to buy food close to the crisis. this local and regional purchase effort has been found to be 11 to 14 weeks faster, it's also been found to be 25% to 50%

cheaper. essentially the administration's proposal would end a process called montization. this is when washington buys american grain, gives it to international charities, who in turn sell it in poor countries. congress' investigative arm called this process inherently inefficient and found that it resulted in the loss of $219 million over three years. that's an average of 25 cents on every taxpayer dollar. it's not just the waste that should bother us, but the harmful impact of dumping such commodities which can destroy local farming and, in turn, increase the dependency on aid that we'd like to see end. so i look forward to working with ambassador shah, as well as the ranking member to advance

this ambitious and timely program. and i will now turn to mr. sherman of california to recognize him for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i don't know if any of my democratic colleagues would like me to yield a minute to them, but if they indicate that, i will. if not, i will give a hastily created opening statement. in the absence of mr. engel, that opening statement is appreciated. >> i yield that time. >> and its quality will reflect the number of seconds i've had to prepare it. our development aid is the right thing to do. and that is reason enough for us to pay for it. but the american people are also told that it achieves our foreign policy objectives. one of those objectives is to lift all the boats in the world,

because it's in our foreign policy an economic interest that the countries of the world be able to afford our products. it is said often by the proponents of foreign aid that it is the most poor in possessed that become terrorists and wage war against us. but the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from one of the wealthiest countries in the middle east. one element of improving our image in the world is whether we tell people who are getting our aid, that it is in fact american aid. one thing that disturbs me with our aid with regard to syria, but also other places, is that we are deliberately obscuring the fact that the aid comes from the united states. the american people will occasionally face a hobson's choice, do you provide aid to people who live in communities

where there's such antagonism to america, that if they knew the aid came from the united states, they may not want it. and yet syria is, of course, a difficult situation for us. so i will be asking our witnesses, what we're doing to make sure that the recipients of the aid know that this comes from the generosity of the american people, and where there are circumstances where in order for the aid to be effective, accepted, in order for people to be willing to work with us or aide workers to be safe, we have to obscure that fact. picking up on the chairman's comments about local sourcing, i will want to hear your comments there. one thing to keep in mind is that one element of a coalition in support of american food aid is american agriculture. do we give up some of that support in order to be more

efficient, perhaps spending a few less dollars, a lot more efficiently to provide food aid around the world? as mr. royce points out, selling our commodities in third world countries as part of a u.s. government program may drive prices down, disrupt local markets. there are also circumstances, particularly where there's disaster nearby, where we have to buy food. we're buying a lot of food, which might seem to help the local economy, can disrupt it and bid up the cost of food. those analyzing the arab spring have pointed out they may have been caused as much as anything by the increase in food prices in the arab world, the worldwide increase in commodity prices. looking for some indication that somebody -- oh, i yield the remainder of my time to mr. vera from california. >> yeah, thank you, mr. sherman. and thank you, mr. chairman, for

calling this hearing. i look forward to the testimony. obviously usaid supports the moral and -- the values of our country. as a nation of abundance, you know, one of our best approaches to diplomacy is sharing that abundance with the rest of the world. it is the food for peace program, obviously has been a wonderful program. not only for agriculture sector, not only for our farmers, but for the goodwill of the united states. i look forward to the testimony, i look forward to looking at how to make this the most efficient program possible, as well as continue to support american diplomacy through the usaid program. so i'm very interested in the testimony and looking for ways that congress continues to partner with the usaid. so with that, i'll yield back. >> thank you so much. and the chair is pleased to yield two minutes for an opening

statement from mr. smith, the chairman of the global health. >> thank you. i would like to express my deepest appreciation to dr. shah for your extraordinarily leadership on so many fronts and the emphasis that usaid is giving to the nutrition and food security, particularly in the foreign assistance to ensure proper nutrition in the first 1,000 days of children's lives from conception to the second birthday, to reduce the impact of malnutrition that lead to a myriad of health problems, including stunted growth and development of an estimated 165 million children under the age of 5 in the world today. in september 2010, i joined seven african first ladies in new york city, at a roundtable initiative launch of this initiative. it was abundantly clear then, has only been reinforced by empirical data, that shows that the first 1,000 days of life is a unique once in a lifetime window of opportunity for better

health. that is without parallel. much has been achieved. much more needs to be done. the unicef issued a landmark report, extraordinary call for further action called improving child nutrition, the achievable imperative for global progress. unicef's executive director said the legacy of the first 100,000 days of a child's life can last forever. the right start in life is a right start, and only the start from which children can realize their promise and potential. he said we owe it to every child everywhere. the report further reinforces a growing international consensus that this nutritional focus deserves a much higher priority in international development initiatives than was generally, or previously realized. the unicef report emphasized, and i quoted here, assuring nutrient status of pregnant women and children, improves the health of expectant mothers, the

growth and development of unborn children and survival of the physical and mental development of children up to five years of age. close quote. the focus is on improving nutrition during the first 1,000 days of life, is one of the most important contributions our foreign assistance can make to global health, and it works synergistically to mitigate malaria, tb, and other devastating diseases around the world, but especially on the subcontinent of africa. >> thank you, mr. smith. our last opening statement will be made by mr. sosolini of rhode island. >> thank you. and welcome to the committee. i want to begin by thanking the leadership and work. as we all know, our investments in development in aid are not only important for us to do in terms of our national security, but they're important because the american people benefit when we help to create a more stable and more democratic world.

i particularly want to compliment you on the work to reform our food aid. the whole usaid forward, which i'm anxious to hear more about, the great work that the mcc has done in places around the world. and this is an opportunity, i think, for us to really reinforce our responsibility to make these kinds of investments around the world, which is one of the great strengths of america that we bring these values. and the democratic values we all share. i want to compliment both of our witnesses for your outstanding work and i yield back. >> thank you very much. this morning, we are joined by rajiv shah, the administrator of usaid. and daniel johannes, the chief executive officer of the mcc. dr. shah is the 16th administrator of usaid, previously he served as undersecretary of research, education and economics at usaid, and chief scientist at the u.s. department of

agriculture. welcome, dr. shah. and then we will hear from dr. johannes, who was confirmed as the ceo of the mcc in 2009. prior to his appointment, he held positions in the financial services sector, including as the vice chair of the management committee of the u.s. bank. welcome to both of our witnesses. without objection, the witness' full prepared statements will be made part of the record and members may have five days in which to submit statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record. gentlemen, please feel free to summarize your statements. and we'll begin with dr. shah. >> thank you, chairwoman. we appreciate your leadership and your guidance over the past several years as we've conducted our reforms and improved our performance. i want to take this moment to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel for their leadership and support and

representatives sherman, smith, and others, who have made important opening comments. i want to thank you for the continued partnership to ensure that america has the capacity to effectiveloject its values around the world through our development in humanitarian activities. and to do so in a manner that advances our national interests while delivering real results. we believe this is an important moment for development. we're drawing down from a decade of war, and have the ability to rethink and reimagine how america projects itself and its values around the world. president obama and secretary kerry, like secretary clinton before him, have repeatedly commented on the importance of elevating development as part of our national security strategy, and as part of our foreign policy, including as part of our economic competitiveness strategy. i note that perhaps the most

significant moment i've had in this role was an opportunity to visit a refugee camp in dadab, kenya, during last year's tragic familiar ne famine. in that context i had the opportunity to meet women who had been through extraordinary challenges in efforts to bring their literally starving children to safety. some made it. some were able to bring their children. others were not. but in that context, i had the chance to see firsthand that when they walked through the camp and got into a place that was safe, it was american humanitarian effort and american development partnerships that in fact gave them hope. and as tragic as that moment was, just a few months ago i had a chance to visit mogadishu. i noted that the day before my visit, usaid had worked with the local partners to install more

than 600 solar street lights. and for the first time in two decades, people were able to come out peacefully and celebrate in the evenings. we're replacing piracy on the coast with small-scale fishing infrastructure and helping people leave idp and refugee camps to go back to their communities, supporting the revitalization of their own agriculture in more than 400 communities in that country. that path from dependency to self-sufficiency and ultimately dignity and growth is what our aid and assistance should be about. and i hope we get to discuss today whether this approach is delivering results. we believe it is. our signature feed the future program, which started when we cut back on agricultural investments in 23 countries to focus on 19, where we thought we could make the biggest impact, has reached more than 7 million farmhouse holds and is helping to reduce stunting as chairman smith noted in more than 12

million children who were previously lacking effective nutrition. in our feed the future countries we're seeing extreme poverty being reduced at an average annual rate of 5.6%. we're working with the private sector to motivate $3.5 billion of private investment to be complimentary to our own investments, including having raised more than $500 million through the development credit authority to this purpose. and we're implementing real policy reforms along the way. this is just one example of how large-scale modern results oriented efforts can work, and deliver critical outcomes. it's the result of a reform effort we call usaid forward, which i'm eager to describe to you in terms of our progress today. thanks to the support of this committee we've been able to rebuild our staff, bringing in more than 1,100 foreign service officers over the course of my tenure. we've been able to implement a

policy that's best in class. you can go to the apple app store and download an application on your ipad or iphone and pull down more than 180 high-quality evaluations that describe how our programs are working or not working and what we're learning as we seek to make improvements. we've expanded our investments in local solutions that can at times be less costly. and more sustainable in delivering these results. and i'm very eager to discuss with you today our efforts to reform food aid, to bring this approach about the efficiency and effectiveness to more than 4 million children without spending additional resources, and to do a better job of saving lives while renewing the partnership with american agriculture. so i thank you for the chance to be here today. and look forward to this dialogue, learning from you, and continuing this important partnership. thank you. >> thank you so much, dr. shah. mr. johannes? >> thank you, madam chairman.

and membersfhis committee for the opportunity to appear today with my friend and colleague, dr. shah, to discuss the fiscal year 2014 budget request. i'd like to summarize my statement and submit the full version for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. to continue advancing prosperity, stability in american values around the world. mcc does this by reducing poverty through sustainable economic growth. our partners are rigorously selected countries that have a track record of sound, democratic and economic governance. we asked them to priority ids their economic needs and to develop effective solutions that make a measurable difference. we are selective about which investment we'll make, because americans deserve to see their tax dollars deliver high rate of return. we sign compacts with our partner countries, spelling out

the terms of our assistance. during compact implementation, we monitor progress and require programs be completed in five years. if countries fail to respect human rights or democratic values, and lastly, we measure program effectiveness to see what did and did not work. this is part of our evidence based approach, and because we are committed to transparency and accountability. we make our findings public. madam chairman, mcc is delivering achievements for the world's poor. transportation networks have regional impact. projects for security, and water security are connecting the poor to economic growth and opportunity. and mcc's reforms are empowering women, and promoting democratic principles. the constituencies are also benefiting as policy reforms are

targeting investment, and an environment for american businesses to succeed. last fall mcc released the first set of independent impact evaluations. this measured changes in farm and household incomes of project participants. in el salvador, they found farmers doubled their farm incomes. in ghana, the annual crop income of farmers in the northern region increased significantly relative to the control group, over and above any impacts recorded in other zones. even when the findings are not all positive, this helps us improve the design and evaluation of future projects, as we continue to learn and hold ourselves and our partners accountable. in december of 2012, mcc's board of directors selected five countries eligible to develop a compact. liberia, morocco, nigeria,

sierre leon. to help them reform policies, and institutions, that will move them closer to qualifying for compacts. the five newly eligible countries are home to over 100 million of the world's poorist people. they are presented an opportunity to advance u.s. interests. these countries have taken concrete steps to qualify for mcc compacts. this is what many call the mcc effect. in fact, officials in the developing countries worldwide, bring the influence of mcc's policy performance score cards, graded better than any other external measurement system. mcc's request for fiscal year 2014, would not allow us to fund compacts with all five countries.

so some would have to compete for future funding. it is important to know, however, that the mcc effect depends on having sufficient resources to incentivize policy changes. if our funding is cut, that effect is diminished. madam chairman, with the committee's support, mcc and our partner agencies would continue to play a key role in fighting world poverty. thank you, and i welcome your . . economic uncertainty. both here and abroad. but here it is incumbent upon us to be responsible stewards of the tax dollars of hard-working americans. we want to ensure that these hard-earned dollars are spent wisely and strategically, while advancing our national security

interests and addressing our foreign policy priorities. which brings me to the administration's request of $370 million for west bank and gaza assistance. a greater shadow is cast in the makeup of the p.a. and with the knowledge that corruption is rampant within that body, dr. shah, do you believe the p.a. possesses adequate internal controls to effectively deliver any u.s. aid, and what assurances have we received that no money will be diverted to hamas and other terrorist organizations? in addition, dr. shah, i continue to be concerned over the administration's attempts to cut much-needed democracy programs to the cuban people. 40 pro-democracy activists remain on hunger strikes in cuba, to call attention to the dozens of cubans who are being detained by castro's state

security forces. these brave heroes are risking their lives, yet we are cutting their support, which is not prudent, especially at a time when the crackdown by castro's thugs is actually on the rise on the island. and mr. johannes, with the millennium challenge corporation, we must ensure that the founding principles of the mcc continue to be upheld, and do not fall under the trap of providing more and more assistance without an end in sight. instead, we've got to focus our efforts on economic growth, and the graduation of countries away from being dependent on our assistance. as chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east in north africa, i note that the mcc compact with jordan is coming to an end this year. and i wanted to know if you would comment on that. we would will be meeting with the leaders of jordan laerd today. later today. morocco continues to be an

important ally to the united states and is a strategic partner in the region. we must further seek ways to reiterate the strong bonds that tie our two nations, and promote our shared values and vision for stability in that region. with that in mind, and shifting to another region, mr. johannes, i'm concerned about the mcc's attempt to seek a second compact with el salvador. american investors continue to have problems accessing their assets. there is a lack of public/private partnerships. and corruption issues are still prevalent in el salvador. according to current reports, the current presidential candidate celebrated the terrorist attack on 9/11 and burned an american flag. so i believe that the mcc compact should not be used as a political tool as presidential elections draw near. so i would urge the mcc to wait

until after the elections before proceeding with that compact. so, dr. shah, if you could address the p.a. assistance issue, and the cuban issue. >> certainly. thank you. and thank you for your strong leadership on the range of issues here. on west bank gaza, the goals of our effort there are very specific. they're about creating economic opportunities to underpin a peace process, to support basic social services, and we've been able to reach more than 200,000 people with food and more than 75,000 connected to improved water systems. and some core humanitarian priorities, as needs arise. we do have very strict controls in how any specific transfers to the palestinian authority are conducted, and we're confident that that will continue to go forward as we have run it in the past. very strict. >> thank you. and on cuba? >> and on cuba, we expect, again, the goals there are support the society and democracy with some small

humanitarian efforts. and we have worked closely with our partners. we believe the president's budget of $15 million reflects an appropriate investment that they have the capacity to implement. we recognize and take some faith in the fact that gao reviewed our approach to implementing this program, and very strongly commented on the effective reforms we put in place, to have a clear and compelling implementation strategy for this effort. >> thank you. and mr. johannes, i have not left you much time for morocco, el salvador. maybe you can reply in writing. i don't want to rush those answers, because they are important. please to yield five minutes to our substitute ranking member for the substitute chair. mr. sherman. >> thank you. and thank you, chairman emeritus, for your questions particularly with regard to the palestinian authority and democracy in cuba.

i want to associate myself with your concerns. ngos just are there to provide relief, or development. usaid also focuses on our foreign policy objectives. minister shah, how do you coordinate with the state department to get -- to have our foreign policy, and a foreign policy and national security objectives affect what you do? >> well, thank you, representative sherman. i guess i'll offer a general point and a specific one. in terms of coordination, i think under the obama administration, under secretary clinton and now under secretary kerry, it has been both very transparent and much improved. we developed strategies for each country. they're carefully vetted. we jointly approached the priorities and define them in a specific way. and measure results and make

those outcomes as public and transparent as possible. we have imped a for assistan dashboard that has excellent data from usa, from state and mcc. that meets our international aid transparency initiative commitments. i believe that has been very strong coordination. one important example of that, i think, that speaks to your opening comment is syria. we have worked hand in glove to make sure we provide now nearly $400 million of humanitarian support inside syria. 65% of that reaches opposition controlled areas. we're reaching 2.4 million people with critical services, and doing that -- >> administrator, i'm going to have to go on to a few other things and ask you to supplement your answer for the record. although the fact that the flag is not on the bag in syria is of great concern to me. i would like you for the record to describe what regulations, or policies you have for your people in the field that -- as

to when they must emphasize that the aid is coming from the united states, literally put a big flag on the bag of food, et cetera, and when they're allowed to depart from those policies? i would also like you to provide for the record some case studies, or examples to illustrate what is the difference in cost between a local sourcing on the one hand and u.s. sourcing, u.s. flag carrier delivery on the other? i'm sure that there will be a wide variation in the differences in cost depending where the aid is going. as to pakistan, we provide $2.8 billion in nonmilitary assistance since 2009. the islamabad government has its own objectives. but we need to win over the -- all the people of pakistan. i focused my attention on the

cin province. to what degree does islamabad focus our aid to pakistan, and then in writing, maybe you can provide a description of what we're doing in the sim province? who picks the projects and the locations? you, or the pakistani government? >> thank you. let me just say with respect to pakistan first. and sim in particular. we have important partnerships, we designed them together. we absolutely retain the capacity and authority to both select projects and oversee their implementation. one example is we made a commitment to help them produce 1,200 megawatts of energy. we've already seen through successfully produced 800 megawatts. and that's been seen as a tremendous success. second, we've invested quite a lot of effort in a comprehensive branding strategy for anywhere in the world. pakistan i think is a good example where as a result of our

efforts, we have data that shows that, with the awareness of american assistance efforts in pakistan has gone up three fold, there have been 1,000 -- >> i'm going to sneak in one more question. but please give us an analyst of what's going on in sim. u.s. cuts aid to armenia. i think you ought to increase that instead. and if you're looking for a source of funds, you could look at u.s. aid of all types to abashon which is thwarting our development efforts for the area by threatening to shoot down civilian aircraft that go into the new airport. i've talked to mr. johannes about the javaheti region of georgia. we provide substantial aid to georgia. and i hope as i've discussed with him, and now i have a chance to discuss with you, that a significant part of our aid

would go to that otherwise neglected region. and i'll ask if i've got a chance, mr. johannes, to describe what is the status of our second compact with georgia, and will jadavada be a strong focus? >> it should be presented to the board in june this year. congressman, please know that some funding that's set aside for armenia language and for a number of schools in that region. >> thank you very much, mr. sherman. mr. smith is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair. five minutes and so many questions to ask. i will submit a number of them for the record. but let me just ask you, dr. shah, two days ago, dr. frieden testified before my subcommittee. we focused on super bugs. and the parasites that increasingly as well as

anti-microbial assistance and how this is becoming more of a problem. i would ask you to speak to the issue of tuberculosis. mdr and xtr tb is more of a problem. there's a cut of $45 million in the budget. hopefully that can be restored and maybe enhanced because it is so important. on the issue of malaria, we've had a great discussion, disturbing discussion thof the sisz tans in southeast asia, portends that into africa. bed nets and all the rest of the efforts that have been herculean for malaria, new bed nets provided, there are 104 malaria pandemic countries. secondly, before you came out, we talked about the issue of child survival and the vital

importance of ort. 1,000 days, immunizations, all the important things to save lives. you indicated you had just been in india, and you might want to speak to the issue, a new documentary film was released yesterday. it's entitled "it's a girl: the three most dangerous words in the world." a u.n. figure said there's 200 million missing girls on the planet. china and india are the two most egregious violators. these are gender crimes, ex term yags of a girl child in the womb has led to this destruction of girls. but it led to more sex trafficking. and that has skyrocketed in india, and in china in particular. but you did talk about the nexus with child survival with the health ministers, if you could speak to that very quickly.

>> thank you, chairman smith. and thank you for your strong leadership on these issues for decades in child survival in particular. with respect to child survival, last year we pulled together partner countries from around the world to get everyone to make a commitment to end preventable child death worldwide. the united states signed the pledge, as did others. and today there are more than 150 countries producing data driven report cards and score cards tracking progress. there are about 7 million children under the age of 5 who die every year. as the president noted in the state of the union address, we're committed to taking that down to as close to zero as possible within two decades. in india in particular, i think that's a good example of the public/private partnership model of work coming together. we have private companies making investments to track data, and report on outcomes. we have private companies expanding zinc mining, precisely to create zinc syrups and other products that can be helpful to

children who would die otherwise of diarrhea. and we know these efforts are generating results, as these ministers came together to brief me on their progress. but also, to describe how it is correlated with the sex selection problem to which you speak. and how that needs to be incorporated into the approach. i'll say very briefly, with respect to -- let me say on that, though, i think the most amazing thing is, we're not driving this process through big new investments of american taxpayer dollars, it's really american leadership and a focus on science and technology and measurement and results that is allowing us to partner with others to achieve that kind of an outcome. with respect to tuberculosis, i appreciate your comments, and we are very focused on multi-drug resistance and also xdr, which i'm sure tom frieden spoke about. there are three foreign assistance accounts that provide our tuberculosis support. so while we limited some of our funding in one account, we're

expanding our efforts in hiv related tb and using the global fund to make sure our investments crowd in resources from other donors, and allow for more sustainability over time. and finally, to your point on malaria, i think with your strong leadership, it's been one of the big success stories america can take great pride in, independent evaluations by boston university and others have shown that there are as a result of this annual investment we make of less than $700 million, as many as 200,000 children under the age of 5 who don't die every year in subsaharan africa because of a clearly measured targeted approach. it serves as the basis for our efforts to further reduce preventable child death in that region. so thank you for your leadership. >> thank you so much, mr. smith. mr. kennedy is recognized. >> thank you. >> oh, i'm so sorry. i'm out of touch.

mr. cicilini. >> i appreciate the thought, though. >> i would yield to mr. kennedy. >> thank you, madam chair. i'm not sure the proper way to address you as ambassador or doctor. i think ambassador i'll use. i want to first thank you for your great leadership at usaid. and i would like to hear more about, you know, we have seen, and i've certainly learned about the decline in personnel at usaid over the last 20 years or so, and kind of the breaking up am some of the functions, with different agencies within the government, and the ongoing use of contracting services. the impact that has had i think has been detrimental to our efforts around the world. i think you recognized that in your forward aid initiative. i would like you to talk a little bit about what is the end goal of that, where you are in the implementation of that, and

whether or not there are things that we can do on a legislative side to protect that kind of rebuilding of both budgeting, policy and personnel capacities of usaid, which i think is reflective in some of the questions that people are asking about people understanding what role we're playing in the aid and development around the world. so i'll stop there and let you first answer that question. >> thank you, congressman. thank you for your leadership and that accurate reflection of the situation that emerged over 15 years. between 1990 and 2005, our staffing was reduced by more than 40%. the policy and budget activities ceased to exist. and the agency did engage, in my view, in quite a lot of no big contracting with very little oversight. often in war zones, where that can lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. so with respect to -- in response to that, we launched usa forward. it was basically an obama administration effort to help usaid rebuild as america's

premier development in humanitarian entity. and with your and the congress' strong support, we've been able to hire in 1,100 new officers into the agency, during my tenure. those officers have helped us fill a 40% staffing gap in africa. we have in fact cut a large number going from almost 800 down to 520 specific programs around the world, so we could focus our efforts in those places where we deliver the best results. we've reshaped and repositioned our staff, closing more than 14 missions around the world, in order to advance the focus and selectivity we think is critical to delivering results. usa forward has three major components. a partnership component says we should be working efficiently and effectively with partners that can create the conditions where aid is no longer needed. we released a detailed report about a month and a half ago that shows we have, in a thoughtful and rigorous way, been able to expand our

engagements with local partners by more than 50% over the last few years. we have focused on innovation and science and technology. last year we opened in partnership with seven american universities, and the laboratories are producing new technologies and insights like a cell scope that chairman smith would be interested in, i'm sure. but it takes an iphone and connects it to a plastic microscope, allows you to take essentially a photograph of a blood smear and runs a software algorithm to diagnose malaria and hopefully some day tuberculosis, taking laboratory diagnostics out of treatment and care, and the context where we work would be a major cost reducer, and would allow us to add to the list of success stories in terms of serious disease reductions, in difficult parts of the world. finally and most importantly, this has been an effort that really attempts on focusing real results. today you can, as i noted, download an application that would show you all of the

evaluation data that we put forward. we actually produce annual reports on our feed the future program on our child survival efforts on our malaria program. that just came out a few days ago. and we think it's important to be transparent with the american people, because the capacity to support this work i think is much stronger when people see clear direct results, and they are now able to do that. >> thank you. i'm also very pleased that this budget reflects the administration's commitment to political economic, social and cultural equality for women and girls. and i would just ask you, maybe in written response, to tell us more about the progress you're making with respect to those issues, and particularly how investing in the gender equality is reducing poverty and creating development opportunities around the world. and particularly learning more about our efforts to reduce violence against women all over the world. and i know that that is work that's ongoing, and i would like

to hear more about that in a written response. and i wanted to say to mr. johannes, thank you for the second millennium compact for cape verde. i know very well the great success they're having in cape verde. thank you again for your leadership in that area. and i yield back the negative ten seconds i have. >> thank you very much, mr. cicilini. mr. shabot of ohio is recognized. chair of our asia subcommittee. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to emphasize something, and that's the fact that the u.s. is the most generous country on earth, by far, in providing aid around the world. and i find it particularly annoying that we oftentimes have to hide the source of that aid, which is the american taxpayer, because we might offend some people who, let's face it, hate america. we should proudly and

prominently display and in fact trumpet the generosity and the goodness of the american people. and if this offends someone, and they turn the aid down, fine. we'll give it to somebody else. who would appreciate it. now, as charity asia, i have a couple questions. one on indonesia, one on china and one on vietnam. mr. johannes, i believe the millennium challenge account, the sustainability, economic growth mission is how all of our foreign assistance should be modeled, because in a number of cases, it's proven to be far more successful than many of the foreign assistance programs administered through usaid. now, on indonesia, in 2006, indonesia was named eligible for the mcc threshold program which seeks to reduce corruption by bolstering several key anti-corruption institutions, including the supreme court and

the anti-corruption commission. last year indonesia's ranking on the corruption perceptions index unfortunately fell from 176 countries poll the. relative to other countries polled, indonesia remains in the, quote, cluster of countries with significant corruption problems, unquote. could you discuss how the mcc has helped fight corruption, and some of the challenges you're confronting in meeting your program goals? i also understand in this particular indication, indonesia has been a reluctant partner in implementation, which questions the sustainability of the program once the mcc leaves. can you discuss this particular issue and how mcc is working to address the problem? >> thank you. corruption is a major obstacle to economic growth and we have

absolutely zero tolerance for corruption. having said that, all of the countries, including indonesia were selected because of corruption indicators. if, in fact, corruption is institutionalized. we know that despite the efforts to cut down on corruption, it exists not only in indonesia and our partner companies but in developed countries. institutionalized? do they honor contract? do they abide by the rule of law? are the judges independent from, you know, the executive branch of government? are they creating the best environment for businesses to succeed? we look for trends to make sure they are creating a very friendly environment for businesses to succeed. part of our $600 million contract is to help that country fight corruption primarily by helping open procurement

opportunities in their countries. they had to do a special deceree to set up an mcc in that country because all aid was funneled through the government. we don't give a dime directly to the government. after the president dedecrcreed this -- >> let me cut you off there. one is on china, u.s. aid's requested economic support funds for china. you know, right now they own an estimated $1.7 trillion of u.s. debt and hold over $3.25 trillion in foreign cash reserves. how do you justify that? particularly we have a $16.8 trillion debt and finally relative to vietnam, we had a staff over there last month.

their human rights record, unfortunately, is not good. unfortunately, many would argue, is getting worse. it's been requested an $18 million increase over the past year. how do you justify that? you've got 15 seconds to answer both questions. thank you. >> with respect to china, the $4.5 million is specifically to help tibetan communities promote sustainable development and sustain cultural traditions and no correlation or flow to the chinese government whatsoever. with respect to vietnam, i would note that compared to the fy12 real number, the fy14 request is an overall 12% reduction in our investment there and our focus there is to maintain our support for the hiv/aids effort as well

as to support civil society. in particular, people with disabilities in addition to the remediation activities that have been an ongoing commitment of the united states. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll go now to mr. elliott en gechlt l, ranking member on the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like a consent to insert my statement into the record. i want to talk about some of the things that you know in this difficult fiscal environment, foreign budget to make cuts and it's regrettable. i really want to say that because i think it's important. food adrian form proposal. current food aid programs waste millions of taxpayer dollars and often harm countries that we are trying to help. this initiative will have little or no effect on american

farmers. after i say a few more words i would like doctor shavi to comment on the programs to make them more efficient and affordable. in terms of global health, i was pleased to see the small overseas funding for global health programs at usaid, especially petfar. that's very important. it's a testament to mcc that many of the reforms being pursued by usaid are based in large part on the mcc model. i think that's very, very good. but i'm interested in hearing your thoughts on how mcc can address my longstanding concern on how we can work with countries that lack data on their score cards. kosovo, a country recognized by the united states but not the u.n. because of mcc's dependency. much of the data it uses.

kosovo is left with empty failed boxes on its score card, coping it from competing for a program. while i recognize their willingness to accept supplementary data, it's unclear how they use this information to calculate a country's score. there's nothing transparent about this approach. i really hope mcc addresses this problem so that in the future country's in kosovo's position will be able to compete with all the other countries. before i ask both of you to answer the questions, congress has been appropriating unprecedented -- palestinian relations as well as for humanitarian reasons. it's no coincidence that this

increase in u.s. assistance has occurred during fayed's tenure of prime minister, palestinian authority will not be possible. i'm wondering, first, dr. shavit, we met many times. i support the administrations plans to restructure our food aid programs to make them more efficient and affordable. could you elaborate for us the p potential taxpayer savings this plan will generate? do you believe it will have any impact on farm income? and concerns about the proposal in regard to its impact on

military readiness and deployment capacity? >> thank you, mr. ranking member thank you for your leader ship across the range of the issues and for the extra efforts you put in to help us do our work better and more effectively. with respect to the food reform proposal, it is geared around the absolute intention to reach 4 million additional children without additional resources. fy14 request is actually, in total, 6% lower than the fy12 request. with respect to what's happening right now, why this is urgent. because of the incredible commitment to syria and syrian refugees, what limited flexibility we've had in this program has been absorbed in that context. as a result, many other parts of the world, drc, pakistan, where we're reverting kids from programs that have been supported through the more flexible, local and regional

procurement program back to the more restrictive title two program. in the context of doing that, we're having to reduce services to hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. we believe we need the flexibility and have studied carefully the impact on american ag richltculture. over the last decade, this program has been slifli ishrive. this is less than one half of 1% of the total value of u.s. agricultural exports, only proposing a diminishment from 85% to 55% with commodities in the program. more than a dozen studies have validated the sufficiency gains. we believe this will help us renew the partnership between the agriculture and

humanitarian. thank you. >> if the chairman will indulge me, i mentioned it's really a testament to mcc that many of the reforms being perfect sued by usaid are doing it on the mcc model. it should be the hallmark of all our systems. i want your comments on kosovo. it's been a long extending frustration of mine. >> congressman, thank you. when kosovo became independent in 2008 it presented a different challenge for uses. we simply did not have a lot of indicators from the indicator companies. but since 2008, we worked very closely with all the indicator agencies that provide us with that information. and today, we have more information about kosovo than we ever had in the past. the only agency not providing us information is the united nations but we've been able to

get supplemental information directly from them. we've been actively engaged. one of my best economists was sent to that last year. they passed only eight out of the 20 indicators. having said that, we worked with them very closely to make sure they understand what needs to be done. good news and bad news is that they have graduated to the higher income bracket the last two years. if they continue to make that progress, they may not be eligible for our program, but we work with them and i'll be more than happy to work with you, congressman, what we need to do in the future in cases like this one. >> thank you. i want to work closely with you on that. before i relinquish, finally, i would like to just add my voice to mr. smith's comments about cutting tb funding by 57 million. it's really extremely short sided. and i really think that we have

to sufficiently fund our efforts to treat and eliminate tuberculo tuberculosis. >> i'm encouraged by this reform proposal, one that had been made in the prior administration as well, or been suggested. i remember talking to andrew anosios -- your predecessor in your position, challenges that he had and his feeling that both his hands were tied his back as he shared with us at one point when we had a devastating food crisis in africa and in asia. he said food aid often gets there after everyone is dead. he was clearly very, very

perfe perturbed by the circumstances and the delays. one of the things he said is that people can't eat shipping costs, as he was commenting on the reality of the burdensome way that the system operated. when it takes months for food aid to arrive or we have a situation where you've seen the united states dump food into markets that undermine local production and drive the population into deeper poverty, it really gives you pause in terms of our current method of operation. when i chaired the africa subcommittee, we had the president of mawli here. he testified how it was undermining his farmers and how agriculture subsidies were

undermining his society. you know, there's a negative impact on our western subsidies that it has on african farmers and we need to be responsible here. the framework for your proposal, i think, has been found to save time, money, certainly lives and i think it promises to reduce the deficit, going forward over the next ten years, by about half a billion dollars. so i was going to ask you a question and this goes to the issue of aid to refugees from syria. i understand the requirement of a u.s. ship recently delayed a food shipment to syria. i was going to ask you about that, mr. shavit. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your very strong

leadership. it has, in fact, precipitated a need around this reform because in opposition-controlled parts of syria, traditional food convoys would be targeted, more than 150 deaths across humanitarian workers in that context. and because, as we have used what limited flexibility we have in and around syria -- and it's been effective in that context, we have eliminated our capacity to use that same flexibility in places like somalia and the drc. so, all of the basic points you made, i think, are the core rationale for this effort. 30% to 50% cost reduction on natural product purchases, 11 to 14 week shipping delay in pursuing the traditional model. shipping costs have increased by a factor of more than throw over the last decade, in part why the metric tons of food we buy and ship have fallen to 1.8 million

metric tons. american leadership on this issue around the world has also fallen. today we serve as less than half the beneficiaries we did when president bush made a version of this proposal ten years ago. i also want to validate and highlight the challenges of the practice of monetizing food service. care, world vision, catholic relief services in the democratic republic of conga, shipping food from here to there, giving them the food and asking them to sell it where they're then turning around helping the farmers create produce, frankly lose 50% of the value in that case of the resource compared to what we spent buying the food on this end of the world. there's a strong consensus around be a data-driven approach. we're trying to put this

proposal forward in a way that manages and maintains the coalitions. >> let me bring up one other issue. i'm deeply concerned about the fwroeing number of land seizures in the philippines. property rights are essential to economic security and also economic growth and i see the request for development assistance in the philippines includes an increase of 6.6 million for a total of $87.7 million. will any of these funds be directed toward securing and protecting property rights? and if not, why not? >> it is our -- our intention is to ensure we work on the range of those types of issues in the context of these programs. i would have to provide more specific details perhaps in writing. >> i'll be in consultation with you afterwards. mcc has 444 million in its contract with the philippines, nearly two years into

implementation. and i appreciate your commitment to raising the land seizure issue with the government there. is this not an issue to commitment of rule of law? >> mr. chairman, it's very important, the rule of law. we have communicated our concerns to the government. i think it's also extremely important for economic growth. i know they are very committed in the fight against corruption. but also they need to do something different on this one. and based on the conversations we had with them, they understand the problems and they are willing to help us find slougss for this problem. >> mr. yonanes, thank you. dr. shah, we appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. shah and mr.

yohannes, for being here. as a doctor, i recognize the important work that usaid does in terms of preventing child and maternal deaths through the transition of aids, global health initiative. ultimately to relieve human suffering. obviously one of the goals of both the mcc and usaid is to help the countries we're interacting with to become self sufficient. that is always one of our goals. my conversations with the government of india and the state of california as we're looking at the issue of food security and helping india, lot of food loss occurs in india, upwards of 30% of the food gets lost in a nation where hundreds

of millions go to bed hungry every night. a lot of this is around issues of cold storage and issues of lack of infrastructure, of taking the food and moving it to market. i would be interested in hearing from either one of you on some efforts working with the government of india to improve both the storage issue and then the movement issue. >> thank you. and i'll just address a few of those points. with respect to food security in india, when president obama visited during his state visit he launched a partnership for an evergreen revolution with the prime minister. that partnership was designed to have both countries partner along technical and other lines as opposed to having the united states make significant investment in india, because india has plenty of resources in its ag richltcultural sector. three things have happened as a result. much expanded technical exchange, some from california

like davis, along with partner universities in india, many of which we had a strong role in helping to develop decades ago. the indian government has tried to pass legislation to allow for american companies like walmart and others to be involved in essentially professionalizing the food chain and creating and bringing the technologies and logistic capabilities of those companies to address exactly the issues you raise like cold storage and reducing post-harvest losses. between u.s.a., usda and the government of india, that's moving forward. third and final thing i would note, there's a range of technology partners in india that have joined this effort and partnering with the united states, investing their own resources in tackling hunger and subsaharan africa. that is implementic, bringing its technology and businesses to

partner with us on this challenge in subsaharan africa. >> tied primarily to help many of our partner countries to become food secure. for example, in agriculture, 20 farmer farmers to become self sufficient but providing them with opportunities. so they have access to markets. building cold storage facilities for fruits that have been produced by the farmers are not spoiled until they ship to overseas and last year we just completed -- tas relates to training. we are seeing great results. in the past most developing agencies measure the outputs and the outcomes as a result of farmer training. but what we are learning is we take it one step further. in el salvador, farmers doubled

their income as a result of our investment. in nicaragua, they increase the income 30%, in ghana. and what we do next, we know it's very difficult to do, to see if our investments are increasing household incomes, which is very difficult to do. we've seen great results from our investment with the farmer program. >> dr. shah, mr. yohannes, i think that's exactly what we should be doing, helping people and chris become more self sufficient. obviously we help to save lives and help promote our democratic values. it also is good business sense. dr. shah, we have technologies, university partnerships better occurring with my home institution at uc davis as well as with our innovators.

we can take what we're doing here and export that and help other countries. i like forward to working with both of you. i yield back. >> we go now to the the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we can have an honest discussion about this, people need to face the reality of what our fundamentals are right here in the united states. we're going -- dr. shah, do you know what the proposed level of deficit spending is by the administration in their budget? not -- but the overall -- no, you don't. mr. yohannes, do you know? we are going to expend -- we are going to at least expend $1 billion more than we're taking in and we've been doing this for

five years. if that is not corrected, within a very short period of time, we won't be able to do any of these noble things that you're talking about. so, whenever we are -- in order to do our responsibility here, we need to be confronting that basic truth. and so how do we do that? yes, it's a trillion, not a billion. excuse me. a trillion. so before every expenditure that we're talking about, we need to put in front of this, is this worth the united states borrowing this money from china in order to expend it wherever we're going to do it? that's what we're talking b we're talking about borrow iing money from a foreign power, probably china or japan in order to give it to someone else. and if we can't answer that now,

we should not be doing that project, that's for sure. i personally believe that we need to restructure aid considering this so that our aid is no longer developmental aid. and mr. yohannes is doing a great job in that he is insisting on, with his organization, changes in the fundamental status quo that is created the hardship in those countries, rather than just giving aid, which will not do any good at all. you're not changing the status quo and the way you're doing things, it will go back to what it was. we need to basically restructure our whole concept into developmental aid is no longer our responsibility because we can't afford it. borrowing from someone else in order to help another country develop is not right. and basically emergency humanitarian aid in cases of natural disasters. that's what we can afford.

that's it. maybe that's worth borrowing from another country in order to save people in a desperate situation. otherwise, we put our own people in a desperate situation. now a couple of questions on specifics about your request this year. dr. shah, you visited china last week. and you were involved in a new working group on climate change that was announce d. these new technology, clean technology projects. we've been giving china -- borrowing money in order to give to china for these technologies. is that over or does your -- mean we're going to continue giving aid to china that we are actually borrowi ining from chi? >> just to clarify, sir, i was

not in china. and i'm certainly not a part of that. >>kay, thank you. >> but i would also highlight that our request with respect to china is soly focused on tibetan communities. >> thank you very much. good answer. let me just add right here we should not be giving aid to countries that are hostile to the united states or can be seen that their governments have committed actions that have supported international terrorism. that's why mr. chairman, i would announce today that i plan to offer an amendment to whatever foreign aid bill comes to the floor that suggests that pakistan should get not one penny of support for anything until the man who helped us bring to justice osama bin laden is freed from a pakistani dungeon. the american people need to be

outraged that pakistan is holding him in the first place after giving safe haven to osama bin laden. but to give them aid on top of that is absolutely unconcionable. i will be adding an attempt that until dr. affridi is freed we should not be considering giving them one penny. other countries are hostile to us and we should not be giving money to those countries while their governments are hostile to the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you. now we go to miss lois frankel from florida. >> thank you very much. i want to just first of all thank the panel for being here, preface my remarks first by saying that i do believe foreign aid has a good purpose when it's spent correctly.

i want to talk to you about afghanistan. from what i have read and what i have heard is that much of the aid that we have given -- and i'm not even talking about military now. it's just been very wasteful. it's lined the pockets of bad actors, used for bribery. it's made folks there more reliant on the united states and less reliant on themselves. so in that regard, i would like you to comment on that. i want to ask you some questions to go along with your -- that you could also comment on. who is in charge of development in the world? you can use afghanistan as an example. is it the military who seems to be doing similar functions as usaid? is it the state department? what do you pressure your

outputs, if you build a school? do you actually determine whether ni anybody is getting educated? and how would you avoid the kind of wastes that we've heard about in afghanistan in the future? >> thank you, congresswoman. thank you for your preface. foreign aid is less than 1% of our budget and for that we believe we deliver critical natural security results and economic opportunities that sustain american leadership around the world and will for decades. with respect to afghanistan, i want to step back for a moment and articulate that i believe the collective development investment has created basic conditions that allow our troops to come home and for us to aspire for a stable and secure country that is not a terrorist threat to us in the future. annualized rates of growth of 9% to 10%. we've seen more than tripling

electricity access, in large part because of our specific investment, helping the afghan utility company using mobile payments to increase their own generational revenues by more than 300%, helping to build 1900 kilomet kilometers of road that has helped improve. and 8 million kids in school, including 3 million girls. there were zero girls in school under the taliban. child and maternal death anywhere in the world over the last aek dek aid has been in afghanistan. they've been verified by independent studies released last year and create a basis for some degree of stability as we look ahead. that said, sustain iing these gains in the context we're in, and fighting corruption are absolutely our priorities. i was on the call earlier this week with donald rumsfeld and we have a very close, tightly

integrated military plan. military has matched any civilian development investment and far exceeded that investment. doing it together is critical for attaining these results. international community was broad together to pledge sustained support for afghanistan and implement the tokyo mutual accountability framework. if afghanistan does not meet clear criteria on fighting corruption and recovering assets from the kabul bank creditors, on efforts to protect rights for women and girls, including the 25% quota for women in the parliament, then we will pull back our aid and assistance and will do that in concert with more than a dozen other international partners. and it's that kind of serious, conditional accountability framework that we believe is the best way to make sure we sustain the gains, allow our troops to come home and recognize that the

2% of the total afghanistan investment that is represented by development will ultimately play a much larger percentage impact on whether there's a stable future for that country and a terrorist threat to us. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chair. >> we go to mr. ted pope. ted? >> thank you both for being here. after sequestration take place, the administration notified the military that they were going to cut the military tuition assistance program. congress rectified that in the continuing resolution military assistance tuition program, as you know, helps the military who are currently on active duty to finish their education but at the same time after sequestration took place, u.s.aid notified congress that

$41 million would be sent to pakistan to help pay for scholarships for pakistani students. so, it seems to me we don't have money to help our own military go to school because of sequestration. after sequestration takes place, we have money to help pakistani kids go to school. this does not sit well with a lot of folks. can you walk me through this decision and if we're still going to help those students in pakistan? >> thank you. thank you, representative. i appreciate your comments and leadership on these issues and on transparency and results reporting in our portfolio of work as well. i will just say the sequestration has affect eed

usaid's, $70 million reduction to the food aid and assistance and more than $400 million reduction to our economic and development assistance and nearly $70 million to our operating expenses. we, like many other parts of the government are putting into place strict measures to achieve those required savings in the context where 75% of our staff are in international context. >> excuse me, dr. shah. sequestration has affected usaid but zeroing in on specifically for the money we're sending to pakistan for their students to finish their education. if you could just zero in on why that decision was made. >> i would have to go back and get you a specific answer. my understanding would be that the fy13 budget has been reduced significantly in pakistan, far more than the sequester amount,

as well as in many other parts of the world. i would presume that was well before fy11 or 12. let me come back to you on it that. >> i would appreciate that. s as you know, dr. shah, i have filed a bill called the foreign aid transparency and accountability act. what it does is have us, the government, usaid, foreign aid evaluated to see if it's actually working. i was surprised to learn till i filed that legislation that generally over the years of foreign assistance, we've never evaluated program that is work and help those and programs that don't worry. they're still not working but we're still giving them money in some cases because none of this has been evaluated. legislation did pass the house. could you weigh in on transparency, maybe the bill, maybe not? but the whole concept of

americans sending money to other nations, americans want to see if the money we're sending to ngo's government, et cetera, is working or not working. could you weigh in on that concept of transparency and accountability? >> absolutely. it is essential. i want to congratulate you on your leadership on that. and support you in the version that passed the house. first-ever commitment to the international aid transparency initiative. daniel and i are leading the charge to ensure that all of our assistance is very transparent. both of us publish all of our financial data on the assistance dashboard, online website. mcc this year published a series of very important impact evaluations. we at usaid put more than 180 qualified evaluations on a site, where you can download it on an

app. ta shows real significant important results in many cases and in some cases shows that programs did not work. in our case, we adjusted, made more than 50% of the programs adjusted based on the initial evaluation data. it allows us to be better and more effective of how we do our work. we are all very supportive of this move that the administration has tried to leave and i think we used modern technology to be more transparent than the administration ever has on humanitarian investments. >> thank you, dr. shah. i was going to have you weigh in on that, too, but my time is up. i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. we are now going mr. snyder of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. shah and mr.

election because of the health