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. yohannes, of sharing your

experiences, insights and priorities. let me ask the emphasis of the importance of the work you do, the fact that you are focused on deciding where to apply resources and accountability. it's very much appreciated. one of my areas of concern we see in the middle east, the region is having a lot of challenges, in particular between the israelis and palestinians with the announced resignation of prime minister fayed. which in many ways is related to the support and aid we give. moving forward as mr. fayed moves on, wherever he goes, i would be interested in your sense of the impact that will have in our aid in the region. >> well, thank you. thank you for that question. you know, secretary kerry spoke to this specifically and indicated we're moving forward with a process that he believes can deliver a positive outcome over time.

our aid and assistance in this region is tied to that very process. currently the priorities are building the current public, private institutions. we continue to pursue both humanitarian assistance in the west bank as well as support for the palestinian authority. the way we structure that program has very careful partner vetting so we know who we're giving resources to and who we're not. it has a very specific degree of flows that mr. fayed helped to put in place with us where they go to israeli bank and first pay off debts that the palestinian authority has with those israeli banks. we have a high degree of confidence but will be vigilant in making sure that the pro protections we built with fayed will continue on. that will, of course, be a condition on our continued assistance there. >> is there -- what is the plan

moving forward with fayed moving on, the institutions he has started to build, frameworks we're going to provide for potentially a future state, that those continue to get the support they need in the ways you outline, holding people accountable? >> absolutely. in fact, while we do have a lot and have had a lot of confidence in fayed specifically, these have been institutional efforts. every year we go through a very rigorous process to make sure that these institutional checks are in place, that we're building these institutions in a rigorous way and we can track and trace our resources. it's important that his replacement abides by those principles and stands by those principles. if they can't, then we won't be able to go forward with what we do. we have every reason to believe that this focus on building strong, transparent, credible institutions, paying off debts that are accrued and doing it in a transparent way will be sort

of the hallmark of this relationship. >> great. thank you. shift gears on mr. yohannes and go to my colleague's former question. the emphasis on accountability, help us understand more how that's helping and make decisions on effectiveness and return on the investment you guys are making? >> we use evidence as decision making process, how we select countries, do concern analysis, investment decisions, invest in those countries. but really accept american values and also investment that has the best for taxpayers. evaluation monitoring to make sure that the investments are producing the desired results. and we do, in addition to what's been done traditionally by most

agencies, we dog one step further and do a very thorough impact evaluation by independent parties. that tells us if, in fact, investments we've made have increased income. and we've been seeing a lot of successes. we're also seeing what needs to be changed as a result of had an what we've been seeing. the most beautiful part of the whole process is we are learning and we're building evidence about what needs to be changed and what's working, what's not working. in terms of how we should implement future programs, and we hold our partners accountable. all the programs are -- they're responsible. they want to replace investment with a private sector.

and let me tell you, i was in tanzania last week and saw many of the work that have been completed. those are very complex projects. they have been done on time. very want to prosper. we are created koss mers investment opportunities. these countries are creating -- for american companies to invest in those countries. they are great partners. they are the future. investment in those countries will also be able to help here at home american companies to create more jobs and they are our future. >> great. thank you very much. i yield. >> tom merino of pennsylvania. >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, thanks for what you do. you are both extraordinary men. i appreciate that. doctor, if i could for a moment,

as a prosecutor and handling cases, my theory was follow the money. it always ended up in convictions. could you explain to the taxpayers how specifically you follow the money to see how it is spent? because there is a perception out there that we wire millions of dollars over to the government into their account and we do not see it anymore. >> yeah. i very much appreciate both your prosecutorial background and the question. when i started, the amount of money we provided to foreign governments was 9% of our total expenditure. that compares to all of our peer organizations around the world, 60% to 80% in terms of how they do that. we've moved up to 14.8%, still magnitude behind other partners but in a more direct and

specific way. when we do that, we do very carefully assessments of countries receiving resources. but even more importantly, most of the resources we provide are provided on what we call a fixed amount reimbursement agreement, which means countries have to implement a program, invoice the cost they occur, send the invoices in. we do a third-party monitoring. has the activity been conducted effectively and then pay the bill for it per an initial agreement we may have made. in addition to that, in some difficult to work in settings like afghanistan and elsewhere, if we do that, we'll also use geospatial monitoring and data to further verify that the resources are being shepherded in an effective way. i think there is a misperception we provide a lot of direct assistance to the governments of afghanistan and pakistan. afghanistan, the great majority

of our investment goes -- that is labeled that way goes to a world bank trust fund called the afghan reconstruction trust fund studied by any number of partners, including harvard, m.i.t., and found to be very, very effective in tracing and tracking resources and ensuring it delivers real results. >> thank you. mr. yohannes, do you care to elaborate on that, please, for me? >> couple of things. number one, we don't transfer a single dime to the government directly. and all payments are made directly to the investors. we pay the vendors when all the projects have been completed. we are very careful with american taxpayers, we don't want to spend a dime on corruption or corruption practices. we do have a workshop that we teach to a lot of our

affiliates, how to detect fraud and corruption. we have an anonymous line that comes directly to the ig if, in fact, they detect some kind of corruption. we have control after control to make sure that american taxpayer dollars are not spent on corruption or corrupt practices. >> i believe i read or through a conversation learned that if you have a process whereby you inform the respective entities that there's a time period by which the proceeds or aid may stop because there's not improvement and because there's not an initiative on the part of the government, would you explain that a little bit, please? then, doctor, if i have time, i'll ask you to touch on that. >> we hold our partners accountable. a lot of the commitments are made for five years. and if they don't get it done within five years, then definitely they lose the funding. but during that five years, we expect the partners to, a,

continue to be committed to democratic governance. and in some cases, for example, malawi, they did not abide by the same commitment. and the project was suspended. and after the new president came in and she complied with many of our requests, including the requests from her constituencies, the board lifted and reinstated the suspension. >> thank you. i'll move on to the doctor. do you have -- usaid have such a program? >> absolutely. we actually have increased suspensions in departments and partners of all kinds by more than five-fold relative to the prior administration. we've been very, very focused on accountability in that context. just this past weekend we pulled together all the international partners for afghanistan to use the afghan accountability framework to make joint

judgments, should we be pulling back our resources if the afghans don't do certain things? >> thank you, gentlemen. ted deutsch of florida. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for being with us today. and answering all these questions. dr. shah, i want to thank us aid and state as well. often underappreciated role of providing humanitarian relief to the sorryi isyrian people. protecting our aid workers. obviously, you have heard here today, extremist organizations, concern is growing and there's frustration despite our efforts we still hear there are syrian people -- people don't always feel that the u.s. is with them. i would point out the article that sparked much of this debate include included other important details

that hasn't been getting that much attention. the feeding of 210,000 people a day by flour purchased by the united states, which has helped result the cute shortage of bread. extra rations, 168,000 people sleep under u.s.-provided blankets, 144 field hospitals funded by the united states. this is all something we should be proud of. it's the right thing to do. can you tell us how you're working to strengthen our relationship sben hans our reputation with the syrian people? >> thank you. thank you very much for asking that question and referencing that data and information, which i think is critical. first, we do try to brand our humanitarian assistance wherever possible. one thing the article did not capture is that we've worked with the syrian opposition council to create television content and radio content that

we use and communicate throughout opposition controlled areas highlighting the efforts. we're not at all concerned about highlighting where america is providing this assistance. we're seeking to do that. we're trying to avoid consequences and attacks on our humanitarian partners. many of these ngos, including people like syrian-american trauma surgeons are taking tremendous personal risks and are being targeted. bakeries in aleppo are being targeted. 143 deaths among medical personnel in and around hospitals who are trying to provide critical surgical support to people who have been harmed because of the brutality of the assad regime. there have been other deaths of u.n. workers and others. so with that safety consideration in mind, we're doing absolutely everything we can. furthermore, secretary kerry announced this past weekend acceleration of direct support to syrian opposition council of

$250 million. that investment is designed to help with our co--branded partnership deliver basic services in opposition-controlled areas, provide everything from garbage and trash removal to helping restart electricity grids and provide generators and fuel. those are the types of things we also believe ought to be co-branded so america recognized the standing with people and opposition. >> absolutely right. i appreciate your highlighting that. in the last -- in the short time i have, there are -- it gets frustrating sometimes, frankly, to hear some of the criticism of foreign aid. this false choice we're given that we can invest in schools abroad or invest in schools here. we can invest in infrastructure abroad or infrastructure here. it's a false choice. you rightly pointed out that our entire foreign aid budget is less than 1% of the overall

budget. but put aside -- both of you, mr. yohannes, you work with the poorest countries in the rld. dr. shah, you're involved in -- i went to that app that you reference, and the thousands of projects all around the world. tell me in the short time i have left -- just put the papers aside. why do you do this? why does it matter so much for us to be engaged the way we are every place in the world? >> i'll just say very briefly, this is in our core national security interest. we've seen this over and over again. it's in our national security interest in pakistan, which is a nuclear power, about to go through what we believe will be the first civilian election, and hopefully peaceful transition of power. they've experienced post independence. afghanistan where it brings our troops home. it's in our national interest in africa. >> dr. shah, i'm sorry. mr. yohannes, speak to that,

please. >> same thing. it is in our national interest. if you look at many of the countries assisted by us, south korea, thailand, taiwan, they've now become our major trading partners. many of the countries we're helping today will be major trading partners. it's about creating jobs here. it's also about increasing the dividends. at the same time, helping those countries and creating the best partners for us in the future. it is in our national interest. it is about our security. it is about our prosperity. >> thank you both very much. thank you, mr. chairman. let's go to mr. yoho of florida. >> thank you. my question, i guess, coming from the representative of the people of 3rd district. and i appreciate mr. deutsch's

comments that it's only 1%. i come from a district that has 85% of the people that said they want to end all foreign aid, period. i've got to sell this to them. i can tell them it's only 1%. what difference does it matter? when i have a mother struggling to send her child to school at a university or they have to pay outh-of-state tuition and says they can't do it and we've got $41 million going to pakistan, it's a hard sell. to ask people in this time, in this economy in our country that we're going to give this aid to them but yet your getting laid off because of sequestration in our country. in the words of ronald regulaga unless the nation puts its own financial and economy house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress. we've been doing this -- i don't want to say game but our policies have been going on for over 30, 35, 40 years.

longer than that. i've been paying attention to that. and i see some improvement but i see a lot of stuff going in the wrong direction. when you see countries -- i resonate the words of mr. shavitz. we send aid but don't want to say where it's coming from. i stand with him on putting a big red, white, blue flag on any aid going over there that says this product was produced by, paid for by and sent by the american people. because to go down the path that we're going down, it's a hard sell when i go back and face the people at home. i know you guys are doing a job that you talk about. and you're putting forth the effort to expand economic development. you're talking about the economic development in el salvador growing 9% or kni

nicaragua. i'm reverberating the frustration i hear at home. you talk about the transparency and accountability in these programs. you were saying, mr. yohannes, you run your organization like a business. and dr. shah, you talk about you're at the top of your organization. who holds the person at the top of those accountable when we come up with the fraud, the waste or the abuse? who answers to that? it really wasn't a question you can answer. it's more of a rhetorical. what direction do you see the american government going insofar as foreign aid and what should our role really be? are we looking at economic development or are we looking at just giving foreign aid that becomes more of a foreign welfare, in which case it does

no good? >> you know, i believe that the president has spoken about this very consistently. and this budget reflects these are tough times, present a budget lower than it has been for that purpose. we also believe foreign assistance should be about creating conditions where aid is no longer needed. pathway from dependency, dignity should be at the core of what we do. single most in this budget that's been sent to the president is the foreign adrian form. it has reforms embed in it to allow us to reach 4 million additional people while achieving $5 million mandatory budget savings. it allows us to actually expand the effectiveness in our efforts, saving more lives in difficult situations while moderating and have iing as not

perceptible impact on american agriculture produce and value. we know that we can do a better job and when we can, some of these programs are six decades old. we want to work with you to have a reform approach that allows us to be more effective and efficient. we want us to go back and say however we conducted our mission it was to get the most value for money. >> i'm going to cut you off. i hope you do pair those programs down. >> my colleagues and i have two different purpose. we both promote government interests worldwide. we work with countries that are poor. countries that have taken responsibility for their own growth.

countries that are committed to reform. we need some trading partners. many of the countries that we support in the past are now major trading partners. south korea, between the two of us we do over $100 billion trade. >> thank you. i appreciate your time. my time has expired. i'll yield whatever time i have back. >> thank you mr. chair for holding this hearing today. i appreciate it very much. i want to thank both you have for your excellent work. i want to take issue with my good colleague from california. he says we shouldn't use tax dollars for development but only for emergency aid. both you have have been doing a

great job explaining the work of your organizations but i'm going to ask you to give examples of specific projects instead of the 10,000-foot level. i disagree with the part that says we should focus on emergency aid because i believe the work of both of your organizations leads to preventing the emergencies that take place. i think the example of korea is a wonderful example. i would love for you to talk about feed the future and africa's long term goal, our long term goal. if you could both give an

example how you're work leads to us not having the level of foreign aid. if you could talk about the port in regional integration in africa. >> thank you. with respect to feed the future this was a program that president obama asked us to create and implement in order to move people from dependency to self-sufficiency using agriculture to address extreme pover poverty. we implemented in 19 countries. in each country we work in they adhere to a set of commitments and reforms. some of which are to increase domestic expenditure. some to avoid export bands in the sector. part of this effort last year president obama brought together

the american industry and said what can we do to accelerate the partnership with private investment and got companies to commit $3.5 billion of agriculture investment to these countries. today we're seeing it. we're doubling the yields and significantly improving access to improve crop varieties. >> thank you. i saw an example in kenya of u.s. companies that were lending their scientific expertise as well as products helping kenya move forward. >> thank you. about 70% of our investments are concentrated in africa. we're building the infrastructure, road, bridges. we were able to spend about $180 million to expand the port. that port is a lifeline if more

of the countries on that region. the result of our investment we've seen commerce increase significantly in the region. i just came back from tanzania. it links with kenya. the same roads are being used by other countries in the region. they are computing today. we're helping, working with my good friend to help many of the countries become secure. in senegal where we're building for infrastructure, u.s. is providing training.

aid through major policy reforms by creating the best environments for businesses to be invested in those countries. it's very difficult for the african countries to take advantage of the opportunity that exists. >> i appreciate that. we had a breakfast this morning and one of the things we hear from african countries is they want to move beyond aid. it's about trade. to the extent the countries are developed around the world that's more business for our companies in the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you. we now go to mr. cook of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a previous question was asked about the corruption in

afghanistan. i want to kind of -- i was very impressed with actually the military, impressed with the afghan army and some of the aid programs. corruption is a big problem. i know there's a wink, wink, nod, nod you start talking about the poppy and the drug situation. it's almost analogous to columbia 15 years ago. i'm kind of a cynic on this and i'm very surprised way things have turned out in columbia. because of the political situation and this variable, can you address that. they're talking about this year's going to be a bumper crop over there again and whether

this will help establish a degree of ability to allow our troops come home and reduce the long term national security threat. poppy is a huge challenge. we've seen big ups and downs. the core drivers and we have learned this from peru and columbia and other areas where we've had successful alternative development programs.

woe help with improving weak yields. working for export opportunities for the gulf and other countries in the area and one of the few things that's been effective at getting people out of poppy and these other areas is creating the opportunities that are safe and legal and financially fiscally rewarding to small producers and small businesses there. the poppy was going to the western countries but now the big market or part of it is russia and that avenue is somewhat open and if you could just address that very briefly

too. >> that's accurate an part of our approach is to help manage and bring much more transparency and fight corruption at trading posts and border crossings for combatting poppy trade and revenue flow from that but also help the afghan government collect real customs to have domestic revenue replace aid overtime as that i can on the sustainability of these efforts. all those things go together and cause a real focus on regional trade and that brings you quickly to trade and customs posts. >> thank you very much for answering my questions. i yield back. >> we go to jerry connelly of virginia. it's a great honor to be the very last questioner out of 18.

i heard you talk about the need to revisit the way we do business. the goals that maybe were relevant half a century ago but maybe less so today. i assume you would be amenable to to a rewrite of that act. >> absolutely. i believe secretary kerry in front of panel applied an enthusiasm to see legislation go forward. we'll be eager to work with you on that. >> you're familiar with our former ranking member mr. berman and i undertook and introduced legislation in the previous congress? >> yes. >> do i understand from your

remarks that you're committing the agency and yourself to working with us on that reform legislation as we get ready to reintroduce it in this congress? >> yes. >> we really want to work with you. we see it as something we hope will more logically align the goals and directives. i have the privilege of being one of last surviving human beings who wrote the bill that became law, 1986. i was a staffer in the senate. there were over 250 objectives and goals and everything else. we just added to it. i'm not sure it's a good way to go forward. i very much welcome your statement because we want to make sure aid is part of the

process. it's my understanding that in the past effort aid has maybe been sidelined or stayed on the sideline. i don't want to see that. we're trying to be partners with you on the legislative end to enable the agency to go forward. thank you for that. i look forward to working with you and your team as we move forward. we're getting ready to reintroduce the bill. i've talked with the chairman about having some hearings about aspects of it. what is your understanding -- you and i had a private conversation about this, but i have to admit i'm not quite sure i fully understand the different missions between your two

organizations. real briefly, if you can share that with us, and tell us how you coordinate. how do you make sure if you're pulling out of a country, they're not getting it into and how do you make sure we don't have resources competing against each other or contradicting each other in a structural way. >> we have the same mission. our mission is to elevate the role of development in humanitarian assistance in the context of our foreign policy and advancing our national security agenda. to do thad we have to have a broad range of tools and capabilities that can be applied. the mcc, the broad range of capabilities that u.s. aid has through different programs including food for peace which has been an important part of

today's conversation, opec, the export, import bank which is playing a critical role on energy are all important components of that. we all seek to work together towards that ultimate and singular mission. daniel can speak to some good examples where we have an integrated approach in the field. >> we both work to promote government interests. we work with countries that are poor but those that are well governed. countries that are committed to good governance. we have a score card system in which they have to pass.

we talk almost on a weekly basis. the water project had begun earlier by u.s. aid. we work very closely making sure we don't duplicate each other but rather complement each other. >> if you'll allow me several minutes of the last? >> i'll allow you several minutes. >> two points i'd like to share. the enthusiasenthusiasm, a word

caution as somebody who has been writing ing and supporting fore assistance for over 30 years. there's political aspects to what you propose that with the best of intentions could damage that fragile coalition. i strongly urge you and the administration to carefully vet that as you move forward. you may win the battle an lose the war. you heard on this committee people express well we can't afford foreign aid. i agree it's a false choice but there's a lot of people back home, a lot of americans are under the impression we can balance the budget just by cutting foreign aid. you hear it all the time at town hall meetings.

we must be cognizant of reforms that do good. we have to have a better narrative on success. surely we have more to talk about than taiwan and south korea after years of making these investments. what works? what doesn't? give us some success stories. here's what we were able to do in reducing poverty, in

improving food production and extending life span an ending this disease or that disease and creating a market economy that's a full fledged member. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will remind you it is only 45% of the food for peace account that they're talking about. it's a compromise that these gentleman are suggesting and is in the budget. it will make that 45% far more costly to the overall budget. you're other point was those who are concerned about the cost, this is a reduction in cost. it does not depress the local markets that impact the local

farmers. we look forward to working together not only on food aid reform but also on greater transparency, greater [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] said that john mccain president obama said in a letter that president assad likely used

chemical weapons against his people. he does not want to send u.s. troops there. >> just received a letter from the president in response to our question about whether assad had used chemical weapons, and quote and the operative part. our intelligence community has

assessed with varying degrees of confidence that syria has used chemical weapons on a small scale, in syria -- sarin. it goes on to describe that. president said if he, assad, uses chemical weapons it would be a game changer, it would cross a red line. it is obvious that red line has been crossed. now i hope the administration the administration will consider to provide a safe area opposition to operate, to establish a no-fly zone, and provide weapons to the people in the resistance who we trust. non-thing that a interventionist said has happened. theihadists are on

ascendancy, chemical weapons are used, russians continue to be assisting assad, and the iranians are all in, it requires the united states' help and assistance. we have to have operational capability to secure these chemical weapon stocks. mean boots on the ground. we do not want them to fall into the wrong hands, and the wrong hands are a number of participants in the struggle that is taking place in syria. >> there are three goals that can be achieved if we act quickly. number one, secure the chemical weapons before they fall into the wrong hands. that is a great threat. that is the big prize. from my point of view, the international community should be working with the opposition council the day after assad falls so we secure the weapons

and destroy them so they cannot be used against anyone. secondly, contained in this citing is that the king of jordan does not fall. refugees have fled into jordan with no end of sight. the kingdom of jordan has been a stabilizing influence. jordan is under pressure from the effects of syria. the third thing is to control the inevitable second war. we have let this go so long, and if we have listened to senator mccain a couple of years ago, we would not have this problem. there are up to 6,000 al qaeda- type fighters in syria, the country is fragmented along sectarian lines, and chaos is everywhere. the day assad falls there will be a conflict between the majority of syrians who want to move forward and a small a small group of jihadists.

that conflict need to be planned for. , the betterassad for the world. >> questions? >> [indiscernible] >> what about boston? >> we have had a briefing on that. >> we had a briefing on that. >> north korea? the chinese still hold the key to north korea. there are some signs that they are getting a little weary of the ethics of this young man, -- the antics of this young man, but still it is a precarious situation. let me point out again --the situation in syria is unacceptable. the president said this would be a red line if they used chemical weapons. the president has now called us, saying that they used chemical weapons. those stocks of chemical

weapons, some of which are in disturbed areas, must be secure, and we must give the opposition the capability to dr out ass. our relations with russia should be directly related to their assistance to assad. >> does the administration have any plans to respond? >> [indiscernible] the insistence that the matter states has already given? > it's nonlethal. it is a half measure. you win wars by having overwhelming force. the situation on the ground today is stalemate, with the iranians and russians all in and the united states gives them flak jackets. that is not comforting when scud missiles are hitting. >> can i say something about boston? boston is becoming to me a case

study in system failure. just look at it from a 30,000- foot point of view. you have russian intelligence services contacting two agencies within our federal government, responsible for our national security, the fbi and the cia. they tell us we believe you have a radical islamist in your midst. we do interviews, some things that i think are pretty responsible. however, this suspected radical islamist is able to go back to russia, without the fbi or the cia being made aware of it, even though homeland security was. that system failure, almost 12 years after 9/11. it gets worse. the suspected radical islamist, the person with warning letters -- we got warning letters about, is openly on the internet for montengaging in

radical jihad against the united states, and we were unable to connect the dots and pick that up. the rest is history. between benghazi and boston, our systems are failing and we're going backwards. we need to understand that bin laden may be dead, but the war against radical islam is very much alive. radical islam is on the march. and we need to up our game. in this documentary, the president is asked about the potential impact that current government spending will have on future generations. out of 1000 high-school entries, he is the first prize winner. >> ♪

mr. >> president, thank you for seeing me. 25% of americans are heavily taxed and those under 18 have no votes. i remember four years ago, the speaker of the house complained -- >> we are broke. we're broke, america is broke. all year long, our friends across the aisle of ben's massive spending spree that our nation cannot afford. >> in fact, we are worse than broke. we are $16 trillion in debt, a debt that will be paid by my generation. i remember my schoolhouse rock -- >> taxation without representation. >> no taxation without representation was our country's founding principal. >> i don't know how were the any

of these projects are but i have to ask a question -- are they more important than our kids and grandkids who have to pay the debts? >> there are others that dismiss the debt is a problem. last [indiscernible] if they met $15 trillion, that is a public hole. >> is saying that the government debt is rising. there are other people do think we should go further into debt to. >> the central irony is the financial crisis, too much confidence, too much spending, too much lending and it can only be resolved with more confidence and more lending and more spending. >> yet i hear larry summers and a year austin ghouls be and that your paul krugman and joseph stieglitz, all my college talking about how we need to

stimulate the government with more spending. government does not create resources, it redistributes them to the people who did not produce them. >> anyone? like november 1. you wake up in your stomach hurts from having to italian candy. do we need to gorge and more candy? >> candy, apples, and guns. >> your generation created $16 jillian debt for my generation. i understand your building an infrastructure for the future. some spending is necessary and a good theme this money is spent and objects demanded to the economy and it creates jobs faster. >> ♪ >> we have to do something with industry.

$16 jillian debt for my generation. >> when we first met angel adams, she was living in a hotel room with 12 of her 15 children. she was angry at the system. >> somebody needs to pay for all my children. ♪ this is where food stamp benefits come in. the money is tight. ♪ they spent more than 10% of their discretionary income on college loans. >> this college is a failure.

trouble is we are neglecting football for education. >> as we invest in infrastructure, a lot of contractors and manufacturing will have that income and they will put it back into the economy and the fact of the retail sector, education. >> what they are doing without need roads. >> i cannot talk about the other 49 states. trouble is we are neglecting football for education. >> as we invest in going into bankruptcy. >> mr. president, i cannot ask our government than that. i cannot ask less from them. some spending is just wasteful. fame. cowgirl hall of ♪ contractors get rich off of their incompetence. >> they want to build a bridge

with 223 million of your tax dollars. thanks on thato bridge to nowhere. ♪ american people longer believe this is a place where their willingness to work hard is an act of honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life. peoplell have a bunch of sitting on a couch wedding for the next government checks. >> have to take the bull by the horns and start spending and investing in things that make sense. >> the administration has moneyd $3.5 billion in known as federal tax dollars, and that is just so far.

california admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more, from federal taxpayers to finish it. a submarine has passed a test of mississippi. it is a spray paint simulator system. the nmesh worm - an mit team designed this to move like an earth form. all hope was, we should buy grid bonds and go down together by mr. president, you realize that if i had $16 trillion of these little pieces of candy, i could cover the entire area of washington, d.c. -- 4000 times over.

country isof this being taxed without representation. while i sat around watching c- span all day, some kids are not that well informed so you cannot give us the vrte. you can either spend more responsibly or you can't eliminate the debt. the youth of this country demands it. thank you for your time. have a lollipop and a great day. >> ♪ lollipop] >> congratulations to all the winners and this year's studentscam petition. you can go to studentcam.org to see more videos. >> margaret hamburg to testify as part of the fourth line $5 billion budget. live coverage is on c-span 2 at

10:30 a.m. eastern. also at 10:30 on c-span 3, a joint hearing of two foreign affairs house subcommittees that will focus on chechnya and the north caucasus. witnesses may discuss the cooperation between the u.s. and russia in combating terrorism in the region. in a few moments, today's headlines, your calls and tweets live on "washington journal [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ." the u.s. house of representatives will be in at 10:00 a.m. to consider the >> in about 45 minutes we'll look at homeland security policy with representative jason chaffetz. t 8:30 eastern judiciary committee member bobby a virginia democrat will take your questions on how the f.b.i. has handled the

investigation of the boston marathon bombings. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host: good morning. n and nbc both reporting related to house activities today, at 0:30 a joint hearing on chechnya. specifically extremism in chechnya. that hearing at 10:30 on c-span three. also taking up a hearing on funds for air traffic controlers. yesterday the