which matt worked very hard on within the agency to incorporate some of these things he is talking about still had not been done. it was clear to me when i came on board and talking with not only people with in the pentagon but outside people, something bid what happened before we actually incorporate among other things article three within the geneva convention. that big thing ended up being the decision by the supreme court in 2006 at the end of june. i will talk about 2310 and a few of the other big things during my tenure. matt did not take credit for this. i will say that he worked very hard with people at the pentagon

and within government to craft an agreement with not only the government of afghanistan but saudi arabia. that is to as he said, engage in thoughtful transfers of those detainees that the executive branch believed should be transferred back to the governments of afghanistan and saudi arabia. that process was ongoing when i came to the pentagon. the -- matt picks up on another point which i think is worth highlighting. it was not as if detainee policy was not happening when he got to the job will of course it was happening. one of the first persons in the field was a marine major who was in afghanistan and in charge of the legal side of what standards of treatment applied

as we started bringing people together in afghanistan. his response was we need to treat them consistent with the geneva convention. that is the way we should treat the pain ease. -- we should treat detainees. another outstanding piece of work that needed to be done was the field manual on interrogations. there had been previous versions. the one we published was this one. the debate within the administration what if any -- what techniques should be authorized and should there be a classified annex to that document? it took on more significance because of the detainee treatment act that passed. it said that only those techniquesrise the field

manual may be used for dod. it took on added significance as we debated and discussed and worked through the hard issues of what techniques should be authorized and if they should be classified. we decide it should not be classified because it did not serve the needs of trust parents see. -- transparency. one of the things max was involved in -- matt was involved in was an oversight committee. there were 12 major investigations after the abu ghraib scandal. those 12 investigations made 492 recommendations. we do a good job with the numbers and implementing things. we worked methodically through to try to implement all 492 of

those recommendations. from those 12 major investigations it was to -- i was the cochair. matt receipted me. we ultimately implemented many of the recommendations when we published the dod instruction and field manual. it was part of the process of making forward progress in fixing things. in may of 2006 when i was there the united states government presented its second report to the united nations against torture. i was part of the dod delegation. matt and sandy were there in their respective roles. it was a large delegation. one of the things that matt talked about was the number of

people who were held accountable for their mistreatment of detainees. i went back and looked at our report and as of may of that year 103 folks had been court- martialed for abuse 89 had been convicted. 60 had been reprimanded. the process of holding people accountable was ongoing. i know the numbers have gone up since then. after 9/11 lima -- 9/11 i was called back to active duty and i was sent to jacksonville florida to be a senior defense lawyer. my colleague and buddy was charlie swift who ended up being the chief military council.

when i came to the pentagon, charlie was representing the first case that went before military commission. i remember like it was yesterday the morning of the decision. i called charlie very early in the morning because it was his practice to walk his dog on the hot summer days. i told charlie, you are going to have a big day. i saw the decision as an opportunity to jumpstart the issue of the dod instruction. in fact our staff pulled together the latest version moments after decision came out. we should get to various folks -- shipped it to various folks to get a jumpstarted.

let me touch on to other things and i will turn it over to sandy. there was a debate as many of you read with in the administration what to do and how to move forward with military commissions after the decision came down. within dod i was one of the group of people who was advising the secretary. as the other formal prosecutor i had a lot of respect for federal courts and military courts and commissions. and ultimately, the decision was taken to start to work backwards using the doctrine of practice ability for wartime commission cases. of course there has been an update to the act in 2009. that was -- that took up a lot of our fall.

a lot of things happened on 2006. on one day publishing the instruction will marreese publishing the field -- instruction, republishing the field manual. the president announced 14 detainees were brought to guantánamo and of course in the position i was in, i was involved in all of those events. i think the last thing i would say is this may come to a surprise, rumsfeld go to very strongly about the need for more transparency and guantánamo. he ordered me early on to take as many people to guantánamo as possible -- congressman, the

press and go on the record. sandy was on a couple of those trips. take people there and let them make up their own minds. part of the process was we were able to take the delegations to guantánamo. to the extent practical we need to be as transparent as possible. i agree with matt 100%. as we transfer a few hundred folks off the island during my tenure and as we ramp up operations in iraq in advance of the search and worked with the karzai government on the tough issues to the extent we can we have to be transparent. i also echo matt's point. it is difficult for anybody to sign a piece of paper to send

somebody off the island. it is a regrettable act. i hope that it changes. it was a busy time. it was a time when congress changed hands at the end of 2006. it made it all the more difficult because of that change. i think we got some good things done. we learned a lot of mistakes happened before. sandy? >> thank you. i am delighted to be here. thank you to the great work of my predecessors. there was not a lot of work to do in 2007. that was kind of a joke. there's been a lot a tremendous work done by people in this room and throughout government. one of the areas that was a big challenge was working for the transfer processes. you heard a little that about. i will try not to be repetitive. as far as transfers ago, we did try to work with other countries

to mitigate the risk and threat they posed. it does not mean you cannotot go back to the fight. nobody has a crystal ball. we worked with government on those reasonable types of measures that would help them monitor the activities of someone once they returned to their country and to make sure there were going to be prosecuted for crimes they may have committed previously. in some way, we can feel confident that these individuals if they went back to their home country would not pose a significant threat to the united states. it was never risk-free. it did take a lot of effort from people throughout the government from all of the agencies working together to try and find ways to get more people from guantánamo home. why are we doing this? the elephant in the room is that guantánamo remains unpopular. it was unpopular with our allies. it was unpopular at home.

certainly with our allies it has always been unpopular. when we were trying to work with them and send it home their detainees, it was partly to appease request they had made. it is important to move guantánamo the best ways possible. we transferred some people we believedwe did it through the progressiont standards that we talked about and trying to find continued ways to make that better. things we did during that time i was there. these efforts to try and get more contact with families. people who had been detained how can we ensure their families at home that they were healthy safe lima allies -- safe, and alive? there have been letters back and forth. better family visits and to

places we cannot have family visits we try to increase the ability to see one another through teleconference or another way. that was a continued progression of trying to enhance the protection of we provided to people. a lot of other things had happened. i will talk about iraq and afghanistan. that is where we have significant changes during the two years i was in the position. we took some great suggestions that came from the field especially a wonderful general. he had strong proposals that we took very seriously and implemented which was taken -- taking what was facilities and turning them into a rehabilitation and integration center.

the idea was we had so many people we were detaining in iraq that the population had swelled. the more security threats we had to deal with inside the why your not just outside. the idea of trying to work rehabilitation programs for when they were going to be released from detention was a new concept from the recent conflict. not one that this unprecedented. we looked at ways of using their time inside the wire. not everybody is convinced that people who were predisposed would somehow change through these programs. some believe they did not. everybody believed while they were in detention, they were spending their days doing things more than wanting to fight one another. ultimately at the end of the day, most people agreed the

better you tend to treat people, the more likely they will beain is going towe spent a lot of time in iraq and afghanistan hoaxing on these rehabilitation -- focusing on these rehabilitation actions. we had jobs programs aware they could earn money and buy things for their families. we also looked at different opportunities for them to reintegrate at the and. trying to get partners that upon release would be there to somewhat be someone they could talk to and help them reintegrate into their local area. while certainly never foolproof and these were other things we try to put in place with the ultimate goal of ensuring that the people who were released from our custody at some point would be released and will be in position to reintegrate into a

normal enough like. i am talking about this a little bit because as we look forward to the future mama week -- future, we are talking about -- people can characterize it in different ways. it was never designed to be indefinite detention. it was designed to be temp oral -- temporal. the individuals are released. keeping an eye toward that future state, it is something that is important for the policies as we move forward. continuing with a couple of these thoughts. as we look to a future for what ever guantanamo maybe, some of the lessons may actually be helpful. iraq, we did have more than

25,000 people in detention. two years later, we brought it down to zero. they were some high threatening individuals that we held. we did the best we could to work with local authorities to integrate them and. some of them probably continue to pose a threat. there is no ideal notion that everybody was harmless upon release. part of the process is moving from a period of hostility to a period of peace and the rule of law and the host nation can take on the threat in the future. i think as we look at guantánamo bay to what the future will be we need to remember it is not indefinite detention. at some point the hostilities will end. commentators have made projections of what might be the characteristics of the

different state. when it ends, the detainees have to be released. i am certain that some of them will pose a threat to the united states at that time. how can we best position these individuals and best position with a series of laws with our allies to ensure they pose the least amount of risk to us as possible? one other thing i will comment on as far as what we were doing was also continuing the trend in working closer with our allies. as much as we have been traditionally the police for the world at different times, the reality is we cannot be that into the future with the kind of threats we face today and will continue to face. we work with traditional allies and nontraditional allies with strengthening their own rules

so they can better handle these threats in the future. we passed through nato and other organizations to work closer and better on some of these to tension issues. it was not an easy path to take considering we were humming from a place of being criticized and they were not. -- coming from a place of being criticized and they were not. they continued that. we are in a better place as far as all of that goes. the less thing i would mention is i was talking about the end of the conflict and what would have to do. as far as how do we in the future not to get to the same place we got to in the past 10 years? i would recommend consideration of holding people closer to the battlefield based on experience and we have. the further you remove them from the place they were picked up

the more difficult it has become to return them at the and. to keep a close to their families and all the other types of things. the tension closer to the battlefield would be something to keep in mind for the future. -- did tension closer to the battlefield would be something to keep in mind for the future. make sure this is the place we hope to get to by the and. -- end. bill will have some great his comments. i will turn it over to bill. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. i do not know how to begin. usually at panels when you are talking about the tension -- detention, we have not been with each other. you are usually at one end of the spectrum. i began and say i am cleaning up

the mess that was started by my predecessor. i can't to do that as well today. i can't do it becau picture way. listening to matt and sandy reminds me again, we are building on something. it is nice to be with people who understand there is a complexity here that does not usually find its way into the one-liners you may read in the press when associating guantanamo or detention in general. what i would like to do is summarize where we are and where we are going. it really does follow nicely on where we have been. if you look at this administration in 2009 lima president obama began a dual course in addressing the issues

we have been discussing. he announced the desire to close guantánamo. on another hand, he talked about through a series of executive orders and directives he pushed us to a -- toward a more principled set of policies. we have been unsuccessful at closing guantánamo. everybody is familiar with the various political masses that have confounded that go. as was discussed by all my predecessors adding to the path they started, we have been very successful in developing more principled whom credible, and sustainable policies. make no mistake that the president is committed to closing guantánamo. we are committed to transferring those detainees whose threats can be mitigated

by some other means. i want to make something clear and some arising where the united states is -- some arising where the united states is. -- summarizing where the united states is. any principled regime must . all of my predecessors agreed with that. that said, we are at war with all qaeda. -- out paid aal qaeda. we do not prosecute them to bring them to justice. we want to mitigate what is going on on the battlefield. again, that said this a different type of war than the

ones we have had in the past. it is harder to identify the enemy. all of my predecessors had to grapple with that. it is harder to identify when hostilities have reached their conclusion. there will not be a treaty signed. there will not be any treaty with a clear ending. because we have dealt with terrorism using a law paradigm there is naturally a confusing of the 2 regimes. that war -- moreover on top of those three issues and that

makes this war different is associated with the act there is legal guidance for this type of conflict with him privileged belligerence -- unprivileged belligerent. how we treat unprivileged belligerent and their continued detention and the end of war in a place where we do not have a body of law recently negotiated. the geneva was the last development and that was international conflict. i believe that we actually have made great strides in developing our policies. you just heard about some the details about how we made the strides. it has put the u.s. in a position of leadership and how you hold people with respect to -- we have policies of the

highest standard. nobody could visit any of our camps and say that is not an appropriate way to detain people. we have identified gaps and we have start to feel the gaps. i think the boards we hold and guantánamo are often cited as the gold standard. by other people as well and they are not mimicking me. if a combatant is captured commanding officers making a decision right away within 24 hours as whether we have the right person and they need to be held, within 60 days they will go before a board. with the assistance of an officer who can help them -- and

the detainee present a case. whether in fact we have the right person and whether in fact it is significant that we need to continue holding them. every six months thereafter, we hold a board to determine whether or not that person should continue to be held. in the long run you are going to have will access to u.s. force. you are going to have an ability to have your detention assessed as whether the threat is such that you need to continue to be held even under the law of war you have -- you can legally not be held. unfortunately, guantanamo is never going to be a term that is associated with the best practices. that is not our goal.

at this point in time, i do believe the united states currently leaves the world in best practices. this past year a number of countries got together and put down a set of best practices under the principles and guidelines for detention in international military operations. it is called the copenhagen process. if you look at that document you will see it describes you as it did tension policies. -- u.s. detention policies. only the u.s. is engaging in those practices and is in compliance with those international standards. he described attention that the most difficult issue or one of

the most -- 9/11, none of us would have described the tension is the issue and would divide americans from each other and divide americans from their allies. it meant -- in many ways it has perhaps because of early missteps. more profoundly because of -- and is a new type of war. we have made mistakes. we have made principled progress. you have heard about it today. i believe in doing that the united states has played a leadership role in the custody of detainees in wartime. >> before we get to q and a please give our panelists a warm round of applause. [applause]

thank you. i want to open it up to q and a. i want to thank you in particular for coming in and the administration for allowing you to come. my goal with this program is to bring people from across the aisle, regardless of party affiliation to our national security law program to discuss these issues in a civil way. i really appreciate you being here. the rules are easy. these state your name, your affiliation, and then ask a question of one of the panelists. if you want to direct it to all of them, great. the microphone is coming around. raise your hand if you have a question. this young lady right here please. >> i wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the ongoing hunger strike in guantánamo. recently there is a new,

revised medical management of hunger strike documents related in march of this year. i wondered, why was that document revised from the previous document? also why does the jdf commander have to give permission for feeding of detainees of prisoners on hunger strikes when they are not necessarily a medical doctor? >> i am not sure exactly what revision you are talking about what i am familiar with our policies with respect to hunger striking. as you know throughout our detention camps, iraq afghanistan, and i failed to mention some of the things sandy left off iraq and afghanistan because as you know, historically we have reached the detention piece of those

conflicts. we have dealt with hunger strikes throughout the history of detention. always it is the commanding officer's decision as to when somebody should be interleaved fed. it is based on body weight blood sugar levels, the detainees own statements. there is a medical assessment done as to whether a person's own health could be put at risk by not feeding them. that is made by the commanding officer based on medical advice. >> i will say historical perspective, the secretary in 2006 stated that we should take a wholesale review of the policies and practices of providing nourishment to those who want to protest through the vehicle of hunger striking.

we assembled a team of critics and supporters and experts medical emphasis doctors, nurses, took them to guantánamo. let them not only view one of the detainees while they were being nourished, but also the protocols, written and in practice. that trip was very helpful to the government in terms of informing us. we were fully aware that the world medical association did not agree with that policy. but two bills point,, that is a situation that was happening when i got there. i am sure it was happening in terms of the hunger striking. next question. the gentleman in front with the type. -- the tie.

>> i am a representative of one of the detainees in guantánamo. there are six detainees who have been designated for possible transfer, some of whom have been designated that way multiple times. a number have been mentioned in the past. we have negotiated with various countries like saudi arabia afghanistan, and so on to try to transfer detainees. my question is, why did the administration not negotiate with our allies like tunisia and great britain, who are trying to work with the administration to have the detainees transferred? the law is often cited as a sticking point and there is finger-pointing on both sides. but there are exceptions put in place that allows the administration to waive certain

blocking points and certify detainees for transfer. i was wondering what precisely the administration is able to do and why they are not doing it? >> first, i want to identify a very unhelpful trend in directing questions at me. >> which we are all for, by the way. >> with respect to the transfer process, the administration is committed to transferring those who can be transferred so long as the threat can be adequately mitigated. as others suggested that is certainly not a zero risk calculus. that said, i do not know where you got the idea that we are unwilling to negotiate with countries as to whether they can provide appropriate security assurances appropriate humane treatment assurances for detainees who want to be transferred.

we are absolutely committed to that and have been involved in that regularly. some of the transfer restrictions complicate matters a little bit but in fact, we are well aware of the waiver process and are continuing to work on finding appropriate countries that can mitigate the risk of those detainees who are designated for transfer. i use it to clarify something. you frequently read in the press, unfortunately "cleared for release." i appreciate that you did not use that term. it brings about confusion like the detainee is not a threat to the united states as a terrorist and is therefore being wrongly held. as i said, they have all had access and can bring a case if they think they are being unlawfully held. the question is a matter of discretion.

can and should the united states transfer them if we can negotiate appropriate security assurances? we are trying to do that every day. often, you run into a situation where -- i began by saying, we are with al qaeda and its associates. not all countries are on board. that is one of the complexities with the afghanistan turnover and the iraq turnover. we are leaving behind a peaceful country where u.s. troops are on the ground because we are in an armed conflict. when we leave, we hopefully leave behind eight country of peace. -- a country of peace. law enforcement would be the reason you hold somebody. that is the shift that has to take place. somebody gets captured in afghanistan, when we turn them over to president karzai, he is going to continue with law enforcement. that is going to happen as we transfer from guantánamo, two. -- too.

it is not as easy as some might think. >> the certification process has become more onerous. in fairness to the process it is a lot more difficult for somebody in the administration right now to make a certification for transfer. that is an area where we want to continue to work as well as we can with members of congress to find the right balance between how onerous the certification process is or how high the burden is on the administration to look into that crystal ball and say that this particular detainee will not pose a threat rather than in the likelihood of all circumstances based on our past experience, we believe we have appropriate assurances in place. those are two different things. >> the lady in the back. >> thank you so much for coming and being on the panel. i attended all the hearings the last 17 months. you mentioned something about transparency during the past

administration but it has been the case that many seats are empty and when they try to put congressional members and staff members in touch with the office so that they might avail themselves of those seat and see what might have been happening they are being denied. i do not know if it is an attempt to used sequester, but they have been told that they cannot utilize those seats. besides that, i wish you would address how obama is using federal courts around guantanamo bay. >> she did not designate it towards me. >> go ahead, bill. [laughter] >> i have to say, i am not familiar with the situation with respect to military commissioners. if a congressional member wants to go to a military commission there are ways to do that.

this is the first i am hearing that there is difficulty getting down there when there is an availability with empty seats. of course, there is difficulty getting to cuba. i should not say say there is no difficulty whatsoever. you have to get in an airplane but that has been done many times. i think there is a great push for openness and transparency on the military commissioners side that i have seen. the military commission office you heard her talking about involvement in military commissions earlier. earlier in my career, i was involved in military commissions. that is not the same office as am not familiar with any holdup there. i forgot the other question. oh, and all i can say is when the law enforcement paradigm

seems like the best one to mitigate the threat of anyone who might be involved in hostilities, we are going to use it. there is a full recognition that this is a very difficult fight. we have to use all of the available instruments of power that the united states has to defeat al qaeda and its associates. certainly, our courts are among them. >> can i jump in and say i think the obama administration is correct in using federal criminal justice as one among a variety of tools for mitigating the threat of some terrorism suspects? each time there is a terrorism prosecution, it seems to take up debate about whether criminal prosecution is somehow not sufficiently serious in engaging

a war against al qaeda. i think that view is totally wrong. there is a misperception often that, during the bush years criminal prosecution was not also considered an option. that is 100% wrong. during the bush administration there were a number of federal prosecutions brought against terrorism threats, including those suspected of being actual hijackers on the 9/11 attacks or bringing down planes subsequently. i think it is a -- this is something that both administrations have gotten right, which is that our federal criminal justice system is a very powerful counterterrorism tool that ought to be in any president's arsenal. >> the position we have taken is exactly as matt says. as a former federal prosecutor i have immense respect for our

federal courts. the issue dusted up again with the boston bombing case. some legislators suggested we should go to military commissions. rule 202a of the military commissions act says it is subject to only aliens. it is a narrow, limited, and appropriate jurisdiction of military commissions. it is surprising to me that some folks do not realize that only a certain narrow class of individuals are even subject to the jurisdiction of military commissions. on the other side of the coin, that our federal courts are an invaluable tool. you want to be and all of the abover to give them the flexibility to use the right tools for the right case. last question. i think you were here next. thank you. >> thank you very much. i am here as a private citizen. i have a background in federal

criminal law and i am familiar with tools that are used in the civil prosecutions to measure cynicism rates. i am curious if you can talk about whether there are tools to measure recidivism rates and belligerents and if they are statistically validated, whether you can identify them whether they are classified. >> i will take a try and see if anyone wants to add something. to my knowledge there is no actual measurable tool that is designed to handle recidivism review. in the earlier days, people would look at the percentages and say how is this like or not like the parole process. people commit crimes and go out whether they go back into a criminal process. the sc the threat may be different so there may be a different limit to what people think society is willing to take. i think there have been a lot of

efforts through the intel community and other studies to try to determine in a more predictive way who are the more likely types of people or what kinds of activities do they engage in airing captivity that helps you know whether that person is more or less likely to go back to the eye, as you would call it, the battlefield determination of recidivism. it is not a perfect science. if there were more studies, we might be able to predict better, who are the individuals more likely to go back to the fight and who are not? with real people's lives and wanting to hold the highest candids possible. but there are other lives that lie in the balance elsewhere. who did transfer back, who to let go, and who do continue to hold is very challenging. >> just so you are not left without all of the data if you are looking into this while i

think sandy is exactly right on how we would theoretically determine a recidivism rate such that we might have a specific transfer, realize that the intelligence community does do regular reports on the recidivism rate, called the re- engagement rate. i am pushing towards that law- war paradigm as opposed to a criminal justice aired on. a have attempted to come up with a set of criteria for that and they publish, i am not sure how periodically but an unclassified summary of that report does go to congress periodically during the year. >> we have come to the witching hour. we are going to have to bring this to a close. these join our panelists join me in thanking our panelists for an excellent conversation. [applause] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington journal" -- gender and compensation, then a tea party founder discuss how they plan to respond to the irs 'scrutiny of conservative groups. then why critics are opposed to the nomination of thomas perez to become the next labor secretary. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> in every society, the major buildings reflect the ground out of which they grow. major buildings reflect the philosophical, economic, and political situation of their culture at the time.

this building does that. this is an eloquent building. it reflects the movement towards secession. it reflects the use of slave labor. it reflects the social turmoil of the post-civil war era. it reflects the optimism of the new south in the 20th century. and, of course it continues in use and reflects south carolina today. the building was designed to be symmetrical. instead of a dome, the original architect intended a square tower rising above the roof line. you will remember that the construction was stopped during the civil war and the state after the war was not able to afford to build the foundations for that massive stone tower. what we see now on the outside of the building is a pressed

metal dome. on the inside of the building from the lobby we look up into what we think is that dome. in fact i'm a it is an architectural allusion -- illusion. because the exterior of the building and the interior or plan are not symmetrical. on the outside, the dome looks like perhaps the u.s. capitol dome. on the inside, it is quite a bit smaller and different. >> learn more about the south carolina statehouse this weekend as both tv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of columbia, south carolina. saturday at 6:00 p.m. and sunday at 5:00 p.m.. >> join us next monday when we will focus on lucretia garfield whose lifelong image included

reading, writing, and painting. after her president -- her husband was assassinated, she made their ohio home an early version of a presidential library and work to ensure his legacy. chester arthur was a widower who turned to his sister to be white house hostess airing his presidency. we will explore the life and times of lucretia garfield and mary arthur mcelroy. >> now, a memorial ceremony on hold -- honors journalists who died and were killed pursuing news stories. richard engel about his abduction and rescue while reporting from syria last year. the museum -- newseum hosted this 30 minute event.

>> good morning. i am jim duff, ceo of the newseum. welcome to the newseum today for the rededication of the memorial. since is open in 2008, 3 million visitors have seen this memorial that paid tribute to 2444 journalists who have died covering the news. around the world, journalists placed themselves in danger every day. some are deliberately targeted. others get too close to danger. while some may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, most are professionals taking calculated risk. they pay with their lives for doing their jobs. the memorial bears the names of reporters, photographers

editors, and others who have died in the line of duty. each year this dedication renews the newseum's commitment to make sure these brave journalists are remembered. this year we have the regrettable task of adding 88 new names to the memorial. 82 were killed in 2012. an additional 6 died in previous years and they are also being added to the memorial this we welcome families, friends and colleagues who have traveled thousands of miles to join us this morning for the remembrance of their loved ones. we also welcome back the family and friends of journalists who were added to the memorial in previous years. we thank you for helping us pay tribute.

they are among democracies he rose. i would now like to introduce our vice chairman of the board he will introduce our very special guest speaker this morning. >> tom brokaw of nbc news came here two weeks ago for a program about our new jfk exhibit creating camelot. tom took the time to speak about two things. the first was to salute the career of his friend al neuharth, tom brokaw also took the time to speak of engel.he

called him one of the best correspondence of the middle east in a very long time. despite that being a praise, it is an understatement. richard is now the chief correspondent for nbc news. his face has become indelibly associated with 100,000 american viewers with coverage of the iraq war. with the arab spring and the tumultuous scenes in egypt libya, and syria. he has 17 news and documentary emmys and is the winner of a special citation for his personal video diary of the iraq war. even these laurels do not get the full story of the self-made correspondent me see today. he is surely one for the history books. winston churchill said history

would be kind to him. he intended to write it. richard did the same. not that he needed any action kindness. he wrote his first book about his life before and after the iraq war. the book drew praise from chris matthews of msnbc, saying "this is hemingway country." he struggled with dyslexia. he went to stanford and then in a burst of intuition he decided to become a foreign correspondent by moving to cairo with out really knowing a lick of arabic. he settled in a poor neighborhood to help build a street from the ground up.

instead of enjoying the lap of luxury, richard taught himself the culture and language bit by bit. he renders the common people of cairo with a maintenance and compassion.-- amazement and compassion. we see him struggle with early newspaper gave in freelance pieces like some latter-day benjamin frankly.-- franklin. he finally wound up in jerusalem with abc news before nbc in 2003. his reporting from baghdad set the standard. he was the only american to cover it all. he tells this story and another book, which will be studied by historians decades from now. at one point he notes the four psychological stages that all

reporters go through while covering war zones. these four stages seem particularly relevant and poignant. stage one, i am invincible. nothing can hurt me. i am superman. stage two, what i'm doing is dangerous. i might get hurt over here. i better be careful. stage three, what i'm doing is really dangerous. i am probably going to get hurt over here no matter how careful i am. stage four, i have been here too long. i am going to die over here. it is just a matter of time. i have played the game too long. last year it the journalistic world health care brought word

that maybe he had reached stage for m. appeared in syria, richard and his crew were taken captive. after five days they were free relatively unharmed.exhale. there is a rare thing when a war correspondent brings in the story. when he went back to syria in may, it is a story in the nation's capital and beyond. we both went and worked for abc. it at a famous a news conference long ago, david brinkley was introduced to the network. we are in the presence of greatness. i commit to you today that we are also in the presence of greatness.

what signal honor it is to have richard engel. thank you, richard. [applause] >> i am surely with out words. that was too much. we are focusing not on me. i am very lucky i am still here. we are talking about the people who are on this list and thinking about their lives and what they did and why they did it. good morning. it is an honor to be here today. this is a somber task but one that is dearly important to me. our little tribe that goes through the war zones is getting smaller.

>> the hearing will come to order. we have a five and a half month old baby girl. i wish mine word that copenhagen. -- that well-behaved. five and a half. >> almost as pretty as mine. >> almost as pretty as his, huh? maybe so. i want to start up with a statement and we will introduce our witness. we will have the oath to tell the truth, and then we will get into your statement and ask some questions. we should be finished around 8:30. hopefully before then. today we are pleased to consider the nomination of brian

this lack of effective leadership affects our government and the slow partisan process discourages talented people from wanting to serve in our government. i started referring to this as executive branch swiss cheese. that is why it is so important for our committee to move forward on nominations within our jurisdiction. we have an obligation to bet them, do oversight, but once the president has made a choice -- we have an obligation to vet them, do oversight, but once the president has made a choice, we have an obligation to move things forward. april 24, a vote of 9-6 -- 96 to nothing the senate conferred sonya mathews. now the president will be surrounding her with a terrific

team. we will soon consider the nomination of howard schulansky for the office of federal regulation and regulatory affairs. i am hopeful that the resident will submit a nomination for the deputy director of management. i am not sure if he is off the payroll, has returned to private life, but if he is anywhere within the sound of my voice, i want to express our heartfelt thanks for his leadership in a very difficult time. he is a good man. strong leadership at omb is important at any time, but regularly at this moment when our nation needs a long-term budget plan to do with the federal deficit and debt. this is something that bears

repeating often. the grand budget copper mines that i believe we need in order to address this fiscal crisis will have three central elements. it must have new revenues and a balanced approach. it must rein in entitlement for programs in a way to preserve those for grams for the long haul and the better management for government programs, the better service for the american people at a lower cost. this has been an important partner for the office of management and budget and all of these areas, but especially in ensuring that the government achieves with the same amount of money. dr. coburn and i have a working relationship with all of our colleagues, even with senator levin. we have saved billions of dollars by shutting federal pr

we can save tens of billions of dollars i reducing payments. we do a better job of collecting taxes. senator levin along with dr. coburn have led the way on this. we save money on federal contracting every year through strategic initiatives to read we saved billions of dollars through better management of information technology that our government eyes and we can improve the transparency of government spending to let people have a better understanding of how their tax dollars are used. these are just a few examples of the way this committee and the office of management and budget in concert of strategy can make our government work better. i might add in concert with the inspector generals across the government and nonprofit organizations. i am pleased that we have the

nominee who has a firm grasp of both the m and the b in omb. he understands the importance of driving innovations across the government for agencies to not only save money, but deliver better services to the american people. with respect to the b, he is someone who will achieve a deficit reduction plan that will help our economy grow even as we reduce deficits. he served as the special assistant to the president for economic policies and the deputy director of the national economic council. mr. deese has earned a well deserved reputation for taking a tremendous amount of economic data, synthesizing, and translated to a series of viable measures for the economic team and translated into terms that someone like i can understand.

he has helped our country recover from the recession. he is someone who understands our fiscal policies are intrinsically important to the prosperity of the american people. right over his left shoulder is a college professor and his mom is an engineer. he has clearly in her it did those smarts -- he is clearly inherited those smarts. before going to yale law school he's spent time doing lc with carnegie endowment, the center for global development, and the center for american progress. i think he realizes he has the brainpower to pursue whatever

profession he chooses, but he has a passion for public policy. he has specifically a passion for finding ways for our government to make smart choices so individuals and businesses can prosper. he is someone who quickly impresses his colleagues in the administration. i believe he will impress of my colleagues in the senate. i'm going to ask senator levin if there is anything you would like to say before i swear this man in? >> no, just to thank you, mr. chairman, for your usual speed thoroughness, in moving this nomination. i hope that this nomination can be acted upon quickly. i do have a number of questions for mr. deese, but i want to thank him for being willing to continue serving and thank you for running this committee. >> thank you. well, i learned from the best. i learned from the best.

brian deese's five responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire. he has had financial statements reviewed by the office of government ethics. without objection, this information will be made part of the record, and the financial data will be made available to the public and the committee offices. committee rules require that all witnesses give their testimonies under oath, and mr. deese, i will ask you to stand and raise your right hands. i am going to ask you a couple of questions, ok? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? please be seated. and, at this point, you may

proceed with your statement and i will ask you to introduce your mom and your dad, and i do not know if they are still around here, but -- please introduce your family. we are just delighted you are all here. this is a matter of family pride. i know you are proud of him. >> thank you. thank you chairman coburn. thank you, senator levin. thank you for welcoming me here today. it is a real honor to be considered as the president's nominee to be the deputy director of the office of management and budget. as you mentioned, i do have my family, my mother and my father, my wife, my baby girl adaline who promised me she would behave. that is a promise i will not

hold her to. my sister -- >> why don't you tell us a little bit about your mom, dad. just tell us a little bit about each of them. >> i have been really privileged to have an incredible family. a mother and father who have supported me throughout the years, and to have instilled in me both a real passion for ideas and education, and also a commitment. for those of us who are fortunate enough to have opportunities in education and life, we should look for opportunities to give act and commit to public service. in particular, my sister who i am very close with. she is two years older than i am. she has been the rock of my life for the last 35 years. i thank her for that. >> she is very nervous.

>> most of all, i would like to thank my wife kara. serving in these types of jobs is a team effort. i could not do it alone. she has been unbelievably supportive, particularly when we went through harder times. i know the challenges of this job will be significant. i am very grateful to her for all her support. >> your name is kara, right? for you, no purgatory. straight to heaven. [laughter] >> i would like to thank president obama for his nomination and director burr low for her confidence in me. finally, i do want to thank members of this committee and

their staffs for having the opportunity to meet with me over the last couple of weeks. if confirmed, i look forward to continuing the conversations we have had, investing in the strong relationship between omb and this committee going forward. over the past couple of years, i have had the opportunity to work with many officials at omb and across executive ranch agencies to develop and implement new administration policies. this experience has given me a deep respect for omb as an institution and the vital role that it lays, and perhaps most importantly a real value for the skills and the professionals who work at omb. this is just one of the many reasons why i am led to be considered for this position particularly when we face substantial fiscal and economicde important progress in the economy. our economy is growing. we see strength in sectors from

housing to our manufacturing industry. our businesses are creating jobs a consistent basis. the president and congress have begun to do work on strengthening our nation's long- term fiscal position and bringing down our deficits. there is still a lot of work we need to do to reach our ultimate goal, providing stability for working families. much of my work has focused on the role that fiscal policy can play in that's effort, creating a stronger and more durable economy. if confirmed, i will work closely with the director to build on the progress we have made and try to reach the deficit reduction agreement you referenced that can support the economy in both the short and the long term. another key area and this moment

of physical challenges is making our government more efficient and effective and showing the american government how we can do more effectively with less. if confirmed, i look forward to working with you to make progress on many of our shared priorities. finally, i do believe the budget is fundamentally a vision for how we in public service can deliver outcomes for american families. it is a reflection of our values and priorities. i will work every day to uphold those values and priorities to the best of our ability. i want to thank your committee for your time today.g your questions. >> thank you very much. as you know, we begin by asking these same three questions we have asked as long as we have been here.

these questions are easy to answer. the first one is is there anything you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with your duties or the office for which you have been nominated? >> no. >> do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would prevent you from discharging the duties of the office for which you have been nominated? >> no. >> do you agree to appear before the committee if you are confirmed? >> yes. >> i know you are a big a small fan, detroit tigers. i would say you are 343. >> the current closer. it is not much to lose sleep over.

>> i know. >> i'm trying to figure out how this happens. we will turn to that problem tomorrow.hat your top three priorities would be. >> sure. this is something i have had a chance to talk to director burlow about. first would be to work with director berwell. i think that that would in particular the working to achieve a more regular order budget process, and also try to achieve the kind of deficit reduction agreement that would fit the economy. second, set priorities to make the economy more efficient and effective.

we could make sure that we as a team and be would be more prepared to execute on those. the relationship between the deputy director and the deputy director for management is vital in that context. if confirmed, that is something i would invest in. and third, priority would be omb as an institution. only be has a strong reputation for sound analysis. and has an excellent reputation for sound analysis. we could continue to do the analyses that we need to do and that would be another priority. >> have you had the opportunity

to discuss this with director burwell, how her role as director and how the role of deputy for management would intertwine? >> i have. >> can you give us some examples? >> director burwell has talked about creating a great team. i think that is how both of us would approach this, working as a team. i think we would set out the budget framework and make sure we are working across agencies to incorporate their points of view into the budget process and budget framework and make sure we are implementing key budget priorities. as i mentioned earlier, i think

the important role of the deputy director is to make sure the m side and the b side are working seamlessly together. that means setting priorities for the management side of omb and then working closely, having a close relationship with the deputy director of management, and making sure where there are priority areas, we are providing sufficient guidance to make sure we are executing on our goals. >> will you share with us your overall philosophy in addressing our long-term debt please? >> sure. i think we are at an economic moment right now where the need for deficit reduction also presents an economic opportunity. we have a set of long-term fiscal challenges, and we have a set of short-term economic challenges, and if we could come together around a comprehensive

deficit reduction agreement provided more confidence about our long-term path, we would also be able to provide or support to the economy in the short run. when i think about what are the most important priorities in that space, i think the areas we need to focus on our entitlement reform and tax reform. as you mentioned in your opening statement, entitlement reform that is designed to preserve the programs that are most vulnerable americans rely on but address the rising cost of healthcare and look for way too ways to drive down the cost of cies across our system. i think we have an opportunity to produce reform in a way that encourages greater economic growth and contributes to

reducing the deficit as well. i think there are real opportunities in that space to bring things together as part of an overall approach. >> how does your work help prepare you for responsibilities you have been nominated to undertake? >> when i think about the deputy director role and the responsibilities that we were just talking about, i think there are three sets of skills i could bring to bear. first, a sound understanding of the federal budget. that is important and something i have developed over the last several years. worked closely with the development of the budget. worked closely with omb and other agencies. second, and understanding of how fiscal policy fits into an overall strategy to grow the economy and create jobs. that has been the focus of much of my perfection a work. i think it important now, because we are at

an economic moment now where we have these interrelated fiscal and economic challenges. third is a more pragmatic understanding of how to get things done in government. i think the deputy director of the national council has prepared me by knowing how to work across agencies, identify teams, bring together senior management, try to drive for results. i think those are the kinds of skills i could bring to this job. >> not long ago, ben bernanke, the chairman of the federal reservinance committee. it was an open meeting, -- came to a joint meeting with the senate finance committee. it was an open meeting, a very informative meeting. i asked him, i said, if we bring up spending broadly across the

government, are there particular areas where we should invest for? he said workforce. you mentioned you should focus on infrastructure. number three, research and development for new technologies. could you react to what he told us? >> sure. when you think about those three areas, i think the thing that all three share is the arlington to long-term productivity growth in our -- all three share is they are linked to long-term productivity growth in our economy. i think that using that as a metric of where can we identify the strongest linkages to future productivity growth and future competitiveness is important.

smart, well designed, targeted investments in improving our infrastructure has been shown to increase productivity because it makes it easier for businesses to come and invest. and that creates jobs. i think identifying these opportunities is part of the overall fiscal strategy. i have used up my -- >> thank you. i have used in my time. sander levin? >> thank you for your accessibility. you have been helpful in the area of the auto redistribution you are very actively involved in. you are always available to me and my staff. we were grateful for that. you have been hard-working and i

think there is no doubt about your qualifications for this office. i do have a couple of questions, however, as to where mr. sperling has been and where you have been on the question of the revenues to address our deficit. i take it from your answer to the chairman's question that you believe tax reform, as you talk about it generically, needs to contribute to the deficit reduction effort? >> i do. i think that that is important. >> so, i want to focus on one part of tax reform. i have spoken to mr. sperling and i think probably to you on a number of occasions. at least i have to him. about how is it that some of these egregious tax loopholes

that the corporations utilize to avoid paying taxes, when they are closed, if they are closed why the revenues from those closures of those unfair unjustified tax loopholes, and i could go through a few of them with you, why that revenue should not be used for deficit reduction to fight for programs that are being cut through sequestration, such as education and health care and the environment, food safety, and you name it. why should those revenues that would come from closing corporate tax loopholes not be used for any number of extremely important goals, sequestration trying to fund programs that are now being cut?

first, generally, should those revenues be available for those purposes? >> i think just to go at the question of tax reform for a second -- >> the corporate tax reform i have attended by. i will get more specific. i think you have read enough of the stuff i have sent to your office to know where i'm going to go in the next few minutes. >> absolutely. i think the most important issue with corporate tax reform as we take it is to judge it by the metric of, is it going to improve economic growth, and particularly, are you going to create incentives to invest in the united states? i think you are correct that when you look at the corporate tax code today, it represents an opportunity, because we have

this somewhat perverse situation where we have the highest statutory rate in the industrialized world, and yet we are not collecting revenues. sort of the middle of the pack at best. that is representative of the tax expenditures that are either inefficient or not serving their intended purpose. >> then you focus on the effect of tax rate, which is not one of the highest in the world. >> exactly. that create an effective tax rate that is somewhere in the middle or the lower end of the industrialized countries. can we reform the tax code in a way that is pro-growth and improves incentives to invest

i think the answer to that is yes. think there is an opportunity here. with respect to specific orbit tax expenditures, i think the president has put forward a whole set of them in the budget he put out, and those are ones we could afford to close efficiently without doing harm to the economy. >> a bunch of these loopholes that send money offshore serve no economic purpose. they are not pro-growth. they do not promote people to invest in the united states. quite the opposite. you have apple that has $120 billion in cash, most of it offshore. they are not going to bring it back. unless they get a lower tax rate. so there it sits. we've got companies that transfer their intellectual property to themselves to tax havens, shell corporations, and pay themselves to use their own property. there is no economic purpose served in that. it is nothing more than tax avoidance.

the president says he wants to close them. the president, when he was a senator, cosponsored much of the legislation that would have closed some of those egregious tax avoidance tactics which cost our treasury, god knows how many tens of billions over the years. maybe 100 billion dollars a year. we could and sequestration, at least for this year and next if we close those schemes that ship revenue offshore. why shouldn't we do this? >> the framework the president has put forward -- >> no, i mean why shouldn't we? i'm not talking about the president's framework that was the corporate tax rate -- something like nine percent of our revenue comes from corporations.

we have the biggest corporations. some of them in the world. they have not paid taxes for the three years we have the area pay zero percent in taxes. why not close those egregious, unjustifiable loopholes that are costing our treasuries much money and use that revenue to and sequestration this year and next year? why not? >> i think what the president has said is we should close -- >> for that purpose. why not close them and use the revenue for that purpose? >> the reason i raised the framework is if you look at the budget it has a set of specific corporate tax loopholes it would close. that is revenue that could be used to reduce the deficit or invest in other priorities. >> so why is it in the budget to be used only for rate reductions? >> if we can move to close those loopholes, let's do so. let's work together to do so.

if there is a good-faith commitment to try to do comprehensive report tax reform and if that can be done in a way that is actually progrowth and actually would increase incentives to invest in the united states, then he is willing to -- in the united states, then he is willing to consider that in a revenue neutral manner. >> why not take the revenue from these loopholes that have no economic purpose other than tax avoidance, and take that revenue to and sequestration? if we cannot do individual tax increases from the buffet rule or whatever, if we cannot succeed in getting that revenue, if the president does not succeed, why not take the revenue which should come to the treasury, frankly if there were no deficit, from these tax avoidance schemes? why not?

>> if we cannot move on corporate tax reform, we should move to close those types of loopholes. >> mr. chairman, my time is up. i did have a few more questions. thank you. sorry i went over. >> no, no, no. i would have let you use more. >> thank you. >> let me go back and revisit something i said earlier to try and drum up some further discussion. i mentioned the conversation i had with the federal reserve chairman talking about investments we should make as we rein in spending. the importance investments to make in our country. we had a previous vice chairman

of the federal reserve participate in hearings last year, alan blinder, and we used i think a four or five member panel a year or so ago discussing how we can go about addressing reductions. i will never forget what dr. blinder said. he said the 800 pound gorilla in the room is health care costs. we spend roughly 16%, 17%, 18% of gdp for healthcare. other industrialized countries spend eight percent and in many cases get better results. but the 800 pound gorilla in the room is healthcare costs. if we do not get our head around this, we are damped. when it came time to ask questions, the question i asked, i said, what is your device to us?

if we do deficit reduction, we know a big pieces health care costs. he thought for a moment come and he said i am not an expert on this matter. he said this would be my advice to you. "find out what works. do more of that." my response was "find out what does not work and do less of that?" i think that was a great answer. spending more money for healthcare, education, housing you know it. it is like my guidance counselor. talk to us about how we might do that, some ways that we might, particularly with respect to

medicaid and medicare, and ways we do not savage these programs for old people, but we get a better result for the same amount of money. because we need to. please. >> particularly in the health system we really do need to identify those things that are going to drive innovation across the system and then make sure they are spread broadly. i think the good news is there is a lot of very exciting activity going on in our health care system right now. a lot of anecdotal, and in some cases more than and it total evidence of what dr. blinder was referring to. places where we have seen this work. organizations where you are structuring payments and incentives around quality care

outcomes rather than just paying for an influx of independent outcomes. those are the kinds of potential measures that if we can identify them, we can measure them, we can actually verify that those work, and then we can spread them across the system, that is going to be the way we help to really drive systemic change in the health care system. we have a number of tools out there to help on that front, to try to identify these game changers, as some people refer to them. i think we need to look for additional ways to do that a well. you mentioned outside of the healthcare space, and that is an important component as well. one of the things i know omb has been working on and has confirmed, i would want to learn more about and focus on, the focus on evidence-based investment, evidence-based

grantmaking, because there are a number of laces where we can do better, and in fact we can be more effective with the same or fewer dollars if we have that systems -- if we have better systems to measure and test results. i think it is an important principle. i agree that the healthcare area is the place of both the greatest need and the greatest opportunity. >> we met with representatives from large health insurance -- from a large health insurance company. we talked about some of these issues, better results for less money. we talked about medical homes,

and i would like to represent the way to encourage elaboration encourage collaboration, to move away from fee-for-service. that is really quite a stovepipe. quite a lot of collaboration to a quite different approach. if you look at medicare, medicare is pretty much a fee for service animal. and we have some elements in medicare, that he carried medicare advantage, that could do something. rather than a straight fee for service. we have the problem of medicare being overpriced and we have tried to adjust that to provide the smaller reimbursements so the pricing is more reasonable. but at the same time, to

encourage people to take advantage of a healthcare system that moves away from fee-for- service. will you talk about this? what role does medicare advantage play here? >> that is the goal. we need to find ways to do it that, as you say, strengthen the program while making the program more efficient. the recent challenge to medicare advantage, i think have been effectively implemented. we have seen premiums come down and enrollment go up. we are saving money at the same time. the most effective way we can do this is by continuing the process of experimentation identifying what works and then

scaling it. think that works in a healthcare system -- not just medicare, but across the healthcare care system that is as complex as we have in our economy. we have to make sure we are testing results and scaling them so we know what works. i think the linkage between healthcare -- medicare and the rest of the healthcare system is important, because ultimately what our goal is is to drive down the rate of healthcare cost systemwide. if the savings only occur in medicare and increase on the other side, we will not increase the overall economic talent that you referenced earlier, a larger and larger share of our gdp being eaten up i healthcare. i think -- being eaten up by healthcare. i think it is important and it is about identifying successful interventions and scaling them over time.

>> all right. i will come back to address this in the next round. senator levin, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. how important is it that we reverse sequestration? >> i come at this issue from an independent analyses that have been done, i think there are two problems. first is the sequester is a blunt tool and it is forcing indiscriminate cut that are not sensible. second, the magnitude of the cuts, it is hard to do that without having a really material negative impact. i think the congressional budget office, others who have looked at the issue have concluded you

are going to have a material negative economic impact. and so, i think it is very important from an economic perspective that we look for a way to replace what is a blunt instrument that is going to do damage to our economy now with an approach that actually achieves greater deficit reduction, has more long-term reforms that actually will get at some of the issues we were talking about, but that is, has a more sensible approach economically in the short-term as well. >> is it important that the deficit reduction be balanced? in other words, that it have revenues and entitlement reform, more prioritized or targeted discretionary spending as part of balance to deficit reduction?

>> i think the short answer is yes. when you look at the deficit reduction as an overall economic strategy, you have to ask the question, what is going to make sense in the short-term and the long-term echo to maintain the productivity -- in the short- term and the long-term? i think if you want to maintain the productivity while hitting long-term deficit reduction goals, the best way to do that is to bring revenues from tax reform and entitlement reform together, done in a way that's ring pins our in -- that strengthens our entitlement programs in the future. >> the secretary of the treasury under president reagan wrote a book and this was conversation he recounted from the oval office.

he said the president, reagan, liked to start off every meeting with a story or a joke. he asked the president this question. he said, what do these 60 corporations have in common? he rattled off the biggest corporations in america. president reagan's interest was immediately aroused. he said, i don't know. what do they have in common? he said, not one of them pays a penny in taxes to the united states government. "what?" the president said. he was genuinely shocked.

a dumbfounded silence settled over his economic advisers. "leave it or not, mr. president, your secretary paid more in taxes than all of those giant companies put together." "i just can't believe that," he said. the treasury secretary said "i do not blame you for doubting it, but it is the truth. i checked it out. a hard working secretary does more to support her government than 60 of the richest companies in the land." he said "i agree, don, i just did not realize that things had gotten that far out of line." well, things are that far out of line. it seems to me we are getting disturbed by troubles when we have some of the largest corporations in the country either paying no tax or using these gimmicks to shift revenue

offshore to avoid paying taxes. i would love to see someone in the white house with an economic advisor or you now as the deputy director of omb, in this situation where we are facing sequestration -- incredibly bad. it is the wrong way to do that. everybody knows that, i think. just about everybody knows that i think. and to say we are not going to do the right thing in terms of closing these loopholes unless we can get corporate rates reduced, it seems to me is ignoring a very, very troubled reality, and that is something else which donald regan, a conservative republican, said in his book.

the accumulated weight to inefficiency and selfishness has become a burden on the economy and an affront to economic and social justice. donald regan is talking about economic and social justice. if he can do it, i would hope the administration can do it. i would hope that the omb can do it. the american people, by survey after survey, say they want these tax loopholes closed, and they are informed particularly about the loopholes that allow corporations to shift revenue to asked, what do you want to do about it? number one, and it. what do you want to do with the revenue? by five to one margins, "and the deficit, reduce the deficit, fight to avoid cuts in education or in healthcare or infrastructure, what ever." that is what they want to do.

i would hope you would be in a position -- i would hope there would be serious thinking in the white house about whether or not we could number one, continue sequestration, and if the way to avoid it is to hit a balanced approach with revenues coming from a source that nobody can justify. i have not heard anybody justify these kinds of loopholes. you can justify it in oil and gas reductions. i do not favor it, but you can justify it. you can justify accelerated depreciation, which i do favor. you can increase productivity and create jobs. but these are arguably useful deductions. the ones i am talking about, the ones that are consistently in your office, they have no economic dust vacation. they ought to be closed if there

was no deficit, but surely with a deficit and sequestration, i would hope your office would look if there was not a link to closing these corporate tax rates. there is no logic to that. we need the revenue. we ought to get it. it is a balanced approach to deficit reduction. you have already commented on that. i just would leave that thought in your mind, as you are hopefully confirms to be the deputy at. we wish you well. >> senator, i am happy to look at that and work with you and your office on that issue if i am confirmed. >> think you. >> there has been no shortage of initiatives that have focused on

medicare led by people included like tom daschle and folks that are practitioners -- they have actually looked at medicare and said that, these are rates that we can provide the safe money. that same folks over the long haul. what you think are some some of the most promising ideas. >> i think all of the most promising ideas share a character, which is they go after incentives. the organizations we were talking about earlier try to organize and and tips for teams of doctors.

another example is how to get at bad debt payments. if a hospital cannot collect bad debt payments, then medicare is. what that creates is as is them where there is no accountability, there is no and sent it. or there is limited incentive to go out and seek reimbursement. i think that is a place where if we were to change the rules in medicare -- i think that that is a place

where if you were to change the rules of medicare, we could try to put out more of an incentive for hospitals to take out that activity on their own. another one where which to do is drive efficiency by changing incentives. i also think that you have to be willing to look at whether there are things that we should do with respect to the beneficiary side that are smart. that meet the principal of strengthening the program and strengthening the core commitment of the program. so, i think it is appropriate to look at means testing medicare. i think the president put out a proposal that makes some sense because as part of these overall reforms we have to ask questions about whether those who are the most fortunate should be paying more. it will still be a good deal for them as part of the system. if you can package together part of these reforms that go after incentives to make sure that we are putting a perfect program into the future that is going to be able to be a viable, then that is the way we will start making progress. >> and dr. colburn could not join us today, i do not think he will be able to arrive before the hearing concludes.

among the many issues that he has been focused on, he has done a lot of work with his staff on the area of duplication. with an enterprise as large as the federal government, we should not be surprised. we have it in spades in the federal government, as you know. gao has given congress and the administration in number of recommendations to reduce duplication. there is a whole lot of work to be done. how might you work in your new post, if confirmed, to go after some of that duplication. -- duplication? >> the issue is one that i know the doctor has taken a leadership role on. i think that gao is playing a constructive role in the process by doing a set of reports that actually help to identify and fleshed out, because that helps

to focus attention and identify areas for progress. i think that the role, if confirmed, in the role i would approach the issue from two ways. one, where are there places within the authority of the executive branch where we can help to make progress in addressing inefficient duplication? i know the whole range of proposals are on the table and the administration has already started to make progress on a number of counts, but if confirmed by want to ask a set of questions about where we are and can we accelerate the progress? in places where we have not moved, why? are we sure that we cannot make progress there as well? second, i am trying to work with members of this committee to identify where the highest value places are where legislation might be needed, and where we think there is a pragmatic opportunity to make progress

the president's budget put forward a couple of specific proposals on duplication. one in the area of stem, science, technology, education and math, where we have a myriad of programs across the government that are well meaning with real opportunities to deliver better results to consolidate programs. likewise in the area of job training. i would like to understand and learn from members of this committee where you think and where we think we could make some tangible progress on the legislative front and try to build some momentum there. >> one of the things i would keep in mind is if you have got what is it? 100 programs across the government? which are focused on raising student achievement in science technology, engineering and math fields, one of the logical step

in my judgment would be able -- would be being able to measure which of these programs presented a result, the kind of results they were looking for, pushing the money toward the ones that are working and less money toward the ones that are not, but that means we have to be able to measure progress and then be able to convince folks like senator robinson and myself of that. one other thing, focusing a little bit on one of the areas that the doctor and i have focused on on this committee is improper payments to find out, gosh, 10 years ago the amount of improper payments to the federal government were largely mistakes, duplicate payments erroneous refunds, the refunds added up to about -- gosh, i

want to say $40 billion? i think it was in 2002 when they said federal agencies had to start reporting improper payments. not everyone did right away, but over time more and more did. we finally pass legislation in 2010 that said basically four things. one, report the improper payments and stop making them as well. and we also want you to go out and recover improper payments where that is the case. and we want you to start rewarding or incentivizing managers. part of the proposed evaluation is how well the agency has reduced proper payments to recover overpayments. i think in 2010 we saw improper

payments peak at $120 billion. a lot of money. we have seen the numbers drop over the last two years. so, i think that the reduction by my numbers is $13 billion over two years, so there is still a lot out there. at the same time we have seen recovery of improper payments,i think between $4 billion to $5 billion over the last year or so, but there is plenty of work still to do. i am going to ask you to think out loud for a moment about what more we can do to go after that $108 billion number.