>> yes. >> what about the ground commander and centcom commander? >> they were notified on the 27th of may. general dunford and general austin, their awareness of something going on was there. but again, to keep this as close as we could, they were not informed until four days before the specific operational plans and decisions, until four days before the operation. i believe that i'm right on those dates. >> thank you, gentlemen. we'll now move to chairman mccall. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, mr. preston. i chair the homeland security committee, so i look at it from that vantage point. i do have concerns that this move, this swap empowers and emboldens our enemies. one can only look at what omar is saying about this, when he celebrates. this is a huge triumph in his

words. a colossal victory. for the first time we've negotiated with the taliban as equals. and we gave them everything they asked for, the dream team. these are the heads of intelligence, military, with long ties to osama bin laden. when i was in iraq last month, i met with general demford and ambassador cunningham. as we were standing in front of the afghans, i'm concerned about the influence the five could have on the process. as the ambassador told me, as we withdraw, his biggest fears will be a vacuum and then we'll be hit again. mr. secretary, can you tell me how this move is in our best interest in terms of our security? >> to start with, as i have covered this ground this morning, we got our one remaining prisoner back. i don't think that's an

incidental accomplishment. second, as has been quoted here, here a couple of hours ago, the former central command commander, marine general jim maddos, what he said this sunday -- last sunday, about one of the significant features of this return was, it frees up our forces in afghanistan to not be concerned, and not have any adjustments or realities or limitations, to always be mindful of trying to get our prisoner back. and i think, again, i don't think this is anything to be diminished either, as noted by the congressman, the fact is, our military men and women know that we'll go after them. we won't leave them behind.

>> my time's limited. but one of these five, they've already come out publicly and said, i want to go to afghanistan and kill americans. that concerns me. and these guys over there reviving the movement, if you will, filling the vacuum, then hitting the homeland again, as we saw pre-9/11, there's an old axiom in foreign policy, and you served in the senate foreign affairs committee, armed services for a long time, that we don't negotiate with terrorists. the haqqani network, as i understand it, were responsible for holding the sergeant captive. now, isn't it true that the haqqani network has been designated a foreign terrorist organization? >> they are. >> if so, did we not just negotiate with the terrorists? >> no. we negotiated with the government of qatar. the taliban made the teal. deal. the haqqani network is

essentially, as far as we can tell, a subcontractor to -- and they do it not just with the taliban, but they do it with different groups. >> let's be -- let's be clear. so we negotiated with the middle man, the qatari government, with the haqqani network, who held them captive, held the sergeant captive, and that haqqani -- >> it was the taliban that represented -- that were represented. >> but ultimately it was with the haqqani network which is a foreign terrorist organization. >> well, as i said, yes, they're associated in different ways. we know that. as i said, i think the best way i can describe it is essentially a subcontractor. >> the haqqani network, as i understand it, is the most lethal force over there right now. >> it is. >> and after we withdraw and fill in the vacuum, and from a homeland security standpoint

potentially hitting americans -- >> the haqqani network didn't have any role in this deal. preston can give you the specifics of this. >> in my limited time, there's a story about a memo from guantanamo transfer to susan rice. what role does the white house play in your determinations regarding the release of detainees from guantanamo? >> i have the authority and responsibility to make the decisions and notify congress on whether they're going to be transferred or not. >> does it stop with you, or does it go to the white house? >> well, the president signs off as well. but you asked what role they play. my assessments are made based on, yes, the national security council, because the subcommittee that you chair, the secretary of homeland security is part of that. integral, important part of that, for obvious reasons. so is the secretary of state. so is the national director of

intelligence. so is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so is the president's national security adviser. sure, i want all that. and they all signed off on this decision, by the way. i've got to have all that, because all of them have different pieces. along with our own internal dod pieces. >> i understand that. i see my time is expired. thank you so much for being here today. >> thank you. >> all time is expired. we thank the gentlemen. they've been very gracious with their time this morning and this afternoon. and we thank you for your [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a hearing tomorrow on veterans access to health care. it begins live at 9:15 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.

later on c-span 3, a discussion on trade and commerce between the u.s. and mexico. nine beginning at 12:25 p.m. eastern. -- lies beginning at 12:25 p.m. eastern. >> special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction testifying before a house foreign affairs subcommittee tuesday. more than 100 $3 billion spent on afghanistan reconstruction. this is one hour, two minutes. $103 billion. >> the subcommittee will come to order. i recognize myself and ranking member deutsch for five minutes

each for opening statement. we will then recognize other members seeking recognition for one minute each. we will then hear from our witnesses and we thank them, first of all, for your patience and understanding. that goes for the audience as well. we had 16 votes so we thank you for the time. the witnesses prepared statements will be made a part of the record and members may have five days to insert statements and questions for the record subject to the limitation in the rules. before we begin, i would like to express my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of the five american troops who were killed in afghanistan. no words can adequately express the debt of gratitude that we owe to those brave troops and our thoughts and our prayers are certainly with them and their families at this troubling time. the chair now recognizes herself for five minutes.

last year, the subcommittee convened a hearing with special inspector general for iraq reconstruction, sigar, on the lessons learned from the u.s. stabilization, relief, and reconstruction operation in iraq. the purpose of that hearing was to examine the final report to get a better understanding of how the u.s. approaches reconstruction efforts and where we can improve so that we will not be confronted with the same problems and repeat the same mistakes. the major take away from that hearing in addition to the billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer money was not the united states government was unable to adequately plan, execute, and oversee such large-scale operations. have we learned any lessons from iraq?

have we learned to use our assistance more effectively and more efficiently? we may have implemented a few reforms as a result of the recommendations from these oversight entities in front of us, sadly, it seems that we still have a long way to go to be good shepherds of taxpayer dollars. having seen previous gao and sigar reports relating to oversight and accountability of u.s. assistance in afghanistan, several things are strikingly obvious. their abilities will be severely restricted due to the security situation and lack of access. this will make it difficult for them and subsequently for us in

congress to keep proper tabs on all of the u.s. funded project in afghanistan. for all of our effort and desire to do good in afghanistan, we have some glaring deficiencies of that must be addressed. the u.s. has allocated over $103 billion to afghanistan relief and reconstruction. however, the afghan government is still not capable of handling such a large infusion of money, goods, and of equipment. it is incapable of achieving long-term sustainability.

this is particularly telling with many of our infrastructure projects like in the health sector where oftentimes it usaid would fund projects that are way too large and way too ambitious and it leaves the afghans with facilities that are larger and more expensive to operate. and then these hospitals go unused and unstaffed because the afghans cannot find the funds nor the staff to operate them. these efforts are not economical and are not practical. as a result, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. the result of this large infusion of money is a two fulda. our report is commissioned by general dunford and conducted by the joint coalition operational analysis determined that the vast influx of money overwhelmed capacity. this helps foster an environment of corruption that has worked against our interest from the

start. as general allen once said, corruption is the existence show, strategic threat to afghanistan. the other result is that it created an environment in which we are not tackling the root cause of the issue. the only way for afghanistan to maintain and sustain the progress it has made under the relief and reconstruction efforts is to continue to rely on donor contributions to fill the revenue gaps. that is not sustainable for afghanistan nor is it sustainable for us in the united states or we risk losing all of those gains. in 2009, they decided they would pledge 59% of the della fumento -- developmental aid.

the gao reports we went from $470 million in 2009 to over $1.4 billion in 2010. however, that same year, several reports including one commissioned directly by u.s. a id said how decidedly ill-equipped they were to receive direct assistance. both gao and sigar raised the warning flags and recommended that usaid identify and assess the risks associated with direct assistance but sigar is now reporting that usaid had ignored these recommendations and may have approved direct assistance without mitigating these risks. how are we to conduct proper oversight of usaid, dod, to ensure that they are fully compliant with the

recommendations of sigar, gao, and the rules and regulations laid out by congress to ensure u.s. taxpayer dollars are put to their best use? sigar identified major lessons that should have been learned in iraq that should the applied in afghanistan. these included the need to implement better interagency coordination and use our funds wiser, more efficiently, more effectively. if we are still running into the same problems in afghanistan that we did in iraq, now that we are transitioning, is it time for congress to re-examine how we conduct these operations and consider implementing some much-needed reform? the obvious answer is yes, of course. with that, i am pleased to yield to the ranking member, mr. deutsch from florida.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i would also like to extend my condolences to the families of the five troops who were killed yesterday in a and a stand. we spent a lot of time here talking about what our government does but it is ultimately the men and women who serve our government in tough places like this that we need to keep in mind. on this day, we keep in mind the families of these five. today's hearing comes on the heels of the president's announcement that 9600 troops will remain enough in a stand until 2016. after almost 13 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of american lives lost, this was met with mixed reactions we come to expect, those who cannot bear

the thought of even one more american livestock eyes to those who believe it is our responsibility to remain and protect our national security interests. a recent gallup poll found for the first time since the war in afghanistan began, more now view the war as a mistake. after the united states has given so much in blood and treasure, what do we have to show for it? have we strengthened u.s. security at home and abroad? the department of defense, state department, and usaid continue to have significant stance. they're working to reform and they are put into danger every day.

as our presence in afghanistan draws down, are we putting the necessary measures in place to ensure the programs that we've instituted in the infrastructure that we have built a strength in afghanistan security capability governance and civil society are sustainable and will remain in place long to release? accounting for billions of dollars across multiple agencies is no easy task. i believe the good folks that usaid have taken significant steps to deal with corruption within the app and government and combat potential abuses. this is necessary and welcome to create programs that run as efficiently as possible. congress established a special inspector or general not just for tracking waste, fraud, and abuse but for recommending more effective methods for completing the enormous task of reconstruction. thanks to the work of sigar as well as oversight investigations, they have identified a number of key challenges such as the limited capacity of the aft and government and many persistent security challenges. it is clear that evidence of these challenges can be seen throughout our footprint. gao identified numerous weaknesses in the overlap of

funding accounts between dod, state, and usaid creating the potential for duplicating projects and programs. it appears that little progress to advance that recommendation has been made. in 2012, gao went so far as to recommend congress take legislative action to require u.s. agencies report information on their development related i vividly's in a shared database. dod did not agree. sigar is also raise serious concerns over the ability to terminate contracts when they are found have ties to insurgents or opposition forces. they lack the authority to terminate, restrict, or void a

contract identified as someone aiding the enemy. they would likely have to pay up to the full cost of any contract to complete a termination. implementation of these broad reforms and others will help achieve greater results. unfortunately, on a micro level, and have also found numerous wasted funds like the $12.8 million utility equipment purchase to meet urgent needs in the counter insurgency strategy that sat unused in storage controlled by the u.s. army corps of engineers. our development work will not end when the last true believes in 2014. many of these ongoing programs will be tremendously successful. we have been instituting desperately needed health programs. how can we sustain these programs going forward with the ultimate goal being to monday transition to complete afghan control? with a decreased foot rent on the ground, will we be able to provide needed oversight to make

sure projects stay on track? usaid has developed an extensive remote monitoring process that has been used in a number of other challenging environments. i hope our witnesses will address critical components needed for these monitoring programs and whether they believe this type of her mode monitoring can be successful in afghanistan. any development work of the scale will see its fair share of development successes. we are directly impacting the security of this country and it is my hope is will shed light on how we continue to ensure the congress, state, dod, and usaid are working together to ensure that aid is provided in the most efficient way possible. >> thank you. i'm so pleased to yield to our subcommittee chairman. >> thank you so much for calling this hearing to continue this subcommittee's oversight of the u.s. reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. many of us have ongoing concerns

about the future of afghanistan. president obama's recent announcement that he was pulling all but 9800 u.s. troops out by years end and then in half 2015 and pulling all troops out by the end of 2016 is troubling. announcing a departure date, no matter the conditions on the ground, just tell the taliban and how long they have to wait for us to leave before they can then in their mind take over the country. this announcement puts at risk, i'm afraid, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. i fear that we may see something similar to what we saw in iraq when we all thought there would be a number of troops that would remain there. we now see rather than a u.s. ally there, extreme iranian influence and i would hate to

see a repeat of that. thank you for holding this. >> mr. hagans of new york is recognized. >> this situation relative to afghan reconstruction is sobering and rest. you look at the condition of this country and you have the afghan economy, about $20 billion. in one year, we spent $.75 of that in reconstruction. $75 billion for a turbine in the southwest. $230 million highway project in the east. $4 billion in training and equipping afghan security forces. i think any assessment of the condition of any of those projects is one that requires a lot of explanation. when we consider that congress

last year approved $53 billion to rebuild the roads and bridges of america yet we spent 89 billion dollars over 12 years rebuilding the roads and bridges of f and the stan, a nation of some 31 million. at the very least, the corrupt nature, the inadequacy of the afghan security forces, it does not justify the commitment that we've made. i look forward to listening to the inspector general. >> i will be short. let's go. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding today's hearing. i want to send my condolences to the family of the five soldiers

killed. as we begin drawing down, i think it's important that the responsibility rests to maintain their own capacity. long-term security and a sustainable peace in the region can only be accomplished when the people of afghanistan take on the responsibility. some argue that helping has been important to our mission and some like me begin it's time to return our focus to our own schools, bridges, roads, and hospitals. i hope all would agree we need to ensure whatever funds are used wisely and they are building programs and institutions that are sustainable. there's a lot of explanation that needs to be provided when you look at the magnitude of resources when we have urgent needs here in our own country.

i look forward to hearing the two witnesses today. >> thank you for calling this important hearing. it is important that we conduct this oversight in order to ensure that american taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately to ensure that our various agencies and departments are working efficiently here and making use of best practices. without appropriate oversight, money will go to waste in afghanistan. i also look forward to a discussion the issues that are the subject of this hearing. it's an emotional issue for the american people as we have seen this week with sergeant bergdahl. we need to make sure we are communicating effectively and honestly about our departure and what will come next. thank you. >> now we are pleased to introduce our witnesses. first, we are pleased to welcome

special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. he has more than 30 years of experience as a prosecutor, congressional counsel, and senior federal government adviser. he spent 20 years on the hill -- poor thing -- serving in the house and senate including on the house select committee on homeland security and in the senate permanent subcommittee on investigation. mr. sub co. was sworn in on july 2, 2012. -- mr. sopko was sworn in july 2, 2012. secondly, we welcome mr. michael johnson, senior executive and director of international affairs and trade, at the u.s. government accountability office, gao. he assesses u.s.

counterterrorism and security efforts focusing on afghanistan, pakistan, and other terrorist safe havens. prior to this position, mr. johnson was assistant director in gao's team and a year detailed to the house of representatives homeland security committee. we thank you gentlemen for your patience, your expertise, for waiting around. we are pleased to yield to you now. >> thank you very much. chairman ross leighton -- ros-leighton, it's a pleasure to be here to discuss reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. today's hearing, as you have noted, is very timely. we are in the midst of a pivotal transition year and afghanistan. the ongoing transition will

undoubtedly shape afghanistan's future for many years to come. for instance, this week's presidential runoff could result in the first he's for democratic transition of residential tower in afghanistan's history. likewise, just a few weeks ago, the president announced his land to reduce our military presence to approximately 10,000 troops by the end of 2014 and by the end of 2016, u.s. presence will be reduced to a normal embassy operation in kabul with a small security assistance office. these events may leave many to incorrectly assume that the reconstruction effort is also coming to an end. when, in fact, it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. this is largely due to previous commitments made by the u.s. and the international community at the chicago in tokyo conferences. in addition to the weak state of the afghan economy and the

limited capability of the afghan government to collect revenue. since 2002, congress has appropriated $103 billion for relief and reconstruction. this is more than the united states has ever spent to rebuild any single country in our history. to give this number some context, by the end of this year we will have spent more money on afghanistan reconstruction than we did to rebuild europe under the marshall plan. this year alone, we plan to spend more money on afghanistan reconstruction than we spent on the next four countries -- israel, egypt, pakistan, and iraq. an unforeseen consequence of this has been that be have built infrastructure, a security force, and a national government that the afghans cannot currently sustain on their own. for example, they generate roughly $2 billion per year in annual revenue.

the afghan government will depend on assistance to meet this budget shortfall. according, it is critical that effective management and oversight remain a top priority for all u.s. agencies as we prepare to enter a post 2004 -- post-2014 reality in afghanistan. this is extremely important given this remains to be spent by u.s. agencies as of march 31, 2014, including approximately $7 billion spent by usaid. sigar and our oversight comrades

are already contending with constricted oversight access. based on best estimate, it is likely that there will be 50% decrease. despite these challenges, sigar is committed to its mission and is developing methods to adapt to the evolving security environment. given what is at stake, the international community and the afghan people, sigar believes oversight must be "mission critical." if it is not, the historic investment we have made to date and billions more yet to be spent on reconstruction will be significantly vulnerable to possible waste, fraud, and

abuse. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> madam chair, ranking member deutsch, members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to be here to discuss key efforts in afghanistan. the gao has issued 70 projects including a special publication highlighting key issues for oversight. we have also participated in numerous congressional hearings and briefings in afghanistan. during the course of our work, we have made recommendations on a range of actions that should be taken to improve program planning, implementation, and oversight. today, i would like to highlight a few key issues. among them are the need to mitigate against resistance. the oversight of development of projects and the need for a more

comprehensive database in the need for more planning as the u.s. transitions to a predominantly civilian presence. in 2010, the u.s. along with other international donors pledged to provide 50% through direct assistance. as the chair has noted, we reported in 2011 that the u.s. that fills its pledge going from $470 million in fiscal year 2009 to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2010. we also reported that why usaid had complied with other internal controls, it had not always assessed the risk of providing direct assistance. we have since learned of sigar's findings that usaid may have approved direct assistance to ministries without mitigating

against all identified risks. with respect to afghanistan since 2002, they have allocated $23 billion for these related projects. taking steps in respect of our private -- of the previous review, they continue to inconsistently apply procedures. they have also fallen short in institutional knowledge . we need to ensure a full accounting of usaid, dod, and state and the project. gao has made multiple suggestions including establishing the comprehensive shared database to account for

these projects. although state and usaid have , we continue to report on the need for a database. this is due in part to the lack of dod action. regarding the need for contingency planning, in february 2013, we reported that merrill circumstances in iraq are somewhat different than those in afghanistan, potential lessons could be learned from that transition. as we have reported, program implementation, oversight, and accountability in afghanistan are likely to continue to be challenged by likely factors including the prevalence of corruption in the limited capacity of the afghan government. as we have highlighted, contingency planning is key to successful planning and ensuring it is conducive to carry out oversight.

the challenging working environment and uncertainties of the bilateral security agreement underscore the need for contingency planning and continued oversight of u.s. efforts. chairman, members of the subcommittee, i would like to thank the dedicated gao staff members who have their lives on the line carrying out oversight. that they to note stand ready to assist the congress in assuring that there is oversight and accountability of the u.s. partnership in afghanistan. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> i will begin with the question and answer segment of our meeting. is so pervasive in afghanistan that it only serves to exacerbate the already difficult obstacles facing the government's ability to govern

effectively. not only that, but it undermines the security of both the international forces and the afghan people. it erodes confidence in government and it leads them to distrust us and it leads to the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars. for all of these warnings and all of the reports we have had about corruption in afghanistan, we have yet to do -- develop an anticorruption policy. even karzai acknowledged that this is a major obstacle to progress. how is it even possible that we still don't have an anticorruption policy? even as we are sending billions of dollars in direct assistance to afghan ministries despite all of the warnings. do we have any insight into

dated amounts of direct assistance? sticking with the direct assistance issue, after the assessment that the afghan ministries were not ready, were not capable of receiving direct assistance and after recommendations from gao to mitigate all identified risk before proceeding with direct continued, usaid anyway without regard to these warnings. why did usaid continue to provide direct assistance despite the warnings? are there any other instances where usaid has ignored recommendations? how would you characterize your relationship with usaid? what does congress need to do to is in full usaid compliance before going forward with these high-risk programs?

i'm also greatly concerned about the duplication of effort where we see overlaps between state and dod on infrastructure projects because there is no central and comprehensive database. i know one thing you both would say is seriously lacking and something that we need to address, what else would you say congress needs to do to ensure dod, are alltate, accountable for these billions of dollars that we are spending in afghanistan? what tools do you need us to give to you to ensure that you have everything you need to continue to do your work? i know it will be extremely difficult for you with the troop drawdown and the uncertainty over this, be we want to help you to keep you safe while you

continue to perform your duties. thank you. >> madam chairman, starting with your last point, on assistance that we can need. i think it would be useful for to respond to the very valid recommendation that gao has made about a centralized database. i don't know if that is authorization language or appropriations language. one of the problems that we have -- i'm certain gao in my colleagues with the other ig's have, we don't know where the money has been spent. you start with that problem. by requiring the agencies to put together that database, that would he extremely useful. we are starting to do that ourselves.

we are actually trying to collect this information. it really is not the role of the inspector general to be the first one to collect. as for the issue about direct i think a serious a id hadere was that finally done some really good assessments and we praise them in our audit that came out earlier this year about the direct assistance. they assessed the afghan ministries and what we hope they would have done would have been to actually use that as leverage to bargain on conditionality to get in place, particularly in the future, to go out there and kick the tires of the programs. unfortunately, they waved it. we don't really have an answer on why.

>> if i could chime in with some updated numbers, this has been one of the challenges that the u.s. and others face and operating in afghanistan. regards to direct assistance funding, roughly the amount is $800 million for 2012 in direct assistance. that shows a drop-off from the one point $4 billion in closer to the target of 50% but it has not quite met that goal. it has come down someone but it is still pretty significant. in terms of what congress could do, i would agree as to tested that you consider mandating that there be a shared database or a comprehensive database ahead especially given over $23 billion has been invested of the taxpayer money. mentioned, state and usaid g action. takin

the department of defense, despite various briefings with others, have a sickly not agreed to routinely put stuff in their database automatically, shares that were use that database with any others. we suggest congress may need to mandate that given the task force and business operation funding that exist there. we look at this a little more in depth comparing these to the usaid funding efforts under development assistance. we found 53 cases of potential duplication and overlap between the agencies. say that definitively because the data did not go down to the level it needed to go to on capturing data on the village is receiving assistance. we think a shared database would encompass all of that information. issues ony holding key oversight issues would pick the attention of the congress on the agency requesting money every year. additional funding with respect

to gao and the oversight community as well, over the last two years or 18 months, there have been significant challenges in terms of our normal operation with usaid and they have been one of the more cooperative agencies but we have run into major challenge is trying to carry out our mission for the congress. >> yes, mr. sopko? >> i echo the statement from my colleague at gao. although we have had very good support on dod particularly under general dunford, general cole, a number of those colleagues over there, we have getting accessms particularly through overclassification. we think an improper classification of some material is sensitive but unclassified.

can i just add to my colleagues numbers? i think he was focusing on the state and usaid direct assistance, but we have to keep in mind the biggest player in all of this is dod. assistance, dod is giving approximately $4.2 billion going directly to the ministry of interior in ministry of defense and also going through some of the trust funds. that is the biggest play. the aidfocused on ministerial assessments, there's never been a ministerial assessment on the ministry of interior in the ministry of defense died dod. we have highlighted that is a potential problem. >> thank you very much. ranking member mr. deutsch is recognized. did i understand. you said more money has been spent on afghanistan than on the marshall plan?

end of this year taking into consideration inflation, etc. total? is the as you analyze the data, what is the total amount spent by this country on afghanistan reconstruction? is $103ppropriations billion, i believe. >> for both of you, as you what we referred to as waste, fraud, and abuse it is ultimately waste as well. reports of the good that you put out, is there a total? amount of thatl $103 billion, is there a total amount that has been wasted? >> i'm not in a position to give you an exact figure on that. we have not looked into in terms of a range of figures.

know there have been various inefficiencies. there's concern that there is really an inventory. many of the agencies were not keeping good performance metrics whether or not to look at the money had been used for its intended purpose or met its goals. i agree. we cannot come up with an estimate. we would be spending all of our time trying to figure out what was lost in the past. we are looking forward. it's safe to say a lot of money has been wasted and actually stolen and that's the problem. we don't even know where the money was spent. it's hard for us to come up and quantify particularly standards, and generally accepted auditing standards, how much money was wasted. >> we don't know where the money was spent. how much of that do you think we know?

>> $103 billion authorized and appropriated. $18 billion is still in the pipeline. it has not gone out and been obligated yet. money,t majority of the over 60%, was spent by dod. on numerouse programs. i'm not saying it's wasted, but i'm saying that's where the men he is, mainly dod. they are the big player in afghanistan reconstruction. >> i also want to look forward, but for everything that you've ,et that, all of your reports there are plenty of examples that you have pointed to, right? lack of systems in place, lack of oversight, everything, the marriott of reasons we have discussed, there has been a significant amount of waste. -- the marriott of reasons we

have discussed. it would be helpful if there was a range even in the reports that you've done, the review that you have done. here's my point. i want to look forward, but as we deal with this issue of a shared database, it's a whole lot easier to convince all of our colleagues here and those who may not be inclined to support a shared database why it is important if beyond speaking generally about the types of problems that exist. we can point out that out of $103 billion of taxpayer money that x percent has been wasted. to re-createg you the wheel. based on all of the analysis, you must have some sense. >> we can speak in broader terms and can give specific examples, but it gets back to the point

sopko noted. it cost a lot more than it would have cost another contingency efforts as well. of the u.s.amount contribution has been on the security side. that goal was supposed to be a compass back in 2008 when they were supposed to be fully capable and become independent operations. what happened over time and the many years where we put aliens of dollars in there, enormous amounts of money, benchmarks continued to be reset every single year. we lowered the standards of capability raining. -- ratings. we're trying to get the skies to operate the way our security forces operate. that was not deemed to be afghan right or first. we wasted a lot of money in the with equipment they could not maintain or sustain. we built the force that they could not sustain. they will continually rely on donors to support.

the u.s. contributed 90% of the public expenditures related to security issues. we're the largest contributor on the security side in terms of waste and inefficiencies. the message there. we can give you specific examples where they were going to go in and build a road that dod had already done. this is why you need a shared database. they would like to know what dod is going to be leaving behind so they have some indication of what is already there as they move or request their planning. -- as they move forward with their planning. >> it has been years since you aopose that. >> we do not see major in padded it. they are concerned about the security of the database. there are sufficient firewalls. aid has shown us that it would not be a problem. i think it is relock and some the part of dod.

they gave them a manual desk i think every month or so for usaid to upload. it is not readily available. >> does the hesitancy on the --t of dod stan in any way about what wern see going forward? the 103 billion dollars is dod funding. we are not in a position to identify the total amount of waste. is there a concern that going forward there's going to be -- some of what you described, mr. johnson, i would suspect our dod would view differently than the way you describe it in terms of changing standards and why the standards were changed.

we do to help convince them that it is ultimately necessary? i just go back to where i started. i would really urge you for all of the analysis that has been done, it would be immensely helpful for us to have a conversation not just about we cannotard but if acknowledge that we spent $100 billion in we know billions have been wasted but we cannot even really identify some ballpark range of what that is and where it comes from, that it makes it even harder to support -- forget the creation of a shared database -- it makes it harder to continue funding if we cannot identify where the problems are to begin with. i yelled back to the chair. >> i'm so pleased to yield to a real war hero from iraq and afghanistan, a fighter pilot.

>> thank you, madam chair. you are too nice. thank you all for being here. the important thing to do at the very top of this is for everyone to remember why we are enough interest and in the first place. it was a beautiful day in september and we were attacked when we thought we were completely defensible by two oceans. thousands of americans lost their lives. thousands ofy, americans have lost their lives securing freedom for the afghan people. also, thousands of afghans have lost their lives. we see this in the postwar mission of afghanistan that the afghan people, the security forces are really stepping up to secure their country. there will be a lot of challenges. two weeks ago, the president announced his plan to withdraw nearly all service members at with thening of 2014 combat mission ending.

he will even place approximately 9800 service members and the following year they will be reduced to the amount necessary to provide security for the embassy in kabul. the parallels between what has happened in iraq and what the president has outlined for a in a stan. to their man the news and found out a place i have been in multiple times in the war has just fallen to extremists and we see what happens in a post-american situation. with that son, the reduction of force will place significant demand on the security forces. between fiscal year 2002 and 2013, nearly 50% went toward supporting afghanistan security in areas such as developing security forces and counter narcotics effort. with the you mean -- looming u.s. troop drawdown, more of the .nus will be placed on them

a large portion will be invested going into security. are they now prepared to take the lead? can they help sustain an environment in which these projects we have that in place will succeed? for 13 years, we fought to create an environment that they could take over. i want to make sure the end of the day, we are not just in a hurry to fulfill a campaign promise. years of effort by the american people in the afghan people should not go to waste. in 20 years, the history books will judge us very harshly if that's the case. is there an environment in a post-american era where they can succeed? >> yes, of course they can succeed. there have been great successes with the military. you have seen the app and military hold their own over the last fighting season.

i think everyone is hopeful that they will continue in that robust fashion. there are concerns. the major concerns that we've highlighted, and i believe general dunford has highlighted, is you need the bsa side. will be. assume it it seems like it is on track to. >> we are very hopeful. i have no inside information. one or both candidates and they would sign it. the second issue, which i cannot speak for general dunford because he's the expert on the military capability, but it's basically the backend. it's the tale of the a nsf, , getting themt how to understand and that is

what he is working on. i think the vast majority of the assistance going forward will be trying to make that military capable to do that. we are looking at spare part fuel, literacy. in all of those areas, there are serious problems. >> i understand you're not a policy maker. my big concern is in 2016, the president has put out an outline saying it's a good mission. advising and supporting the government is a good mission. , it's not. we are pulling troops out only for security. assuming now that we basically have two years in which to miraculously bring the afghans to where they can operate without american assistance, there's a lot of progress that has to be made in two years. of all trips happened to be out today, what do you think would

happen to the future about and a stan and those reconstruction projects? >> i would have to refer to the testimony of general dunford where he said if we pulled out today there would be a collapse. i have to rely on his expertise. we have not done a study on that. >> ok. thank you. i think the point is if they got pulled out we would see an utter collapse. we are focused on withdraw and pulling out. in my me smarter to have a mission past 2016 in which we can have a long-term gain. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank you.

mr. connolly of virginia is recognized. >> thank you. i know you want to look forward, but i think before we do that we need to glance backwards and see what we have learned or not. reading your reports and press stories, including press stories referring to you and listening to your testimony and of mr. johnson's, i have to tell you one has a sense of déjà vu all over again. with vietnam for example, lots of aid money thrown at vietnam. the biggest aid mission was in vietnam. there was no aspect of life in south vietnam we were not helping to finance. the waste, the fraud, the inefficiency, a lack of metrics to show what we did or did not do positively has an echo in your testimony today. when -- i used to be a senate staff member.

we used to have a chart. it showed all sources of assistance from the united states from imet and a map to direct development assistance and others. when you referred to $103 b illion, is that all spigots? does that include the dod money? >> no, this is just reconstruction. $103 billion. >> for the duration of this war? only u.s. funding. let's take that as our universe. i know you are reluctant to say how much got wasted. how much are you comfortable with and looking at it that you think actually performs really well by some metric?

we need some metrics here. >> congressman, i would love to tell you 50%, 60% or whatever, but i live in a world of -- i cannot say that. i know my good colleague over in iraq reconstruction came up with a number and it was later shown to be wrong. i cannot say that. i look at specific programs. we can see they succeeded or didn't succeed or they run a risk. a lot of times, we are going in and alert people that you run a risk of fraud or waste or abuse. i assume my colleague for gao has the same. we cannot say they lost x amount or they succeeded. we have identified some successes. i think the last time i testified before another

committee, i said i sent a letter to the secretary of state, secretary of defense, the head of aid said give me your success stories. i thought that will be used -- if we can use that in our analysis of lessons learned but i cannot answer that question because i have no basis. >> let me tell you the consequences of not being able to answer that question. it says to the public by implication all of it was wasted. if you can't cite metrics, not anecdotal, but metrics. 30% absolutely went to the purpose intended and is performing well. another 20% is a grayer category and 50% is wasted or whatever the metrics may be. if the answer is i cannot answer that question at all, it suggests united states taxpayer $103 billion was down the drain

in afghanistan, 100%. >> i think every inspector general who asks whether it is the department of energy, the vaig, could not answer that question. i don't know if the american people merely jump at the response were the answer that all of the money is being wasted. you cannot give us enough money to answer that question. we would be spending all of our time trying to highlight what worked. if you actually look at our legislation, you look at the 78 act, it is not to find out what worked. my brief given to me by you is to highlight problems, not to highlight successes. >> you also answer to my colleagues question how much is wasted. we cannot put a metric on how

successful we have been and neither can we apparently have a metric about how much we feel confident was wasted in retrospect. >> the biggest problem that we both face as an oversight into entity is the poor data being collected. an enormous amount of data was coming in from partners. they did not assess the data. it is required for them to approve the partners indicated. they were not even approving them. they were giving money to partners which turned out missing. for us to come in -- >> mr. johnson, i appreciate your answer.

this is 2014. we have been running bilateral and multilateral aid programs cents immediately after world war ii. this is not a new subject. what do you mean we are just throwing money and aid has no records to be able to be evaluate it? how is that possible? let alone $103 billion. >> with the recommendations we have made, maybe they will be more accountable when they come up and ask for more money and they don't have metrics. >> please continue. >> mr. sopko and mr. johnson, something that bothered me when i was in afghanistan and iraq -- it is in a category -- it was well-intentioned walking around money. i military officer could see a problem and fix it on the spot. a bridge is out, let me help repair it. that program became an enormous equal bilateral aid program run

by the military who are not experts in economic development. it is all cash. one worries in the category of what could go wrong with that, i wonder if you could share with us your observation. >> you are highlighting an issue that we have serious concerns with. i think many members of congress have serious concerns with and i think if i can make a comment a little out of my league, i think it was a wise decision in your consolidated appropriations bill of 2014. there was nearly 2.2 $9 billion obligated of which $2.26 billion

has been disbursed. in january we spent a letter to dod regarding all the on obligated funds, although performance metrics, any assessments that have been done. we are in the process of doing that and once it is done i am happy to report back to you and the other committees. it was a good intention, but if i can answer -- use that question to try to answer your question. even taking that money, some of it actually worked. it is going to be so difficult to focus and try to do that. that is only $2 billion. to do that for every one of these programs is going to be very difficult to say what percentage worked in what percentage didn't. we need to get the metrics and apply the metrics.

we are not given the metrics or they do not use those metrics. how do we determine whether it works or not? i have been berated by dod for even questioning the proposal because it saves lives. i don't know what that means. maybe it did save lives and maybe that was the metric they wanted to use, but it is hard for me to take that and say the money was wisely spent. that is worries to the predicament we are in -- that is where you see the predicament we are in. >> thank you. while some of us may say while i was in iraq or afghanistan, here's a man that was really in iraq. a vet who is still serving our country valiantly in the air force reserve. mr. collins. >> i appreciate that. mr. connolly, you might want to stay here for quite a moment. we are getting ready to agree wholeheartedly. you have pointed out some things -- i came for some of the questions and i will get to

those. let me say if anybody from the u.s. -- usaid is here or dod, the only way if these are supposed oversight what is being spent, tell me they are not getting the metrics to spend money. they are not getting the metrics on how to even evaluate these programs. maybe it is time to cut the money off. maybe it is time to say let's stop. if you cannot handle this. this is the problem i have seen so far and i am for rebuilding. i have a huge problem with no accountability. the people of the ninth district of georgia do not get it. we are not spending monopoly money. we are not spending money to just pop out of the air. it is not that. it comes out of my back pocket

and yours. is tax dollars. we have a ba system that has problems -- v.a. system that has problems. now we are blowing money and we can he may get metrics so they can do their jobs? are you kidding me? this is amazing to me. i feel for you. you are trying to do a job with no metrics. you are trying to do a job in which you were given money and go spend it and be happy. we are not going to provide you the metrics. if dod gets mad, so what? i will ask the same questions and they can get mad at me. i have submitted language in the appropriations bill forcing them to take it closer look at funds it is allocating in afghanistan. frankly, over $100 billion between dod, usaid. what promise do we have if we

continue this? there are some things we need to do to hopefully keep this country stable. and not have to send our sons and daughters back there in a manner a few years or send others there. how can we take it seriously if usaid and others cannot provide metrics because they don't want to. how can we have any of that? would you like to answer that? >> it is definitely difficult. we need to measure the u.s. progress against the goals. we need metrics to do that. those metrics need to be collected routinely and not every so many years. they should be collecting those depending on the type of program throughout the lifetime of the program and making them available to us. they should be approving those metrics they're asking partners to carry out. we did find several deficiencies in that area.

it probably came up how do you gather information in a war zone? they have done it in other locations. they have done it in pakistan where they collected data using other means to get that data and to have those metrics. i don't think it is something that cannot be done in afghanistan. they need to commit to doing it. >> can i add something to my colleague? it is something that congress and connolly alluded to. that is lessons learned from iraq and vietnam. i cited a report done by aid in 1988. it is a lessons learned report on aid's operations in afghanistan from 1950 to 1979. i could not find anybody in our

embassy or anybody at aid who'd ever read it. if i was being assigned to aid, i think i would want to read my lessons learned report from 1950. i spoke to a very wise general who says i am in the army, we do lessons learned reports by going to the bathroom. the problem is they are not applied. i think one of the things you could do and congress could do is mandate that each of the services do these lessons learned reports. more importantly, that aid and state do that and in the future as we all know, this will be an all government approach to a problem. that means we need to mandate that any agency involved do combined lessons learned reports on contingencies. remember under goldwater nichols, you created purple in the military.

you have not created purple in contingencies. you have not required state and aid to do the same in-depth analysis and lessons learned like all of the various -- i know you serve in the military so you understand a lessons learned reports. it produces doctrine. you are not seeing combined doctrine come out. i throw that out. if you want to make certain we succeed. maybe not for afghanistan but at least we can learn from our mistakes. that is something you might want to consider. >> if you might indulge me. i understand what you are saying. what bothers me is -- it is a simple business plan. you don't give money for just an idea. is there a way we can apply the metrics first? once the money is gone, it

doesn't matter. it doesn't matter. i think the problem we have -- i go back to mr. connolly statement. i come from a background where neither or. if you tell me nothing has happened and everything is happened i would discount it immediately. when we look at this repeatedly, the people of my district want the truth and they will accept the truth even if it is hard but they would not accept incompetence. this is simply incompetence that you have unveiled. they may call it whatever they call it. it is incompetence. plain and simple, fireable incompetence. i don't understand how we continue to do this. frankly, it disturbs me. i had to do lessons learned.

i had to tell the person coming in who took my job here is the lesson learned. it didn't involve where is the latrine. it had to do with what we found on the ground and how you work it out. i applaud your work. in some ways, i feel for you. you're in a no-win situation. we can do better. the agencies i am talking to today, explain your competence. >> just in conclusion as our cumulative appropriations for relief and reconstruction in afghanistan totals approximately $103 billion since 2002. this is more than the united

states has ever spent to rebuild a single country. the financial audits were not conducted from 99 of those 140 assistance awards and usaid did not meet strategy objectives to use performance indicators to measure and evaluate its performance towards meeting the strategies goal. gao as previously reported on systematic weakness in usaid's monitoring and a valuation of programs carried out by its partners in afghanistan. gao and other oversight agencies have highlighted gaps that shows usaid continued to inconsistently apply performance

management procedures, fall short in maintaining knowledge. the subcommittee will continue to do its work and we thank you gentlemen for appearing before us. with that, the subcommittee has adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next washington journal, congressman peter welch and the democratic legislative agenda. family research council president. washington journal begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

christiant the science monitor breakfast series, john podesta talked about the prisoner exchange. epa rules. 2016he chances in the presents a. this is one hour. >> our guest is john podesta, his fourth visit of the group. the last was in 2009 when he was president and chief executive officer for the center for american progress. he grew up in chicago, earned a bachelor's degree from knox college, and is an alumni from georgetown. he spent his early career on

capitol hill. he worked with ted kennedy and later was chief counselor of the senate agriculture committee. in 1988 he founded the well-known government relations firm with his brother tony. he served president clinton as to be the chief of staff and then as white house chief of staff until 2001. he was co-chairman of obama's transition team in 2008. he is the proud father of air force captain gabe podesta. so much for prior review. now to the process portion of our program. a gas alliance is sponsoring today's breakfast. our thanks to them, for sitting at the table back there keeping me from the pain of premature retirement. sponsors or not, we are on the record here.

no live blogging and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what the guest says. there will be no embargo at the end. as regular attendees know the "monitor" breakfast is one of the last bastions of fusty folkways. do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on everyone with the time we have available. we will move to questions around the table. i would like to thank them again for doing this. >> good to be here. i want to start and talk for two minutes. lots has been going on in washington this week, what one of the things i have been focused on is the rollout of the proposal to reduce carbon pollution from power plants across the united states, which gina mccarthy announced on monday. i raise that because one of my

principal duties now at the white house is to coordinate our activity on climate change and energy, and put this in a little bit of context. power plants are accounting for about 40% of the co2 pollution in the u.s., 1/3 of the overall greenhouse gas emissions. it is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the united states. it is important to reduce the level of pollution. the president began to discuss this proposal when he went to children's hospital to tape his weekly address a week ago today, which aired last saturday. the reason he did that is because there are huge public health benefits that will attend and come from this rule. more than 130,000 asthma attacks amongst children avoided, 2800 heart attacks avoided, 2700 to 6600 premature deaths, visits to

hospital emergency rooms, lost workdays. today we will release a report that links the effects of climate change to public health. many of the benefits that i just discussed come from that coal benefit from reducing traditional pollutants, so2, nox, and pm2.5 emissions. climate change itself will increasingly be a problem for our public health, and the report we will be releasing goes to the national climate assessment as well as the ipcc report to show how the effects of climate change will have effect on ground-level ozone, which is predicted to raise, for

example, the emergency room visits in suffolk county by 10% over the next decade. there are more frost-free days, which means there are more plant-based allergens in the upper midwest, which will lead to more lost workdays. carbon pollution enhances the urban heat effects, and it has a particular effect on the elderly who are living in environments where they can be affected by it in stronger way, some in the distribution of diseases from west nile virus or lyme disease that are being affected in the united states. particularly, dealing with this rule, reducing carbon pollution, will have the effect on asthma.

it is the third leading cause of hospitalization for children. african-americans are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma than whites. latino children are 40% more likely to be hospitalized. in 2004 u.s. spent $5 billion on medicaid on asthma-related illnesses. we intend to get the job done, we have created a flexible rule that can be implemented, but it will have enormous health benefits. i wanted to start with that because it has been what i have been up to this week. i would note that the jobs report came out this morning. we have a rule in the white house we do not talk about until 9:30, so i will watch the clock here and if anybody wants to ask me about that, when the witching hour hits, i will be happy to talk about it. >> we will start with kate and then david.

>> coverage of the power plant rules listed four hurdles that could stand in the way of getting it implemented. a court challenge, action by coal-dependent states, action by congress under the congressional review act, or action by the next president, since the states have until 2018 to file plans. which of those risks do you consider the greatest, and what are you doing to counter it? >> we are committed to getting this done. that is why we released it now. we have a year to finalize the rule. we are taking comments for 120 days. we have requested the comment period to be extended. i said when i came into my position in january my job to do was make sure that that direction to epa that the president gave last summer as part of the overall climate

action plan was to propose this rule by june 1. when i said that, i did not realize that june 1 was a sunday. we managed to get it in on june 2, and we are committed to finishing the rule by next june. it gives the states one year to create plans that will then be reviewed by epa. you know, dave, that some states can move that back, particularly if they get together in regional arrangements, which is the most cost-effective way that states might come together to get the reductions that will be required once the rule is finalized.

and if they choose to go that route, as the northeast states have done, or as california has done, to go to a more market-based system and get together to find the most cost-effective reductions, then they will have until 2018 to finalize those plans. i am confident we will get our job done. i am confident we will resist any -- i have no doubt that there will be an attempt to try to overturn this to the congressional review act, but i am certain we have the votes to uphold the rule once it is finalized. there is a long history of litigation starting in 2007 that recognizes that co2 is a dangerous pollutant and that epa

has the authority to regulate it. there's no doubt going to be legal challenges to this, legal challenges to almost anything the epa does. but they have had a stunning string of success just this spring in terms of upholding their authority to tackle these major causes of pollution and major causes of illness in our country. >> last one, about the politics of this. the president has been quoted to say i do not care to be president without the senate, but it was written in "the post," in a contest between presidential legacy and senate control, obama has chosen legacy. he has exposed some democratic senate candidates to political risk he refused to take himself. i wonder if anything is wrong with that analysis? >> as some of you may remember me from my previous service of

the white house, where i banned the word "legacy," what the president is thinking about is he has an obligation to the american people, children, grandchildren, people who are making decisions today to build a cleaner, brighter future them, to build a strong economy based on a clean-energy future, to tackle the problem of climate change. we are seeing the costs of that already from increased droughts and heat waves to storm surges, sea level rise. across the country we are seeing the effects of climate change. we are seeing in the public health, as i mentioned earlier. the president's obligation is to

do what he needs to do under the legal authorities that he has been granted by congress, through the clean air act, to ensure that we tackle this most important, really almost existential, problem. and i think if you think about it from a political perspective, a poll came out this week that shows there is a broad support for taking action to reduce carbon pollution. roughly 70% cross the country. in red states and blue states, amongst republicans, independents, democrats, strong support for taking action to reduce carbon pollution. there's no doubt some states where this is an issue that presents a different sort of political challenge, particularly coal-producing states. they will try to attack it and try to knock down that rating,

and they will try to put it squarely in the context of the political campaigns that are ongoing in 2014. but i think anyone who wants to go out and talk about the benefits from this rule, do what the president did, visit children's hospital in their home state. i think they will find that the politics is such that you can defend taking action here and the public will support that. i think we think that people who deny the existence of climate change, who want to try to run, suggesting they really are not scientists and they do not really get it, and cannot see what is going on around them, and they want to deny the public health effects that the pollution is having on our families and children in the country, i think that is the losing side of the argument.

i am certain that if you think about this in the cycle coming forward, anybody who tries to be a climate denier in 2016 will have a hard time running on that nationally. whether people need to put together the resources to fight back against advertising campaign from koch brothers and others, i think that is politics that people have to decide on their own and a state-by-state or district-by-district basis. >> [indiscernible] >> i think it is a hard choice. [laughter] but i think i have no doubt that the narrative she tells in the

book from her experience of secretary of state will be honest, and she will lay the fact is out as she saw them. i am anxious to read it. i have read some of the excerpts of the book, and i saw a little bit, a couple of passages of it earlier. like most of you, i'm still catching up with the excerpts that are now being printed. i am sure it will be interesting for the public to see what it is like to have to take on those tough problems that she took on quite successfully, and i think as secretary of state, and i think the public is awaiting being able to line up at the bookstore in manhattan, i guess, tuesday, and get copies of the book. >> what is a complicated epa rule --

[indiscernible] >> one thing that you mentioned earlier was about how some states have until as late as 2018 to finalize how they're going to do this. as you know that was used to the next administration. you run the risk of possibly ceding too much ground to that next what house, especially if a republican is there? >> well, you know, i think again that the country needs to tackle this problem. i think with the deadline of 2018, it exists for states that want to join together to try to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way possible. i think states that choose that option will make a commitment to do that and carry forward with making those reductions. the rule will have been finalized.

so the need for states to reduce their emissions will have been finalized by the end of the obama administration. they will be under legal obligation to try to take those reductions down. i think states that decide whether they want to join with california, and i know there are some discussions on the west coast of not only washington and oregon, but other states, perhaps, combining with ab32 system that california has implemented or other standards wanted to join rggi, new jersey, depending on what the election in pennsylvania, you might see that happening. there are other states that might decide that path forward. but i think once you made that decision, then i think there will be a legal obligation to move forward with it. there will be a political commitment to move forward with it. i think this will be implemented.

president bush tried to overturn a number of rules that president clinton issued at the end of his term. i believe none were successful, many in the environmental arena, a few that president bush finally, when they did go into effect, took credit for, if my memory serves me correctly, including the diesel rule and others, but he tried to reverse others, and they were -- the courts finalized them under the laws that were prevailing at the time. people could try to roll it back. i'm fairly confident. i am fairly confident we will have a president who embraces the cause of tackling climate change and reducing emissions.

i think if you think about a challenge in the 2016 context and the politics of this in the 2016 politics, if you are a climate denier trying to run nationally, you will have a hard road to hoe getting elected in the united states. >> the climate action plan, the rules, is that the peak? do you hope to accomplish more in the obama presidency? >> the climate action plan that was put out last summer is based on three pillars. mitigation, of which this is the crown jewel, but other elements, including implementing efficiency rules for heavy-duty truck and more deployment of renewables. we are doubling the amount of

renewables on public-permitted lands. we just had a successful solar summit. the president was out in california recently expanding both the commitment to distribute solar as well to more building efficiency. one is mitigation. the second is resilience. this is the first administration that has focused on the fact that we're looking at a significant amount of climate change baked into the system and that communities are going to have to react to that, plan for that, and build more resilient economies going forward, so that there is a whole work stream going forward on that. the president has proposed $1 billion in the current budget to give states and communities the resources they need to begin to plan for the baked-in the

effects of climate change. the third is on the international front. we have a strong dialogue going at both the multilateral level. the president was just at the g7. this was a serious topic, and all the g7 leaders recommitted themselves to try to move forward towards positive outcome in negotiations that will culminate in paris in 2015, and are all committed to put forward significant reduction strategies in the post-2020 period at that time. they spent a lot of time talking about building energy security, particularly in the european system, as a result of the aggressive actions the russians have taken in ukraine. so there is a lot to do at the international side. one of the principal places we are in dialogue is the with the chinese. there's news coming out of china, but it is mostly from

academic advisors to the government, about what they intend to do in this post-2020 period, but there's movement in china to take on a commitment to have their emissions peak and reduce them. there is a lot to do. i think this is the most important element, but it is one element of a multi--pronged strategy. >> [indiscernible] as opposed to medicare. why not do it permanently? why not just turn it into a voucher,? >> the veteran system, and i think people who you have seen in the press recently has served veterans well when they are getting care. this has been a problem of being able to get into the system. i think the bill that senator

sanders and senator mccain just agreed upon last night is a much better way to go than privatizing our veterans' health care. we have a sacred obligation to our veterans to provide health benefits that they have been promised, and i think resources that are contained in the sanders-mccain bill will focus on getting more primary care doctors into the system, the focus on improving the facilities that would come from the resources that are contained in that bill would be a much better way to go than simply privatizing the system. and that bill is on the president's commitment, which sometimes gets lost in the recent conversations, of having expanding access for pts for agent orange, for taking care of

veterans, the baby-boomer veterans that are now entering the system, as well as the post 9/11 veterans who need care and need quality of care that the veterans system is capable of delivering, but we obviously have problems in the structure of how that service was being performed. and, you know, the acting secretary has not taken action, as he announced in phoenix yesterday, you improve that, but i think it is going to take the kind of legislation that is not moving on a bipartisan aces to the senate to really improve the delivery of health care in the system.

we also obviously are looking for someone to lead the v.a., who can lead the veterans health system, who can perform the kind of reinvention that will be necessary to get those improvements in place. >> george? >> there is a lot of democratic unhappiness with the level of the president's engagement in the congressional campaigns. they are happy with how effective he is at raising money, but do not feel that he has been at all effective in framing a message that the democrats can run on. when are we going to see that, and how do you break through? how will he break through the issues that are getting the headlines of bergdahl and the v.a.? >> the president has framed a choice between an economy that works for the middle class and working people versus an economy that is based on old, failed ideas. so his push for raising the

minimum wage, which is has caught traction across the country, as we have seen states and cities raising the minimum wage, his push for pay equity, his push for reforming the way individuals are paid for overtime, i think are all things that are valuable pointers in the direction that a democratic congress would leave the country versus a republican congress. so i think he is doing what he needs to do, which is doing his job, first and foremost. and secondly, putting issues on the table where we can make harvest through executive

action, but noting that with democrats in congress they can be much more effective in getting the economy working to get wages growing for the american public. when does he engage that? he is not out running himself, and he will engage when it is appropriate. he makes that argument, i think, to democratic constituencies as he is out and around the country. you will see an increase in that as the campaign season really heats up in the fall. i think he has been out there talking about the issues that are according to the american public. whether that is the cost of college, the minimum wage, pay equity -- those are all issues that are critical to moving the country forward and they are all issues that democrats on capitol hill have said are ones they want to campaign on. i think he is not on the ballot.

they are and they have to make the case to their own constituents but i think he can provide a narrative in a supporting environment that he is trying to make. >> with ago john, susan, david, alexis. >> thank you. you talked earlier about candidates running and problems they would have. natalie kenneth, democratic set candidate for the senate and west virginia and mr. -- mr. lundgren grimes running and kentucky both came out after the many republicans in denouncing the new standards and referred to it as an assault on the coal industry while republicans rather than take the climate change approach, their criticism is it's a war on the floor and

disbelief to hire extra city -- higher electricity rates. how do you respond to those charges and what do you say about other democrats and when they criticize this within hours? >> with respect to the republicans, i think the poor might be surprised to learn of the concern that of the lack of concern for them. if you look at the real economics of this, as the epa analysis shows, because of the efficiency being built into the system here, you will see prices -- you will see bills on average go down by about eight percent over the course of the program. >> all income earners? >> that's the price of electric bills at the household level. i think that there are things that we need to do to ensure that people and the

administration has a commitment to making sure that people get affordable, reliable electricity. we think this bill gives the flex ability to do that. the states need to implement that. i mentioned reggie earlier. if you look at the reggie system, the nine states that are now in reggie, they have spent a significant amount of money of weatherizing the homes of low-income individuals and they have reduced their bills by $2 billion. so it's possible to do that with the right policies. that's what i think we are asking the states to look at. of course it's ultimately, they have the flexibility to decide how to move forward with that. the other thing i would say is i will come back where i started which is the poor are the most affected by the public health

implications of continued pollution at the levels we are seeing. i gave you some statistics at the beginning to demonstrate that. they get both the public health benefit and i think there are ways to ensure that electricity remains affordable and reliable and that's why the flexibility built into do that. with respect to the politics in coal country, i would say couple of things -- this rule does not end coal in the electric system. it reduces the amount over a fairly long period of time, between now and 20 dirty from 40% to 30%. there will be increases in gas, renewables and a significant reduction in demand as a result of the rule.

but we are not taking all the coal out of the system. the coal that will be burned will have to be done in a more efficient way and more effective way to raise the efficiency of coal that is being utilized. the oldest, dirtiest, least efficient plants, i think states and utilities will make decisions about whether to keep those online or whether to retrofit them. we are not taking coal out of the electric system through this rule. >> questions on unemployment are available. we will go to susan page. >> having served in the bill clinton white house and the obama white house, how would a hillary clinton president to be different from obama's presidency and from bill clinton's presidency?

>> that's a topic i have not pondered, susan. i think each person who comes into office brings their own skills and the times are different and the challenges are different. we obviously faced the breakup of the soviet union and we tried to expand a democratic and more unified europe. that is being challenged right now. i think the project was pushed forward. we had to deal with al qaeda and terrorism that nothing in the way that president bush and then president obama had to come to grips with in terms of that

question. the challenges will be different. i think people bring their own personalities, their own talents to the job. i think that one thing three of them share is i think the purpose of the job. that is their primary duty and that's to ensure that everybody has opportunity in this country. that's what motivated all three of them. i think if she does decide to run, and she is elected president, she will get up every day as president obama gets up every day as president clinton got up every day and go into the oval office and think what can i do to help the middle class and help working people. >> you have known hillary clinton for a long time. do you have three adjectives that would describe her presidency? >> [laughter] disciplined tough and determined.

>> as the president was weighing the pros and cons of the bergdahl trade, did he ponder what terms he could live with and how is this a political problem for you guys? >> the secretary of defense made the determination that the transfer was in the natural security interest of the united states and that the threat posed by the detainees to the united states or u.s. persons would be substantially mitigated. there were assurances given by the qataris - i cannot get into that -- there are were ways we had to monitor them beyond what al qaeda is doing.

i think that first and foremost, the president thought that we had a commitment in the duty to leave no man or woman in uniform behind in the battlefield and he exercise that and has talked about it several times this week. he thought was the right thing to do and the secretary of defense who had to make those findings felt like first it was in the national security interest to move forward with this and second, that the threat posed by the detainees, now the transferees, could be substantially mitigated. that's what the discussions and dialogue with the qataris was all about. >> [inaudible] >> as you probably know, there are many ways of knowing what people are doing around the

country and around the world. i think it's fair to say we will keep an eye on them >> i know and your current role, you have been in this role for a small portion of time. the president has nearly -- had nearly six years to go big on climate change and specifically to address carbon emissions from power plants. why did he wait until now to do it? >> i have to say that in the first two years, we were seeking legislation. a bill passed the house and ultimately did not pass the senate. that was an economy wide approach that if you are an economist, you would save might be more efficient in getting those reductions. in the meantime, you got substantial reductions out of the transportation sector. he came back into office and

immediately began to work on the climate action plan in the second term. again, the centerpiece was to take reductions out of the sector for co2 emissions coming from the power sector. he has been deliberative trying to get her legislation when that failed, the congress is unlikely to really move forward. i think he was working in sectors of the economy to reduce the co2 pollution as much as possible. that's why we are in the position to keep our copenhagen pledge with this rule to reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020. had the president not taken the actions and the climate action plan -- let me start that over

-- had he not done anything including the transportation improvements to those who think this is all about fracking and natural sm these omissions were going to come down anyway, if he had not done that, you missions the united states has reduced its emissions more than any other country over this period of time and i think that's a his leadership, both in terms of the investments that were made in clean energy at the beginning of the administration through the recovery act and that these includingregulations much more efficient appliances anco