mr. chairman, that's not -- mr. durbin, i don't follow that analogy at all. >> no one should because it's -- >> it doesn't happen. >> well, i'll tell you how it happens. it happens when an infant is brought to the united states and the parents don't file the papers. the infant did nothing wrong. the infant has lived here their entire lives and graduated high school and now want a chance to earn their way into legal status. and you are saying because the parent didn't file the papers now the child must suffer. >> mr. durbin, if i might respond. you know, again, you need to blame those responsible and not us for having it be a nation of laws. i've met with these students at a.s.u. i've met with a bunch of them that are in that status. and we even shared some tears together. some of those are wonderful kids. and i don't know how you carve out -- because the way this bill works, there's always a blanket, everybody. it doesn't carve out individually. it's a blanket amnesty for those folks. there are exceptions that i thi

mr. chairman. well, i find it difficult to fully express how disappointed where i am and what i'm hearing today. i think you did a regional job laying out the nature of the fiscal crisis we face. the unprecedented proportions of this crisis and correctly observed that we desperately need a long-term budget plan. i've heard many people repeat that. the fact is republicans have offered this plan and with the exception of the chairman, democrats are unwilling to budge. this is a stark contrast. the house has passed the plan. and you can argue all you like and disagree and that's all fine and fair. but they laid out a vision and it's a plan that would put us on a sustainable fiscal path. i think that's indisputable. and from my point of view, an elected member of congress really doesn't have very much credibility taking potshots at these plans if they're not willing to offer an alternative. i think it's totally unacceptable. for either party to simply say we're opposed to that, but we're not going to s

mr. chairman, members, these are my comments. i respectfully submit them. >> thank you, senator gallardo. mr. landfried, you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for inviting me to speak today. for the record, my name is todd landfried, i'm the executive director of arizona employers for immigration reform. azer was formed in 2007 and has approximately 400 small, medium, large business members. we are not open borders pro-illegal businesses addicted to cheap labor nor put profits before patriotism. we know there are serious problems on the border and people's lives are being affected and the issue needs to be addressed. businesses want legal and efficient access to the labor it needs when it needs it from wherever it must come from with little government interference or interaction as possible. most importantly, we want you in congress to solve the problem. my remarks will focus on whether laws like arizona sb-1070 and others are good public policy based upon their impacts on business and the economy. by good public policy i m

mr. chairman. >> all right, either senator gallardo or mr. landfried? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> in terms of my question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senate bill 1070 has been the worst piece of legislation ever passed in the state of arizona. if you look at section 3b, what you were mentioning before, "where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the united states, reasonably suspicious." the only way to determine this it's not by clothing, it's by the color of skin, end of discussion. there is no way to enforce senate bill 1070 without using race as the determining factor if someone is here legally. i would propose that if mr. pearce and myself were walking down the street and you asked law enforcement to pick out the person who they suspect would be here undocumented, they're not going to be pointing at mr. pearce. they're going to be pointing at me. they have to use race in order to enforce senate bill 1070. that's the unfortunate part. and mr. chairman, if senate bill 1070 was so popular, why did the sponsor get recalle

mr. chairman. mr. miller, as i walked around my district this weekend, a lot of people were complaining about having to write collects to the irs. and in that light and based on your report, there were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in improper expenditures in 2010 with regard to this 2010 conference. gsa employees stayed in luxury resort suites, charged expenses for after hour parties, purchased food for non-gsa employees, just to name a few of the examples. one of the recommendations you made in your vort that, and tangherlini became acting administrator one of our first conversations was about sending a bill to the regional commissioner, the former pbs commissioner and others responsible for these in-room parties and other expenses. and i believe that the acting administrator has sent the bill. he's on the next panel, and i believe he would say that he has already at least taken steps to send a bill. >> if they don't pay it back what happens? you have a criminal or a civil remedies t

mr. chairman, mr. speaker, thank you. and i want to thank chairman mica and the leadership for working with our office to allow this amendment to proceed. and to be offered. just a reminder, this issue passed the house on a 2-1 vote back last october. and previously on a continuing resolution. the legislation has had strong bipartisan support with numbers of democrats voting in favor. so we're not here to rehash those old fights. what we're here to do is discuss how fly ash pertains to maximizing funds for our roads and our bridges and our construction projects. and protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs all across america. there are those who don't see the correlation between coal ash and concrete. even though it's been an integral part of concrete in america for over 80 years. quite frankly upwards of 316,000 jobs are at stake with this amendment. and over $100 billion in roads, bridges and infrastructure projects if coal ash is not recycled into concrete. keep in mind, 60 million tons of fly ash are recycled annually.

chairman mcdonnell: mr. leigh? >> no. chairman mcdonnell: and mr. alonso? >> no. >> please make the change. chairman district eight at 3.98 and district nine 4.94. >> can i ask about that other block as anoff set. chairman mcdonnell: no, not at this time. why are you trying tooff set? >> i didn't want to add more population to eight. chairman mcdonnell: is there a sentiment around trying tooff set this. >> i was not interested in offer setting. currently before this move, district nine was at 4.98. he would certainly pelfrey to stay away from 5% to the extent we can. >> and i am actually good with going to 5% in nine. chairman mcdonnell: thank you, but we are not going to do that at this time. we can add it to the bottom of our list of propose always. i didn't hear a proposal, so i am going to presume for purposes of moving forward that there is not a proposal with respect to the tingley-kayuga? >> i think we voted against it. chairman mcdonnell: no, what we voted against was the rotation. ok. so let's go then to to the sunny side and the conservatory . >> i

mr. chairman. one of my concerns i think there's been said for a long time since this uprising started that mr. assad's days are numbered and he can't long last but i worried about that ever since i was in israel last summer and had some conversations about that. what is the path for that happening? because as i said in my opening remarks the assad regime has sort of decided they don't care what the international community thinks. they are going to kill as many people as they need to kill to stay in power, and regretgly they are getting some sort of support from nations such as russia and china and much more direct support from iran, and that makes them clearly different than gadhafi in libya. gadhafi had no friends anywhere. he couldn't get that assistance. with that support what are the mechanisms -- the levers we need to pull to make sure the assad regime in fact goes, or might that support not be enough to let them stay, as violently as they need to? >> i think the concerns that you indicated, c

mr. chairman. i apologize, mr. westlake. >> you do not have to apologize ever for 29 seconds in this committee. senator kerry, then senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. indeed, the lines are blurred. in fact, it's pretty unclear right now where a lot of jurisdictions began and where they end. and i think we're way behind the curve. ironically, and i've said this before with the chairman here, as chairman of the subcommittee, i've said that we were really behind the curve within six months of the 1996 bill being signed. because we didn't really think very hard about data transmission. so a hearing like this is pretty important as we think about what's the role of government in the market going forward? and hopefully it will help us understand how free americans are to really engage in the creation and consumption of video in fair terms, at fair prices. as well as the role that competition is going to play in those choices. and i don't think we've tapped the answer to that yet, to be honest with you. you've men

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here this morning. always good to see you. i guess one concern that i have and others have had as well has been whether or not there's any intention of drawing down further the presence of u.s. troops in theater. is there any plan or are there any contingency plans to do that in light of all of the issues including sequestration that would play into that kind of scenario? >> congressman reyes, there are no plans that i am aware of that draws down any forces on the peninsula. we are staying at 28,500. there may be adjustments inside those capabilities, but it is those adjustments would be to improve our overall force posture. there are no plans that i am aware of. >> and in terms of the agreement that we have with the particularly for the stability of the korean peninsula with the south koreans, are there any concerns and i apologize for not having been able to be here. i had another meeting that i have to be at, but are there any changes that we contemplate ba

mr. chairman. and to you, mr. chairman, ranking member senator sessions and colleagues, i feel badly about coming so late. we just had a hearing on global trade opportunities, a key part of our job in the finance committee. that's why i've been late coming. with respect to my sense of where we are, it's pretty clear to me that what we have to find are big solutions for big economic challenges. and the history of all of those kinds of approaches, big solutions for big challenges, means you have to come up with a way to fashion bipartisan approaches. when we achieve meaningful progrowth tax reform, you had a republican president fighting for it, working with democratic colleagues, signing it into law in 1986. when we were talking about preserving the social safety net for senior citizens, president johnson championed it, pushed it through the congress with a huge bipartisan majority in 1965. so we have, mr. chairman and colleagues, two concrete examples of major solutions, solutions for the ages, that were achieved i

mr. chairman. and to you, mr. chairman, ranking member senator sessions and colleagues, i feel badly about coming so late. we just had a hearing on global trade opportunities, a key part of our job engine in the finance committee, and that's why, you know, i've been late coming. with respect to my sense of where we are, pretty clear to me that what we have to find are big solutions for big economic challenges. and the history of all of those kinds of approaches, big solutions for big challenges, means you have to come up with a way to fashion bipartisan approaches. when we achieve meaningful, pro-growth tax reform, you had a republican president fighting for it working with democratic colleagues signing it into haw in 986. -- into law in 1986. when we were talking about reserving the social safety net for senior citizens, president johnson championed it, pushed it through the congress with a huge bipartisan majority in 1965. so we have, mr. chairman ask and colleagues, two concrete exampleses of major solutions, so

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. wills. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, chairman dempsey, thank you for your service. i appreciate it as a veteran and also a very grateful parent of a son serving in the military. in the context of any instability that you're reviewing, i'm very concerned about the sequestration of the defense budget, which would be redemption of 8% to 12% beginning next january. you both have correctly warned of a hollowing out of the military, but people are still confused because they've heard and seen a $100 billion cut, a $487 billion cut, and now a pending $600 billion cut. it's just total confusion. what message do you have to the american people on the -- what do you want them to know about the effect of sequestration, mr. secretary and general? >> congressman, i try to make clear time and time and time again that sequestration and the cuts involved in sequestration would be a disaster for the defense department and would truly hollow out our force and weaken our national defense. we're already cutting close to a half a t

mr. chairman, it is the exception if there is. >> yes. mr. pearce, you get the last word before i conclude here. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i get a little disappointed that we're the bad guys for enforcing the law. first of all, proposition 200 passed in 2004 overwhelmingly by the citizens of the state of arizona also has that right of action to citizens to sue their government if they're giving out benefits to knows that are ineligible. >> what is that one? >> proposition 200. known as -- >> is that an immigration law? >> it dealed with voter fraud and proof of citizenship. no benefits for those in the country illegally. and that right of action is in that bill. >> did that allow law enforcement explicitly to be sued i? don't think so. >> it was just the benefits. and this -- i don't mean to argue with you but i'll correct you again. the law enforcement helped write that section. they got qualified immunity in that bill. qualified immunity to enforce the law. has to do with officials, the policy, setting, position, and agenc

mr. chairman. >> mr. burge is recognized >> thank you, mr. chairman. obviously the goal in this whole thing is how do you make us template easy to pick the rate plan for each individual? obviously someone's understanding of financial markets and what is best for them and trying to make a lifelong decision rather than a short-term decision. so i was kind of intrigued by the automatic iras. i'm part of the testimony, mr. john cummings talked about simplifying things, but also having automatic ira. the kind of my question to you, does the simplification comes first? 42 the automatic ira and the simplification after that quite >> i anticipate that given the direction of things that the auto ira comes first. the auto ira is crucial because if people don't save, if they don't get started early on, it doesn't matter if you simplify your not. >> thank you. i just had one kind of out-of-the-box question and it seems like so many people are going through a lot of different jobs today and so kind of the new normally several different careers, several different jo

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. lewis is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to apologize to members of the panel. i had to run out and speak to a group of eighth grade students, and so they kept me for a while. i heard your testimony, and i want to thank you all for being here. and i thank you for your service. ms. miller, it is good to see you again. thank you also for all that you do. ms. miller, many other people who criticize the question of tax incentives for retirement saving argue that they are for the wealthy. they say these laws favor high-income people. in your experience and research, do you find this to be true? do you have any ideas as how we can further increase participation among low and middle-income workers? how can we make it easy for people to save for retirement? >> that's a very good question. i think if you look at the retirement savings incentives, first of all, there is a cap on compensation that can be considered. and it's a 250,000. so when we hear a lot of talk about, let's cut incentives for people making over $250

mr. chairman, i asked the same question. and over the past two and a half years, the secret service office of professional responsibility has not received any such complaint. over that same period, the secret service has provided of protection to over 900 foreign trips and over 13,000 domestic trips. so from that standpoint, there was nothing in the record to suggest that this behavior would happen, andton really was, i think, a huge disappointment to the men and women of the secret service to begin with who uphold very high standards and who feel their own reputations are now besmirched by the actions of a few. >> to the extent any of them are listening to this hearing, i would hope they would not be distracted from their jobs, those hose are protecting it governor romney and those protecting president obama and all the other protectees. that's going to be job first. but then you and the director have the of job of seeing where we will go from here. can you assure us that will there will not be -- can you assure us that it

mr. chairman. good morning, mr. chairman, and distinguished subcommittee members. i am ronald davis, currently chief of police for the city of east palo alto, california. i am humbled to provide testimony at today's hearing, as mentioned i did have the honor testifying at last senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001. when asked to come before the committee today, the first thought that came to my mind was actually a question. what has changed since my testimony in 2001 when president bush then stated racial profiling is wrong, we will end it in america? my testimony today is based on three diverse perspectives. first, as a racial profiling police reform expert, second, as a police executive with over 27 years' experience, working in two of the greatest and diverse communities in the nation, oakland and east palo alto, and third, as a black man and a father of a teenage boy of color. first, as an expert, i think it it's fair to say law enforcement has made progress, albeit limited in addressing the issue of racial profiling and bias based policing. over the past

mr. chairman, mr. vice chairman, members of the committee. i'm dr. yvette roubideaux, director of indian health service and accompanied by vice director. i'm pleased to have an opportunity to testify on the president's fiscal year 2013 request, budget request for the indian health service. for my written statement, reviews in detail what his has completed in funding that congress has appropriated for us in the past few years. since 2008 the budget has increased and it's helped the indian health service make significant progress in our efforts to change and improve the organization as well as in addressing the priorities of our work. our partnership with tribes is fundamental to improving the health of our communities. each year we incorporate tribal budget priorities into our budget requests. we're also making progress on reforming the indian health service with an emphasis on improving the way we do business and how we lead and manage our staff, setting a strong tone at the top that we must change and improve, improving our financial controls, findi

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. forbes? >> thank you. mr. chairman, i want to thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing and for your questions on this and one of the things we know in early 2011 secretary of defense then robert gates said that north korean ballistic missiles could pose a threat to the united states within five years. what, if anything, does north korea's upcoming launch of the new rocket tell us about the ballistic missile technology advances, and to your knowledge, are we within four years of north korea fielding a functional intercontinental ballistic missile? >> congressman forbes, first off, the continued development and willingness of the north korean regime there to test ballistic missiles, and we've seen that continue for a period of time, is of major concern of ours. it has the potential to destabilize the region and as you point out, left unchecked, if their development continues, poses a serious threat to us, and it's something that i think we've got to maintain close vigilance on, and obviously, work

mr. chairman. >> thank you. of course we'll put your full statement in the record. as i told you, our jurisdiction over the u.s. secret service we did want to ask you questions there. i am of course all americans concerned about the safety of our president, whether it could have been jeopardized with this kind of behavior. just as i'm concerned about the safety of any of the protectees, i mentioned governor romney but there are several others. the misconduct we heard about, did that pose any risk to the president's security when in colombia or to national security? >> mr. chairman, that was my first question to director sullivan when he called me and the answer is no. there was no risk to the president. >> and you made that assessment? >> yes, based on the information supplied to me by the director. >> and is the secret service coordinating its internal investigation with the department of defense or any other u.s. agency that might have been involved in preparing for the president's arrival? >> mr. chairman, we are coordinating the investigation with the inspector

mr. chairman. >> you're recognized. >> thank you, very much, secretary mane. it seems to me the key question we come back to is whether -- whether there are teeth. whether the sanctions are so minor that -- i mean, m-i-n-o-r, that the poor performers have very little incentive to clean up their acts. what -- forgive me if i'm retreading ground that you've already been over. but it seems to me it's the key question. what do we need to do legislatively to strengthen the sanctions? >> i think i've talked about a number of this today. i think they're contained in legislation that was already before this body. and it deals with things i think are very fundamental. one is, you know, giving miners better protection for them to be able to speak out. i believe that those mine operators are flooding -- getting the best, and actions to curb things like advance notice that some still don't get it. that we need to deal with. >> the state of west virginia has done that, i guess. but this needs to be done at a fe

mr. chairman. mr. miller, have you made a referral to the united states attorneys office? >> to the department of justice, yes. >> i hope it's a different group than the one that handled fast and your i couldn't say. but you have made a referral? >> idndeed, yes. >> when did you make it? with a recommendation? >> yes. >> you made recommendations for criminals charges or just fyi? >> no, we have recommended criminal charges. >> all right. mr. chairman, the need for a hearing like this epitomizes our fellow citizens' frustration with government. they are absolutely convinced that we spend their money differently from the way that we would spend our own, and they are exactly correct. the rest of america cannot comprehend of a $44 breakfast. they are pouring generic brand cereal while you are eating a $44 breakfast. the rest of america would never conceive of a $7 monte cristo mini sandwich. and neither would you if you were spending your own money. you don't go out of your pocket and buy commemorative

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've had a lang standing issue and i think pretty strong credentials in this area. just to recount quickly, i worked with bill thomas before he was the chairman of this committee on raising i.r.a. rates. if you recall, that was not a favorite of mr. rosstencould you ski at the time. and carried with bob rubin, recalling the clinton proposal, in terms of differentiating itself from the bush proposal was the clinton rsa proposal was in addition to social security. the bush rsa proposal was as a substitute for social security. and have carried this i.r.a. issue for a long period of time. now, i introduced this bill five years ago. and is at least three of the panelis panelists, i know, have already endorsed it. and i suspect the other two have some sympathy for it. now, this proposal would -- could raise the national savings rate by nearly $8 billion a year. endorsed by brookings and now with hard work from david john and the heritage foundation, we've developed this proposal. i

mr. chairman. mr. diller, i'm curious, if you were still in the broadcasting business, what would you think about areo? >> well, you know, i probably would -- if i was in the broadcast business, i would do what every broadcaster has done since the beginning of broadcast which is to protect their arena and do anything to prevent anyone else from getting into it. but i would also recognize that the part of being a broadcaster was receiving a free license. and in return, you programmed in the public interest and convenience. and core to that was that if you had a finger in the air that -- or an antenna or whatever you could receive a signal without anybody being on the -- anybody taking a toll or doing anything to prevent you from receiving that signal directly. that's what areo does. areo's technology simply allows a consumer to get what was the quid pro quo for a broadcaster receiving a free license. >> so do you see yourself as selling network subscriptions in effect or do you see yourself as reselling

mr. chairman, for the record. one from frank gehry, the renowned art tech chosen to design the memorial. another letter is from david childs, the former chairman of the national capitol planning commission and the commission of fine arts. again, let me thank everybody in advance for your testimony. and with that, if any remaining time with the chairman's indulgence, if i could give that time to my colleague from california, if you may have any opening statements. >> sure. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, if i might, first of all, i'm really looking forward to this hearing. i agree with the ranking member that we really ought not to make design questions here. there are others that are far more capable of doing that. and the commission has it. but it would seem to me that our purpose ought to be to make sure that this gets done, that we get this memorial under way, and that it become available for the general public to memorialize and to remind us of the incredible contributions that this man made togeth

mr. chairman. >> i thank you the senator. senator kuhns is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, chairman conrad. thank you for your leadership of this commit and for putting this plan in front of us and for having this session today. i apologize for my late arrival. i was chairing a subcommittee hearing in the foreign relations committee. when i'm home in delaware, no matter where i go, people ask me about our deficits and debt. and it is something that matters deeply to the average american because they're used to in their families and their businesses having to balance their budgets. live within their means. they expect their government will do the same. i could give a long stem wipder of a speech recounting how we got here and who's responsible and assigning blame and essentially delivering a campaign speech. instead i'd rather focus if i can on what i think we all have in common today around this table. in my previous role as a county executive my job was in large part to find ways to balan

mr. chairman. we're going to miss your charts. when you're no longer chairman of the committee. we're not going to miss the bad jokes. and the friendly banter. i want to say how much i appreciate your efforts to bring a budget to the senate floor and how much i sympathize with your dilemma. even though as one of the acknowledged budget experts on capitol hill, there are not very many of them. i'm talking about you, not me. you understand our country faces a looming fiscal crisis. yet, majority leader reed, who determines what measures will or will not be brought to the floor of the senate, has shown no interest in having the senate complete one of the most fundamental duties. which puts you, as chairman of the budget committee, in an awkward position. that's both unfortunate and unfair. at the end of a long and distinguished senate career, you deserve much better, and so do the american people. as members of the committee know, it's been more than a thousand days since the senate passed a budget pl

mr. chairman, i look forward to discussing them at a future hearing here in this committee. in his prepared remarks, mr. diller states that consumer demand is a powerful force, and those who give consumers what they want will be rewarded in the marketplace. i couldn't agree more, which is why i believe we should be creating a deregulatory parody in the video market so investment and innovation, not lawyers and lobbyists, is rewarded in a free economy to the ultimate benefit of all consumers. finally, mr. chairman, i want to express my sincere interest in working together with you to seek ways to improve our laws and regulations to better serve competition, innovation, the national economy and most importantly, the american consumer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. thank you for those comments which, obviously, i share about working together. we have not sat together before, but we will sit together in the future. our witnesses are sublime. barry diller who i've known for many years. my wife says hi. chairman of iac, former chairman of paramount pictures, fox

mr. chairman, look at both sides of the ledger. it means making sure that we are responsibly cutting spending. in making sure our entitlements programs seniors and vulnerable families depend on are secured for the next generation. it means examining where we can save money, even on the defense side. and it means raising revenue. and for me, that, of course, puts on the table what i think is an important part of that, is looking at what wealthiest americans and biggest corporations are paying today in relation to fairness, to many middle income families. and i would just say that at the end of the day we have to all remember, that are around this table, numbers on a page are not what a budget is about. it's about the real people across this country that are being impacted. this is really about our future. mr. chairman, you have clearly outlined to all of us, and if we are serious about our work here, we will take what you have laid down in front of us and look at it seriously, and give you our input, recognizing the end of this year

mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator grassley is recognized. >> chairman conrad, thank you for calling, or -- i thank you, chairman conrad, for calling a markup of the budget for fiscal year 2013. setting a budget for the country is one of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of congress. the budget act requires congress to adopt a budget by april 15th. it's a requirement that this senate majority has ignored time and again. in fact, the senate hasn't adopt add budget since april 29, 2009. nearly three years have passed since the senate last adopted a budget. during that time, more than $4 trillion have been added to the nation's debt. we're in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of spending more than -- $1 trillion more than we take in. during this time, the senate democratic majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth, or a path to balance. they've said proposing a budget is, quote/unquote, foolish. it's no

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your opening statement. i think you struck exactly the right note. this isn't an opportunity for partisan exploitation. this is an opportunity for the oversight government reform committee to look at an agency where something went dreadfully wrong. i think mr. chairman you struck the right tone as did the ranking member and i thank you both for the way you began this hearing. mr. miller, you're the inspector general of gsa. how long have you been in that job? >> congressman, i was confirmed by the senate in july 2005. >> 2005. between 2005 and when miss johnson's office alerted you, were you ever aware of the fact that excess spending and raucous behavior and perhaps inappropriate use of resources was going on in the agency anywhere? >> we always look for that, sir. >> i mean, specifically talking about this kind of conference, because as you pointed out, this is not the first time this happened. happened in new orleans, in other locations. did any one at any point ever bring to your attention or did you dis

mr. chairman. mr. giddens there's been a lot of questions here today, maybe half a dozen regulators, maybe more, about what happened, what transpired, things been talked about, poorly capitalized, liquidity problems, when mr. corzine came on board. and we see something happen in the eighth largest bankruptcy that's ever happened where segregated funds were compromised. does this kind of stuff just happen? as a policymaker, you always look to say, what went wrong, what could we have done better, who screwed up? are you to a point where you can say that? i don't want you throwing anybody under the bus, just be honest. are you at a point where you can say, this is where the system failed? this was a regulator that either didn't do their job or did do their job, or if you've got a cagey enough accountant, you can juggle the books good enough, you can get away with just about everything? because it appears to me that, unless there's something else out there, and tell me what it is. >> i think that the evide

mr. scott? >> chairman long green, ranking member clarke, my name is tim scott and i'm the chief security officer for the dow chemical company. speaking today on behalf of the dow and the american chemistry council, the nation's largest trade representative. i'll focus on four points today. first, there are clearly concerns on all sides about the lack of significant progress on the implementation of the chemical facility in our terrorism standards. we see these as management issues and not as issues with the cfats concept. second, acc member companies implemented the responsible care code for security in 2002 and have voluntarily and significantly improved the industry's security over the past decades, spending nearly $10 billion on security enhancements. third, cfats has achieved some progress towards improving the security of our nation's chemical sector. the cfats concept and the design are good. and fourth, we now have an excellent opportunity to correct the course and complete the critical task before

mr. chairman. in fact, i would hope that we talk about the communications act a little bit more, the cable act and some of these issues. i would respectfully act in the near future to hold an oversight hearing on the sec. i would like to submit a statement for the record if that's okay. >> it's included. >> thank you. >> i call of you i marvel at the technological advancements and innovations that have taken place over the next 15 years. an unregulated internet market has been a dynamic force it's created many substantial and well paying jobs abroad and of course many the state of nevada. these advancements beg the question, whether the laws passed in the 20th century are outdated in relation to today's changing landscape. that's why congress should look at the laws regulating content districtors that are on the books and determine what makes sense and what does not for a world with a participant who's unregulated. they should do this while remembering the content should be protected and compensate

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. forbes. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, general dempsey, i want to thank you for this week for your strong statements on the issues of addressing sexual assault in the military. i think your leadership is well needed and appreciate your strong statements and your strong action. we had a meeting yesterday with general amos. we understand that general dempsey he is echoing your strong commitment. we appreciate your commit. . it makes a big difference for the men and and women who are serving. mr. secretary you say every day we're within an inch of war. as we look to the issue of syria, we no that russia and china have blocked two united nations security council resolutions with respect to syria and certainly i think that takes to us an issue when we look to the world and instability of a question with regard to russia and china. with regard to russia we've seen public reports that they continue to arm the syrian military. have sent russian advisors to syria and have deployed naval forces off the syrian coast. my fi

mr. chairman. >> mr. main, one of the conditions that led to the catastrophic explosion at ubb was the accumulation of coal dust. in fact, the investigation report contained pictures of belts that had been rolling through coal dust. as miss wol see eluded to, how can they attribute the this existence to restrains? >> i'm looking at two pieces, one is the conditions that are directly involved in the explosion itself. if you start with that and look at the area where the explosion occurred and where the fuel was at to cause that explosion, was there something we missed to cause that explosion. in that area, i didn't see any evidence from any of the reports that i found that noptors have walked by an area and did not take appropriate enforcement action. we're pointing out where they did inspect and did find in the critical area. one area that's important i ask myself is how did we have such an explosion right off the tailgate. there was no evidence the company had any real methodology in their posting explos