ms. anderson for the work you've done on this. this may come as a shock, but, you know, it's not always surprising to us to learn that an agency may be dysfunctional. so this is not always a surprise. but we appreciate the candor, and no one should ever be criticized or subject to anything for being very open, which you and ms. anderson have done, so i thank you for that. i believe that gives us some input. but i wanted to ask you a few questions, if i may, mr. wulf. you know, as i look through the report, one of the things that you said sometime were the issue of unions within the organization. can you tell me when the work force in the division was unionized? >> i can't give you an exact date on that. it was before ms. anderson's and my arrival, but i want to say spring of last year, in march. >> well, let's -- can you tell me, does each worker have to cast the vote in order for their votes to be recorded as far as do you know how the process works? non-voters are considered voters to unionize how that's counted? >> i'm not comp

ms. anderson's and my arrival. i want to say spring of last year, like march. >> well, can you tell me, does each worker have to cast a vote in order for their votes to be recorded? do you know how to process works and nonvoters are considered voted to unionize? >> i am not completely certain about that process. >> can you get me that information? >> absolutely. >> that would be great. can you tell me how many employees there are in the cfats program and how many are eligible for government unions and how many ever live voted to be represented by unions? >> i do not have the totals on voting. i would say there are approximately, and i do not have the exact numbers in front of me, a little bit more than 200 federal employees in the cfats program. those who would have been eligible to vote for union membership, that would be our field force, and on supervisory field force. so a little bit under 100 of those. >> at the time of union is it -- unionization, were all job descriptions in place that apply to that work forc

ms. anderson and mr. wulf on board. i guess a question would be since you've been on board, undersecretary since june 19, 2009, what took you so long to have an overview of this program? >> the initial indications of concern surfaced in the following year. prior to that, i had definitely had the sense that the program was an evolving program, that changes were being made, but they were being made in due course with appropriate diligence by the program managers. in july of 2010, i discovered a discrepancy in the way that people were being paid within the program and moved at that point to correct it. in the fall of 2010, we posted a announcement to -- >> let me -- >> -- of the program. >> not to be disrespectful, just to move to another question because the timeline is kind of important for us because you testified before us march 31st of 2011 and statements were made -- again, that's my comments back to mr. waxman was, you know, we were given a pretty good signal that things were going well. small problems, but nothing

ms. anderson. for being here. >> thank you. >> the dead on arrival what was the point of it. >> it was well a well really a way for him to get a new talking point. this was mentioned in the state of the union speech. he had been mentioning raising taxes on oil and gas lowering the tax rate and lowering the tax rate on manufacturers. that also plays into something that rick santorum had been trying to do, focusing on manufacturers, in terms of lowering the tax rate and jump-starting a job creation here. you've seen a president who has been feeling good these last days. you see a president where the economic numbers the job numbers, the unemployment rate has declined. i think is just furthering his message that he's on top of looking at job creation on top of this economy. and he really, i think takes away some of the momentum from some of the republican candidates who now have to fine a new talking point in terms of what they would do for the economy. >> and to that end romney's tax plan this analys

ms. anderson offers the example of what in my day was called the german measles, rubella. all it takes are five unvaccinated kids in a class of 25 for the herd immunity to break down, creating an opportunity for the disease to spread to younger siblings and to other mully vulnerable people who can't be vaccinated. if you were traveling toda euro between 2009 and 2011, you may remember warnings about the huge outbreak of measles there, brought on by a failure to vaccinate susceptible populations. here in the u.s., several recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to pockets of unvaccinated children in states that allow permanent belief exemptions. the reuters news service reports 13 confirmed cases of measles in central indiana. two of them were people who showed up for the super bowl in indianapolis. the giants fans back east have been alerted. so far, no news is good news. but this is serious business. made more so by complacency. my generation remembers when measles killed. as many as 500 people a year before we started vaccinating against them in 1963. my wife and i