Transcripts For CSPAN C-SPAN Weekend 20110409

a government that is using the fact that inactions criticized by the united states urt, the state department still has the mek on the terrorist list but has not determined whether that stds out the light of day. we are dramatially understating the amount we spend four u.n. military actions. this might help you on domestic politics. you can say, we're not putting in that much money. it undermines your efforts to do more. we are dramatically understating the cost of what we are doing in libya by using the marginal cost accounting and reporting that as costing only $600 million. we need to use full cost accounting which will reveal what is the american people instinctively understand which is that effort is calling -- costing us billions a week. if we use full cost accounting, which is the proper accounting approach, to tell the wor what we spent on the military actions sanctioned by the united nations, you will see that we are putting in 50%. >> i want to be very frank. where as i strongly support the ministration's decision to veto, i strongly object to your so-called explanation in which you not only support israel, but you join in the criticism of israel. in 529 short words, this administration i did most of not all of the good that had been done by its veto. i in my opinion, which or words you through israel to the wolves. secondly, on another issue, calling the massacre of un staff in afghanistan last week, the top u.n. official in afghanistan stated that "i do not think we should be binding in the afghan. if we should be blaming the person who barred the koran." i wonder if the administration agrees with that statement especially considering the united states is the leading founder of the un? >> mr. ile, the ranking member of the subcommittee is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. welcome, madam secretary. many of us met with the last week. i want to reiterate what a wonderful job you do as a representative of our country. we just met with ban ki-moon and expressed some of our frustration. i know that will come out later in the questions as well. we are frustrated and tired of the un using israel as a punching bag. i am hope there can be a repudiation of the goldstone report. judge goldstone himself repudiated it. i gave a speech last night the said the un repeated it as well i chaired the subcommittee on the western hemisphere. they are very chagrined at the recognition of palestine by the other countries. it becomes a disincentive for giving the palestinianto sit down and talk. they think they can just get recognized. these are some of the questions i will ask later on. i thank you personally for your good work. >> mr. schmidt from ohio is recognized. >> i just want to focus my remarks on two things. the first is the human rights council. it came into existence in 2006 to supposedly replaced the commission on human rights. it is difficult to see any difference. the council while significantly ignoring human rights abuses repeatedly introduces statements criticizing israel. its only purpose is to denounce our ally in the middle east. i suggest maybe we ought to move all the council. the second is might concerned with the excessive budget of the united nations and the disproportionate share paid by the taxpayers of the united states. we are paying 30% of the peacekeeping budget. we are paying one letter% of the cost to upgrade the security at the headquarters in new york. this amounts to $100 million. the biannual budget has more than doubled. larger budgets for the un means larger deficits for the united states. i think it has come time to reform our share of contributions. >> thank you very much. the ranking member of the subcommittee on europe and eurasia. >> tha you, merit -- mam chairman. >> let me thank you for the great work you are doing at the united nations. we are very proud of you and out you have represented the united states of america. i want to also send my condolences to the un family for the families who lost their lives in afghanistan in service to the uted nations. we are focused today on un reform. the u.n. has played a vigorous and vital role. the surity council resolutions -- resolution for libya and the un action represents the un at its best. on the 60th anniversary of the refugees, i would like to take special note of the critical activities around the globe. we note that the united states representatives have shaped this un situation. >> mr. kelly, the subcommittee on asia vice chair. >> thank you, madame chair. i am deeply concerned with the u.n. peacekeeping mission. as we go forward, we are all concerned about the unsustainable debt that the united states continues to run up. using the president of return of "investment", we need to see positive return on that investment. my anticipation to your testimony is going to be that un peacekeeping operations in libya right now as it continues to escalate, of like to know what our commitment will be as we go forward and the impact it will have on americans. >> mr. carnahan, the ranking member on the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. >> thank you, mr. chair. we are two years into the obama administration. we think there has been important progress. we still havserious concerns about some reform efforts at the un with the human rights council, in particular. recent successes like the human rights situation in iran are important. we are pleased to hear the announcement that the ministration will be running for another term. i believe challenges require a strong multilateral engagement. it is a far better policy than to retreat and disengage. it harms our national interest and plays into the hds of our adversaries. i would like to see us continue that policy of reform and we engagement. we appreciate your strong efforts. >> mr. duncan of south carolina. >> we would like a clear indication of how much the united states contributes to th uned nations. wiesses have not been able to provide numbers or statistics on how much we are spending and whatpecific programs american taxpayer support. furthermore, in the programs where we do know where the money goes, we see fundamental problems. american contributions in the past that fall into the hands of moss. that is unacceptable. these are core institutional flawless. it allows countries that commit human abuses to sit on its counsel and vote while possessingontinuous platforms of one-sided criticism of israel, a vital american ally. america should not tolerate such actions. you have a responsibility to uphold the united states constitution and make short american taxpayer dollars achieve the greatest return on investment. >> mr. connolly of virginia. >> thank you, madam chairman. three points -- history says that the unitedations has been a vital and essential part of far -- but affording u.s. foreign interest in the world. people need to remember that. secondly, the idea that we are going to take our model and go home because we do not like various aspects of the un, including it exercising its democratic right to disagree with us is a juvenile posture. rollp your sleeves and make it better. that is the answer. thirdly, the idea that the un is part of a global conspiracy to create a global government is rehashed. we have been hearing it for 60 years. it is not true. thank you and welcome to the foreign affairs committee. >> mr. sporkin very. -- thortenberry. >> the united nions presents us with some serious problems, challenges, -- the body can be used for great good or facilitate great harm. we have seen the result of un troops in the ivory coast to help quickly in that country's nightmare. however, when the power of the un is used to support ideologies that are inconsistent with universal values whether it be the human rights council or our own participation in the u. populationund which goes so far as to align itself with abortion advocacy -- we are as guilty as other nations for leveraging that body for controversy d norms that are an affront to human dignity and human rights. with that said, i believe you're pushed and support of the effort to pass the resolution combating discrimination and violence was -- had a very important effect in continuing religious freedom. >> thank you. >> crosses, madam chairman. ambassador, prior to an article last weekend, the human rights council had adopted a resolution on palestinian human rights to encourage -- accusing israel of ethnic cleansing. he confirms the is resort -- the israeli army did not intentionally fire. based on his findings and his statements, i hope that you speak to the council's ability to seek the revocation or the retraction of the goals don't report in large measure because of the opportunity it provides that israel has a right if not the deep to take action to protect its civilians to are being attacked. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much. mr. rivera. >> i want to reiterate my colleague's concerns they have about the un human rights council as well as our participation along with other countries that can only be called human rights abusers such as china and cuba and understand the justification for why we would participate in such a force as the un human rights council. cuba and the annual budgethat occurs at the un ccerning the embargo -- the embargo is u.s. policy. i would like to hear a little bit about what our efforts to make a more multilateral approach and bring more support to u.s. policies do not the region. we know that cuba, for example, is a state sponsor of terrorism. we know they are harboring terrorists. the castro regime is harboring fugitives from u.s. justice. i would like to know what our administration's efforts are in the un to make the u.s. embargo more of a multilateral support effort. >> thank you, mr. rivera. mr. sicily. >> thank you, madam chairman. i hope you can comment on the ise of palestinian unilateralism which i believe my other colleagues have mentioned prior to this as well. >> we are not used to that. it is light reform at the un. what we do? the vice chair of the subcommittee on terrorism, not revelation, and trade. >> thank you, mam chairman. i just want to execute the comments of my colleagues and the concerns they have talked about. specifically, look forward to discussing t funding of the united states of america to the un particularly for peacekeeping efforts where audits showed there had been fraud and abuse. beyond that, i look forward to discussion abouthe anti-israel bias that the u.n. attempts to exhibit. thank you for being here. >> ms. wilson of florida. >> thank you, chairwoman -- chairman for this important hearing this morning. i offer my belated condolences to the ambassador and her family. the ambassador's father passed away a little less than a month ago. he was one of the economic premiers of our nation and is greatly missed. second, during these fiscally tough times it is important that we have a fair process. we need to ensure that the people's money is being efficiently spent. we want to ensure that the law and intent of congress -- the laws are being followed. the american people expect no less. currently, the un is on the ground in afghanistan, libya, sudan, the ivory coast, among other war-torn localities. seven u.n. staffers were beaten, shot, and killed during the attack on their compound in afghanistan. the un, while not perfect, has done much to for both the goals of the un and the united states. i thank embassador price for your hard work in protecting the interest of the united states. >> gracias, so much. thank you to all the members for excellent opening statements. we are so pleased to welcome a friend of our committee, ambassador susan rice. she is the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations. she served in the clinton administration as assisnt secretary of state for african affairs from 1997 until 2001 and a senior post on the national security council from 1993 until 1997. calling her service in the state department, choose aenior fellow at the brookings institution. she has also served in the private sector and on numerous boards. we thank her for agreeing to testify today. madame ambassador, please proceed and welcome back. >> gracias a very much. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. it is an honor to have the chance to come before the committee again today. i thank you, madam chairman, for including michael statement in the record. iant to begin by expressing my gratitude to the many kind words of sympathy that have been expressed by many members of the committee regarding the recent losses of the united nations has suffered in many countries. it has been a difficult time. your expressions of sympathy will be greatly appreciated. i want to begin this morning by recalling the un's response to the crisis in libya, which in my opinion, should further remind us of the value of the united tions in an age of 21st century challenges. with u.s. leadership, the security council swiftly authorize the use of force to save civilians at risk of mass slaughter. it eablished a no-fly zone and imposed strong sanctions on the gaddafi regime. with broad international support, we also suspended libya from the human rights council by consensus -- a historic first. as we well know, american resources and influence are by no means when it was. that is why the united nations is so imptant to our national security. it allows us to share the costs and burdens of tackling global problems rather than leaving these problems unattended were leading the world to the united states alone. i therefore ask f this committee's support for the president's budget request, the contribution to internional ornizations, and to the account to help us advance u.s. national interest. our leadership at the united nations makes us more secure and -- in at least five fundamental ways. first, the u.s. prevent conflict and keeps nations from slipping back into war. more than 120,000 military police and civilian peacekeepers are now deployed in 14 operations worldwide in places such asaiti, sudan, and liberia. just 98 of those individuals or americans in uniform, all serving under u.s. command and control. we are supporting stability so that american troops can come home faster. these are examples of burden- sharing at its best. secondly, the un help halt proliferation of nuclear weapons. over the past two years, the united states led efforts that imposed the toughest sanctions to date on iran and north korea. third, the united nations helps isolate terrorist and human rights abusers by sanctioning individuals and companies associated with terrorism, atrocities, and cross-border crime. fourth, humanitarian and development agencies go where nobody else will to provide desperately needed assistance. un agencies deliver food, water, and medicine to those who need it effort -- who need it most. fifth, un political effor can help promote universal values that americans hold dear including human rights, democracy, and equality, whether it is by spotlighting human rights abuses in iran, north korea, and burma, we offer support to governments in indonesia as they prepare for elections. let me turn briefly to our efforts to reform the un and improve its management pracces. our agenda focuses on seven priorities. first, un managers must enforce greater budget discipline. it's the secretary general as was noted recently instructed senior managers to cut 3% from current budget levels. that is the first proposed reduction in 10 years. second, we continue to demand a culture of transparency and accountability for resources and results. we aggressively promote a strengthened independent office of oversight services and an improved ethics framework that enhances protection for whistleblowers. third, we are pushing for a more mobile un work force that incentivize is service in tough assignments, rewards top performers, and removed [unintelligible] fourth, we are improving protection of civilians by combating sexual violence in conflict zones, demanding accountability for war crimes, and strengthening u.n. field missions. fifth, we insist on mandates for peacekeeping missions. not a single new u.n. peacekeeping operation has been created in the last two years. not a single one. in010, for the first time in six consecutive years, we closed missions and reduce the peacekeeping budget. 6, we are working to restructure the logistical support system for peacekeeping missions to make them more efficient, cost- effective, and responsive to realities in the field. finally, we are pressing the un to finish overhauling the way they do business including updating their technology platfos and accounting procedures. but the un, we all agree, must do more to live up to its founding principles. we have taken the han rights council in a better direction, inuding creating a speci raconteur on iran. much more needs to be done. the council must deal with human rights emergencies wherever they occur and its membership should reflect those to respect human rights, not those who abuse them. we also continue to fight for fair and normal treatment every day for israel throughout the united nations sysm. the tough issues between israelis and palestinians can be resolved only by direct negotiations between the parties, not in new york. that is why the united states vetoed the security council resolution in february. we consistently oppose anti- israel resolutions in the general assembly and wherever they may arise. the un, we all agree, is far from perfect, but it delivers real results for every american by advancing u.s. security through genuine burden-sharing. that burden-sharing is more important than ever at a time when the threats do not stop our borders, when americans are hurting and cutting back, and when american troops remain in harm's way. madam chairman, thank you for your willingness to get me this opportunity. i am pleased to answer the committee's questions. >> thank you very much. will begin with the question and answer period. since the u.n. continues to be used to propagate anti-israel bias, it is important for the u.s. to show leadership and stand publicly and unuivocally with the jewish state. accordingly, i respectfully request this of you -- will you take this opportunity to publicly pledged that the u.s. will join canada and israel in not participating in the upcoming hate-fest and that the u.s. will hold -- will withhold funding from it? the u.s. will push for the u.s. to repudiate the goldstone report or is the u.s. going to push for a correction in the record to accurately reflect the rejection of judge goldstone on this report? if anything else that is brought to the un that would recognize a palestian state or upgrade the stat of the palestinian observer mission, that the u.s. will do anything it can to oppose and stop such measures and will be to them at the security council before they get to the general assembly? >> thank you, madam chairman. let me take this collectively first and then individually, if i may. first of all, as i said in my testimony for the record, the united states, every day, stands firmly and unequivocally in support of our ally and partner, israel, in the united nations where they often come under illegitimate and unfair attacks simply for existing. we do this because it is in our national interest. it is manifestly the right thing to do. we spent a great deal of time and effort combating any anti- israel efforts, a peak -- opposing them, the killing them as necessary, and preventing them from arising as -- in the first place. we have had frustrations in some places and success in others. we have succeeded in of -- in incorporating israel into groups it seeks membership to. we have seen israel successfully achieved leadership positions in the united nations. we successfully opposed resolutions that a rose to condemn rael in the i.a.e.a. this is part of the daily work we do every day. coming to your specific questions -- i have them. with respect to the durbin conference, we withdrew from the conference that occurred in geneva in 2009. we did so out of great frustration with the fact that the problems with the original conference as they related to israel remain changed. you know also that this administration and congress stands strongly in support of condemning racism. we are deeply concerned both by its likely content and timing. that is what the united states opposed the resolution establishing this commemorative conference. that is why we have not participated in any active way. i do not anticipate our posture will change. with respect to goldstone, the united states has been clear from the outset that we believe that report was gravely and fundamtally flawed. it was -- a completely and unfairly drew conclusions about israel's intentions and conduct. we have not seen any evidence that israel has committed crimes against civilians or other war crimes intentionally. we have seen judge goldstone call into question many of the fundamental conclusions of his original report. we are very interested, as i said yesterday, in ensuring that the follow-up actions that have been contemplated with respect to goldstone seize and go no more. secondly, we would like to see this entire goldstone proposition disappear. we are consulting closely with court friends and partners about the procedural steps we might take to address our concerns about the original report and judge goldstone's recent revelation. i have not formally decided. there are various options out there. i want to say that the most practical ones require further action either by the human rights council or the general assembly. >> thank you. i am sure other members will ask abt the palestinian state recognition. i want to recognize my friend, the ranking member from california. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like you -- this is obviously a level of speculation as to what would happen -- but indicate on some of the critical missions you have undertaken with, i think, a remarkable amount of success over vital issues. if the u.s. was in a position where we were significantly in arrears of our treaty obligations, hell with your ability to facilitatend achieved some of the successes you have been able to achieve around sanctions, these efforts to fight resolutions of the i.a.e.a. -- how would your skills be impeded in terms of achieving or maximizing the chances of achieving the results we want? if you could play out your thoughts on that particular issue. i would note for this purpose that you were in the executive branch of government the last time we were significantly in arrears. but it was a helms initiative. that was politics. what damage did do their to our standing and our ability to do the job of pursuing american interests through diplomatic means at the united nations? >> thank you. there is no question when the u.s. is in debt to the un or when we fail to meet our obligations to pay our contributions, our influence is diminished and our standing is injured and our ability to puue important initiatives that advance u.s. national security and u.s. national interest is greatly undermined. the dues we pay those four things we vote for in the security council. the bulk of our expenses are for peacekeeping. these are missions we decide to authorize and deploy because we think they do things that matter to the united states. genocide in darfur. preventing the flow of refugees in stabilizing haiti. bringing democracy and security to every coast. the list goes on. these are things that we have authorized and supported because they serve our national security interests because we have taken the decision that to do nothing would be intolerable and dangerous, and to do something with other sharing the cost in the burden of the military operation is much more sensible than us contemplating doing it alone. this is why it is in our interest beyond that. when we are not fulfilling our obligations, our influence, our leverage, the value of our diplomacy is substantially undermined. i recall in the 1990's how that was, and i can tell you the cooperation we have managed to achieve to impose tough sanctions on iran and north korea to authorize strong action in libya and ivory coast and other things would not be possible if we were again in a situation of debt. >> let me use my remaining time to throw out one proposition. one thing that unifies this committee and i am happy about it, is the focus on the efforts to delegitimize israel's in the un and its component bodies. have the israelis indicated to you they would hope you would embrace a strategy of not participating there were withholding dues as a way of helping them to overcome this very intentional assault on their standing? >> absolutely not. on the country, we partner every day closely with israel and our ability to be a leader in strong standing with maximum influence is serving their best interest as well. that is why -- that is among the reasons. it is important to point out is not just the obama administration, it is the bush administration, and all previous administrations that have taken the strong view that is counter to our interests t use withholding of dues as a means of obtaining our picy objectives. it does not work. it is counterproductive, and the record shows it. >> thank you >> if you could tell us what role the u.n. peacekeeping operations will occur in south sudan after july 9. if you could speak to the issue of use in condo. how you see that playing out by un peacekeepers? also, years back, i held a series of hearings and offered an amendment othe issue of anti-semitic language in unra text books. we are the major donors. has that been fixed? half a billi dollars over the last two years. we should have zero tolerance for anything that is anti- semitic or anti american when we are footing the bill before those textbooks -- for those textbooks. i raised this with increasing alarm as far back as 1983. that is a barbaric one child per couple policy with its heavy reliance on forced abortion and forced sterilization. brothers and sisters are illegal in china. that has not changed. i easily worked on a case of a woman who was being compelled in -- recently worked on a case of a woman who was being compelled to get an abortion who had a first child and wasot allowed to have a second. i will share with you privately, it was a successful outcome but she is the exception in the prc. women are allowed only one child. as you know, for 30 years, the u.n. population fund has aided and abetted the barbaric policy and they have heaped praise upon it and have trained the cadres. a serious effort was made to find out exactly what that training was, and a stone wall. i wonder -- would like to be part of that to find out what is going on with regards to the work there because as secretary, negroponte pointed out, china's birth limitation program remains harsh the course of in law and practice, including abortion. it is illegal in almost all, the -- provinces for single woman to bear a child. if you're on with, you are forcibly aborted even if it is -- if you are not married, you are forcibly boarded. the state departmt noted that course of and the un comports with and it appears to chinese law. in those counties where unpa is operating, they follow chinese law. the impact and i know you know this, there is the gender disparity 10 years ago in the state department. it was revealed upwards of 100 million girls are missing in china. the direct result of gendercide. the targeting of a girl in utero and the destruction of th infant baby girl simply because she is female. some people are smiling and laughing on your staff. it galls me to no end that we have not raised this issue, even cedaw has raised it not to the proportionate ought to. it is unconscionable that girls are being targeted because they are being girls and systematically eliminated. 40 million men will not be able to find wives because they have been eliminated as of results of the policy. i strongly encourage you, we need to be the same page with this. these are crimes against gender. crimes against humanity. where is the genocide convention panel of experts? where others? where's the human rights council? the periodic review punts on this with regard to china. i would ask you please, raise this iss aggressively and take back if you would the request to have real transparency with regard to unfpa. >> i am not sure i will address that -- be able to address that in the 30 seconds remaining. in post-saddam, the un is in the process of -- sudan, the u.n. is talking to authorities about what would be the optimal follow-on configuration for mission. we expect there to be one. we want it to -- the composition will depend on how far the two parties get in negotiating the remaining issues and what the government itself chooses to ask for. sexual exploitation in the condo is a subject of the gravest concern to the un -- the united states. >> thank you. this is a serious issue that merits further inquiry and we look forward to getting your response, perhaps after the hearing. if not in written form. -- if not, in written form. >> thank you. i agree with my colleague from new jersey about policies in china. i think that probably one of the things that has made china as strong as it is is because of the embrace u.s. businessmen have made to china. we have a policy where the government istronger by the largess they are able to get out of our business community. when we look at issues, maybe the burden is not necessarily the un but the behavior of our u.s. business people where this does not become an issue. let me say that i think i believe participating in issues like human rights council and i believe that if we could argue our points to the ipu, the international parliamentary union. a group that the u.s. removed itself from 10 or 15 years ago. we refuse to come back because of the issues which there is no ice within the ipu to assist israel in its argument as they stay there by themselves without the support of the u.s. let me command the assistance you have done in sudan with the 90 plus percent turnout. the 97% of people who said they should remove. i would like to know what we can do to pressure the result. if it remains unresolved, i believe what will happen in sudan between the north and south. it will be similar to the issue in pakistan and india that has not been resolved and still continues on. i wonder if you cou comment on the somalia and un's assistance to the au in peacekeeping. also in ivory coast, i commend un for their resolutions. is there any action that the un will take for gbagbo to step down? in western sahara, morocco continues to illegally occupy western sahara. is the un doing anything to do with that situation? >> thank you. let me begin with southern sudan and the question there. as you know, the u.s. has been very active in trying to not only originally to broker the cpa but make sure of its implementation and trying to resolve all the outstanding post referendum issues. it is -- should have beedealt with in its own referendum. the ambassador who was recently named by president obama as his new special envoy is out in the region as we speak. he is working actively with both parties as well as with the au high-level panel to push for resolution there. we understand its significance as critical issue that needs to be resolved. as you know, it is one of the most difficult ones and thus far, we have not seen their party's exhibit sufficient flexibility to not resolve it swiftly. there are a number of important post-referendum issues that are still to be negotiated. all of which are high on our agenda. ivory coast has been raised by others as well. the u.n. is playing an active role and have been. in making clear what who n the election. the president outtara was budget, the elected and g was legitimately elected. -- the president was legitimately elected. they are taking out heavy weapons and to facilitate the emergence of a representative government there. the un is taking a lot of casualties. it is under attack, but it is with the -- doing with the support of the french important work to take out the heavy weapons and we hope the bloody standoff which is persiing will soon end. i do not know if -- >> these are all serious topics and i sincerely apologize to the members for the time limitation. we have so many folks who want to ask questions. each one merits a fuller discussion. >> thank you. thank you, ambassador rice. let me note that when we are spending $1.50 trillion that we're taking in and we realize this is heading us toward a financial catastrophe of historic proportions, as the interests we have -- interest we have to pay goes up and the interest rates go up as inflation cuts into our economic reality. asking right now the amount of money we are being asked to spend for the un is $6.30 billion. is that correct? is that the correct figure of what we're being asked for? >> no. >> thank you for your importa question. we need to have clarity on what is the budget request. >> what are we asking to give to the united nations from the united states? >> we're asking for 1.$1.61 $9 billion for the regular budget and for other international organizations. not all united nations. it is the regular budget request as a subset of that -- that is 568 million and for peacekeeping for fiscal year 12, we're requesting $1.90 billion in -- and to apply another to under $25 million in existing credits to meet our contributions which we estimate will be $2.145 billion. >> what does that add up to? >> i can get you that in the second. it is 1.619 + 2.145. >> providing this type of money to an organization that uses israel as a punching bag is something that is not acceptable. the people in the united nations who are using israel as a punching bag are people who they themselves are guilty of major crimes against humanity. whether it is time and the gendercide we hear about or the countries who murder and repress their people. let me ask you this going to the question of my position on claptrap. >> are youeady? >> all right. do you believe the u.n. resolutions limit us to what we can do in our own interest as -- what our government can do in our interest. >> no. >> un resolutns do not limit the united states as to what we could do in our own interest? >> no. there is no such thing as a u.n. resolution that the u.s. has not voted for. first point. second point -- >> does not china have a veto power? >> there is no resolution that can pass the security council without u.s. support. >> and for me. as a video -- inform me. is a position and veto the same? >> no. >>nless we are refraining, a resolution can go through. >> we have three choices when we vote. we can vote yes, we can abstain which we almost never do, or we can vote no. when we vote no, that is the equivalent of a veto. nothing can be adopted by the security council without the u.s. the set. >> right. with the u.s. not abstaining. >> that is a form of a cent. we have allowed it to get through. >> we could talk about that in greater depth. let me ask about the money. how much has the budget grown over 10 years? >> let me answer your prior queson. you asked it totals 3.539 is the sum of our request for the cio contributions which includes the regular budget of the un which would take too -- 22% and 1.920 for peacekeeping. the cio account includes a number of international organizations like the oas. i am giving you 3.539 is the sum total of what they administration is requesting fiscal year 2012 for cio and peace-keeping accounts. >> for all un activities, we are talking about 3.5. >> that is why said. that includes other international organization activities. >>one last note. >> you are over five. thank you. i apologize. >> this is something we need to tell your boss about. >> we're very aware. >>hank you. the ranking member is recognized. >> i will ask you to respond to the accounting issue. i hope the administration will use full cost accounting, which is the legitimate system o acunting, and live with a politica disadvantage of truthfully telling the american people how expensive it is for us to provide military assets to these u.n. authorized activities. you will gain for our country the diplomatic advantage of telling the world the enormous burden that the american taxpayer absorbs in order to make available to such actions as libya, our unique military capacity. as to libya, the issue has arisen as to what does the president have the power to do in the absence of a statutory authorization passed by both houses of congress? my question for you is, is the president's legal power expanded? does he have more permissible options because our actions in lia are pursuant to a united nations resolution? does the un resolution have any effect on presidential power? >> let me begin with your first question. i think there are important clarifications that need to be made. there are un operaons, which are un blue helmeted or field missions for which we are requesting funding in the account and these are the 14 missions i described in places like haiti and ivory coast. >> i hope you would account -- respond the accounting question. >> i am trying my best but i have to do with clarity. >> i fully understand they are the blue helmeted operations and are authorized. >> the security council might bless or authori that we do in our own national interest. that would include afghanistan. and iraq. >> regard those as cost consistent -- i regard those as cost consistent with the un. could you please respond? >> i am trying to. the libyan mission is not one that falls under u.s. accounting or un budgets. it is mething we are undertaking -- >> could you address my libya question as to t war and the powers of the president? >> as to the powers of the president, they are what they are as spelled out in the constitution and they are neither enhanced or diminished by un security council resolutions. >> you're not claiming that the un participation act expands the power of the president to act with regard to libya? >> i am not. >> ok. what is the administration's position on palestinian attempts or discussion of a unilateral declaration of statehood? will the u.s. work actively to defeat this attempt in the general assembly should it arise? would it -- what has the administration done and what are you planning to do? >> thank you. let me explain if i can come up process here. for a member of a new state to gain membership, two things have to happen. it has to be recommended by the security council, where we have a veto, and it must be agreed by two-thirds of the general assembly. if tt issue were to arise, while i obviously would not want to address definitively a hypothetical, i can say with some high degree of confidence that the establishment that way of a state prior to the final status issues be resolved in the -- and direct negotiations would run counter to standing u.s. policy. there is not a risk of palestinian state being included in the un as a member state without the u.s. agree to that. ok? what we could face separately is the general assembly adopting a political declaration. that does not have the weight of international law, but would perhaps some other form of weight, political or symbolic. that they could do without reading a state formally without creating a umember ste and that would ba political declaration of the sort that could comeefore the general assembly. it is fair to suspect we might not be in the majority. >> thank you. i will recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia for five minutes. we have three votes and we will return. >> thank you. in my opening statement, had one minute and now have five. i would like to return to the topic of the proposed statement condemning israel. as i previously stated, many of those in congress were disappointed of the handling of the recent draft resolution of the un surity council that seleively critized and condemned israel. the administration said over and over again including to this committee that the security council was wrong. it was the wrong place to address final status issues. you repeatedly refused to commit in advance to veto the resolution, leaving israel twisting in the wind. we found out not directly from the administration but fr the press you had reversed or position and were trying to get the security council statement criticizing israel instead of a resolution. when the statement was rejected and the resolution came up for vote, you vetoed it but issued an astonishing explanation that did not support israel but joined in criticism. many of us were extremely disappointed that the administration thought this appropriate kamala below acceptable. as i stated previously, in 529 short words, the administration and dithe good that had been done by veto. in criticizing israel, used such language as, reject in the strongest terms corroded hopes for peace an stability in the region, devastates trust, folly, and a legitimacy. these were the words you read it before the world stage. you close, we therefore have opposed this draft resolution. many of us read this as we agree with the demonizing, condemnation, and vilifying, but we regrettably have to vote against it. we wanted to support the resolution and we agree with the substance. we were regrettably -- we have to vote against it. with those words, we threw our friend and ally to the wolves. the united states i think has to look at this closely. th un is a deeply flawed body and i'm disappointed to say that on february 18, added to this clause instead of being a force for good. as a strong defender of our ally israel, i reject in the strongest terms this administration's criticism of israel. nick rhodes hopes for peace and stability in the region and it devastates trust. i regrettably have to oppose the folly and the legitimacy of that statement. perhaps you can clarify for me, what was the administration tried to accomplish? would you want the u.s. to be treated this way by our allies? how can our calls to end the demonizing of israel be taken seriously when this administration refuses to speak out at a critical time when it really matters? >> this is such an important issue that i would like to have the opportunity to respond in full. if you would be generous with the time conraints, i would appreciate it. i have to say with all due respect, i reject your characterization of that statement. let me explain the following. the video itself -- to veto set this message and we were clr about bringing a resolution forward, which we oppose. the statent laid out policy and said we are committed to a comprehensive and lasting peace. it said we're focused on the goal of a two-stage solution. it said we are -- the only way to achieve that is to -- through direct negotiations and the draft relution under discussion risksardening the position of both sides and encouraging the parties to stay out of negotiation and toome back to the council if there's an impasse it noted policy we have opposed unilateral steps by either party that could undermine trustor prejudge any final status issues. settlement activity falls into that category and the explanation of u.s. policy of six prior consecutive administrations which has been consistent, it was president bush in april 2002 who said israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop. in 2005, secretary rice said u.s. policy is clear. the expansion of settlements ought to stop and settlement activity ought to stop. we're concerned about activity that would prejudge the outcome of a final status agreement. the only way to reach us -- a solution is through negotiation. every potential action must be measured against one standard. will it move the parties closer to the agreement? that was what my statement said and you need to read it in its entirety. it reflects a longstanding american policy of successive administrations. we stood strongly against the resolution. we vetoed it and if there is any amguity, i do not know what it is. thank you. >> i stand by my statement. >> i regrettably have to say i reject this, but it has to come to an end. we will come right back. we have eight minutes to vote, and we will be back so the committee is in temporary recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the committee is back in session. [inaudible] >> thank you, madam speaker. i heard what you said. [inaudible] i would like to say as to the budget. i heard the member of the subcommittee read your statement regarding the veto. i have heard about [inaudible] [inaudible] and i just cannot understand it. you do not say anything about the rocket fire into israel. you cannot talk about 10 months that benjamin netanyahu did not move on settlements because he was [inaudible] i got it right here. >> please read it. >> you can say anything they want -- that you want but facts are facts and this is right here. we would like to put it to israel. we do not think [inaudible] in your -- your statement is unacceptable. there was criticism across the spectrum on things that were said. there is no question that -- the israeli government has taken steps to do with the problem. you did not mention that. [inaudible] that -- no mention of that or the rocket fire for the civilians that are put in danger. i do not understand that. when the administration says they are supporting israel and the wait till the last minute -- they would until the last minute -- the administration should have said we support israel. we want there to be a solution. there should be a reasonable expectation [inaudible] that should be the criteria. not blaming israel. beating them over the head and not talking about the rocket fire or danger to civilians. i just do not get it. maybe you can explain. [inaudible] are you with us as far as congress is concerned? your statements do not indicate that at all. >> i object strenuously to your mischaracterization. >> i object to your statement. >> [inaudible] push the button on your microphone. thank you. >> i object to your suggestions this administration and government is in any way not in support of israel. [inaudible] every day, i and my colleagues stand up in support. this is an important topic. we have made a top priority of trying to broker a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians at the two state solution. the issue on the table was of resolution on settlements. president obama instructed me to veto the resolution and i did so. my explanation of both explains why we vetoed it. you're welcome to insert it into the record. it operated the longstanding u.s. policy of six consecutive administration's which is that settlement activity is illegitimate. it would set more than that. it spoke about our commitment to a two-stage solution and our opposition to resolving or attempting to address and resolve issues that can be resolved through a -- through negotiation in the context of the resolution. for this or any subsequent efforts to bring any kind of final status issue before the security council, that is something we have and we will consistently opposed. >> i would like to yield. >> without objection. >> the entire statement. >> that might be limited but we will look into that. it will be made part of the record. i apologize for the technical difficulties. they're trying to work this out. [no audio] i'm sorry about the microphones not working. >> madame ambassador. i will try to bailout. i want to personally thank you for the tough job your doing. it is not easy to defend some of the practices of the united nations. you can understand why so many people on both sides of the aisle are frustrated and why thwe think the u.s. needs to be seriously revamped. 42 of 65 countries specific are anti-israel. as ben hat -- as has been set, some of the worst human rights abusers in the world sit on that human rights council. i am wondering if you could tell us two things. number one, the goldstone report was rejected on the house floor by this body right after it was passed in the un, and we rejected it because we said israel -- it is almost a blood libel. as siobhan press said -- shimon peres said. the rocket from gaza hit a school bus, injuring children. we know that hamas deliberately target civilians. therefore, israel has undergone an investigation and has come up with the fact that israel did not target civilians and that is why judge goldstone has repudiated reports. what can we do to make sure that the un repudiates the report, because there was some in the un who want to go forward with the original report as if it were truth and we know it is not. secondly, unilateral declaration of a palestinian state which i know [inaudible] i know that we will. if the un general assembly passes it, it may be a political statement but it has no effect. i think the recognition impedes a peace agreement because it tells the palestinians they need not sit down and negotiate but somehow they will get their state by refusing to negotiate. israel or any country cannot be put in a position of preconditions to sitting down and talking. these are serious issues that will be resolved in status talks but not as a precondition. i wonder if you can tell us how we can try to ensure goldstone is repealed and as the resolution was repealed several years ago and what is the administration doing to combat this terrible bias? what you hear in the frustration here is people say, why should we continue to fund the united nations when time and time again, it comes out against what we think is in the best interest of the united states and our ally, israel? your argument that has credence that we have to stay and fight -- i am sure you understand how frustrating it gets printed when we pay the lion's share and we get spit in the face and our ally gets it in the face. i would appreciate your comment. >> thank you. i appreciate the spirit of your questions. we absolutely have been unequivocal in our condemnation of the substance and conclusions of the goldstone report in which we have been clear on from the outset. we are as i mentioned earlier, are in the process of talking to partners on this about how best in light of both the subsequent actions we are [inaudible] as a result of goldstone and the "the washington post" that we might accelerate our efforts to put this entire sad episode to bed. our goal is twofold. one is to prevent follow-up actions in the security council and other bodies from materializing and secondly, we share your interest in trying to clear the record. whether that can be done through repudiation, that would require a new resolution of both the human rights council and the general assembly or whether there are procedural mechanisms we can employ. a mess to accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners -- and our aim is to accomplish that and we're trying to consult with partners to accomplish these goals. >> we hope we can get israel removed from the permanent agenda. >> we welcome the congresswoman from alabama. always welcome to our panel. >> i have three questions for you. two concerning the secretary- general and a third recount -- regarding funding. ban ki-moon appointed experts to advise him and make recommendations on the issues of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and the humanitarian law joins this bandage -- joins the stages [inaudible] will the u.s. pushed the united nations to publish this report? the secretary-general has violated the rules and regulations of the un by appointing as his special envoy for libya out an official from the government of jordan. [inaudible]who b this is in violation from rules that no official may receive in come from no outside source. does it agree that the secretary general should not be violating the rules of the organization? can you explain to me why the united states is paying one had a% of the security upgrade cost at the united nations headquarters in new york? >> thank you. let me begin with your last question. about security upgrades. with regard to the un building and its renovation, we paid 22%. that is our regular budget share of the cost of the overall renovation. it is important to note that american contractors have received the lion's share of the contracts that have been over the renovation. for every dollar we spent, there is $4 coming back into the united states into our economy. the second point, security upgrades. the city of new york at the newark police department -- and the new york police department recommended the renovation given the terrorist threats that face the building and given its geographic location over the fdr freeway and on first avenue. that there be additional security upgrades above and beyond what was envisioned when the original master plan was implemented. the estimated cost was hundred " -- $100 million. the state department and administration in conjunction with new york authorities and the city as well as the police department made the judgment it was in our interest to get the security upgrades done and done in a timely fashion so the cost overruns were not accepted down the road. american citizens are most affected by the security of the u.n. building in terms of 40% of those in and out of the building are americans but it is americans driving under the it.lding, walking by a that was the decision to invest in our security and make those upgrades. with respect to the panel of experts, the report is coming forth. we look forward to it and we think it would be beneficial if it were available publicly. with respect to the secretary- general pose a special envoy -- secretary general's envoy. he took on an important role. he briefed the security council and he is an excellent selection of special representative and he is in the process of working out with the secretary-general and his employment and remuneration. he has been out in the field twice to libya in the short time and we look forward to his employment circumstances being implemented in a fashion consistent with rules and regulations. >> my personal view, israel was the best neighbor and friend we have in the world and we have to continue to make sure the u.n. does not use israel as a bully pulpit for their own agenda. >> i could not agree more. >> we have to make sure that their interests are protected. >> it is an important decision here that rarely gets made. [inaudible] an innocuous -- and inoculates children. there are member states to speak and vote in their interest but it is often not our interest. >> the ranking member on the subcommittee is recognized. >> thank you. again, i want to thank you for the great work that you have been doing in representing our country. i want to continue to make the case in a ever shrinking world, it is important that we sit and engage with the rest of the world and that is for our security. if we acted unilaterally and would not have the allies we have and many of the nations that are in the un and other places -- >> the mic again. >> it is important that we do not have the go-alone talk of gunslinging attitude that we're working closely. when we ask individuals to come with us to iraq and afghanistan and to fight with us against terrorism where we need to work with one another to combat terrorism, we need the same allies of whom some would say that we just ignore. i do not know how we ignore them when we will need them to help us and when they need help, we do not help them. that being said, i think you touched on this earlier. there is no secret the previous administration had at times rocky relationships with the un, but they never proposed withholding a significant amount of dos. i know you what -- were not in that position. could you tell us why even the bush administration did not withhold money? what is the significance? >> thank you. it was interesting that you had former ambassador mark wallace testified before this committee. he explained in his judgment and the judgment of the previous administration which he served, and has not been wise -- judge dewyze are beneficial to use withholding as a tactic to implement change. he was the author to his credit of some energetic reform initiatives that we have sustained and augmented. the reason it is not wise is because it does not work. it has been tried in the past and as -- resulted in our isolation and the loss of a crucial seat on the advisory committee on budgetary -- administrative and budgetary questions. we get -- that is the body where we get to scrub the budget and we are not asked to pay for things that we think are unworthy. it is not the vehicle to achieve reform. we have achieved the greatest progress on reform under the previous administration and this administration. when we have worked to and been able to remain current on our assessed contribution. >> are there consequences of not paying our dues? >> it violates our treaty obligations. secondly, if we are in arrears, we can lose our vote. in the general assembly. >> some members have proposed shifting our contribution to the un on a voluntary basis. can you tell us how do we [unintelligible] that the un must undertake? can you talk about that? >> voluntary contributions can work to a certain extent in field operations. it has worked for unicef and wfp. it does not work when you were talking about peacekeeping operations. [no audio] the two missions that have contributed to increases in the u.n. regular budget have been the un missions in iraq and afghanistan. those two missions are directly serving our interests. they have been formed at our initiative largely to augment and support the work of our troops in the field. we pay under the regular budget 22% of the cost of those missions which together, over half a billion dollars. if we took the view we would pay for those missions that we like , our share is $500 million. we would find ourselves paying 100% or close of costly, important missions like that, rather than 22%. our net costs would quite likely be higher. as i mentioned, when it comes to the peacekeeping budget, there is no thing that we're asked to pay for that we have not previously voted to create. all of those missions are created by a vote in the security council and u.s. can say yes because we want it and we believe it serves our interests, or no. >> thank you. mr. rivera of florida. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue of the punching bags. our greatest ally of being a punching bag of the united nations which i agree with. i want to talk about the united states being a punching bag, particularly through u.s. policy toward cuba. i am wondering, we have a yearly vote, a yearly spectacle when the un uses the u.s. as a punching bag and votes against u.s. policy over isolating the castro dictatorship economically. even though as has been mentioned previously, the castro regime is a recognized state sponsor of terror by our government. it is a regime harboring fugitives from u.s. justice, including cop killers, drove traffickers, for regime that has murdered americans in international airspace as occurred in 1996. what what efforts do you make personally to try to garner support for u.s. policy towards cuba? >> first of all, we firmly and unequivocally at every opportunity condemned for the very reason that you described cuba's human rights record and its longstanding record of abuses as well as its support for terrorism. secondly, a year before a resolution comes before the general assembly, we work hard to garner as many votes in conjunction with our position of voting against the resolution as we can muster. we have a small core of countries, including israel, that regularly and loyally stands with us. we are making efforts to expand that. but as you well know, as we strongly make our case for our policy, which is a bilateral policy, we are in a minority -- a small minority. the embargo has limited international support. even our closest allies, like canada and european partners, do not share our views. this is an issue that has been and will remain an annual your tent. that may also addressed -- your irratent. cuba, once upon a time, had a lot of jews at the united nations and a lot of support and influence. that infamous as dramatically diminished. it is increasingly isolated. it is increasingly isolated within the general membership. we have heard about the human rights council and our frustration with that, which we share. there are no more than five countries out of 47 of the human rights council at the present, cuba being one of them, whose record on human rights, we will all agree, is absolutely abysmal. they are either an outstanding countries or somewhere in the middle. cuba is at the bottom, but it is losing ground. at the human rights council this year, cuba worked very hard to block the creation of a special raconteur on freedom of assembly. it was roundly defeated. that passed unanimously by the human rights council. it also tried to upset the process of our periodic review. other countries supported the condemned cuba. >> i only have a minute left. i appreciate those comments. i take it speaks to the -- if cuba is diminishing so much, it should allow space for you in your capacity to make even greater progress in bringing allies towards the united states position on cuba, in particular those allies to maybe do not have relationships with cuba. there are a lot of countries on the planet. i hope you make every effort to internationalize u.s. policy because it is the just policy considering what you just mentioned -- the abysmal human rights record of the cuban leadership. >> thank you, mr. rivera. mr. deutsch? >> thank you, madame chair. i want to turn to iran. as we look at recent events in the middle east, it seems that iran has been emboldened. tuesday, a rating ambassador to the un said the geopolitical picture is changing in favor of iran. iran continues to move towards what position. the continue to evade international sanctions. i would like to commend you for the role you have played, first in the un sanctions against iran last year -- the efforts you help to spearhead to keep them all the human rights council, and the creation of the special session on human rights abuses. going forward, we the two events unfolding in the region and steps that can be taken to focus on the threats that iran -- if the regime continues to move ahead with its nuclear program, with the security council imposed another round of sanctions to joke of the energy sector? i wonder if there had been discussions about strength -- about strengthening existing sanctions. of greater concern to me, if you could address when you think it would take to get china, who continues to make million dollar investments in iranian oil fields, to cooperate as support another resolution. >> for the ball, thank you for your kind words in support of our efforts with respect to iran. we have been very plain. we will stand up and condemn and seek to isolate iran for its human-rights record and its abuses on both multilaterally and nationally as we have continued to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for iran's human rights abuses. we will do all that we can to prevent iran from creating a new career -- from obtaining a nuclear capacity. i will come back to what more we can do. through your excellent legislation and national measures that we continue to take to implement not only security council resolutions, but the measures and authorities given to us by congress. inside the un, in the short term there is scope for tightening enforcement and implementation of 1949 and previous resolutions which are having a significant and packed. we are regularly getting support of countries from nigeria to asia in blocking and intercepting iranian arms shipments. there is a panel of experts. there is a sanctions committee, all of which can help tighten enforcement on existing measures. it needs to be acknowledged that china and russia work with us to pass that important resolution. they have implemented it to the letter. we have asked them to do more. russia has dealt with the s300s, which is above and beyond the resolution. china, we are asking them not to make investments. we are receiving good response to that sort of request. in terms of a new resolution in the short term, i think that is unlikely to be viable. obviously overtime and a given response to actions that iran may take, we will continue to keep multi-ethnic -- multilateral action on the table. >> i appreciate that. in addition to these resolutions on nuclear revelation activities, they have been found to be in violation of arms transfer resolutions. the interception and seizure of illegal arms shipments by nigeria in february. iran has continued to violate the security council resolution 1747. i would request that you continue to look for ways to penalize iran for noncompliance with that resolution which prohibits iranian arms exports. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much. based on our previous arrangement you got to be back at the white house at 1:00. we appreciate your time. i give my deepest apologies to mr. kelly of pennsylvania to is our un representative from our committee. i hope that you work well with ms. burgle and mr. keating from massachusetts. thank you congresswoman for joining us. madame ambassador, thank you for your excellent testimony. we look forward to working with you on un reforms and issues we are both passionate about >> thank you barry much for your leadership and your kindness and that of all of your colleagues. >> you are a good friend. the committee is now adjourned. thank you. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight, and memorial service honoring the life and career of a columnist david broder with a remark from vice president joe biden. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. sunday, republican national committee chairman reince priebus at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. n >> you are not a republican or democrat. you are looking at the impact of what the government is doing on the financial markets, whether it is the oil market, trading, or wall street firms. >> sunday, melissa lee. watch the rest of the interview, sunday night at 8:00 p.m.. >> now, white house senior director for preparedness, brian kamoie. he talks about the national directive on the way the country response to major emergencies. this event is hosted by george washington university. it is almost an hour. >> the highest priority is the safety and security of the american people. he is committed to securing the homeland by preventing terrorist attacks, preparing for emergencies regardless of their cause, and investing in a strong response and recovery capabilities. wheat aimed to prevent what we can and respond rapidly to what we must. last week, president obama signed a new president to a policy directive, p.p.d.-8. including acts of terrorism, pandemic, significant accident, and natural disasters. what i would like to do this morning is outlined our approach to prepare a witness, tell you more about the directive, and what agencies are doing all ready to move out and embody his principles and leave time for some discussion. i got copies of the ppd this morning. the directive will be posted later today to the department of common security. -- homeland security. our approach was reflected in the ppd rests on three different principles. we are focused on an all-nation approach aimed at federal, state, local governments, closer collaboration with the private and non-profit sectors, and more engagement with individuals, families, and communities. as we have seen in countless incidents, from the 2009 h one and one pandemic, to the response of the water rise in oil spill, our national response is strengthened when we leverage the expertise that exists in our communities. all of us can contribute to safeguarding our nation from harm. you have seen this principle already, reflected in the department of home and security review. it appears as a cornerstone of our approach to help security reflected in the national health security strategy of the department of health and human services. you can see it and hear its in the approach of a fema administrator who talks about those who suffer from disasters, not as victims, but as survivors who can help their community respond and recover. craig has initiated a planning effort that recognizes communities are strong and resilience even in the face of disasters. this approach relies on understanding and meeting the true needs of the entire affected community, engage in all aspects of that community, private, nonprofit, and public sectors, in both defining those needs and devising ways to meet them. and strengthening the assets, institutions, and social processes that work well in communities on a daily basis to improve resilience and outcomes. you can also see it in his rotation program that brings representatives into the operations center so the government can learn from and leverage the private sector's expertise, avoid trying to recreate functions that the private sector does well every day, and learn how and where public-private efforts are best applied during emergencies. you can also see all of government approaches to identify over the horizon and short-term threats. the u.s. government continues to detect, assess, and preempt terrorist attacks. the national counter-terrorism center brings together the entire intelligence community to review and prioritize these threats. so, across the federal family, the focus has turned out to how we integrate our efforts with one another and how we integrate better with the communities we all serve. second, we seek to build the key capabilities we would need to confront any challenge. capabilities defined by specific and measurable objectives are the cornerstone of preparedness. resident rigid approach is that apply only in certain scenarios when specific assumptions come true, a focus on capabilities will enable integrated, flexible, and agile hazard aphorist tailored to what we know our unique circumstances of any given threat, hazard, where actual event. for example, both inflexible capabilities such as certain rescue and medical search enable the response to a wide range of incidents record as of cost. to the community catastrophic planning effort demonstrates this approach known as the maximum of maximums the focus is on planning around a catastrophe and 13 capabilities where at extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, and destruction overwhelm our traditional plants and processes. this effort is a concrete step in making the principal c real in operations. just a few weeks ago, the cdc released 15 capabilities to serve as national public health. the standards to assist state and local public health departments. third -- we are actively pursuing more rigorous assessment systems that are focused on outcomes so that we can measure and track our progress over time. we simply need to do better in articulating our current level of preparedness and demonstrating what innovations have worked. are very actively evaluating their grant programs. are we prepared? how would we know? how better are we this year than last? so, consistent with these principles, we undertook a review of our national preparedness policy. we spoke with 24 national associations that represent a wide range of stakeholders. including a variety of disciplines, law enforcement, public health, emergency medical services, emergency management, the national guard, and i am pleased to see a number of representatives from those organizations are with us this morning. we also evaluated our preparedness policy in light of the reform act of 2006. the result of that review is the policy that we announced today which replaces homeland security presidential directive 8 of 2003. for a few minor exceptions that are noted in the new presidential policy directive. the directive calls for the establishment of an overarching national preparedness goal that identifies the capabilities necessary for the spectrum of preparedness, which encompasses five broad missions. prevention. those capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threat of terrorism. protection. those capabilities necessary to protect home and security. mitigation, capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property. response, capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident occurs. recovery. to give it is necessary to assist communities affected. these capabilities will be defined in terms of risk and objectives. first, the risk of specific threats and the vulnerabilities which will aim to defined using objective risk factors. who? where? how much is the capability needed? why? and concrete, measurable, and prioritized objectives to define what needs to be done, how fast, and for how long. the directive also calls for the development of a national preparedness system to guide activities that will enable the nation to meet local. specific planning, organization, equipment, training and exercises needed to build and maintain domestic capabilities, what you all recognize as the preparedness cycle. with respect to capabilities, we heard clear feedback from our stakeholders. one size does not fit all. communities have differing needs based on the risks that they faced. that said, we believe it is important to come to an agreement to a few capabilities that most communities will share. for example, medical research, information sharing, so that communities can concentrate on what the realistically need instead of the one size fits all approach or one size fits none approached. this focus will drive the evolution of our planning efforts which will seek to identify how we can most effectively mix and match our capabilities when it needed to be the most agile and flexible in our approach. the ppd requires capabilities across the five it missions i mentioned. prevent, protect, respond, recover, and mitigate. we have a national response from work which is currently in the process for review and revision. the national disaster recovery from work is a requirement already provided in statute. it will galvanize planning around the key capabilities necessary. that said, the intent is not to produce unwieldy and long documents that merely take space. our stakeholders were quite clear on the need to streamline and rationalize all the guidance documents and plans. because we recognize at the local level especially that the same person who has to develop the plans, the documents, and the grant application packages that we call for is the same person who has to respond to the next fire or the next hardtack. we will aim to continually streamline and simplify. there are many federal departments and agencies that support activities across the national preparedness spectrum. there are a number of roles and activities. they will develop the national preparedness system and annual report. these are multi-disciplinary efforts by design and will involve many departments and agencies. in the ppd, we will place emphasis on individual prepared this which we believe is the cornerstone of our resilience. the play critical roles in every type of incident. our goal is to empower americans with the information about the risks that we face in the actions we can all take to protect ourselves. our communities. for example, during the 2009 h1n1 pandemic, the cdc transmitted messages about the spreading of disease. you probably on the that instinctively now. cover your costs, stay home if you are sick, keep sick children out of school. we are very confidence in the american people when provided with the risks that they face and what they can do about it. fema's readied campaign at ready.gov have steps of americans can take including how to prepare a family emergency plan, an emergency supply can come and how to get involved in community preparedness efforts. given your expertise and interests in this morning's topic, i am confident you are among the most prepared audience i can imagine, but i would be remiss if i did not mention the basics, even here. our challenge continues to be making more effective use of the resources we have in all levels of government. it is no surprise that our resources are constrained. our thinking need not be. so that we measure and track prepared now separates overtime based on the key measures i have talked about and communicate our level of preparedness to the congress and the american people, they're required the preparation of a national prepared this report every year. a clearer articulation on the return we receive for investments in prepared mess is even more critical in the current fiscal environment. the good news is that the nation is better prepared to navigate a catastrophic incident than better -- than ever before. this is across all levels of government and also because of the active engagement of the private sector, the non-profits after coming individuals, and communities. ppd wants to further enhance disintegration of efforts by breaking down barriers between levels and layers of government and we are better able to match and confronted unique circumstances. for example,dhs, hhs, and the department of defense called leading the president's executive order to establish capabilities to dispense medical countermeasures during a large scale biological attack. they have broken down barriers and for the first time, we see hhs, fema, dod, and others working alongside not just each other but with state and local public health and emergency managers to solve what we know are some very serious and challenging countermeasures would be necessary to save lives. in addition, as we saw during the earthquake in haiti in nursing in the current response to events in japan, hhs, dod it, the nrc, the department of energy, are enhancing international cooperation on the ground through active disaster management assistance. we will study every aspect of the response in japan so we can learn lessons from the unprecedented earthquake, tsunami, and a nuclear emergency. beyond the ppd, we're seeking to be smarter in our approach by identifying a limiting steps and planning appropriately, reducing decision points before disaster strikes, reducing points of failure to planned simplification, developing documents to enable life-saving authority to optimize speed. focusing on the outlook -- the outcome of front and establishing well understood protocols for coordination and then practicing them to exercises. such as the upcoming nle 2011 which will simulate the catastrophic example of an earthquake in is on which includes eight states. while all disasters are unique, there are things that we can and are doing everyday to assist in better navigating would avert catastrophe may occur. new efforts will enhance these. i want to thank you for your time and attention this morning and your interest in our national interest and a look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. that was a great overview of the directive and also of preparedness in general. something i think everyone in this room believes in. i see a lot of my former colleagues from the bush administration as well as new colleagues from the obama administration. prepared this is a bipartisan issue that is actually out there today. i cannot think of a better sign of bipartisanship and you in my former office. >> we still have a few things that you left. >> on a serious note, resilience is a word that our task force, that we mentioned at the beginning, is focused on. it is not a buzz word, but it is a word that we affixing and if you could provide us with a better understanding of what resilience means to you and the obama administration and how that interact with what you just discussed, i think that would be a useful way to start this conversation. >> that is a very useful question. thank you. when the president integrated the staffer from the national security council and homeland security council following the presidential study directive no. 1, he created a resilience directorate which bans the full range of preparedness throughout response activities. we decided very early on that we needed to approach this in a way that is easily understood so we did a little research based on at the research skills that i learned here at george washington. some 2000 disciplines used the term "resilience" from systems engineers to people who work in ecology and what became clear pretty quickly was that it was not going to be of for "spending six-eight months arguing about the precise 38 words that would be in one single definition of "resilience." rather we would focus on a few key principles of resilience that we thought all the activities and those of to advance could see them there. those principles included withstanding. we have to be able to withstand an incident. we have to be able to adapt to change. incidents bring us different circumstances. then we have to rapidly recover. those three principles -- withstand, adapt, and rapidly recover -- became the organizing principles around our resilience activities. we think the owners and operators can see themselves in that. they need to be able to withstand a structure and, rapidly adapt to change. we believe that applies at the individual and family level to be able to withstand on prepared ness steps to have taken. you will see his principles articulated in the national security strategy. the principal is featured in the quadrennial homeland security review. all of these efforts to support, we have gone beyond the definition alone and gone beyond that it is simply a buzz word. we believe these efforts will enhance not just our resilience of our nation that will enhance the resilience of the american people who can withstand events and rapidly recover. >> let's roll out a specific situation that i think the world is facing. nuclear preparedness. we are all very familiar with the disaster in japan. many of us are asking now how well prepared are we in the united states? as recently as today in "the the washington post" is calling that into question. could you address the nuclear prepared this specifically? >> as i mentioned, we will take a very close look at the response in japan so that we can learn the lessons there. we have done a number of initiatives and efforts to aggressively prepared this nation for radiation emergencies of any type of because, as you know, we could experience a radiological emergency from an improvised nuclear device, radiological dispersal device, but i will highlight a few of those efforts. in june of last year, we issued the second edition of planning guidance to state and local colleagues for prepared us for an improvised nuclear device which included planning considerations for sheltering, evacuation, and communicating with the public ahead of these kinds of events. you follow the instructions of your local emergency management to have the best information about what is happening on the ground. we think it important to communicate had these types of events. it is the second edition because it takes into account the latest scientific evidence from a number of studies that studies of the government have a funded to understand better what actions would be most helpful. the advice may differ depending on the type of event. we try to focus on what are the right planning considerations and how do we communicate with the public? the nle in 2010 focused on events related to radiological of emergencies including a september 2010 exercise that included states and local governments around the accidental release of radiation from nuclear power plant. just a few weeks. , the cdc convened after two years of planning a conference on preparedness for radiological emergency that involve former 50 -- 450 experts. even in the midst of a response from the all assembled in atlanta to discuss our preparedness for this. this is planned well in advance which allowed us to question what was coming two years from now so we could be ready. we have taken a number of steps to improve prepared ness for in a wide range, but we will take a very close look at what is happening in japan so we will learn even more. for all of us who went through katrina, it is a typical conversation comparing and contrasting katrina, but the key is we went to make sure the government learns from those mistakes. do you feel today we are better prepared as a result of katrina? can we meet a higher level of preparedness as a result of what happened in japan? >> i do not want to talk about specific events because they are each unique. it shows us why the focus on capabilities is what we believe is the most effective way to approach this. if we build out certain core capabilities, we will be able to respond to a wider range of incidents. we know that based on guidance, planning, coordinating, training, and equipment that local health, local law- enforcement can put those things together in ways that they need to respond in the most agile way. this approach on focusing in on key capabilities and being focused on what we can achieve. >> i would like to take some questions now. please raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. i will look to my task force first if anyone wants to ask a question. marco right here. front row. again, a special thanks to our task force members to have been working these issues. we will be putting out our first review very soon. >> i am on the task force. i applaud the administration for getting this out. it has been a long and difficult process and hopefully will prove to be a productive one. my question is around a measure of prepared ness. as part of your report, it has to be done. you have to base it on standards, definitions of various level of preparedness and the challenge has always been on agreement on what they ought to be so what do you view as the next steps to achieve some discrete set of measurements that people can agree to, by and to, and apply resources for? >> engagement of the stake holders with a focus on the key capabilities. the cdc, if you go to cdc.gov, you can see the 15 capabilities working with their stakeholders of the state and local level they said that thesear are teh he core things we need to focus on for a surge to distribute medical countermeasures. the implementation of the directive is the next step. the consultation is where we go from here. it's certainly recognizes that we cannot all doing here of the federal level. they are not federal solutions that we identify for every community what they think -- what we think they need. we need to focus on their understanding and try to focus on the core capabilities and agree that how we measure. >> also on the front row, alan? >> former chief operating officer of the american red cross. >> thank you. about ngo's in the discussion, they are critical and i understand if you do not want to go to specific events, but when you look at a disaster the size of katrina, the only groups that can bring the number of people to help the displaced survivors are ngo's whether it is my old organization, american red cross, salvation army, catholic charities, the list goes on and on. it is probably still true that the assumption is that the ngo's have the resources necessary to implement short notice and held a large number of displaced people. that is not necessarily true because it is hard for angioplasty warehouse supplies large enough, not just for a house fire, but for a truly large numbers of displaced people. it is a flaw to believe that ngo's will be able to respond to a large migration of people. i am interested in your thoughts on that. >> the key principle includes the non-governmental organizations as well as planning with the state and local colleagues or with individuals and planning. it is only through the exchange dialogue working together to understanding both the capabilities of of the nonprofit sector are, what the challenges are, what we might do to address those, so without any specific incidents or assumptions you describe about what has been done in the past, i think we need to continue to evolve our approach with how we work together collaborative leave -- collaboratively. many that are on the front lines of responding in a gauge the non-profit and the ngo community. we have seen it in the all of the incidents we have seen in this administration to the bp oil spill, and we will continue the dialogue so that we do understand what you can and cannot bring to the table so we set realistic expectations and we do not make plans based on assumptions that will not become true. we have not fully understood with capabilities are. i take your point of fully understanding is needed and we will need to do even more. >> the next question? former deputy assistant secretary of defense. works for the national response framework with us. >> the thank you. former assistant deputy secretary of defense. thank you for being with us today. thank you for all that you do. thank you for continuing to move the ball up the field. when the difficulties associated with much of the fine work you have done and the things we talk about here is even at the inter- agency level, as we would sit at the old of drg, the response would get from many agencies when he discussed the need for this type of preparedness, planning, capability development, was out, "was not covered under the stafford act? how will i pay for that? i do not have the people to send off for training required interoperable planning system." commensurate with many of the new things in the new ppd, a relaxing of the resources and the leadership needed to get everyone in alignment to be able to execute this fine plan? >> the interagency, as you know from your prior experience, very robust discussions on how to build those capabilities. we encourage discussions that focus on making the best and most effective use of the resources that we have. i cannot speak to ongoing budget negotiations or requests, but obviously the discussions around -- that is making sure that we have a leveraged the resources that exist not just at the federal level, state, or local level which are all similarly constrained, but look to the private sector who does things like supply chain management and logistics, and the movement of people and things very effectively. leveraging those resources, the non-governmental organization community, and that is not with an intent to shift costs but to leverage the resources because those people want to help. they are members of that community and it is in their personal and professional interest to be actively engaged in the response to the community level. you are absolutely right. we did continue to have robust discussions of how we improve preparedness efforts which takes leadership conversation. the president issuing a new directive would be a call for improved preparedness. >> the next question is from a guy who epitomizes the bipartisan nature of, and security and was called into service post-9/11 as a democratic congressman and served in the department of defense. thank you for your service as a marine and then in the bush administration. we have had many conversations about katrina, him and i, of this is something he is passionate about. >> and good morning and thank you for the kind words. good to see you again. as i review ppd 8, it seems to move away from the scenario- based planning towards capabilities-based planning. my question is if we were to have a truly catastrophic event like to trade at or fukushima where the local community experiences comprehensive and dramatic damage. in light of the damage of the local level, for instance in new arlen's one-third of the police department did not report to work -- in new orleans where 33% of the police did not show up. in the aftermath of a truly catastrophic even, who would assemble them into a deployable force? in the aftermath of such a crisis, would you be able to quickly assemble the capabilities in order to save the maximum number of lives? >> scenarios do not go away. there are still very useful, but in the evolution of our approach to planning, we have been starting with core capabilities in how they are scrutinized -- coordinated through which we bring those in deployable ways. we're going to continue to look at the nrf and other plans necessary to make sure they take capabilities into account. let me move away from that for a second. what we have seen throughout the incidents that we have confronted is that it really in is the mixing and matching of capabilities at all levels of government that allows us how to do things. planning is incredibly useful in terms of identifying gaps, etc. i will borrow from general eisenhower that no plan survives first contact. what we are seeking to do through the use of scenarios to achieve their requirements through conversations to identify core capabilities than that allow us to have a more detailed operational-level discussion, if you will, about how those are brought to bear. it is just an evolution in the approach because what we have seen in the incidence we have confirmed that we think the best way to approach a this is the focus on those core capabilities and then have the free marketplace to have the conversation about how they apply. >> other questions? darrell probably helped through this process and we recruited him to g.w. a few months ago. >> we still feel the loss, but we know that george washington is safer. >> i would like to ask about an international aspect of policy. if we have an avian flu break is in asia or they're really a release of radioactivity in some measure of foreign soil that could impact the united states, what are the aspects of international cooperation that are embodied in this ppd? >> largely focuses on the development of our domestic capabilities, but certainly events such as the h1n1, , they can be brought to bear as needed. we are working on international cooperation. many u.s. government agencies are on the ground in japan providing technical assistance. again, as we look to identify with capabilities we need here, we are also looking to strengthen our partnerships. among the first instance that the administration faced was that the pandemic, they want. our conversations about our capability to develop a vaccine and an antiviral in a quick manner was immediately a global conversation. our experience of their lead the president to propose a counter measure initiative that he first introduced in the 2010's did the union address that focuses -- state of the union address about effectively developing counter- medical measures. we have made a number proposals pursuant to that initiative to remove the bottlenecks in the development process for medical countermeasures. that is the example of the kind of capability that, while they may start domestically, the threat that we face and the incidence is that we've already experienced are truly global in nature. and longer answer then perhaps you wanted about how we see this affecting our international collaboration, but we believe a focusing on developing domestic capabilities while in tandem enhancing international partnerships is the right approach. >> any other questions? >> i care about how these issues in fact state and local officials. where the rubber meets the road is on the front lines. i will ask a question, but i have been to turn to the fire chiefs. i was looking for them to ante up. adam is a member of the steering committee but he is the fire chief for the city of alexandria. >> how does this policy had knowledge the fact that local first responders are always going to be the first deal with disasters and emergency incidents within the broader concept of federalism? ofwa>> the conversations to understand what is possible and what is needed at the local level certainly knowledge is our federal system. as the presidential directive, it does nothing to change that, said the natural response from mark -- framework will be evaluated. there is no change to the fact that locals will always be the front line. a renewed emphasis on individual and community preparedness actually aims toward bringing individuals and families more into the equation such that it named reduce the burden on local response. if those who can prepare do, the needs of public response systems should reduced accordingly. the ppd recognizes there are respective roles in the system and it does not change that. and also recognizes that we truly do need to understand from our state and local colleagues perspective, how do we must help them develop with that understanding in mind. >> other questions? >> we have talked about local government, all of the private sector stuff? anyone from the private sector want to ask questions? ok. i will ask open-ended questions. how does the private sector fit in to this? >> there are members of their community and we see that and recognize that they have the same interest in that we do in withstanding events and recovering rapidly and adapting to change. it is an area where we have a great opportunity to understand even more of what can be brought to bear. the example that i gave, and it is one of many. it is a language issue. the private sector may not fully appreciate -- and this is an observation -- what goes on in the operation center and what types of questions the government is asking. what are the immediate actions the government is attempting to take. how could the private sector expertise assist in that effort? on the other side of that equation, we may be using the government operations centers to recreate functions that we have that neither the expertise nor the time to deliver. that exists in the private sector and are available for the discussions to understand what is there. we believe the private sector and members of the community have an interest in protecting their employees who live there. there are resources there that bear further conversation. it is a great opportunity for advancement to we will continue the dialogue. >> my assumption is that this is the beginning rather than the end. there's a lot of directive in this directive that will have to be carried out by departmental agencies and likely for inter- agency processes. can you describe how that will occur. >> as i mentioned, the conversation with the stakeholders shined a light on key principles. the have already moved out according to these principles in developing some key capabilities around a certain disciplines in engaging the private sector, individuals, and families. that is not to say that there is not a good deal of additional effort that is now required to implement the president's directive, the departments and agencies did not wait because the principles were important to them as well. they started to take action already, so we move into implementation and will further -- and to our state, local colleagues as well as individuals and families to enhance our preparedness. >> let me present you with this token of our appreciation. thank you for being here today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as a host and a trader, you are not necessarily a republican or a democrat. you are looking at the impact of what the government is doing on the financial markets whether it is the oil market, trading, wall street firms. >> sunday, fast money anchor melissa lee and what she believes is her role in reporting financial news. watch the interview sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." as washington works on funding for the current fiscal year, debate has started on next year's federal budget. see what has been said from capitol hill to the white house on line with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip, and share. it is what you want, when you want. >> treasury secretary tim geithner said there'd be catastrophic consequences of congress did not raise the $14.30 trillion debt ceiling before may 16th. he also said the obama administration is working on a comprehensive proposal for corporate tax reform. the secretary made these comments at a senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on his departmental budget request for 2012. a look at that senate hearing. this is one hour, 40 minutes. >> the good morning. i am pleased to convene this meeting. first, in a series of hearings we will have this spring as we embark on the 2012 appropriation bills. on want to welcome ranking member of kansas. welcome in your new position here. i am looking forward in working on this with you. also senator kirk. i start with an apology, but this is all the president's fault. he decided to call in the leaders including senator reid. i apologize to all of those in attendance. today, we examine the fiscal year 2012 requests for the department of the treasury. it includes the irs development for the financial institution fund, and we will get the two agencies separately and we will some questions on those four focused hearings. e treasury progress we will talk about today are programs which deliver a generous return on investment to taxpayers. a few examples -- before any coalition planes were in the sky over libya, treasury's office had frozen $32 billion in libyan assets. that is $32 billion that muammar gaddafi cannot use. the financial crimes enforcement network tracks the financial trail when a criminal tries to steal your identity. for organized crime, narcotics traffickers, treasury's management service insurers social security payments their way east to see nearest. as many of you look forward to, tax refunds make their way to taxpayers a. treasury employs a professional contract of staff can analyze conditions to monitor risk building up in the financial system and promote sustainable economic growth. general forspecial tarp provides transparency. last year alone the i.g. saved $555 million in taxpayer dollars that would be lost in fraud. to continue these activities in 2012, treasury request spending authority of 1.3 $9 billion. their quest is a decrease of $18 million. compared to put the fiscal year 2010, fiscal year cr level we are operated on. i am glad to see a restraint budget proposal. i have concerns about some of the proposed cuts. treasury proposes to scale back law enforcement access to data on suspicious financial transactions. -- to's a proposal that thi nue funding of law enforcement. for too long consumers have struggle to navigate the financial products front with hidden fees, 8 and switch terms, and other features that experts have difficulty understanding. it will operate with a mission to empower consumers with information they need to make financial decisions for themselves and their families. since the day i introduced the bill to create this bureau, wall street has tried to undermine it. with the help of some in the house, wall street is attempting to limit spending by this agency to barely half of what it needs to get started. it is not a surprise that wall street is balking at cfpb starting up. fully informed consumers will make markets more competitive. we will work to make sure this agency has what it needs to start working for consumers. i look forward to discussing this with the secretary, and i now turn to my ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much. today marks my first day to act in this role as ranking member, i appreciate the opportunity to serve on this committee, providing oversight over all discretionary spending. i look forward to working with you, mr. chairman, as we look forward to this budget and we reach the right agreement to spending levels. mr. secretary, you have many challenges in your responsibilities, and the include in my view invigorating bank lending to businesses, stabilizing the housing market, and encouraging economic growth. most importantly, you must promote this growth at a time in which the long-term financial security of the united states is one that is burned by unprecedented debt. our country faces enormous fiscal challenges which left unchecked will have a disastrous impact on the future of our nation. for too long members of both parties have ignored this current fiscal crisis and allow our country to live well beyond its means. americans are looking for leadership in washington. oftentimes the debate about government spending is seen as a philosophical and academics and political discussion about a partisan issue, but out of control borrowing and spending has true consequences on everyday lives of americans. we're facing a turning point in our country's history. i know you are fully aware of the crisis we are facing and i hope we are able to work together to right the ship. in my remaining few moments, i want to address another problem hampering our economic recovery. the uncertainty coming out of washington regarding bank regulations and regulators. you and i had a conversation about this when i was a member of the house, and unfortunately i do not think have -- think things have changed. this sort of relationship banking played no role in the fiscal crisis with his experience, and i feel strongly once record this trend we will see a recovery to call. i hear from kansas bankers this serious reasons for their inability to lend to members in their community is the increasing cost of unnecessary regulations. i hear from bankers like a record this morning who in his experience has never experienced such an unprecedented examination process like what has been ongoing recently. i hope you will work with me to find solutions to this circumstance. i am requesting your thoughts as the senator mentioned on the cfpb. i plan to introduce legislation today that will reform the structure and replace the single director structure with a five- person commission. my concerns with the structure, this legislation is the first at the make sure congress as necessary oversight of such a powerful agency. the department of treasury place an important role in managing the finances and then something to reiterate our economy. i stand ready to work with you to address the challenges and look forward to working with you and senator turban on this subcommittee to find common sense solutions. i think it sherman and welcome secretary geithner. >> mr. secretary, you have the floor. >> thank you. we are here to talk about the treasury budget, which may not seem central. i want to spend a few minutes highlighting what is at stake. treasury plays a key role in arranging important programs to help strengthen economic growth. it plays a central role in designing a powerful set of taxes to encourage businesses' investments, making it easier for families to afford college. we played a role in devising a better means for establishing infrastructure across the country in setting up programs to help facilitate small business lending and credit growth. the new market tax credit, it plays a very important role to encourage china to appreciate their currency more rapidly, but the help establish a more level playing field for american companies. we play a central role in repairing the housing market, and working to --beyond these questions about growth, we played a critical role in helping reform our national financial system. we chair the council established by congress for financial stability. we help to work to wind down the better consumer protection, all as part of a broad strategy working with countries are on the world to make sure u.s. firms face a level playing field as we strengthen these basic constraints on risk-taking and leverage. treasury plays a role as the chairman said to help protect national security threat administering financing, sanctions programs, but as the chairman said, in libya. treasury is responsible for raising the resources required to fund the obligations congress has established for the government. every dollar we spend the irs generates $5 for tax revenue. every dollar we cut, the irs will increase the risk of americans to pay their taxes. we carry out these responsibilities with a tight, the efficient use of taxpayer resources. it is a remarkable achievement that in a $14 trillion economy, enormous economic challenges here and around the world, the entire treasury staff is about the size of the tax department of one of america pasqua single -- america's single corporations. we have identified in our last request more than $1 billion in savings. by consolidating functions and helping bring the payment system into the modern area, by shifting to electronic processing, and with very careful management of the emergency program established by congress we have helped save hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer resources should be careful management of those investments. our overall investments in the system alone are likely to generate a substantial profit to the american taxpayer, estimated today in the range of $20 billion. the president and the congressional leadership meeting this morning on the budget for this year, we're six months into the air now. house republicans outlined this morning a strategy for how to reduce our deficits over the long term. a group of senators are working hard to reach agreement on a comprehensive set of reforms that put us on the path to live within our means as a country. i want to conclude by emphasizing how important it is never reach a bipartisan agreement on how to restore fiscal stability by reducing spending where we can, but investing in the types of reforms like education that are essential to our economic future and by enabling us to meet our commitments to our seniors and those less fortunate americans. the economy is healing. judge krishan is accelerating. businesses are investing. we have a long way to go to kill the damage caused by this crisis, and we face enormous challenges, including from countries around the world. all must have a responsibility to demonstrate that we can solve these problems and not just talk about that. i look forward to working with you after she purrs support for the exceptionally talented professional staff of the treasury to carry out this enormously, carry the set of -- and enormously complicated set of responsibilities. >> what could be more important than to the you where we are among where it is we are going. welcome, secretary died there. we learned last week that the nation bus jobless rate hit a two-year low. another sign the economy is continuing at a steady recovery, and if i may add a personal note here, the company i ran before i came here is the company releases the labor statistics that we see, a company called adp. yesterday, i will take another moment, a personal privilege, we said goodbye to my to the founder of adp, a humble man who worked very hard. we did it for nothing to help us along except for our intelligence and muscle, and i am not sure i provided much of the intelligence carr. right now we have to help americans get back to work. that is why i see president make's budget -- we cannot those investments unless we start paying attention to the revenue side in the government cost ledger. i was a ceo and i know they cannot run a company or a country without revenues, no matter how much you cut expenses. that is why i voted last year it and the bush tax cuts. windfalls for the wealthy did not create jobs color reduce the deficits, or help us invest in our future. i urged president obama to keep the commitment in his budget to let the bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of 2012. the wealthiest among us do not pay their fair share. he president's budget also includes a landmark moisture reforms root this will protect our economy from the meltdown that we suffered through in 2008, and that is why i am the deep concern that the tea party republicans plan for funding for reform is in place. it is the republican team party of huggins -- if that tea party republicans --all so need to strengthen investment in our nation's in thresher by repairing crumbling roads and bridges and building projects by -- like high-speed rail. it will make easier for people to get where they need to go, improve the environment, and support job creation. president obama has proposed creating an investment and researcher, investing park in products that will get america moving, and i look forward to your commentary, mr. secretary. i am also eager to hear from the secretary about he can make taxes fairer, keep wall street in check, and accelerate our economic recovery, and i thank you. >> thank you. mr. secretary, before we get a policy and budget questions, i have to address the issue of crisis management. we have been lurching from short-term cr to short-term cr, i would like as you if you would tell me what impact this has had on the management of your agency and operations. secondly, we are now starting have very active discussions amongst senators about what to do what if the government shuts down after friday. how many staff will still be around. whether anybody will answer the phones. whether it will be a skilled staff. i would like to know what your preparation has been at treasury and what services by be affected from your department when it comes to that. the final question is larger than the first two. that is around a corner is another crisis which he spoke to yesterday, and that is the extension of the debt ceiling. some senators have said we do not care. we will not vote for an extension of the debt ceiling. please tell us what the impact of failing to extend the debt ceiling would be on the american economy. three very simple questions. >> the office of management and budget has been coordinating the work of the executive branch in preparing for shut down. the director set up a detailed guidance for how they would manage through what critical services that would have to retain, would be from a bit under the law to retain, and which they could no longer function with. i want to emphasize the fact that competence is very important economic recoveries. there are a lot of things happening in the world today that are -- that carries some risk to the global economy and financial system. it is very important that we in washington demonstrate that we will be doing things to help reinforce confidence, support recover, and part of that requires making sure the government can carry its critical functions, and those functions would be impaired. i would be happy to briefers that in more detail on exactly what would happen to the critical functions we are responsible for. they are very material. you're right to highlight the fact -- to say it again, if we force the government to live week by week now, more than six months into the fiscal year, you will risk undermining the recovery now under way, and i think our first obligation of the american people, given the trauma caused by this crisis and the depth of the damage we still face, is to make sure doing everything we can to make sure we are reinforcing business confidence, helping get more americans back to work, repair the damage caused by the shutdown. we -- you are right to say that in the next several weeks congress will run out of room. it will be forced to raise the basic that limit. what will happen if it does not? as i said in my letters and has all my predecessors have said, the consequence of that would be catastrophic to the united states. the fault would precipitate a crisis worse than the one we went through. it would make that crisis look modest in comparison. it would force us to cut payments to military -- the critical payments to our seniors, and it would be a reckless irresponsible act. i find it inconceivable that congress would not act to increase the limit, and i welcome the fact that all the leaders of both parties in both houses have reaffirmed the importance of making sure that this country of the united states of america will meet its obligations. that requires congress to act in a timely manner to increase the limit. if we take no additional actions, we face that we have run out of room on may 16. there are a series of measures my predecessors have used in the past that would give congress more time, but those measures did not by us as much time in the past because our debts and deficits are so large that. they will buy us an additional few weeks if congress does not act. even resorting to those measures does create risk to adding uncertainty. we will do everything we can make sure we meet our obligations and encourage congress to act in a timely manner. >> mr. saturday, united states dollar is viewed as the most critical -- credible global currency, and if we default and did not extend our that's silly, what impact of that out on the reputation of the dollar and our economy? >> it be catastrophic. you would call into question the willingness of the government of the united states to meet its obligations. he will shake the basic foundations of the entire global financial system. i am totally confident congress will act to avoid that. to think about it in a direct sense, the borrowing cost permanently for all americans. every business for a long period of time would raise a much higher cost of borrowing. every family, it would raise a much higher cost of borrowing. unemployment would rise. hundreds of thousands of businesses would fail. it would be a deeply irresponsible act, again, inconceivable. >> they give. mr. secretary, i experts shaver exhortations about the necessity of raising the debt ceiling. i would welcome you and the administration in making the same kind of raising the same kind of concern in describing the scenario if we do not get our debt under control. their consequences -- there are consequences, the standard of living, inflation, and i would encourage the administration to join with congress, republicans and democrats, to find a path toward a long-term, sustainable production and our national debt. there are bad consequences. he described one scenario. there is another that will come if we did not respond, responsibility, to the ever- increasing debt. one thing we can do is to get a tax code in place that is sparer, treats individual taxpayers and a way that makes sense in a global economy, and again i would be interested in hearing what the treasury department is doing with regard to the so-called grand plan for tax reform or major modifications in our tax code. i am learning from senator ddurbin to ask my questions at the beginning. i eat indicated in my statement that i introduce legislation today in regard to the consumer prince -- financial protection bureau, and i would like your view as to the preparation process, more funding, that the federal reserve is funding that today. i would like to see greater oversight by congress in regard to the appropriation process. a five-person commission or board as compared to an headman this -- as compared to an individual. >> thank you for raising your courses. you are right that it is critically important that congress comes together and locked in a setup will take-your reforms that will put us on a path to living within our means as a country. if we do not do that, you will put at risk our future economic correct. we cannot be putting out indefinitely. you have before you not just a process under way by a group of bipartisan senators, but looking at a comprehensive plan, a physical commission, which is a comprehensive, balanced reasonable starting point for discussion. this is not beyond the capacity of our country to sell. if you look at the united states today, investors are confident we will solve this problem. we have to justify the confidence. you are right to emphasize that. he asked about tax reform. it is inevitable that congress comes together with the administration to reform the u.s. tax code, not just for individuals, but for corporations. you have a very compelling model for doing that in the commission's proposal. a lot of merits, which is to broaden the base and use some of the savings to lower rates and no work future deficits. we are designing a corporate tax reform that is comprehensive that will lower the tax corporate rate substantially, and before that by reducing or eliminating a set of special preferences for individual industries and activities. we think that is necessary to improve incentives for investment, and we hope that we will be able to work with congress on doing that. perhaps at of the comprehensive reform of the individual code, which is likely to come in the next few years. that is important because we want to do everything we can make it more likely that american companies -- build their next plant in the united states. >> mr. secretary, in addition to the debt commission, is there a plan in the works on corporate tax? >> yes. we are -- we have a working on a comprehensive proposal to help get the process and congress moving, and we have consulted with your colleagues on the tax-writing committees on how to design that, and i am optimistic we will be able to start that process with a very strong pro- investment, kerr-current proposal. it will be revenue neutral, but i think we can do that. he raised important questions about the cfpb. i cannot answer your last question, but it is important we nominate and conform a director because the full authority congress gave this bureau did not come into place until we have a confirmed director. we would like to do that. we are consulting with congress, we want to nominate somebody to be confirmed, and that is why it is taking us some time. it has been a challenge for us to find -- to confirm and number of positions for important financial responsibilities. you raised -- you propose, you said you are right to propose legislation. i understand the motivation, i believe as you would suspect that congress has been having considered a range of alternative models came up with a good model that combines very strong authority and independence with a set of checks and balances, this was the most car full of those are the this is of this bureau are subject to review and approval by the council of financial writers that congress established. that treats a stronger set of checks and balances than exist for many other financial regulators, independent or not, and congress got that balance right. if you look at what happened in our country in this crisis, you sell appalling, unforgivable failures and consumer protection. it is important we stick to that, and i think congress, if they keep it up for a long time, they can come up with a good balance. >> if i could follow up. can you think of any downside of not having a director confirmed by the operational state in july? >> absolutely. what happens at the transfer date, the date where the authorities that exist among existing federal agencies is transferred to this new bureau, that responsibility is shared among seven different agency, and we will consolidate that. there are other authorities that only take effect when there is a confirmed director. the consequence of that the lake, and one example of that is one of the biggest problems we have is we helped banks to a set of standards. no similar standards are existing without protection. what happened over time is at a lot of that basic business and simmer finance moved outside the banking system to institutions that are not supervised adequately. that treated appalling vulnerability for individuals, but created a huge and fairness for banks. one of the most important things congress did, establish a level playing field between banks and nonbanks. if we delay, we start funding or delay for paris to the agency, then you put banks into a disadvantage again. they will face the possibility of their business competed away. that would be an unfortunate consequence. >> mr. secretary, might a consequence of a shutdown result in an inflationary reaction? >> that is an excellent question, and i do not think i would frame that as a most significant risk. the most significant risk is you leave the entities that are doing vital things, not just supporting americans in combat, not just making payments to seniors, provide benefit checks to americans who depend on it for their living, you put those things at risk, risk is for a long period of time, you create uncertainty, and that could slow recovery. i would think not about a risk that we accelerate inflation so much as we take a little bit of a moment them out of the recovery and slow the pace of getting more americans back to work. >> house republicans claim that cutting programs like head start, medical research, are going to solve that problem. they refused to look at the revenue side of things. i mention that earlier. how important is it to let the bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of next year to help to eliminate the budget deficit? >> it is critically important. if congress extends those tax cuts, that go to 2% of the most fortunate americans of the country, we have to borrow $1 trillion over 10 years. we cannot afford to do that. it is not a responsible act of government, asking my successors to go out and bought $1 trillion the finance tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans. we cannot afford it. there is no credible case for doing it. you cannot restore fiscal sustainability, you cannot restore a modicum of balance for a fiscal position and preserve our capacity for economic growth and critical to our commitments for seniors if you sustain those tax cuts that we cannot afford. >> the administration house budget calls for an increase funding implementing the wall street reform law. the house republicans failed in their attempts to block that so they propose cutting the funding for that agency. what effect might these proposals have on wall street reforms, and our ability to prevent another financial crisis? >> the cuts are designed to starve those agencies of the ability, tonight a and -- denied them the ability to establish protections for consumers, and they will not pass because we think it would be irresponsible to pass them, but if they did pass, they would deprive us of the ability to fix the enormous cost of the american people. i think it is important congress equip these -- the executive branch with the resources and the people we need to enforce those basic sensible rules of the game. >> mr. secretary, mr. davis that the sanctions against the foreign medical -- minister of libya, a man who has been linked to numerous terrorist attacks, including pan am 103. in your consultation with secretary clinton regarding lifting the sanctions, the you discuss what other lovers might be available to be sure that he is the cow -- what other levers might be available to be sure that he is held accountable for these crimes? what with the estimate be of the revenues needed to help us stabilize things that continued -- continued to do improvements to our economy? >> the central question we face is how to get the deficit down to a level where we put our national debt as a share of the economy on a climbing path. you have to start to reduce it. that requires we get our deficits down to a level below 3% of gdp. that is a level at which our revenues and our commitments apart from interest are in balance. to do that, we proposed in our budget, the commission proposal a more ambitious way to do that, that provides it package, a balanced package of tax reforms and reductions in spending and a commitment that would achieve that measure of balance. without putting at risk future economic growth. without causing material damage to the economy. those are things we can afford to make, changes we can accept. both those eggs at this -- both those examples -- the challenge is not to reduce the seven deficit. the challenge is to do it without hurting future economic growth, is fair to the american people, and that requires you to do it in a balanced way, and it is within our capacity to do as a nation. this is something we should make sure we can let americans know because they are uncertain about this. this is something we can do at acceptable cost with time for people to adjust. >> well said, mr. secretary. >> you requested a 4% increase, and a couple of counts stood out. there was a request for $3.4 billion in international programs, a 50% increase, and food security accounts, a 1027% request, and that increase, 336% increase. >> the international peace, the treasury piece of what is called the foreign assistance budget is 5% of the total foreign assistance budget. the peace we are responsible for as funding institutions like the world bank, the international financial institutions. in those institutions we get enormous leverage. the specific request you referred to include a variety of commitments that the government made in the past under republican and democratic administrations, a set of new commitments where we think there is the highest return to our basic national interest. an example. food security, what we propose to do is help feeding a milk -- a multilateral fund support improvements in industrial countries because of the challenges of poverty in this country. we are the most productive farmers in the world and that case. across west i would be helpful to out -- i would be happy to talk. our resources in that 5% leverage multiple dollars both by bringing other people to the table and borrowing, so that total resources is more than 1.5 times than the budget. as we figure out how to reduce spending, we will have to reduce spending, we want to make sure we preserve things where we have uck.biggest bang for the bough >> unworried we have appropriated money that is going directly to the islamic republic of iran, meaning the treasury part manages a relationship with the ifc. ibrd has an unexpected balanced it iran. we of an $58 million -- we own $58 million in a bank that is iran. we 0185% of that. a total of $85 million direct of the u.s. taxpayer, and i understand these payments are made directly to the finance ministry of the islamic republic of iran? >> oppose lending to iran. we have opposed them in a long time. last loans approved were approved in 2005. >> you have not that these checks yet, but you are about to prov? 2005, that was last time the world bank approved a loan. we opposed it then, and we have worked hard to dramatically tighten the financial sanctions on iran. >> he did not have substantial success. i have written you a classified letter, and i hope you read it before you testify again on the subject. i hope you read that very carefully. >> i know that you care a lot about these issues. we'd do, and i would be happy to talk about these. the financial sanctions per graham's that my colleagues helped us design have resulted in a dramatic incredibly powerful tightening of the basic economic sanctions on the government of iran. it is very important we do that. >> before you testified again and make a statement like that, i would absolutely urge you to review the record. >> we are happy to work with you, and this job is a requires a relentless focus, because we titans of the year, what happens is overtime, the central shift gradually, people get around it, so it requires a relentless focus. >> in march, the u.s. government raise a net of $120 billion, and it's that a net of $1.05 trillion. he spent $8 for every $1 you race. he covered by our roaring $786 billion and reducing your cash balance to an ending balance of $118 billion. is that your estimate of how your march went? >> i will have to check those numbers ver. >> erskine bowles said yesterday that we are facing the most predictable economic challenge in our history. you agree? >> it is important we do it. we have lots of the challenges. our challenge is to do that in a way that does not hurt the recovery, heard the economy. >> my last question. if you with the chinese, with the land this -- lend us another 1 trillion dollars? >> of course. the world still views the american political system as up to that challenge of delivering reforms of making our economy stronger. if you look at what we pay to borrow today, there is confident around the world in the capacity of this system coming together to solve these problems because we have always done it the past. we have to earn that confidence every day. that is why these efforts are everyday, and it is important, as finds a way to come together and locked in a comprehensive restraints that reduce those deficits. it is within our capacity to do and we have to make sure we justify that confidence you see in the markets every day now. >> take you, mr. secretary. -- thank you, mr. secretary. >> you witnessed and participated in discussions that led to an effort to save financial institutions from ruin, and by most standards the fact that the money has been repaid that our government, the tarp money with interest, in most instances, is an indication of recovery. the purpose of wall street reform weston make certain we never had to walk that road again. we had to make sure that we put in place oversight and regulation so the excesses that led to the recession were not repeated. since passage of that of the session there has been a steady effort by wall street the on to that wall street reform. we have seen it in many aspects. i am not want to raise the issue, but i am battling an issue of interchange fees. when it comes to financial responsibility efforts, there is an effort to slow down that implementation or stop it. as you step back and look at the banking industry from the darkest days, beginning in this recession until today, i see profit reports which suggests they are doing quite well. is there any indication that you can point to of weakness and our financial institutions that has been brought on by too much government regulation and oversight? >> let me say a few things. the u.s. financial system is in a dramatically stronger position today than it was in the years running up to that crisis. there is much more capital and the system. the weakest parts have been washed away. what we have left is much stronger. the challenges we face in the system are community banks across the country are still exposed and facing a lot of challenges still, and that is hurting the small business customers. the housing finance market is still deeply damaged. just at the beginning of repairing that challenge. we have a lot of challenges to those still. i believe these reforms are essentials to the basic health of the american private sector, are essentials to credibility of the american financial system globally. absolutely essential to the ability of this financial system to take the savings and channel and the people that have an idea, to want to build a growing company, and we have to make sure we meet the basic challenges of the legislation in designing sensible rules. there has to be a balance. we have to preserve competition, some measure of the pheasants, dynamism, innovation, but we have to do a dramatically better job to protecting investors and consumers from the kind of abuses we felt. our biggest challenge now is to make sure those designs are done well, allowed to take effect. a minister by people who have the resources and the authority to carry out the responsibilities, and we are at the early stage of the process of implementation. >> yesterday i went to an opening of a housing projects, " on the west side of chicago. it was the same location where doctor martin luther king state when he lived in chicago. they were proud of the fact that they had five requests 45 units. as i went to this ribbon cutting, i drove to the neighborhood, and virtually every third home was boarded up with plywood, indicating it was in foreclosure and not currently occupy. it strikes me that this is still an unresolved issue, and you had alluded to it, about the value of real estate in america and our housing crisis. can we expect a solid recovery of this economy unless or until we mark to market and understand what the true value of real estate is, with so many americans facing the prospect of being under water in their own personal debt on their homes? are we tallying the inevitable of facing a resolution of this pricing? >> i do not think so. we you are right to remind everybody that the housing market is still in crisis. it is not still in california, florida, arizona, but it is in cities across the country, and there are still millions of more americans in risk of losing their homes. there are two important things that we have to do in the near term to reduce that problem and help repair. we have to get the economy stronger. the only way and the most powerful way to make sure that you bring the market back to a reasonable get more americans back to work to make sure incomes are growing. overwhelmingly they will dominate the outcome. it is also important to continue to make sure that we use all the tools that we have to make sure that servicers and banks are giving people a chance to stay in their homes if they can afford to do that. the programs reach millions of americans, but there are millions more at risk. we want to do everything to make sure that. if people can stay in their homes, that is a chance, and doing those things are important. but the most important thing is to make sure everything we do is motivated by the challenge of getting the economy stronger and more americans back to work. that is the best thing to do for those communities still caught up in the trauma. it will take several more years under the best of circumstances to heal that. >> i will say briefly is that several years ago, i address the bankruptcy code as a way to have some reckoning in this process. mangas would know what they were about to foreclose -- banks would know if they were about to foreclose, that ultimately there would be a bankruptcy judge who would have power to take the terms of the mortgage and keep people in their homes. it was thought by the financial institution, it was not enthusiastically supported by the administration, and it failed. and here we are today in a situation where i cannot reconcile in my mind how way baseball is a foreclosing on a home, boarding up, letting the weeds grow in the front yard, and the vandals come in and went out -- ripped out the copper plumbing said that it becomes a bird out hollow building and has to be torn down is in the best interest of the banks, let alone the country in the neighborhood. that is what is happening over and over again. i have lived through this in my home town of in illinois, and it looks like after the bombing for all the vacant land there. i've seen it happen in chicago and i see no end in sight. i know we have tried but i do not think -- i understand what you're saying, the overall economy as part of it, but i do not think we address the responsibility of the financial institutions in this situation. didn't you brought up something very important and i've been saying for a long time that the servicers have been a really terrible job of helping fix and repair and he'll and help people through a mass that they help contribute to. and they're not putting up resources in this effort. they're not doing a good enough job of helping homeowners navigate through a very complicated process. they have to do a better job. we're a involved in a series of efforts to try to bring more force to a more rapid resolution of those problems. >> in closing, we have given them a lot of carrots. it is time to find a stake. >> let me follow up on a topic that you started down. when senator dorgan describe that neighborhood with the boarded up houses, it brings me back to the value of community banking in which i might -- human nature tells me there is a different reaction if you are the banker lending to the house down the street, down the road, you have a lot of caring compassion for your community a new drive by that house every day. you will have a response of figuring out how to get this house backing to some owners hand. it gives me the opportunity to reiterate what i said in my opening statement. and the reason that the real estate aspect of this is so prevalent in my mind, i've had numerous bankers, half a dozen, telling me that with new regulations they are no longer making home loans. i think this is a terrible, sad circumstance in our country when your home town banker says it is no longer worth the regulatory costs of fingerprinting my employees to make a loan to someone who lives in our town. kansas and much of illinois, we have a large rural communities in which our bankers and other community very well. the idea that you can i go to your home town banker and get a home loan is trouble son. also a conversation with the regional banker telling me for the first time in their banks history, instead of the bank calling a community banks saying we are interested in buying your bank. it is not a community bankers calling the regional banks and, i cannot afford this anymore. the regulatory costs have to be spread among such a large group of borrowers, that we are seeing in my view the demise of something that is very important to the life of a community. that is the local financial institution. and if that occurs as a result of market forces, that is one thing to me. but that occurs because we had an overregulated, lack of common-sense regulatory scheme, we ought to be able to fix that problem. >> i agree with you. but the associate myself with your central point. one of the great strengths of this financial system is that we have not some of the largest -- not just of the largest, most innovative global companies, but we have 8000 small community banks that provide a level of diversity, responsiveness, customer service, care that is a huge asset for the country. we want to make everything that we can to preserve that. i do not believe that that is at risk in any meaningful sense. the financial reform the congress passed, when the -- it went the extra mile to make sure that that was not contributing to the problem. that they are not subject to a greater burden. they are protected from additional regulations which are really designed to get at the largest, most risky institutions and risky practices. most of what you're seeing happening in community banks today is the result of the fact that a number of them, not all of them, got to expose to commercial real estate risk. when ec bank examiners -- when you see bank examiners who got a little caught by excess is in the country, they are over correcting them. and the burden you here in banks across the country is the concern that examiners now are becoming too aggressive and making it harder for them to do things that are economically sensible loan to a possible customers. that is important to counterbalance and resist. the chairman of the fed and the fdic and bank supervisors are aware of this problem, and they have been working to try to mitigated. they are independent of the treasury. i cannot control what they do in this context. but i know that they are concerned about it. i hear what you hear, too. community banks still saying that we're getting too much heat from examiners and we want to increase lending. we want to make sure that we can counteract that. congress did pass a very well designed set of programs to help banks, community banks get access to capital and help support lending and get more recess -- resources to small business credit programs across the country, which we are doing. we think that is a good sensible response. i agree with your concern and i am personally completely committed to make sure that we preserve that great strength of diversity of a banking system that has thousands and thousands of small community banks operating on main street, trying to do a better job for their customers. >> i am never quite certain as to how much of the problem is additional regulation, how much of it as additional enforcement, and in part just the uncertainty of the enforcement. what is coming next? there is a reluctance to lend money and i have had this conversation with you previously and with chairman bernanke and sheila bair. we have been down the line. everyone is sympathetic. and yet the problem continues. i would say that i am not necessarily here advocating for my bankers. i am here advocating for what i think is important to the economy in putting people to work. banks that can make loans in communities across our country and kansas, access to credit is a determining factor as to whether or not you will grow and expand your business. and we have reluctance on the part of bankers because the regulatory burden or uncertainty or enforcement that is making a very difficult for these things to occur. i do not know whether you have someone in the otc, firewall as part of the treasury, but you do not have direct control, but it would be great to have someone who is alternately sit down with community bankers and their customers -- ultimately sit down with community bankers and their customers. like the procuracy and paperwork. -- like bureaucracy and paperwork. if we could have a specific example of the rules and regulations or the enforcement action that can make no sense, we can address those individually as compared to the big pat -- the big picture of fighting the bureaucrat. you've heard suggestions of who i could get in a room with bankers and their customers to see if there are individual items of regulation or the regulators that are not following the protocol of the exam process, so that we can get some certainty back into this process. >> i'll have to work with you on and and your right to call attention to it. i would point out that if you look at the broad measures of what businesses report in terms of credit terms and availability, and to look at the very broad measures of access to credit to businesses, types of credit, lending terms that they face, it is party to improve. not as soon as we would like or quickly as we would like, but much faster than credit to consumers or someone who wants to borrow to finance a house is improving. that is encouraging but we want to reinforce it and we have a long way to do. >> mr. secretary, one additional question personally if i could kick you for foam -- a few moments after this hearing. >> senator lautenberg. >> mr. secretary, it is estimated by the treasury that federal revenues lost due to illegal tobacco trafficking may reach as high as $4.5 billion and european -- annually. congress provided more money for enforcement efforts. however, the president's budget next year would eliminate these. without filling these jobs, how would treasury have the resources it needs to carry out effective to back to taxing? >> i know is important to you and i am aware of your concern. i like to work with you to see if we can address it. the me tell you what is guiding our judgment. we're finding across the board that we're having to do more with less. we have limited enforcement resources and returned to devote them where we have the highest return in terms of revenues. that is forced as a cutback in some areas. this is an example. i know why you're concerned about it, because it makes it easier for the revenue base of states. it is a born in this context and i would be happy to work with you on this. a of a lot in the last two years. we have been forced and efforts under way which have some deterrent value. -- enforcement efforts under way which have some deterrent value. how be happy to work with you. to do we need the people to get the job done. >> we do, absolutely. we have use those resources to hire higher-up's agents to help in this effort. >> and that imposes an extra burden on those who have audits. >> it does, and there are people who want to cut those resources to. we want to make sure the with the resources you give us, we allocate them to where they have the highest possible return. and i know why it is important to you. >> the administration has recommended in infrastructure bank of funding and national transportation projects of significance. when budget dollars are stress so thin, how would they focus federal dollars to maximize our country's economic competitiveness? >> as you know, we face a huge long-term infrastructure deficit of this enormous burden, which hurts the competitiveness of but american businesses by raising the cost of doing business of bringing their products to the market. when you think about the long- term challenges, we have to finance responsibly much higher levels of infrastructure funding. we think it should be part of the solution. it cannot be the entire solution. what it does is give us the chance to get a better use of taxpayer resources to borrow from the market and bring private capital alongside what the government is directly, so we get more power, more emanation behind these projects. there is a lot -- more ammunition behind these projects. will like to work with you to figure how we can get something done. one of the most importance we can do is have get more americans back to work. employing the people most affected by the crisis, like in construction, and for long-term competitiveness is to invest substantially more in construction projects with a high return over time. we cannot do that adequately to the traditional mechanism congress has used to fund for example the transportation budget. >> will we hear some of what my the considered -- might be considered so that we can get on with it? >> we have a series of detailed proposals to get more support in congress. there are a bunch of new ideas on the hill that we want to work with you on. this is something that we should be able to do. it is not a partisan issue. it traditionally had a lot of bipartisan support, and it is a good efficient use of taxpayer resources. >> well, some companies are pushing for a tax holiday if they repatriate income currently invested overseas. these companies believe that it will boost the u.s. economy and create jobs. i am skeptical about it. some have suggested that the tax holiday made sense and the larger context of corporate tax reform. how do you feel about that kind of proposal or a margin that is something the that we would not consider outside the context of corporate tax reform for the reasons that you have said. on the basis of that hal it has been experience in the past, -- of how it has been experienced in the past, it has not produced an increase in investment, job creation, and it is expensive. we will not support at time the context -- outside the contest, but there may be a way to be responsive to the broader interests of getting more resources backed. but not outside the context of reform. >> it is believed that by keeping these companies from bringing back the income that they have earned, they would not only lose revenues but we are also increasing competition for jobs within our own country. >> that is a very good idea to have comprehensive reform. it would broaden the base and include the incentives for people to bring back those resources. that is what our reforms would try to do. you will see in the proposal that we would find a way to be responsive to the broader interests. all want to do is improve incentives for people investing resources in the united states. >> companies on the other side propose to cut the new financial protection -- consumer protection budget to $80 billion. -- $80 million. if the house republicans get their way, how's that going to affect the ability to start up and the fillets mission of protecting consumers? >> the purpose of those cuts are to start this entity of the resources it needs to get going. the will put it risked -- one example but i won't tell you another one. the most important priorities of this bureau from day one are to simplify and improve disclosure from people who wanted a loan to buy a house or to borrow against their credit card. providing more simple disclosure to people so they understand how to borrow responsibly, can shop for a better deal, is an overwhelmingly sensible jet ever -- objective. you could lead banks with an unlevel playing field, but they're competing against non-. finance companies without constrained who might be trying to take advantage of their customers in that context. those are two examples. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> in my opening statement, i mentioned the financial crimes enforcement network which i do not know if many people follow it. it collects red flags on suspicious financial transactions for banks and other financial entities. hundreds of federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies access that data to track the financial paper trail of criminal financial activity including terrorist financing and drug trafficking. many places like chicago and new york city, local law enforcement entities, have direct access to this data. in illinois, 75 users ran over 25 searches -- 25 searches -- 25,000 searches. all the searches would have to funnel through just to staffers at the state level. treasury would save $1.3 million for the proposed cuts in this agency, and it seems to me that it has a significant role being played in dealing with the use of our financial network by wrongdoers, criminals, drug traffickers, would-be terrorists. this seems to me to be penny wise and pound foolish. can you comment? >> thank you for raising that. i understand your concerns and will work with you to mitigate that effect. i appreciate much what you said in your opening statement that it provides as a whole. we're always looking for ways to make sure that we are directing them to things that can have the maximum positive impact in reducing the ability to take advantage of our financial system in this case. this is just one example. you're concerned about the effect it would have on local law enforcement officials, particularly in the major cities. i am optimistic we can find a way to address those concerns. we're proposing direct access for them to the resources, but they understand your concerns and i think we can work with you to mitigate those. >> senator moran. >> i think mr. kirk and his conversation with you was about the world bank. i did want to make certain that you understand the importance of enforcement, strict and strong, of the iran sanctions. i s and did you tell us that you're taking your job very seriously. -- i assume that you tell us you are taking a job very seriously. >> i would. we have a program and the law that congress pass it as much more power and it has a dramatic effect to make sure that our other countries are joining us can tighten the constraints. but as senator kirk reminded us, this is an ongoing challenge and it requires a relentless focus to try to make sure your catch every opportunity for evasion and stay on it. we have some incredibly talented people with a great record in this area and will work every day to make sure we can do a better job. congress gave as much more powerful tools. >> there is no need for additional statutory authority here? >> i did not do so. the big challenges you know is to get other countries to come with us. we do not do material business, really, now. but much of the rest of the world does. by we're tightening the net getting other countries to come with us. but we have some more work to do on that front. >> thank you for your help. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the record of this hearing remains open. members may submit statements or questions for the secretary to consider. this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tonight, a memorial service honoring the life and career of "washington post" political columnist david broder. that is that a clock p.m. eastern, here on c-span. -- that is at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. >> president obama discusses the friday night agreement that averted a government shutdown. he talks about the need for continued compromise in spending negotiations. then paul ryan also discusses the federal spending agreement as well as his proposed budget for next year. this is about eight minutes. >> last night after weeks of long and difficult negotiations over our national budget, the leaders of both parties came together to avert a government shutdown it was to cut spending and investing our future. this is good news for the american people. it means small businesses can get the loans they need. families can get the mortgages they applied for. folks can visit our national museums and parks. hundreds of thousands of americans will get their pay checks on time, including our brave men and women in uniform. this is an agreement to invest in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history. like any compromise, this required everyone to give ground on issues important to them. i certainly did. some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. programs people rely on will be cut back. infrastructure projects will be delayed. i would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. we also prevented the important debate from being overtaken by politics and unrelated disagreements on social issues. beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect the investments that will help america compete for new jobs. investments in our kids' educations, clean energy, and lifesaving medical research. reducing spending while still investing in the future is just common sense. it is what families do in tough times. they sacrifice were they can, even if it is hard, to avoid -- afford what is really important. i was able to sign a tax bill for america's families because both parties work through their differences and found common ground. the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. it is my hope that we can continue to come together as we face the difficult challenges ahead in creating jobs, growing our economy, educating our children, and reducing our long term deficit. that is our responsibility. that is what the american people expect us to do. it is what the american people deserve. >> hello. i am congressman paul ryan from wisconsin. i am chairman of the house budget committee. it is no secret our government has a spending problem. the problem has gotten so bad is threatening our future and hurting our nation's ability to create jobs. republicans made a pledge that we would work to change this if given the opportunity to lead. since january, we have been urging president obama to work with us to reduce spending. the president started this year by proposing a freeze that would make the cuts of all. now bipartisan legislation is in sight to enact the largest spending cut in american history. this is good news for job creators in america. more house to be done to put our nation on the true path to prosperity. earlier this week, the house budget committee to advance the new budget for the united states government that will move the debate in washington from billions in cuts to trillions. we did so because it is unconscionable to leave the next generation with a crushing burden of debt and a nation in decline. washington's obsession with the next election has come at the expense of the next generation. we're calling this budget the path to prosperity. it is more than just the budget. it is a commitment to honor the american legacy of leaving the next generation in more prosperous nation than the one we inherited. removing the anchor of debt that weighs down our economy in advance and progress growth tax reforms, this is a jobs budget. it sends signals to investors, entrepreneurs, and job creators the brighter future is possible, a future in which america is still an engine of growth that leaves of the world. that legacy is in grave danger. the nation is going deeper into debt. the choices we make today will determine the kind of lives and our children enjoy tomorrow. these are the facts. washington has not been telling you the truth about the magnitude of the problems we're facing. unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on everything else, including national security. it will literally take every cent of every federal tax dollar just to pay for these programs. the non-partisan experts have been clear about what this means. each day that congress fails to act, the government takes one step closer to breaking its promises to current retirees. each year the policy makers kicked the can down the road means trillions of dollars in into promises are being made to future generations. if we stay on the current half, we're heading towards an economic crisis. it would be massive tax increases, runaway inflation. the prospect of a crisis is casting a shadow on economic activity in this country. uncertainty is keeping job creators from hiring as fast as they should be. business is no that all of the borrowing and spending today means higher taxes and lower incomes for customers down the road. congress agrees. advancing a credible solution to the crisis will begin to restore confidence and create better conditions for job creation immediately. the president's recent budget proposal is worse than just a commitment to the status quo. it would actually accelerate the debt crisis. it would double the debt held by the public by the end of his term and triple in the decade from now. it would raise taxes by $1.5 trillion, even though the problem is that washington spends too much and not that americans are taxed too little. it would permanently enlarged the size of government by sending government spending is a share of the economy skyrocketing to levels the healthy economy cannot sustain. it offers no real reform for government return programs and new leadership. our budget is very different. instead of locking in the spending spree of the last two years, our budget cuts $6.2 trillion from the president's budget over the next 10 years. this keeps government spending as a share of the economy consistent with the historical average of 20%. individuals and the economy can be free. instead of letting the deficit spiral out of control, our budget keeps borrowing in check and put some path to balance. instead of adding $13 trillion to the debt over the next decade, this path to prosperity lifts the crushing burden of debt threatening our economy and our children's future. it is not too late to fix america's problems. it is not too late to get our country back on track so that our kids can also realize the american dream. we can and must preserve this nation's exceptional promise. that is what previous generations of americans worked so hard to do for us. it is time for officials in washington to stop acting like politicians and to start acting like leaders. we have a legacy to fulfil. it is time for all of us to get to work. putting and to the empty promises and it fits the path to prosperity. -- put an end to the empty promises and get on the path to prosperity. >> that is that to o'clock a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> dolores huerta, the co- founder of the united farm workers union spoke at the ywca conference in general assembly meeting. she talks about her experiences in organizing unions and immigration. this is about 25 minutes. >> it is wonderful to be here for this partnership. we have 36 organizations that have sponsored the summit. it is so important that we work together. these are really tough times for everything that we want this country to be for women, children, to end racism, to promote civil rights, and human rights. even though we can be discouraged if this time, i know eventually we will prevail. i see this as a backlash that is temporary. our next front lash is going to be terrific. that is especially with us all working together. [applause] now i would like to introduce a different, a founding member of the majority of board. it is a person i have worked with for a very long time. the decades just keep going. we keep on persevering. dolores huerta has been an absolutely incredible leader for labor, workers' rights, human rights, to end discrimination against immigrants, for reproductive choice, for feminism. she never seemed to tire. she was the co-founder of united farm workers. she was according to cesar, the toughest negotiator. when they got into a gym, they would call her to go and finish the negotiations. -- when they got into a jam, they would call her to go and finish the negotiations. she never takes no for an answer. she is indefatigable. she can take a red eye at any time. i have to tell you she took a red eye to come to this conference because she squeezed something and right before it. -- in right before it. when we first met, she gave a speech that i can still remember about pesticides and the lack of toilets. this was not in some third world country but in california for farm workers. the pesticides were not only shortening their lives but their children's lives. the outrage is that she spent i do not know how many decades fighting for sanitation and toilets in the fields. she led the great boycott. i still did not eat many grapes. i feel guilty. now she says we should believe them because of pesticides. she is a treasure for this country and for this world. she is one of the great human rights leaders of our time, dolores huerta. [applause] >> thank you. this is very exciting. this is a cosmic moment for us to come together here in this moment of crisis. this is such an important moment. some of our board members are here. i do want to introduce them because they're doing important work. i do what he to meet some of the board. we have with us mavis leno. she is in charge of the afghan women's program. she travels all over the world bringing attention to the plight of the women in afghanistan. we also have with us loraine sheinberg who does work on video and researching the right wing for women's rights. we also have peggy yorkin. [applause] please give them a big applause. we have assembled so many great minds here that i want to implore you to stick around. go to the workshops. there will be great workshops. when you come to washington, it is not just to see the sights. he will be able to get the kind of information that we need as women. there is a war against women. you can get the information from these workshops. how are we going to stop this aggression and the institutional violence against women's reproductive rights? there is this big crisis right now in our government. who would think they would be willing to shut down the government over whaa woman's rit to choose? that is mind-boggling. i do not know what kind of tea they are drinking. hopefully, we will not let them get away with it. back in the 1960's, many of you were involved in the civil rights movement and protests. we could be doing sit in this in the offices of the right-wing people who think they can get away with this. we have to make sure that we go back to our districts and call everyone we note to email our congress people and ask what they're doing over there. this is just outrageous. we had carol maloney with us. she is one of the fierce fighters for women's rights in the house of representatives. she is been doing great work in terms of women's health, making it mandatory for them to do dna tests on rape victims, etc. she made the statement that as women, we think we have come so far, but we still have a long way to go. when we think of where we are as women in terms of representation in government, i have heard two statistics. we are 59th in the world. we are behind liberia in africa. some say we're no. 70 in the world when it comes to women's representation in government. think about that. we are of 16% as representatives in government. we're one of the most powerful governments in the world. rick comes to the corporate world, -- when it comes to the corporate world, we're something like 4% to 8%. we have a lot of work to do. we see what is happening. we know those tea drinkers are putting up a lot of women to run for political office. they are getting a lot of attention from the media. we have to distinguish between the women and feminists. that is very important. what is a feminist? if the minister is a person who's going to stand up for the reproductive rights of women -- a feminist is a person who's going to stand up to the reproductive rights of women. we cannot fully attain what we need to if we do not have control of our bodies. that is number one. feminists stand up for labor rights, education, the in burma, -- the environment, lgbt writes. i urge you to get a button that says "this is what a feminist looks like." and then can also be feminists reject the -- the man can also be feminists. we will not get snookered by the tea drinkers. some of the women running are against everything that women really need and want. they've taken away the attention of the public. we have the economic meltdown. people have lost their homes. they have distracted the public. they have said it is the fault of the immigrants, all of these people coming in from other countries. we have to remind everybody that your family came from somewhere. all of us are immigrants to this country. we came here or were brought here against our will at one time or another. when we ask for legalization for our immigrants, this is nothing new. we're asking for the same thing and rights that other people have had in this country over the years. every single immigrant group that came to the united states was legalized at one time or another. back in the 1920's, we had more foreign-born than native-born citizens in our country. this group has made it appear that immigrants are those training finances. they are not. it is the bankers and other people doing that. we have to remind people of the contributions of the immigrants. number one, they feed our economy with their purchases. the contributions to social security. over $35 billion. over $85 billion. most of that they will never see because they have to use a different social security number or borrow it. all of us know the people doing our gardens are put in the food on our table. on our table.

Related Keywords

Myanmar ,Alabama ,United States ,Alexandria ,Al Iskandariyah ,Egypt ,China ,California ,Western Sahara ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Arizona ,South Sudan ,Sudan ,India ,Nigeria ,South Carolina ,Morocco ,Massachusetts ,Libya ,Cuba ,South Korea ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Haiti ,New York ,Canada ,Japan ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Florida ,Virginia ,Liberia ,Wisconsin ,Indonesia ,Jordan ,Pakistan ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Israel ,Geneva ,Genè ,Switzerland ,Gaza ,Israel General ,George Washington ,Villa Clara ,Pennsylvania ,North Korea ,Somalia ,Ohio ,Kansas ,Capitol Hill ,France ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,Darfur ,Gharb Darfur ,Americans ,Burma ,Chinese ,Iranian ,Afghan ,Israelis ,French ,Iraqi ,Libyan ,Israeli ,Palestinian ,Han ,American ,Cuban ,Nick Rhodes ,America Pasqua ,Martin Luther King ,Joe Biden ,Carol Maloney ,Erskine Bowles ,Shimon Peres ,Benjamin Netanyahu ,David Broder ,John Negroponte ,Mavis Leno ,Sheila Bair ,Tim Geithner ,Melissa Lee ,Paul Ryan ,Dolores Huerta ,