tv [untitled] June 21, 2012 3:30pm-4:00pm EDT
the federal government should make scientific data that it uses to justify regulatory actions public. we have an issue with the epa and some of their regulatory actions that they claim based on scientific data, but we have a hard time getting them to release the original data upon which they base action. as a matter of principle, do you think we should expect that? >> yes. >> would you work with the committee to see that we get it? >> i'd be happy to do that. if there's a problem there, i'd be happy to work with you. i think the principle is absolutely the data on which regulatory decisions and other decisions are based should be available to the committee and should be made public unless there's a classification reason which is unlikely in this case. >> thank you. also in your testimony you talk about clean energy, but whether the president talked about clean energy in the last state of the union he used natural gas as clean energy. you left it out of your testimony. do you consider natural gas a
clean energy source? >> yes. >> is there a reason why you left it out of your testimony? >> no. natural gas is the clean eest o the fossil fuel resources. >> you should have development into it as a clean energy source. >> i think the natural gas business is so well-developed that the private sector does further r and d needed in that domain. we do need federal r and d to ensure that hydrofracturing can be done in a way that protects drinking water and protects other environmental values. you're a scientist. is there a doulted case of contamination of drinking water from hydrofracturing. >> there is not. >> as an scientists with 1.2 million applications of hydrofracturing. despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination we should expend monies in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a
reason to regulate hydrofracturing. as a scientist, 1.2 million applications, doctor. you admit to documented case of drinking water contamination. that looks like a wild-goose chase, but you might have a different opinion. >> it's important to develop hydrofracking in a way that the american public has confidence in it and can continue to rely on it. i think the danger is -- >> i'm going to interrupt you for a second because i have two more minutes with one question. do you think the scientific integrity whshgs the epa issues a fear-mongering press release about the data from pavilion study and has to go back and admit a few months later to go back and collect more data, do you think that's good science? >> i don't want to defend a particular press release. i didn't see it. >> i didn't suggest it. part of the reason the american public has no fate is that the scientific community in this administration has not come out and said, you know what? you ought to have confidence in a technique that's been used 1.2
million times with no documented case of water. we're going to look at it, but as a baseline it looks pred safe. that's 1080 degrees from what scientists in the administration have said. there's a conference going on in rio de janeiro this week and americans are skeptical whenever we get together in international conferences and come to agreements, because they are concerned is that our tax dollars bear the costs and economic burdens from agreements that come from these. in 2007 a climate change conference in bali your response to an interview questions skwed whether americans need to reduce their living expenses, there has been to be a redistribution of how much we consume. is that an accurate quote of what you said in 2007? >> i do not remember, sir, exactly what i said in 2007, but it sounds to me that i would have been talking about distribution between clean
energy technologies and dirty energy technologies and where we get our consumptions, what the processes are more broadly by which we support our standard of living. let me note the president has said and i have said that we believe the country's natural gas resources can be dwoned safely. we've been clear on that. the question you're getting at is whether the government needs to pay any attention at all to the range of potential environmental issues. >> no. my specific question is whether you said there's a degree of redistribution of how much we consume. i'll pull the final quote, whether we talk about energy and whether we talk about this perception that the government just thinks that americans consume too much. maybe this is not fair somehow. he would suggest if you think that what we ought to do is reduce our gdp and have a lower gdp, that's consistent with the president's economic policies. >> that's not what i think and
not what the president thinks. >> i'm glad he doesn't think it, but you know, when at the continually revise downward or gdp estimate and we have folks in the administration said a few years ago we ought to redistribute or consumption and you have other administration officials say it would be nice if the price of gas were at energy gas levels of europe. some people are stept cal of that. that i was rhetorical question. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and doctor for your testimony sxaul the work that you're doing. i know it's been almost two hours now. a couple questions that i have here. the first is the america competes re-authorization act, the america competes
re-authorization were very critical for the nation, and we need to remain committed to those. i'm particularly interested in talking with you about innovation at federal agencies. ostb released the report on prices highlights best practices in federal prize programs. i was glad to see this report and glad you support the use of innovation prizes, something i had originally been a part of is the creation of the hydrogen. i continue to promote the use of innovation prizes. can you update us what's been done on the authority so far in 2012 in what ostp is using to promote prizes like the national science foundation. >> thank you for that question. first of all, we have issued a memorandum that went to all the departments and agencies making
clear that they had the authority to use prize competitions to achieve the goals of the departments and agencies where that made sense. we think and i think you agree from your own background in this domain that prizes and competitions are often an extremely efficient way to generate innovation because you end up only paying for success, you described a goal but don't presubscribe ways to get there and you draw on the noin vags of a very wide community to find the innovations. we now have prize competitions going on in something like 40 different departments and agencies, including the nsf and including the d.o.d., the v.a., the department of transportation, and many ours. the ones that have already come to completion have shown some
remarkable results. one is the automotive x prize, which was corporate money but d.o.e. or kes trags of the prize competition. there was $10 million in prizes for folks who could construct and demonstrate a vehicle that gets more than 100 miles per hour equivalent fuel economy. and three vehicles succeeded and split the prize money, but the interesting thing is the competitors invested $100 million in pursuit of $10 million in prizes. i call that leverage. i thank you for that. i think we both agree that it's certainly not a substitute for research grants but another way of trying to promote innovation in our country. a couple other things i want to touch on that were brought up earlier. first i want to concur with
lofgren on the n.i.f., and i'm having interested in n.i.f. and what we do in the continuation of that and some education as co-chair of the caucus. one thing particularly that i wanted to raise with you is the thorough investment in formal science education, which has shrunk in recent years. this year's nsf budget request included a 22% reduction advanced in formal stem learning grant programs. so i want to ask, do you expect informal education programs including grant programs to be an important part of future federal stem education portfolio, or do we continue to see this going down? >> no, i think it will continue to be an important part. we're in the late stages of producing a stem education strategic plans that draws on the results of the inventory i mentioned before where for the first time we conducted a
comprehensive inventory of all the federal government programs across all departments and agencies that do these thing. we're already pen fits from some of the insights from that inventory in finding ways to expand programs that are more cost-effective and shrink some of those that are less cost-effective. i would not expect the informal education programs to go away. when the stem education strategic plan comes out fairly shortly, those programs will continue to have a role. >> i certainly encourage you to continue to include first and foremost, emed. i know how important it was for me personally and a lot of others. we look forward to see the strategic plan later this year. anything more specific about when this may come out or anything else you can tell us about that plan very briefly? >> i believe the education strategic plan will be out by fall. >> thaw.
i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. thank you, doctor, for your testimony. we may have other questions. i have questions i submitted to writing and get them on to you and hope within a couple of weeks we can leave record open for that. to miss lofgren, it's my understanding they have an agreement on the content of her request, and without objection her request is granted. with that, doctor, you're accused. this hearing is aadjoudjournadj. we are adjourned. the house and nature
finishing up their work for the week today with the senate passing the agriculture bill, the farm bill by a vote of 64-35. 46 democrats and 16 republicans voted for the bill, and both independents joe lieberman and bernie sanders voting for it as well. the house and nature are largely done at least for legislative work for the week. later today we bring you book tv conversation with peter edelman. his latest is "so rich, so poor" which talks about why our economy produces great wealth and great poverty at the same time. he's speaking at a bookstore in washington bus boyce and poets and that's live at booktv.com. >> this weekend on afterwards katie details fast and furious. >> this was something swept under the rug and kept from not up only the american people but the mexican people as well. there are hundreds of faceless, innocent mexican citizens who have been murdered as a result of this. the only thing that we knew
outside of the government program is guns from american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all these problems with the cartel, when really the government was sanctioning these sales and sending them into mexico. >> she's interviewed by major gar rhett sunday night at 9:00 pashgts of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. the government's top drug enforcement administrator said on wednesday that dea agents accused of misconduct in the secret service prostitution scandal in colombian. they testified before the subcommittee on crime, terrorism and house sted security. kurnltly the agency has nearly 5,000 special agents and a budget of just over $2 billion. this hearing is jurnd under two hours. >> bring the house to order. i would like to welcome
administrator linhart and thank hr for testifying this morning. we appreciate the efforts and great strides it make to combat the increasingly drug trade. the add amore's testimony comes at a timely moment as the war on drugs approaches a potential crosswords. on july 1th mexico will elect a new president. by all accounts peen in fact industrialal revolution party is leading the field. the prr government has governed mexico for 71 years until 2000. while in power the preminimum nized violence by during the blind eye to the cartels. the current president has changed that straeng and aggr s aggressively confronted organized crime. the key in the dea's success is our relationship with the
government of mexico. you have characterized that relationship as at an all-time high, but i'm worries that our relationship could be at a high water mark with the xo impending change in the office of president. mexico will continue to work with the united states, and it should quote, subordinate to the strategies of other countries. he further emphasized that his priority would be a reduction in violence, not a dismantling of criminal organizations. by all accounts this sounds like a reversion to the prepolicies of old. we, of course, have no vote in the upcoming mexican election, and our only hope for the o outcome is free and fair. we have a deep-seated interest in minimizing drug trafficking
and organized crime south of the border. i believe that these goals are also in mexico's long-term interests, and i urge you to press this truth with the incoming mexican president and his administration regardless of who it is. i would like to raise a few troubling incidents within the dea. the dea has long been a model in the law enfoumt community. today this subcommittee needs answers about a few recent incidents that are troubling and unacceptable. if not addressed swiftly and effectively, it will be stain on the dea's reputation and ultimately undermine it's law enforcement mission. the secret service has been the focal point of the prost fusion scandal, but i i understand that at least three dea agents hooired prostitutes during the preparation for the president's visit to colombia.
i not this was not an isolated event for the dea. the secret service has moved quickly to address the scandal and has already removed 8 of the 12 employees complicated in this incident from their jobs. another is the process of losing his security clearance. to my knowledge the haven't taken major objection. the dea was also involved. tony colson, the dea's agent in charge of southern arizona during fast and furious, said that many field agents knew that atf was walking guns to mexico but svrs told the agents to back out when they objected. mr. colson was among one of the first senior pub officials to at mitt knowing about this botched operation. he claims he raised objections to then dea chief elizabeth kemp
shaw, and was told it was taken care of. after attending a meeting with the atf agent in charge colson said he knew fast and furious wasn't a benign pie in the sky publicity stunt. guns were actually getting in the hands of criminals, closed quote. with the clumpian prostitution i'm not aware of any discipline from in the dea. most recently this last april adea offices in san diego literally forgot about a 23-year-old in a holding cell. dea agents arrested daniel chong during a raid on a party in the san diego area where there were illegal kwi krugs. . after questions him they told mr. chong he would not be charged before they placed him back into a holding cell. the agents then forgot he was
there. he was locked in the holding very well for five days with no access to food, water or a toimt. he said he heard voices and yelled for help, but no one heard him. after 48 hours he started hallucinating and as survived drank his own urine. at some point during this neglect, he broke his glasses and attempts to kill himself. it goes without saying that this incident is extremely unacceptable. i look forward to hearing what steps the dea is takes to address each incident discussed and to ensure nothing similar happens in the future. i hope these events are anomalies in the dea's record and not what's to come. mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to join us in the nation's drug enforcement agency and i want to thank director len nart for years of dedicated service and for appearing before us today.
i'm also mindful that there are thousands of dedicated dea employees who enforce our drug laws and directives every day, many of whom put their on the l to do so. therefore i consider it our responsibility in supporting and directing efforts in ensuring dedication and sacrifices are put to the most effective and productive use. dea is involved in drug enforcement activities all over the world however it is not clear all of these activities are as effective or important as others, in stopping or reducing discouraging drug abuse. in general, there are strategies to reduce drug abuse. research indicates demand through prevention, education and treatment is much more effective than supply reduction through interdiction and law enforcement efforts. one study showed the cost of reducing cocaine consumption in the united states by 1%, reducing cocaine consumption in the united states by 1%. the cost $783 million for source
control, source country control. $366 million for general interdiction activities. about $250 million for domestic law enforcement are onliy $34 million for treatment of heavy user. thus, domestic law enforcement costs over seven times as much as treatment to achieve the same consumption reduction. another study showed the drug teemt sa treatment saved for every dollar spent on treatment. one of the big problems we have in this country with illegal drugs as well as with illegal prescriptive drugs is there is a huge demand. the history on the war on drugs shows us that there is a -- when there is a demand for the product, suppliers will find a way to provide it. no matter what the cost. history also shows no matter how many tons of drugs we interdict or capture, it represents only a small fraction of drugs being
trafficked. therefore, the evidence suggests that our efforts to reduce drug abuse have intensified while the evidence suggests that our efforts to reduce drug abuse has intensified in the country. the street price for some of the most dangerous drugs has gone down while the quantity has gone up and drug use increased or staired the same during that time. every evidence suggests the massive drug enforcement effort in this country has resulted in legions of users and street level dealers in prisons long times with no discernible impact on the drug trade. other evidence suggests while drug use and in all major abuse categories among white americans is as high or higher than drug use among black and hispanic-americans. the vast majority of those imprisoned for drug law violations are black and hispanic. for example, drug use data indicates some 60% of crack
cocaine users are white while 94% of those in prison for crack are black. black americans make up about 12% of the population but almost 50% of those incarcerated for illegal drugs. moreover, drug penalties are draconian and many serving life sentences or equivalent even for first-time offenders and mandatory minimum sentencing are a major contributing factor to this situation. when we consider the unfairness of so much of the burden of drug abuse heaped upon african-americans, harshness of drug sentences and life consequences such as loss in voting rights and subjection to employment discrimination, drastically lower employment prospects we can see while michele alexander considers the war on drugs should have ushered in you new era of jim crow as outlined in her new book.
and we consider the effectiveness and much higher costs of punitive supply reduction strategies compared to many times more effective and much cheaper demand strategies such as treatment it's not hard to wonder whether there is a motive beyond drug abuse reduction in our strategy choices. recently i saw a news article of a young drug offenders, in their 20s in virginia. two of whom got sentences of 50 and 35 years respectively. no one seemed concerned about the average cost at $30,000 a year that this represented $2.5 million to warehouse the drug abusers, and i was left to wonder whether or not that $2.5 million should
my first comment is to congratulate ranking member bobby scott on an excellent opening statement that tracks much of what i've been doing in preparing for this. i think the beginning of this discussion on the part of the subcommittee on crime can be one of the most important contributions that the house judiciary committee can make on the subject of the american criminal justice system. but before i go any further, chairman sensenbrenner, i noted 14 issues that you raised with
the, our distinguished witness, and i stopped counting after that. now, the question that i have, sir, is -- are we going to have an additional hearing to give her an opportunity to respond to each and every one of those? >> well the -- yield? >> with pleasure. >> that depends on how responsive she to the issued raised. i think we'd all like to get wrapped up in one hearing, including ms. leonhart. >> well -- thank you, sir. it was my impression that we could devote the rest of the next couple hours to a discussion between you and her about what you raised in your opening statement. so i don't -- i don't understand
with a -- two, four, five six -- yes, sir? >> the chair notes from years and years that the current chair enforces the five-minute rule on himself as well as on everybody else. >> well, that's what makes it more difficult. i mean, that's the problem that i'm raising. with six members here and probably more that come, under the five-minute rule, there's no way she can ever get to the any kind of a cogent response to e the -- to the issues that were raised, some of which are very serious. so i leave that for us to discuss further as we go on. i'm very interested in this
subje subject, because i started off my career on the subcommittee on crime when i first was able to get on the house judiciary committee. and this subject that, about drugs is extremely, extremely critical, and i'm looking forward to a discussion, and i have no problem with holding another hearing or as many hearings as necessary. this? -- we don't get any browny points for having one hearing and no more. the question is, how deeply a l thoroughly and accurately to we
dough into these very important social and criminal justice questions? and so i would say to my colleagues and to our distinguished witness that the costs of the war on drugs is more than $1 trillion to date. astronomical. and yet the same proportion of drug usage, illegal drug usage, continues at the same rate. and -- what i'm looking for in addition to the -- the distinguished witness giving us a, a review of what goes on