tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 11, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
by special interests. you have spent your dull life in washington, part of a recent life as a lobbyist, etc. -- as a group called the cayman islands financial services. you have worked very closely with karl rove, american crossroads. does this make it harder for you to capture this anti-washington sentiment out there? i believe my experience, 15 years working on capitol hill, in the white house, in the private sector as chairman of my party here in virginia a senator warner was chairman of his party in virginia, i was a top congressional aide and senator
warren was a top congressional aide. in business,ful not a successful a senator warner, but i believe those experiences of having worked on capitol hill, having been a party chairman, having advised private sector people how to get things done with bipartisan support in washington can actually be a productive senator. i think it would allow me to stand up to the special-interest groups, to stand up to senate leaders, to stand up to a white house for virginians and keep my promises to the people of virginia. i believe my experiences will make me effective on day one. i am proud to say and all of the jobs i have held, people have felt that i performed them very capably and well and i promise i will fight every day for hard-working virginians in virginians who want to find work. >> senator warner? >> i think you asked a good question. that you're a
lobbyist, but who you lobby for. enron. increasing fuel efficiency standards. lobbied against financial haveations that might stopped the financial crisis. washington is broken. but it is broken because of the absolute partisanship -- on both sides. opponent has a long and illustrious record, the record as a lobbyist. i go back to where i started. up anding is who is down, republican versus democrat. if you want another partisan lawyer in washington, he is your guy. but as i stated when we --missed the so-called again, misleading, not reflective of the record, i did not bring the independent voice
i would not have john mercer. i would have more supporting me this time than when i ran in 2008. on virtually every major piece of legislation, i start the republican partner because that is where he get and stun on the middle hour. -- that is re-you get things done on the middle hour. >> mr. gillespie? >> if you had been a senator he said he would be, i would not have 47 of his former donors giving to me because of their frustration with his time in the senate. look, governor warner wouldn't recognize senator warner today. sadly. -- i believe the phrase i used was "happy partisan lawyer" which is what you do when your chairman of the republican national committee or chairman of the republican party of virginia, our current governor is a former chairman of the democratic national committee. your colleague in the senate is a return of the democratic national committee. you're a former chairman.
that is your job. that is the role you play when you're in those jobs. the role of the senator is different. i understand that. i believe i would get bipartisan the commonsense economic growth proposals and policies that i have. because i believe you can reach across the aisle. reaching across the out is not an end in and of itself. you have to pass bills. the entire time you been there the democratic president and democratic majority senator, despite all the bipartisan talk, you have passed two pieces of legislation. two bills. one was in support of the get up in the program and the other was a recent bill that i suspect senator reid wanted to make sure got moved after i announced my candidacy for the senate. >> i am proud of what i have been able to get done. it is a pretty broken place. government transparency, the bill that has government
reporting underreporting programs. the data bill, my partner was there'll issa. -- you have to be able to follow. i feel proud about the work. andid not get done on debt deficit. the gang of six and the prod ballot we started, i'm proud of some of the things that actually don't make the news in terms of helping everyday virginia families and businesses. military families and inadequate housing and we got that fixed. recently, the whole delegation -- he had his time and let me take my time and i will stop. funding of the george washington am a the 11th carrier in our fleet to make sure national security and thousands of virginia jobs. again, i'm proud of my record. >> the next question for senator warner, there's an issue potentially affecting jobs in virginia. here on the senate
banking committee, you have supported the government export/import bank. which her opponent charges engages in crony capitalism, disproportionately helps large corporations. will you vote for its refining and if so, how do you justify it? >> i absolutely support it. is maybe not that well known, but it supports american economyes in a global giving financial backstop. i think the number was about $200 million to support virginia companies, large and small. it has traditionally been extraordinarily bipartisan supported. party movestain further to the right, and my opponent embracing that, it is way out of the mainstream that arethe small group of folks
opposing this institution. the national association of manufacturers, u.s. chamber of commerce them every business isup in america says, this the tool you ought to keep in the toolkit. there may be some ideological argument that says in a perfect world we should not support exports, but i'm not going to unilaterally disarm american businesses when canada and smaller thanries ours, have much greater percent of export support. lord knows when he goat is the chinese, it is not a level playing field. knows when you go against the chinese, it is not a level playing field. questions about how we do real meaningful tax reform and entitlement form. the approach, particularly of someone on the far right is where the reach. unfortunately, that seems to be where my opponent has landed. >> i do recall saying crony capitalism and my remarks, but i do believe we have to evaluate
every program. where our debtnt is going to equal in the next few decades our entire gdp. i believe every program needs to be subject to scrutiny. i also agree we need to open new markets, exports for our american goods abroad, in particular our agriculture goods in virginia. we have not had any trade agreement since this administration took office and that is a mistake. i think we should try to open more markets for our goods and services. if we are going to get control of federal spending, we have to find bills were even our friends -- i've a lot of friends to support the export/import bank, believe me. i hear their arguments. you can make a case for any federal program. but i think it is an area where we can get some savings and the broader effect of reducing the drag of the debt on our economy along with other areas and programs that need to be subject
to reform and elimination and cuts, offsets the long-term benefit. and that is hard to do. i understand that. i know it is hard to stand up to the chamber of commerce, but that is the job of a senator. stand up for what is in the best interest of the country and our commonwealth. i believe in this instance, and i know i have a lot of members of my own party who do not agree with me on this, i understand that, but i think when you come to a conclusion that this is the long-term broader interest of the country, you need to stand up on principle and fight. >> mr. warner? >> my opponent did not mention the export/import bank does not cost the taxpayer dime. the returns many each year. and why would america unilaterally disarm in a global economy yacolt yes, absolutely support additional trade, but why would you say open our markets but we're not going to then provide our businesses with the same tools other countries
have? let's go to another issue. debt and deficit. we need to make more progress. i've taken more arrows from the administration, from left and right because i laid it out based on the simpson-bowles plan. laid out entitlement reform. i believe getting that right is singly the most important thing our country can do because if we leave our kids with kind of spiraling debt, what i've heard from my opponent are platitudes and soundbites like, oh, yeah, i'm going to do constant mention -- constitutional amendment because that fixes everything. when you been in the trenches fighting, it is the most important issue facing the nation. >> thank you. first of all, we're going to have a figure of dispute over whether or not the bank generates money or doesn't because the congressional budget office says his court accurately with the risks on the box, does not. secondly, the experience of senators talking about is worth
revisiting because the fact is, when i was working on capitol i was a staffer, but top staffer as you know and very involved in the room with the discussions, the negotiations. in 25balanced budget years with a republican congress and democratic white house. we can do it again with the right priorities and the right leadership. i think it would be hobbled have a balanced budget amendment as senator warner believed before flip-flopping on it. i would also say we need to try to get one without that amendment. the house has moved forward with provisions to do that in the senate never has. dollarsat seven trillion. >> we have another candidate question. senator warner to mr. gillespie. >> ed, you been ranked as one of the top d.c. lobbyist and described as the ultimate washington insider. you were the lead lobbyist for enron who committed the greatest corporate fraud in modern
american history. you and your lobbying firm made more than $700,000 and helped enron avoid the kind of regulations that allow them to gouge consumers with higher rates. you talk about job killers. 20,000e execution is jobs. not just jobs, but pensions and savings. , was that really fair for you and your firm to take so much when some a lost so much? firm, one bipartisan of the most effective at helping to advise major employers about how to get things done with bipartisan support, when enron at the time approached our firm to be a clients and to represent them, they had been on the cover of either fortune or forbes, one of those two magazines, as for
the fifth year in a row is the most innovative company in the country. and that was the perception. perceptions are not always reality. what we sell his company was they were cooking the book sent away nobody knew. one of my partners at the firm joined a class-action lawsuit against them because he had been a shareholder and had been -- what he said was basically hoodwinked about what was going on. year-long contract, but it was really only 10 months because two days after ken lay pleaded the fifth in a senate thatng, we said this is the company we thought it was. clearly, we were not hired to do this kind of work will stop we left them. i'm very proud of how effective our firm was, one of the best riveted firms in the business. i think it is one of the things that i will be held help get things done with bipartisan support. >> what we did not hear from my opponent was whether it was fair
that he and his firm to made 20,000 folks lost their jobs. he did not also mention was that even afterwards, he lobbied against additional regulations that might prevent future enron scandals. again, i think the record speaks for itself. >> we now move the final round of questions and i want to start with foreign policy. this first question in this block is to senator warner. ukraine. president obama invoked limited economic sanctions against russia after their initial aggression in ukraine. but as we are watching, even after this horrible shootdown of the malaysian passenger jet, almost certainly by russian separatists with russian help, president putin, instead of backing off, appears to be
escalating the crisis. russia is not intervening directly in the ukrainian civil war, shooting down ukrainian military planes, russian artillery batteries shooting across the border into ukraine. what should be done now to stopputin in as president obama been too timid on this? >> judy, we live in extraordinarily [indiscernible] i think the president should have acted sooner and tougher on sanctions on russia. started calling for the sanctions back in march. at the same time i've heard from american businesses who said, if there is not european sanctions as well, all we're doing is russians are trading out american contracts for german or british or french contracts. firmerve we need sanctions. i think this is an extraordinarily important time for nato and washington to stand up to this kind of bullying
activities and aggression. i believe as well that is why we ought to be expediting the permitting of liquefied natural gas so we can export more of that so we can start [indiscernible] russian oiliance on and gas so they might have a little more back home. it is one of the reasons i support keystone as well in sending the signal to europe that you can look elsewhere for your energy supplies. but i also believe it is going to require the europeans to step up as well. i think we need to ratchet this up injured in concert with the europeans, but i believe he should have acted earlier. >> mr. gillespie? >> i agree we should stiffen the sanctions and he should've acted earlier. i also believe we should give to the ukrainian army and to the military government or to the government there to help they been looking in terms of arms as well -- >> lethal weapons? >> yes, i believe they need the
right to defend themselves as a nation and i think what we're seeing here is the long-term effect of what has been described by this administration itself, foreign policy approach of leading from behind. there's another word for that and that is following. when the united states receives from leadership role in the world becomes a more dangerous place we're seeing as well. we should left the band on export of domestic to go if i natural gas and we should also lift the ban, i believe, and the export of domestic liberties crude oil as well. in the same way to go fight natural gas export and relief would diminish putin's leverage over lesser european countries with a lifting of the ban on domestic crude would diminish ofn's government's internationally as well. >> are you describing the most immediate things that could be done to stop president putin? need sanctions.
we need to send the energy signal. -- try to try to help get europeans more backbone. we have seen cameron stand up more. i think we as well need -- the french are in the process of selling assault warships, salt carriers to russia. if nato has any reality in the 21st century, we need to stop that. these are actions that we need to take right now. but i do think as well, my opponent criticizes the president but i would like to of ther that he was part bush-cheney administration and was an advocate for the initial movement into iraq where we were told saddam hussein had weapons of mass distraction. that we would be greeted as liberators. that it would be a quick, in and out operation. wrong, wrong, wrong. >> you want to answer?
>> a wrong assumption or assessment shared by not a lot of people, senator, not just the bush of administration. it was also the view of the clinton administration and majority senators on both sides of the aisle who believed that was the case relative to iraq. look, we should learn from mistakes of the past. but we should also recognize mistakes of commission are bad but so are mistakes of omission. i believe what president obama initially early in his administration made a decision to negate the agreement with the czech republic in terms of missile defense agreements that have been made that sent a very strong signal to vladimir putin and to russia and embolden them. i think we're seeing the effects acts up or mistakes of
omission here which can also have pretty negative ramifications for our own national security long-term. >> some argue it goes back to the first administration there were not further actions taken -- >> we will move to the next question. this is per mr. gillespie. iran. if a satisfactory nuclear deal cannot be reached with the iranians as the israeli prime minister netanyahu is saying it cannot, would you then support u.s. military action to take out iran's nuclear facility? >> well, i believe it is important the united states never take that option off the table. obviously, the preferred approach is one worry have a negotiated agreement and that is not necessary. we have to watch closely what they're doing because time is their friend in iran.
the president says there's a deadline and we don't enforce that deadline, the negotiations go on, they will ease some of the sanctions anyway. i saw there is a bill now being introduced that will not ease the sanctions prematurely. i would support that. the senator has supported bipartisan efforts to increase haveions on iran and expressed concerns about this. i think it is important in terms of a principal with u.s. national security policy of foreign affairs that you not take off any option off the table. click on this issue i think we generally agree. i thing the option should be taken off the table. i think we cannot allow iran to have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon or have a nuclear weapon. i believe we have to be very careful in terms of leakage on
the sanctions. i think we need more visibility of ours of the status ability to view iranian facilities at this point in terms of big servers. i think we need essential to shoulder with our most important ally, israel, both in terms of making sure iran doesn't move forward but also, and i think we all see the tragedy going on in the middle east right now, since 9/11, things are always challenging in the east. i believe israel has a right to defend itself. what i find remarkable, you see these herbal pictures but uses citizens to defend its missiles. yes, israel uses missiles to defend its citizens. i think israel has the right to clean out those missiles, clean out those titles. never right to self-defense. we need to stand solid. >> to you want to comment on that?
you both agree on iran. doing to comment on the middle east, israel and hamas? >> that is unique area of some agreement here today. mark is right. the fact is, as the prime minister has said, israel uses its rockets and missiles to defend its innocent civilians. unfortunately, hamas uses to send civilians to defend its weapons. israel has a right to defend itself. long-term, we have to come to terms with, what do we do to ensure this doesn't go on in the future? but in the immediate present tense, we need to stand by our most important ally. >> very quick response from both of you, is there anything else the u.s. should be doing right this middle east crisis to a better place? >> the secretary is there.
i think you still on the ground now. one of the things i think doesn't actually help in the negotiation process is the undercutting the israeli government in the process. >> is that what you're saying is going on? >> i'm saying i'm concerned about is the ministrations move in that regard. judy, i think we need to continue to pressure on europeans. iran, and ie with think we have to keep all of the options on the table. but sanctions were working. the iraniansught to the table. they were working. they're only working because they were done in concert [indiscernible] global approach. i would also add, there may be even an area of agreement, but i am worried about -- the both left and right -- increasing
isolationism that seems to be rising. we live in extraordinary dangerous world, complex. we have an evening under the circumstances of isis or russia. we have not talked much about attitude.pansionistic we need and the world needs a stronger country. >> i want to move on. i want to give you a chance on a question that is coming to respond, but this is for senator warner and has to do with china. china is increasing its defense budget rapidly. it is up more than 12% this year alone. it is aggressively threatening vietnam, japan, and other asian neighbors over a disputed island. should china now be considered a major adversary of the united states and is the obama administration tilt toward asia flood that -- reflect that?
>> i think it was an appropriate positive decision. what we could not have ready were the other eruptions in the middle east, europe, and elsewhere. to be veryhave guarded with the chinese. this isprepared to say an adversarial relationship, but i think we need to do more to promote activities with vietnam .nd other nations in the region quite honestly, anxious for america to take a bigger present. but this brings us back, in my sounds like i'm repeating, but on the debt and deficit issues. the $17 trillion in debt 3 billion a night. cats are beinge made, on the defense side, discretionary spending and
domestic discretionary spending which means education, infrastructure, and research and development. have a strongg to america economically, that is not where we should be cutting. if we are going have a strong economy were strong america militarily, we have to make savings but the kind of stupidity of sequestration which shut down the government and is coming back right after the election, is one of the reasons why it cries out, you have to have folks are willing to be bipartisan out there to sort through these issues in a way that can get our balance sheet right. and it goes to how we deal with china. >> mr. gillespie on china? >> china is clearly emboldened. thisresult of he administration and our military budget. the pentagon -- when i'm told, in order to assist gear our national security needs, we a 306-ship navy. we have about 282 right now on
any given day and we're on our way to 255 ships. we're moving in the exact wrong direction. i agree with the senator, we need to have the right priorities. where we disagree on our where those parties are. the reason we're seeing that going on in our defense budget and in the navy is this administration is slashing the navy to pay for more obamacare. there's no two ways about it. the budgeting. that is one of the reasons we iran, the russia, terrorist isis in iraq emboldened. oh, you and to intervene militarily. that is not the case. as we've seen in history time and again. more likely to have peace through strength. on this particular comment by saying, we have hard time protecting american strength abroad when we are weak at home.
and that is why believe we need to unleash economic growth and double our economic growth rate. that would help us also project strength abroad. >> senator warner? >> just because my opponent keeps making the same charges over and over again like a broken record, does not make them true. but that is what political operatives do. on is very important question, i believe we need to be strong militarily. we need to be strong economically as well. the ryan budget my opponent supported would cut our investments in education, infrastructure, research and development already at historic lows. i don't care whether you're republican or democrat, but as a business guy, the romney business plan, the romney-gillespie plan will not -- i would never invest in enterprises that last than 10% of its revenues on staying ahead of the competition.
we have to get this fixed. but what i have done, unlike the specifics -- boy, either .rotested against, yelled at the simpson-bowles plan that makes those hard choices around entitlement reform and tax reform and, yes, smarter ways to cut. >> i'm not sure what was not true, whether removing the wrong way in terms of the ships in our navy that we're slashing the navy to pay for more obamacare, that china has been emboldened to this administration's approach -- i'm not certain. i'll leave it to you to explain. the policies am putting forward would create jobs, raise take-home pay, lift people out of poverty, hold on health care costs, and reduce energy prices. >> the price of a gallon of gas has nearly doubled since you took office saying you're going to vote for policies that would bring down the cost of energy. you used to be able to fill a 15
gallon tank on $20. today it is about $55. most of us do not fill our tanks. you put on $10 or $20 and squeeze out as much as you can from the pump. when he took office, you get gallons and now it is about 5.5 gallons. you see this guy rock and costs youealth care premiums -- see the skyrocketing costs of health care premiums. >> mr. warner? senator warner? >> i will just say if the rhetoric doesn't match the record, if you're concerned about gas prices, why would he lobby against higher fuel efficiency? why would you have enron which gouged consumers? question hehe asked, which was, how do we deal with china?
we need a strong military. we need a strong economy. we need to have a business plan $17 takes down this trillion. admiral mullen said single biggest threat is the debt and deficit. i've laid out a specific plan. if my opponent has a real different plan, let's debate it. what you have heard instead are soundbites. >> the next question is for mr. gillespie. , ahas to do with afghanistan place where there are tens of thousands of american troops right now. some in your party like senator john mccain want u.s. troops to remain in afghanistan indefinitely. or at least for quite some time to come. while others like senator rand paul say, bring the troops home as soon as possible. are your views closer to those of senator mccain or senator paul? need toew is that we
keep our troops there for as long as they are serving the needs of our national security interest and we have national security interests in afghanistan. we know that from the attacks of september 11. i think we need to make decisions that are not, well, that to stay there definitely were come home right away. i think we need to make decisions based on what does the pentagon, the state department, our homeland security department believe is do they need to be there now? what is the size we need are not to make sure we don't have happened in afghanistan what we've seen happen in iraq. as a result of the president withdrawing our troops over the objections and recommendations of commanders in the field who said we should keep troops there for a little while longer. on in see what is going the sunni region and iraq and that his long-term, i fear, and not just my fear, i know are
turning to an homeland security secretary have both said this is a threat to our homeland security. my point, judy, i don't think we should have or make arbitrary decisions either for the president or for my fellow republicans. i think you make a decision based on that based on what is the best assessment of our national security interest's. it seems to me giving you stability relative to the recent election in afghanistan and what is going on there and what is going on in iraq come in that it would not be in our national security interest to bring them home now. that is not to say i believe in an indefinite presence. >> senator warner? >> i think the circumstances in afghanistan are complicated and, obviously, you have the two candidates still bickering about senator kerryre has stepped inappropriately and brokered a recount of unity government. --ould be open to leading
leaving forces longer but i think in these cases, it can't be an open-ended amendment. onind it a little curious iraq that was not the status -- no president ever has left american troops and lessor status -- which basically means american troops could not be subject to local laws. >> that is my point. >> let me finish. but what i believe whether it is , you think or iraq about how angry i was when we iraqi troops50,000 melt away the first sign of resistance, we offered these countries our deepest treasure -- youngimit and men women and men. we offer them a chance, not a guarantee forever. in afghanistan and iraq, people in those countries have to show will to defend their own country and willingness to actually form
unity government's that represents a true cross-section of respective countries populations. coming in as one side or the other simply in the middle of the civil war in the stations, we assume the history that. >> mr. gillespie? >> i don't think i disagree with that. i think we need for his lungs were going to have the malik e-government, -- as long as we ire going have the malik government, the sunnis and that she is as well, one of the determining factor, and the melting with the army, it is discouraging, but that said, we -- i believe we need to bolster the iraqi government in baghdad and make sure that we don't allow for isis or isil to make any further progress than they already have.
>> just a follow-up to both of you on afghanistan and i guess iraq, and a time when american people seem to be wary of engagement abroad for men and women in uniform, how prepared you believe this country needs to be to engage in the future, whether it is iran, whether it is remaining in afghanistan, going back into iraq, even syria. there are so many other countries on the planet we could mention. >> the american people are more weary. i understand that. unless it is in our national security interest, we should not intervene much early. my fear is there will come a time when there is the need and it is international security interest and, again, we will have the mistake of omission rather than comission and will result in something very damaging, harmful, and loss of lives here in the united states of america. be, as always,o
thoughtful -- i think one of the most important vote you could ever possibly cast is united states senator is the vote to put american men and women in harms way. and that is a vote that has to be weighed very, very carefully. but the world is unstable right now, i believe, because of a lack of american leadership. that doesn't mean military intervention. it does mean asserting american interest in authority that the country -- that the globe looks to and we are not providing right now. to, the country is war-weary understandably so, but i believe it is the role of commander-in-chief when you make an assessment that american national security agents are at stake for me you got to make it the case with the american public. >> senator warren? >> i think colin powell got it forget thehe said, store. you break it you own it. >> lottery.
>> thanks. >> here to help. [laughter] think that is a lesson we need to take to heart. american national security interests are at stake, we need to be prepared to intervene. we need to be prepared to take action. i pointed out were differ from the president , having stronger sanctions onputin committed it is an enormously interconnected world. there's military and there's economic. we do need, i think the american people are also a little bit we effect paying for defense not only for america but for the whole world. basically, our navy protect shipping lanes for the whole world. i am very disappointed and think we need a more aggressive bipartisan approach to allies around the world and they need to step as well. very few the nato countries even get close to what is supposed to be the minimum requirement of
spending on defense. we need to do this book to mystically but also our allies need to step up. >> final two questions. the first one goes to senator warner. , this is about sexual assault. the continue to be pervasive. general james amos says women victims often don't come forward because "they don't trust us him and they don't trust the command." you voted to leave prosecution as they are within the chain of command. so as to not disrupt his order and discipline. many countries, including israel, have independent military sexual assault cases. why shouldn't the u.s. military did the same you go -- do the ?ame question mar >> we should not accept any culture of harassment, whether
it is in the military or bipartisan legislation and working on on college campuses. what you did not asking your question was, in his legislation we passed, there were 30 additional changes in terms of prosecutions, reporting, trying to ensure if someone had harassment they wanted to go to an outside prosecutor, i added an amendment to part of my record that i'm proud of, to make sure whistleblower's were protected. hard aboutong and this issue. we don't see progress then perhaps it will be revisited. the proposal did not just include sexual harassment, in .ncluded all felonies and i'm not sure taking out of the chain of command is somebody stole -- one soldier stole
another one's wallet out of the barracks, that -- i still believe perhaps the best ways to keep that is within the command. we have to see progress you or this issue will be revisited. >> mr. gillespie? >> i agree. i don't think it should be taken outside the chain of command. obviously, these are crimes and should be treated as such. should be treated as such within the military structure in the chain of command. i would be willing to revisit it if that were not the case because that kind of behavior, those kinds of criminal activities cannot be tolerated and need to be stopped. i am hopeful the changes made in the legislation will do that. >> you both think the ring, and then general james amos was wrong when it said women victims don't trust the command and that is why the system doesn't work? >> i've heard extraordinary amount of conflicting testimony within a splitn
within the jag core and split within the command. we cannot have this culture. i think we took major, major steps forward. if we don't see results, needs to be revisited. doubt the general in that regard in terms of women victims not trusting the chain of command or trusting the command. i'm hopeful they will after the reforms are implemented and that that will change. if it doesn't, if that is still the case, after we have been implementing these reforms then, yes, they need to be revisited. >> final question for mr. gillespie. do you believe virginia -- this is on same-sex marriage. do you believe the commonwealth of virginia should join the 19 other states that have recognize same-sex marriage as legal? yes or no? i believe -- first
of all, let me say first, i respect and love people for who they are. i have a lot of friends who i'm not in agreement, but i believe marriage is between one man and one woman. at that said, also believe as senator, it is not my role to legislate on a because i do believe the appropriate venue for is the states. in the states are working this out. the state of virginia does not recognize and maybe it needs to be revisited at some point and the voters will decide. >> do believe the state should not record highs -- recognize? >> my vote would be no, but i believe it is the proper purview of the states but i do not believe in government sanctioned of same-sex marriage. >> what you mean? could you elaborate? >> i believe marriage is to one man and one woman and i believe -- if i were to vote for referendum in virginia or some forr way, i would not vote
recognition of same-sex marriage but i believe it is in the right place, which is it is a state issue. >> i support marriage equality. it is the right thing to do an affair nothing to do. i also believe it is a smart business thing to do. i've had lots and lots of employers across virginia say, we want to be able the higher regardless. i know were done at the last question but we didn't get to question that took the balance of my time. i respect religious views, but we have very different views on reproductive views. he actually, one of his biggest supporters were the architects of years back when virginia was late-night jokes because of
the ultrasound legislation those kinds of activities. he is not repeated any of that. the supreme court and hobby lobby got it wrong. i don't think for-profit corporation ought to be able to interfere in employees healthier choices. area doesst an respect his views, but we have very different approaches whether it is marriage equality or reproductive rights. >> this is an area where you're making up my views. not just disagreeing, but made them up. please provide documentation and support. look, the fact is, i am catholic and as is, by the way, the current governor. he and i want to the same catholic university. mye democrat in the -- i
religious views should not be at issue here. i will send you a copy of john f. kennedy speech at the baptist convention over 50 is a go. let me just make there, i believe we should make contraceptives easier for women to obtain -- although woman to obtain. of2012, the american college obstetricians and gynecology said there's no medical reason any longer, not medically necessary for oral contraceptives, for the bolivia prescription drug and should be available over-the-counter the counter. i would support that. i think it should be behind the counter like sudafed, but that would make it easier for women. that's what obamacare pass and you're making the case we needed to enacted because there were 47 million uninsured, when it is fully implemented the ruby about 17 million who get insurance and 30 million who still are not. of 250ing the entrance million people to ensure 17 million but 30 million are still -- those women in that situation
should be able to go to the drugstore or grocery store and purchase, i believe, the pill without a prescription. it would make it more affordable and more accessible and kind of remove this debate over the first amendment and employers and all of that will stop i think that would be good for the country and i think it would make it more affordable and accessible is the way to go. that is how i would approach my policy is editor, setting aside the teachings of my fate. >> could weekly this up for the record? if you are in the senate, would you vote to overturn roe v wade? >> this is not a vote to -- >> did you not also support the personhood amendment? >> no. give me the documentation. when did i support the personhood amendment? you'll get the documentation? >> yes. would you vote to overturn roe v wade? >> there's not going to be a
vote for that. that is supreme court. i'm running for the united states senate, senator. who endorsed him -- >> oh, here we go. i'm going to go through who endorsed you and we will find out -- >> we will be very surprised to hear -- [laughter] atok, we are at the moment closing statements. mr. gillespie, your first. >> thank you again. i have laid out my positive agenda for economic growth your today as i've been all across the commonwealth because i was virginians to know what i will do as our senator. i want voters to hold me accountable in the same way i'm asking them to hold mark warner accountable. saying he would be a fiscal moderate voting to increase our chilean nearly one dollars. saying he would be a pro-business democrat.
supporting job killing policies like the carbon tax and for saying he never vote for bill that would be losing are intrinsically wanted to keep it but then voting for obama care. i talk to today about the job we are both seeking now and about more jobs for our fellow virginians. mark talked a lot about his time as governor -- mention it five times by my count. 10 years ago. i can understand that. would notor warner recognize senator warner today and that is why so many virginians supporting me who supported him in the past. comfortable defending the votes he has cast a senator so talks a lot about the jobs he's had before this went on the campaign trail and about a job i had three jobs ago. i am proud of my career, as i'm sure mark is proud of making the fortune to make some the richest member of the senate. my 15 years in congress and the white house, my time in the
private sector will enable me to stand up against special interest groups, senate leaders, and the white house and keep my promises to virginians. virginians have a clear choice in november. we can keep on the path we are on, where we are losing jobs, wages are stagnant, debt is mounting and prices are rising or we can have a program of policy agenda like mine to create jobs, raise take-home pay, the people out of poverty, hold on health care costs and reduce energy prices. we can ease the squeeze but only with the change of policies in washington. thank you for watching. i would love your vote. >> thank you, mr. gillespie. senator warner? >> thank you. i think we saw this morning two very different approaches to issues of importance to virginia. both stylistically and substantively. tenure asproud of my
senator. i am proud of the legislation i passed. i am more proud of the activities whether it is moving forward and more work to be done on building a national consensus to try to get our balance she right and more for job creation than anything else. i am proud of virginia families. i am proud when we heard those awful stories of the arlington cemetery five years ago, it did not take a bill, it took rolling up our sleeves to come up with an innovative approach. i am proud of the fact when we heard challenges around our veterans programs coming yes, i fought for additional resources but i also fought to make sure the female vets were treated the same way as their male kennedy's. on the backlog, and innovative approach where the law clinic that we have now expanded around the country to help veterans process their claims in a quicker way for free.
there's a lot of ways you can actually get things done. commentent makes a about some of the statistics and repeat and repeat and repeat like a broken record. that is what political operatives to. if there were truth in these charges, it would not be the case john warner, 30 years in the senate -- more republican legislators, former legislators, this time than when i ran before. my opponent has a very different approach. he sees everything through a partisan lens. who is up, who's down, republicans and democrats. we know every evil and america lays at the foot of the president, in his view. himself, happy partisan warrior. if any of you here think the washington needs is another partisan warrior, you have your candidate right here. if you think we need more problem solvers, if you think we
need more folks who can work across party lines, if you think we need more folks who can bring a business minded approach to government, i would like to have your vote. and if i get rehired, i promise i will work on that going forward. thank you so much. >> thank you. senator mark warner and mr. a gillespie for this pretty debate. we thank you. [applause] >> that was lively. >> numbers of congress are on break for five weeks, but they're keeping in touch with the constituents with tweets and social media comments.
members return in september. we will certainly have live coverage of congress when they return here on c-span in the senate on c-span2. according to the associated press, joe biden called iraq's president this morning to address his support and committed him for meeting a key milestone in nominating the deputy parliament speaker to be the next prime minister. liki is accusing the iraqi president of blocking his reappointment in insisting he should be nominated for a third term. we will likely hear more about the latest of elements in iraq during today's pentagon briefing with lieutenant general william mayville at 2:30 eastern. it will be live right here on c-span. the american institute of certified public accountants is kicking off a two-day conference
here in washington. we will have live coverage of several panel discussions including the role of inspector general within a government agency. it starts at 1:15 eastern in live coverage here on c-span. coming up tonight at 8:00 on the debate about america's greatness with retired professor and anti-vietnam war activist bill ayers and conservative author and filmmaker dinesh d'souza. here is a look. >> started out as a -- well, you and started out frankly and the bin laden mode. you try to bomb the pentagon and u.s. capitol. my question to you, you sounded totally different today. you talked about teaching. you talked about being an educator. he talked about doubt and wonder. my question is, what happened to the old revolutionary? is he still alive or has he thrown in the towel? >> i actually feel i still am a revolutionary.
if by revolutionary you mean -- if what you mean by revolutionary having a fully worked out program by which we can kind of imagine a different world and overthrow government and move forward with some no caps on not that. if you mean someone who is willing to dive into contradictions, try to make sense out of them, try to fight for more peace and justice, more balanced, more sustainability and be willing to live with ambiguity and complexity and try to move forward, sure, i solicit or myself someone who sees the need for fundamental change. i will give you an example. to me, the struggle against white supremacy, which i invited everybody to join, is a struggle that still goes on. it is not over. it is a struggle that still goes on and it takes different forms. it is not slavery. it is not jim crow. the destruction of voting rights, the mass incarceration in over a presentation of blackmun imprisons, that is why supremacy today. that is what we should be fighting. >> you can see the entire debate hosted by dartmouth college
tonight starting at 8:00 eastern right here on c-span. republican senator tim scott addressed in will western conservative summit in mid july and talked about education, the economy and the midterm elections. south carolina senator is crumley running a special election this fall to complete the term of former senator jim to by, cd was appointed the governor last year. is introduced by mike scott from colorado. >> it is so good to be with my fellow conservatives today. as many of you know, and the number one target for the democratic campaign congressional committee nationally. and they are going to find out that taking on the united states spring court combat veteran is going to be a lot tougher than they ever thought -- he nodded states marine corps combat
veteran is going to be a lot tougher than ever thought. tois an honor for me introduce a former colleague of mine, senator tim scott is the epitome of conservative values and principles. he grew up poor in a in northrent household charleston, south carolina. he learned importance of faith, hard work, and family. he started from humble beginnings to build one of the most successful all state agencies in south carolina. prior to being sworn in to the 2013, time in january scott served in the united states house of representatives from 2011 to 2013. he was a member of the house leadership and sat on the influential house rules committee. he also served in the charleston city council for 13 years,
including four terms as the council chair. he was a member of south carolina house of representatives and was elected caucusn of the freshman in the house with. today, senator scott works to promote conservative causes in congress where he is worked with senate colleagues to introduce a balanced budget amendment to strip the power away from congress and spend money we do not have. he also was an original cosponsor of the bill that would permanently ban the wasteful earmark process. 's agenda will empower america through economic freedom and education. he is dedicated to working a building future, to develop bold
ideas that breakaway from this country's past failures. -- join me in me giving a warm colorado welcome to senator tim scott. a true conservative american hero. ♪ >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm sure that those of you who live in the sixth district will back tong mike coffman congress. i am looking forward to you all sending be great cory gardner to join me in the united states senate. he is a good man. we need some help in the united states senate.
everybody realize that? everybody realizes that. a few minutesd talking about how we can make sure in 2014 we take back the majority in the senate and in 2016 we have an opportunity to make sure there is a republican in the white house. we need a republican in the white house. challengenk about the nation, i go back to the song "amazing grace." anyone know that song? i like that song a lot. i once was lost, but now i am found. see. blind, but now i i think the lord. he saves my soul. like me.aves a soul that is my story. i am not sure if it is your story, but it certainly is my story. theink about how amazing
good lord is, how amazing america is, and how the combination of a strong god and an amazing nation makes a guy like me even tougher. that is the story of the grand old party. it is the story of the great opportunity party. let me share my story with you and explain how the conservative principles made me tough. my parents got divorced when i was about seven years old. i started drifting. anybody ever drifted? drifting always seems to head in the wrong direction. by the time i was 14 years old, i was flunking out of high school. as a matter of fact, i flunked out of high school. i saw some kids over there. please don't do what i did, ok? freshman, i field world geography. i may be the only senator to ever fail civics. [laughter]
lots of those guys on the other side failed civics. whew. it is amazing. just amazing. [applause] i also failed spanish and english. when you fail spanish and they don't call you bilingual. you can't speak any language. that is where i found my unhappy self. i had two blessings. one was a strong mom. i have got to tell you, i am a mama's boy. mamas. god for strong if you're are sitting next to the one you are married to, give them a hand. i saw a man in front, praise the lord, praise the lord.
back to washington, d.c., so this is all the fun i get to have. you might as well join in with me. my mama, she was amazing. she worked 16-hour days as a nurses aide, making sure we stayed off welfare. because she believed she needed to set the example for her boys to follow. and she worked hard. when i saw that as a high school freshman, -- when i've failed out as a high school freshman, with me.one too happy my mama believed sometimes love had to come at the end of a switch. i know this is the west. whoitch, for those of you do not understand what a switch is, is an apparatus of southern encouragement. applied from your belt line to your ankles. and my mama encouraged me a lot that freshman year. was a smalllessing
business owner, a conservative republican. i did not know at the time he was a conservative republican. all i knew was scott showed up at the right time. very important lessons. he said, tim, you don't have to play football or be an entertainer to be successful in america. you can think your way out of poverty. out wast the only way playing for the dallas cowboys. i know this is denver territory. i understand that. my chief of staff is from colorado. my deputy chief of staff -- colorado. [applause] my legislative director from colorado. it shames me to see all the r
orange in my office. i decided during the football season last year to make one bit. not a bet that. that is illegal. -- not a bet bet. that is illegal. if the denver broncos could be the dallas cowboys, i would wear a denver broncos tight. tony romo threw the interception . i told my pastor, because i wanted to know if it was ok for me to violate my statement. and he said, son, i know you're a politician, so you guys do that all the time. however, as a man who believes in the lord, you have to hold onto your word. i said, sir, i am cheap -- i mean, i am frugal, sir. i do not want to buy a denver colorado broncos tie.
the break is over. back to the presentation. you message was brought to by the conservative summit, and also john andrews. god bless you, john andrews. give john andrews a hand. [applause] john was teaching me some very valuable lessons. job,ught me if you have a you have done well. if you create jobs, you have done extraordinarily well. you canave an income, support yourself. but if you make a profit, you can change the life of your family and your community. this became the very fabric of my journey towards conservatism. as a 15-year-old kid learning these very basic business
principles, that the free market -- four letter word coming. please close your ears. majoringprofit is in a -- is an amazing journey in america. when i was 19 years old, john was 38. he died. course of myd the life. i set my mission statement, positively impact the lives of one billion people with a opportunity,pe and being john for a lesson for financial literacy. and i started this course for business ownership. i had a great, successful business. it can change her life. we grew up living with my grandparents in a 1000-square-foot house. me, my brother, my mom shared a
bedroom. john said you can change up that through business ownership. and he was right. one of the reasons as you uncover the opportunity agenda washington, d.c., i focus so much on the entrepreneur is because i have experienced first-hand that when the government steps back and entrepreneurs step then, all things change. that a good economy -- [applause] a good economy makes all things possible. the opportunity agenda really focuses on how do we create a great economy? we all know that. tax reform and regulatory reform are necessary key ingredients. i can't higher more people and pay higher taxes and have higher relations at the same time. i can do two out of three. if you want me hiring more people, we have to reduce the
cost of doing business. i know you guys in this room are fans of obamacare. [laughter] good, good. obamacare spends too much, taxes too much, and it destroys the best health care system in the world. i like my friend to say, what about the balanced approach? if you are looking for the balanced approach, look no further than obamacare. over $800 billion of new higher taxes, the destruction of the relationship between a doctor and a patient. look no further than obamacare for all the challenges we face, because in obamacare, we see a couple things. not only do we see higher taxes, not only do we see higher regulation, but we also see this march towards centralizing the control of all the major decisions. of theover another sixth
economy and representing to the american people, in my mind, a clear decision. do you believe in redistribution? do you believe in entrepreneurship? do you believe in the power of 300 million americans? in theou believe intellect of 535? let me tell you if you are looking for the answer, it ain't the 535. as we move forward, we have to have something to move toward as we face the fact that there are things that we clearly have to stand against. let me do a survey. how many of you all -- yes or no -- do you think obamacare is a good idea? >> no! >> good.
do you think the president is handling the border situation with the watermelon kids in a good way? >> no. think he is handling these serious situation a good way? >> no. >> the irs scandal? >> no. >> the economy? >> no. v.a.? >> no. >> all the things we should be handling. why are we not winning elections? i think this is an important point. how much you care know until they know how much you care. this is an important key to our success in 2014 and 2016 and one of the reasons i am so excited about you all bringing cory gardner to be ballot.
you can't see cory and not smile. he is always smiling. hi!an, cory says -- obamacare stinks! yes, it does. he has a permanent grin. one of the keys of success is making sure our candidates are likable. that our candidates are armed with the right message. yes, we know who we are standing again. we are standing against spending money you do not have, buying things you cannot afford, and present a world that seems to be unimpressed. this is easy. when you have a 600 billion dollar annual deficit, it makes it easy -- >> you can see the rest of this speech in the c-span video library. we believe it to go live to the american institute of certified public accountants two-day conference, beginning with a panel on the role of the inspectors general in
government. this is just getting underway. >> i am honored to introduce our two distinguished preachers. our first speaker is mr. jon rymer. n is the recently appointed inspector general for the department of defense. before joining dod, he was in specter -- the inspector general -- and he had a very short stint at the sec from 2012 until 2013. before that, he had a distinguished career in the private sector and is also sitting on the gao counsel -- council on federal control standards. mr. john roth was at the department of food and drug
administration where he was nominated to be the oig for the department of homeland security. mr. roth also had a distinguished career as well at the department of justice. before i introduce our speakers, just to double check for everybody -- let's make sure that cell phones are on silence. we have a session for about 75 minutes. the hall foraround questions, if you have questions, fill them out. for cpeo are looking credit, the code word for today from session is -- attic. attic is the code word for your cpe session. with that, let me turn it over to mr. rymer. >> thank you. i wrote that down. i-c.t-
right? [laughter] i love being here, but i am here for the cpe's as well. i spoke here a couple times at my previous appointment at the the fdic. i am a little bit nervous being here in august of this year. i was here in august 2011, and a few of you may have been in my session that was interrupted by the earthquake. let's hope we have better luck today. interestingly, the hotel was not sure how to treat an earthquake area was evacuated building, shelter in place? i think most of the public facilities in washington know what the right answer is. i believe it is shelter in place. we were uncertain about point, so we all effectively did the building, and then they said all clear, and we all came back -- most everyone did not come back. i think we finished with four people in the session in the big
room across the hall here. people -- iose four know they really earned those cpe's. bitnt to talk to a little about my experience. i was appointed at the fdic in 2006. i don't think it was my fault, but shortly thereafter, we have the banking crisis. occupied a great deal of time there. there were requirements -- the had certain requirements in the law to produce reports indicating why the banking failed and indicating how the .gency had performed we were quite busy there. i thought we were busy, frank lee, until i took this job. but the i had before, order of magnitude at the department of defense is incredible. i was telling john as we came in, people ask me the difference in the job. it is really the same job, but
difficult situations i may face once or twice a year in a smaller agency, i seem to faze them every day in a large agency. so, you really have to be on your game. it is very demanding. the good news is, i am pleased that i have a staff that is much more experienced than i am. many of them are represented here today. i am sure that john will attest to this. -- onehe ig is just person in the front office, and verye can function without effective teams behind us. evaluating is, investigators, auditors, personnel, i.t. specialists, lawyers. all those books. it is certainly not one person. it is very large, complex. the background, as many of you ig act of 1978 created a function and there were few ig's pre-existing before that,
but largely the ig as we know it was created with that act. independenceres and objectivity to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and the operations of federal agencies. you also hear the term waste, fraud, and abuse a great deal. the act requires the office of inspector general to identify thatams or operations contain waste, fraud, or abuse. i see some of my colleagues from gao here, so if you want the official definitions of waste, fraud, and abuse, i would point you to the yellow book. that is where they are. that is critical. sometimes it seems to be a challenge. andomy, efficiency, effectiveness versus waste, fraud, and abuse. not always the same approaches can identify and measure those two groups of things. that sometimes present a
challenge to was. ,s far as reporting authority in the department of defense just like any other agency, the inspector general is required to report to the head of the agency or the deputy or number two individual in an organization. that is certainly the case a dod. i regularly meet with secretary hagel. more frequently, i meet with the deputy secretary. there is a commitment and engagement from the very top in what we do, and our work is certainly taken very seriously. some of the right or these we have in my office -- and many of them, i have listed 14 last year during my confirmation hearing. the few i would mention top of mind are acquisitions and contract management, counterterrorism and special operations, cyber and information security --
something we spend a lot of time on is financial management and audit readiness. , and im auditability will talk about that in a moment. defense enterprise after two wars. certainly we are paying very close attention to our transition in afghanistan. also we are very concerned about protection in the department of defense. some of our recent accomplishments, and these can be found in more detail and our semiannual report. these numbers are coming from our 331 report. our office -- we have had 48 arrests, but let me clarify. those are not arrests of oig employees. [laughter] those are folks outside the oig. -- 140 seven criminal
charges, 147 convictions. thehe monetary return site, first six months of the fiscal year, one point $5 billion. that would be broken down, triggered $67 million in fines, penalties, restitution's. one point $1ts of billion. recovery of government property of just under $1 million. 1- civil judgments of $1. billion. i think those are respectable numbers. they could be bigger. sometimes they are much bigger, the pending of the litigation vote. a few years ago, gao did a report. i think the title -- one of the findings was return on investment, essentially, for the oig community. i believe that number was 18 to
one, if i recall correctly. every dollar invested in operations in the office of inspector general returned $18 to the government. $1.5 billion for the first six months of be a little short of that, but in the right ballpark. are -- with some of the changes i am trying to institute in our office, we are a very large ig, and i think we have a duty to the rest of the ig community, and my case, to the /auditing profession to be disciplined, and both what the audit community and the ig to beauty are involved in. we are increasing our the office forh integrity and efficiency. i chair the audit committee, as . have for several years
we are more involved in the criminal investigations .ommittee we are very actively involved in .valuations we try to, as we go about our business, there are some things i have been emphasizing. we call them a common set of principles. --that ise use ici independence above all else. if we are not independent in fact and appearance, we are not effective. competency. to be good at what we do requires us to know our jobs and invest in ourselves. and i think that means spending a fair amount of money in training and professional development, but also asking folks to spend their own time and professional development. at competency is a very important element of what we do.
that is why we are engaged with organizations like this and willing to participate in training events like this. integrity -- integrity and independence really go hand-in-hand. it is difficult to be an ig unless you have both. they have to be working together. we are often -- our independence is often challenged, sometimes folks we are auditing or investigating or folks on the hill. sometimes you have to make difficult decisions about independence. the last thing i would like to talk about that i think is important and will set up my last few comments is efficiency. igtalk a lot about what the act says about the importance of efficiency and the operations of the agency where we work.
but having worked in three federal ig's, there are opportunities to turn that efficiency gaze inside the organization as well. sometimes i think that is neglected. my first several months, we are looking for opportunities faster,a little better, cheaper, but also looking for opportunities to be more consistent at what we do. we have a lot of expertise, operations expertise, i.t. expertise, auditing, project management. i have found those skills and expertise are not regularly -- applied internally. i think it is important to look at processes occasionally. being an organization primarily made up of auditors and investigators, in those professions we tend to be very risk-averse.
think that being risk-averse often means being control oriented, and i think sometimes you can -- controls in my view have to be looked at in terms of efficiency. you can control a process to the point it does not work. that is not to say that we have many of those, that we are certainly looking at those controls to see if there really and pediments to efficiency and organizational effectiveness. you know the joke i have heard going around the ig community there was ars is -- report circulating in the office --inspector general inspectors general, and there were punctuation errors in the report. the ig responded with a reorganization, and the ig created the office of punctuation. [laughter]
hopefully that is not true -- -- does anyone work in an office of punctuation? that is just an example. we are very focused on the quality of our work. remindes we have to ourselves we have to be focused on the efficiency of our work as well. efficiency, i think, has components in an ig office. one is relevancy. if we take an unusually long amount of time to produce a investigation,an evaluation, inspection, or an audit, the longer it takes to get that report, the less of an element it may be. certainly we are, as are, efficiency is important because we are stewards of taxpayer dollars.
we have a duty to work as efficiently and effectively as we can. for the next several months in our office, and frankly probably throughout my tenure as ig, we will be looking at ways we can improve the internal efficiency of the office. we have created an internal quality assurance group now. we are clearly marking the difference between quality control and quality assurance. we are concerned about the independence function internally, and that function is looking at efficiency as well. we are also spending some time on listing to employees, trying to solicit ideas about where things can be done better. organizational things or process things or compliance things. -- all of those things are important to our office.
no one knows better how to do those things then the people already in the office. those of you in the consulting business, i'm sorry, i will not in thehing out to you short run for help. we're trying to work to become better what we do. i think that is all i have got. i will turn it over to my colleague mr. roth. for that. jon, thanks for the invitation to be here. this is somewhat of a false advertisement to have me up here next to jon rymer, who has the depth of experience inside the ig community. but many of his remarks are things i have thought about and it seems to me i am on the right track in many of these if i happen to agree with mr. rymer. it is nice in that way. i am not from the ig community.
in the 30-year career i have had with the department of justice and the fda, i have been a consumer of i.t. services, both in program audits director that things we have done, but also in criminal investigations. iran a number of criminal investigations that used -- i ran a number of criminal investigations at used ig services to detect waste, fraud, and abuse. and it gave me a terrific appreciation for ig work. when i got nominated for this position, my mother asked me three questions. to rub in said i was nominated to be the inspector .eneral of dhhs she said, what is that? if you can explain something to your 80-year-old mother or your 12-year-old son in a way that makes sense, you know you're on the right track. there were three fundamental
questions i had to ask myself between the time i was nominated and today. and those questions are -- first, who do you work for? second, what is your job? and third, how can you best do your job? veryof these seem like but in manyions, ways they are very tricky. start with the first one. who do you work for? i am a lawyer by training. criminal prosecuting at trial lawyer by training and probably temperament. the first thing i do is look at statute. section three of the ig act says very clearly i report to and am supervision ofal the secretary of dhs. ok. general supervision, what does that mean? you go further down. that same section of the statute says -- of course the secretary cannot prevent or prohibit the inspector general from
initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation or issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation. while i have to -- i am under the general supervision of the secretary, he actually can't control anything that i do. it is an interesting way to have a subordinate-superior relationship or the person actually can't tell you what to do. the ig act also gives me very broad powers. again, from the ig act, it says records,access to all reports, audits, reviews, recommendations, or other materials available to dhs, which relate to the programs and projects for which i am responsible. you cannot get a broader grant of authority. it also allows us to make reports and recommendations in
the judgment of the office of inspector general, not the secretary, not anyone else. of the inspector general, if necessary or desirable. the difficulty with all of these is none of these powers are self-executing. and i will use the excess to documents as perhaps one of the -- the access to documents as perhaps one of these signatures of that. information is the lifeblood of what we do. work is only going to be as good as your access to the information, to be able to make conclusions and recommendations. broadhstanding the very terms of the inspector general act, which says all reports, ocuments, etc. there have been agencies that have posted objections, that notwithstanding that broad language -- for example, the inspector general cannot get documents that are, for example,
subject to attorney-client privilege, or subject to privacy act controls, or are delivered process. there are agencies within the united states that have made .hose claims as a result of this, 47 a letters general sent to the relevant members of congress, complaining about these issues, and asking congress to reaffirm its as unequivocalin a way as legislative history allows, when it says all access to information, all means what it says. without posing any objections to that. the reason we did that was not just that it is the law and the way the laws written, it makes
for better governments. it makes for better audits. it makes for a better department. as one of the things i did during my career in dig -- doj, i was able to take a leave of absence and was a member of the 9/11 commission, an independent bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, what preparedness was and what our reaction to them was. i had a front row seat at the kinds of access issues that ig's face every day, in which there was many different kinds of objections that were interposed to getting this information. all of those were ultimately overcome as a result of, frankly, political will, and as for bettert made product. this is not just what the law says. it is whether or not the ig's can do what they are supposed to do to make government better. i truly believe that. it makes for better product. it makes for better policy overall.
work for? i still do not know as i sit here today who i work for. gao yellower to the book, our bible on government auditing standards, that says we have to be independent. we have to exercise professional judgment. we have to be competent. at the end of the day we have to satisfy ourselves that you bring integrity to the job, you do the right things for the right reasons, and you do it every day. during my hearings, senator carper had a device for me, which i have to remind myself of pretty much every day. he says -- and this is really applicable to this audience of cpa's -- all you need is integrity. if you have integrity, nothing else matters. and if you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. i take that with me. but it is hard. i do not think a day goes by that we do not make somebody angry. one day it might be congress.
the next day it might be the administration. be onerd day, it might of our component agencies. because our business is to speak truth to power. so, who do i work for? i like to think i work for the american people. and i like to think i work for making the government a better place. question.as the first second question is, what is my job? i think that is a fair question for a, particularly position like inspector general. peter drucker, who is one of the premier management gurus, once job of anyrst knowledge worker is to figure out what their job is. i do not think there is anyone right answer to this, but i would say where dhs is now in its organizational history with the challenges we're facing, our job is not simply to be auditors. it is not something to write beorts to rid our job is to
agents for positive change within the dhs. what i urge my staff to do is every day they are out there, try to figure out, are we making dhs a better place by the thing that it is you are doing? whatever that is. if you are engaged in an inspection, and investigation, and audit. making dhs are doing a better place? it is not a >> task -- it is not task, as you can imagine. gaoin dhs, we are on the high-risk list and have been ever since dhs's creation. there are significant problems. when we look at the risk we have and how to cover the audit risk that we have, everywhere we look, we have risk. we have risk and acquisitions. we have risk in grants.
we have risk in i.t. and cyber financial controls and personnel management. we have risks with integrity. we are the internal affairs branch for the largest single police agency in the united states. there is risk everywhere we go. many of these issues are ones already talked about. what is my job? my job is not conducting audits or leading audits, but being agents of change, making dhs a better place. how do i do it? watchword is you can write all of the audits that you want, but you are not going to be effective if people are not reading your audits or acting on the audit. make sureo we need to the audit reports are acted out? first, they have to be accessible, and they have to be accessible to people and know
that information. generally people in congress as well as people within dhs. we have developed a five-minute rule that says any audit report that we have ought to be picked intelligentonably adult who has no background in the subject matter, and within the first five minutes understand what the issue is and what the solution is. in other words, what is the problem, what is the cause of the problem, what is the potential solution for those problems? thefully we can do that in five minutes. we have other ways to try to highlight what it is that we are doing to make it more accessible to people, one of which is our thatight for every report we do. we will do a one-page spotlight that will indicate what this report says. and most importantly on the left-hand side, it has a section entitled "why this matters." if you can't answer that question, i think we need to
rethink what it is where doing. that is the first thing, have reports that are accessible. they also have to be timely to be relevant. talked a little bit about that. let me give you a couple examples of what we're doing at dhs. we are the individuals responsible for auditing fema. they, in any given year, have about $10 billion of grants, managing about 100 billion dollars overall, with 100 sub local municipality is to national disasters. states tothe administer them. but frankly the states have varying levels of motivation to appropriately administer those grants. so, we audit these. we wouldone past, simply audit them after the -- whatevert it the
the construction was. you build the hospital. we audited the hospital five years later. you say, you improperly said this money, fema go recover that money. functionally a very difficult thing to do. starting last year -- i would like to take credit for it, but i can't -- starting last year we started a mobile -- a more proactive way of looking at these audits. only a third of our audits have been traditional audits, after the money is spent. two thirds are more proactive. they come in three flavors. one is we send people to be disasters site itself. grab your boots, grab your raincoat. you're going to washington to observe those mudslides and work with fema to make sure the things that they are setting up comply with federal guidelines. the second thing we do our capacity audits, which i think is an interesting way of doing things. municipality in new jersey, let's say, has applied
for and received millions of dollars in fema funds. we will audit the capacity of that small locality, whatever it is. do they have the procedures, do they have the policies, do they have the infrastructure to spend those federal funds in accordance with federal grants? we think that is a good way of doing it. have been able to identify specific municipalities. it might need some work. it might need additional structures. and the third kind of way we do this are what we call early warning audits. we will do an audits during the course the money is expended, and we will give feedback to the antee, letting them know whether or not they are spending according to federal guidelines.
that is not the traditional way to do audits. it is something we have done because we think it is far wiser to prevent money from being spent poorly than to recover money after it is done. that is one example of what we are doing differently. seconds, the use of nontraditional products. these are not standard audits, but it make sure we get information to people in a timely way so they can actually use it. the best example i have of unaccompanied children coming up through the southwest border. an enormous challenge for dhs and for customs and border protection, to handle this flood children.panied essentially a tenfold increase in the course of a year. at we have had a six -- a succession of civil rights violations as a result of this. instead of chasing every one of
those violations, we decided we would be proactive about it. site visit process. we did not know what to call it. where dhs personnel would visit the facilities with a checklist to determine what the conditions of confinement were. part of that was to interview the children as well as the border patrol individuals running the facility, to ensure things were up to federal standards. that, we putlt of out public reports. we are doing this on a monthly basis, to let the american people and congress and the theytary no how it is that are handling this crush. that is one of the wings were doing to be timely and to be relevant. we're the other things focusing on is follow-up. it is one thing to write an
audit and make your recommendations. it is another thing entirely to follow-up on those audits and figure out -- ask the fundamental questions. what has been done as a result of a recommendations? and further, did a recommendations make sense? did it fix the problem? with thehe problem recommendations themselves? do an after action analysis of both compliance with dhs and also introspection as to whether or not we're doing this in the right way. as a result of this, we are being a little bit more transparent about this. of all opena list recommendations on our website. it is a stunning number of open dhs, indations to excess of 800. keep in mind we have only been in business for 10 years. to try to be transparent, to try to figure out whether what we are doing is making a difference. the last thing is we have to be
confident. we are going to be influenced when people look at us and believe what we say. a lot of this goes back to what with regard tot people. training is critically important for the folks we have working with us. this is quintessentially activity.work you need to know what you're doing and how it is you do it. frankly, we need to do more training. that the 2015 budget, if it is actually enacted, will triple the amount of money we have for our folks to be trained. right now, we have sort of engaged in a false economy. -- we have training not had training over the last two years because of the budget situation. but we're going to reverse that. we would rather hire fewer people than hire more people and
not give them the tools to do their job. and i think there is a mindset you have to bring to this job. of analysisngaged of other people's activities. i think it is important to bring humility to the task, to let people understand we are looking do not task, but we necessarily have all the answers. to understand the business you are auditing, to make sure you have a full appreciation of what is going on, and you can give it context. that it is necessary not to take a single failure in isolation, but to take a look at that in context. those are the three questions i try to answer. all of them are a work in progress for me. i have not quite hit my six-month mark yet, but perhaps next year i will have more definitive answers for you. thanks for your attention. i think at this point, we have questions and answers. seth was so, do we have any
questions from the audience -- >> to have any questions from the audience? raise your hand? >> [indiscernible] audits reallyy is, do we release them to the public -- if you're talking about be fema audits, the early warnings, yes. they are published on our website. they are subject to the same controls our traditional audits would be. it is just a somewhat different point in the cycle. >> yes, ma'am? >> [indiscernible] >> well, we are happy -- i think
the letter is out there and the text of the letter speaks for itself. the question was, when we said that we sent a letter that 47 ig's side for access to all information, does that mean everything including attorney-client privilege? i think attorney-client privilege is a perfect example of that. we are part of dhs. privilege -- attorney-client privilege does not hold within a single agency. that would be one example. there are a number of other instances. grand jury material, privacy act, specialized statutes that certain agencies have said trumps the ig act, notwithstanding the very broad nature of it. add whether we disclose that information to congress is a different issue, but having access to the information, i think, is critically important and frankly was the intent of the ig act. >> [indiscernible]
>> correct. >> next question. yes, sir? >> [indiscernible] >> what if -- what are your abilities if the secretary, him or herself has issued an order which has been questioned? what are your responsibilities in that case? where to go directly to the secretary, theoretically? jon answer this as well, but the whole point behind the inspector general act is there is independence that is there. by statute.s set the removal of ig's is a process
where there has to be a review and 30 days notice to congress. there are a number of procedural protections a place to give us independence to do whatever it is we think we need to do to ensure our efficiency, accountability, that kind of thing. i don't know if you want to jump in? >> the question is, what if the secretary him or herself has done something they should not have done? well, the ig would be responsible for that investigation. if it is an administrative matter. if it is a criminal matter, there are other avenues. it is not unusual where an ig finds himself reviewing the actions of the principal officer in an agency. >> [indiscernible] you mentioned the letter signed by 47 and the access to
information. when i was at gal, it was starting to bubble up. there were some entities that said you could have the information, but there was nothing in the law that gives you access to people. it it says records must be provided. are you having that same issue where you cannot interview people, you just get the records? >> that issue has not come up and that issue has not been subject to this letter. the reason the letter was written was, again, the experience of three specific inspectors general getting access to documents based on specious claims. certainly there have been situation i am aware of and which, for example, having unfettered access to employees without someone from the office of counsel or another entity present airing that interview is quickly important. i have not seen that in the work i have done, but i can't speak
for everyone. >> i would say the same thing. i have not seen that at dod. i am aware it has happened at been agencies since i have around. it is usually the presence of the agency counsel in the room when the employee is being interviewed. cases wheree some there could be boards or commissions affiliated or someway overseen by an agency where the ig's responsibility or authority over that subordinate organization is sometimes questioned. but largely, firsthand experience, i have no experience. >> next question. we have a speaker in the back with the question. well he is going back there, i the next question. on theer you have been job for a full year and the department is continuing to make rock press on the outer
residency -- progress on the you talk about that and where do you foresee challenges in the next five years as the audit goes forward? have my colleague from gao in the front row, certainly a key player in what we are trained to do on auditability and the department. the last few years i have worked with some folks and co-authored , 20port on the cfo act years later. what we learned there, i certainly learned a good deal about the cfo act. what i have learned is there are 24 cfo act agencies. 23 of those agencies now have -- or cleanendent financial audit opinions. unfortunately the united states
government as a whole is a ways away because the department of defense is the 24th agency and it is certainly something that has the highest attention of department leadership, starting several years ago, with secretary panetta. that has certainly been carried forward with secretary hagel. i can say where we are at, a lot of attention is paid to that. that is probably one of the biggest differences between what ato at dod versus what i do -- what i did at fdic. operation.aller i had very few financial auditors on that stuff. that is primarily because under the law the fdic financial audit was done by gao, which meant there was no need for ig oversight over an independent accountant. for those of you who do not know, most of the financial statement audit work in the
federal government is done by independent public accountants under the oversight of the inspector general. in our office at dod, that is a big, big job in and of itself. aboute -- i think we have at doditors on our staff ig, and roughly a fourth of that are in the business of financial auditing. that is a big number, relative to all of the other things we do. our audit a fourth of staff and they are dedicated, ip aly, really, to oversight, and that means an handful of our folks are overseeing a much bigger team of independent public accountants. if you think through that leverage of how many people are involved and how expensive it is, it is a tremendous undertaking. we still have a ways to go.
we testified back in may. i think it was senator coburn who asked a question about what are the biggest obstacles to financial auditability and depaf defense, and my answer was the enterprise resource planning systems. it is really a data availability question in my mind. that comes down to timeliness and resources dedicated to the honest -- audit. if you are an auditor and you have audited an entity or enterprise for a number of years and you have reviewed their internal controls and you have confidence of those controls, consequently you can have this in the reports and you spend less time perhaps auditing and it is a more efficient process. we are not there yet department of defense. so an audit is a very laborious activity. it takes lots of time for us.