tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 13, 2011 8:00pm-1:00am EDT
the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. elson: thank you very much. i'm congressman keith ellison, claiming this hour on behalf of the progressive caucus which tonight is going to feature a number of critical issues. all focusing on the importance of the rights of women and the assault they have been under in this congress. . to get started, i want to introduce a great colleague from california, who is going to lead off our hour. congresswoman lee has been a champion of the rights of all people and peace and justice around the world and she has been a champion for civil and human rights for women, and for all people around the world. let me first recognize on behalf
of this special order hour, congresswoman lee. congresswoman lee, i yield the floor to you. ms. lee: i thank my chair for yielding and for your amazing leadership on so many tough issues we are dealing with. we are joined with other members and pleased to be down here to discuss this critical issue, a very sad day for women in this country and especially for poor women, african-american women. this bill that was passed today is the newest attack is the republican war on women. today instead of focusing on ways to find jobs for women, the republicans are eliminating family planning programs, undercutting women's right to choose and returning our country
to the days of back-alley abortions, which i remember very well. h.r. 358, the protect life act, can you believe that, ploket life act, forces women to be dropped from state exchanges which will cut off millions of women from affordable, comprehensive health care. this bill makes it impossible for any health care plan to offer abortion coverage and refuse hospitals to provide life-saving care to a woman who needs an abortion to protect her own life. this is unprecedented and should have been rejected on this floor. this legislation is part of a coordinated, nationwide war on women. last week, the republican-controlled house foreign affairs committee voted to defund the united nations population fund, an organization that supports life-saving activities for women and
families in post-conflict and disaster situations. and before that, the very same committee vote todd reinstate the global gag rule which provided health care providers from discussing or offering comprehensive health care services to women and girls. this effects women and girls in subsahar and africa. and the republicans targeted planned parent hood and this nonprofit which provides affordable health care, black women, women of color, latino women, if planned parenthood wants to receive federal funding, they have to stop reproductive health choices, which is a tiny choice which planned parenthood offers. it's nothing less than shocking that after holding the fiscal
year 2011 budget hostage over their controversial proposals, they seem eager to pick some of the very same fights this year. the republican appropriations bill continue this attack on women's reproductive health by eliminating the nation's family planning program, cutting funding for teenage prevention initiatives and redirecting those funds into failed abstinence programs. and the list goes on. let's return to the battle that took place today. inputting forward this divisive bill, republicans made the false claim that the affordable care act needs to be amended that we don't fund taxpayer abortions. that is just wrong and really
amazing that that argument could be put out there, because the fact is the hyde amendment has been in effect for decades and the affordable care act continues the hyde amendment policy despite my personal view that it should be overturned. the republicans continue to invent new ways to deny women their guaranteed rights purely on religious beliefs and on ideology. this is a democracy. this is not a theocracy. and i'm a woman of faith, but i have to tell you the personal religious views of some should not dictate public policy for all. i'm aware of the fact that sometimes we as a nation, we really don't give young women and girls the right to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. this republican war on women and
this bill will put more lives at risk, isolate us from women who have no money, who are poor, especially women of color, who have become central targets of these efforts. evidence of this is seen all over the country and in the form of very offensive billboards that denigrate women in my own district, which we fought against and were quickly taken down. by trying to use a combination of law and guilt, these efforts undermine the bambing health care -- basic health care rights of women. black women make decisions every day whether to parent or not. those who think they should dictate our choices won't be there when the child is is born to get better education,
increased child care, keep our kids out of jail, send our kids to college or get affordable health care. this war on women must stop. we must not allow the republicans to turn back the clock on women, on choice and access to health care. i urge my colleagues to fight this war. fight against tchess unnecessary and these harmful initiatives that keep coming forward that continue to do damage to women and continue to erode our basic health care and basic human rights. we need to create jobs rather than continuing to deny health care to women. thank you, mr. ellison. i thank you for i don't remember leadership. our jobs initiative, on each and every effort that the congressional black caucus has mounted.
thank you. mr. ellison: let me thank the the gentlewoman from california, bash bra lee, fearless, relentless. tonight, we are here and talking about the harm that h.r. 358 would do to women's rights. it would hurt the rights of women. it would deprive them of health insurance coverage and emergency life-emergency coverage. private health care insurance coverage will be restricted and so to carry the discussion further and from a very important perspective, my good friend from new york, carol maloney, a fighter for the rights of all people, a leader in the area of choice and women's rights, let me yield the
floor. mrs. maloney: thank you, congressman ellison, who is the chair of the progressive caucus. thank you for your leadership on this and so many other areas and thank you for having this special order on this disturbing vote that took place today in the congress. there is no question and there can be no debating the fact that the bill that the republicans put forth endanger women's health, puts their lives at risk and intrudes on their constitutionally protected liberties. the bill extends the reach of government in a very profoundly disturbing way. and that is why president obama put out a veto threat on wednesday that he would veto any bill that would restrict insurers from paying for abortions, saying in the president's words, it goes too
far. and i would like to quote from the president's statement on this. long-standing federal policy prohibits federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the woman would be endangered. the affordable care act preserved this prohibition and included policies to ensure that federal funding is segregated from any private dollars used to fund abortions for which federal funding is prohibited. so that's very, very clear. and i don't understand why the republicans forced a vote on this, like the other anti-women, anti-choice, anti-respect of a woman's right to choose and her judgment has failed so far in the senate. so i feel that instead of
looking at creating jobs, which is a priority and the republican majority has said that jobs and job creation is their priority, but then they spend their time on debating a bill that even their own members admit the president will veto and is going no wherein the senate. so instead of creating jobs, they remain focused, mr. ellison, on creating obstacles for women to access safe, legal and badly needed health care. this bill, h.r. 358, is an attack on women's access to reproductive health services and our fundamental right to life -saving medical care. it is stunning in its scope, appalling in its indifference and outrageous in its arrogance. americans want congress to
create jobs, strengthen the middle class and find bipartisan consensus. so it's time to end this attack on women and get to work on our top priority or what should be our top priority kscre -- creating jobs and this is an attempt to keep women down and back and not protect women and access to health care. i thank you for organizing this. and i yield back to our chairman. mr. ellison: congressman ma moany, would you yield? -- maloney. >> the american college of object at the trish answer, they must have access to medley appropriate, legal-medical procedures regardless of the ability to pay. the american college of
gynecologists opposes legislative proposals for women. these proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government between a physician and a patient. my question to you is, this bill, h.r. 358, the very did he accepttively titled, protect life act, does this bill have scientific and medical backing behind it as the opposition to this bill has? in other words, do they have trained medical professionals operating on the basis of science supporting their position? i yield to the gentlelady? mrs. maloney: no, they do not. the scientists and medical professions all support access to all appropriate legal, medical procedures.
there is sometimes when the fetus -- could not live or has died and is in jeopardy for causing literally the destruction of organs or death of a woman. this is a life-taking bill from the health and welfare. and this bill allows hospitals to deny life-saving care. this is a big change in our values and procedures in our country. and i want to point out very importantly, mr. chairman, that at the same time, they are restricting reproductive choices, republicans are limiting access to family planning and primary care and by their efforts to defund planned parenthood, which is a primary care provider to most women to
their basic health in this country and these actions, i would label just plain too extreme. mr. ellison: you know, the gentlelady has been eloquent about the assault on women's health. if you don't mind, given that you are a member of the joint economic committee, which is a bicameral committee, bipartisan committee, i think, in the congress, i wonder if you don't mind talkicing with me about the assault on the women's economic prospects. in your opinion, congressman maloney, how will assaults and cuts to medicare and medicaid and social security impact women, given that women statistically live longer than men and have a greater representation for use of those important programs? are we seeing -- are we seeing
-- not just the health, but also the economic viability of women under threat as well as we see important programs that women rely on disproportionately cut into? . . mrs. maloney: regrettably, women are the largest segment, oler women, are the largest segment of people living in poverty. the discrimination that has existed in pay, there's still for over 0 years an unexplained gap between men and women, the pay gap, well over 20% and this then translates your social security, less social security, less pension, and the need for social security, medicaid, and medicare to help women and also, a lot of women around the
age of 55, when their spouses die and they've been stay at home mothers and wives, they lose the coverage that their husbands have and there's a gap that's not there until they reach medicare age of 65. so they rely disproportionately on these safety net programs so any cuts, and i hear from my constituents, and i know you do too, they say, i can't absorb another cut to my medicare, can't absorb a cut to my social security, i believe that's one reason why democrats have fought so hard to keep that safety net in place for working men and women in our country. i yield back. mr. ellison: i appreciate the gentlelady shedding some light on this issue. the fact is, today we are looking at a bill that would restrict women's health care access but you wouldn't know that we have been trying to fend off assaults on the viable of women's economic situation.
we still know that women earn about 80 cents for every dollar that men make. this is unexplained, or it is explained, it's explained by gender discrimination. i think it's important for even men to take account of this important fact, that if your wife or partner is being discriminated against in the workplace because she's a woman, then your total family income is being hurt because of sex discrimination in the workplace. it's important that men and women come together to fight these attacks on women's rights because even though the direct victim of this kind of discrimination are women, this invariably hurts the entire family and so this is everybody's business to stand up for the rights of all people. i tell you, one of the things that really concerns me is this gap in pay between men and women.
the median weekly -- women earn about 81.2% of what men earn, in addition to that, they have assaults on their access to health care. when you add these things up what does this mean in terms of the majority's commitment to women's rights? what does it all add up to? i wonder if the gentlelady would offer her views on this subject. mrs. maloney: i think all these effort, whether it's the pits bill that passed today that threatens women's ability to purchase private health insurance that includes abortion coverage with their own money and codifies broad and troubling conscience provisions, it's another attempt to unravel the health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that will harm women's health. that's an anti-woman's agenda that just passed this great
body. when you talk about the assaults on women that -- on programs that women disproportionately rely on, it's another step that will keep women down and back. i'm proud of the democrats for standing up for women and children and families. you rightfully pointed out when you discriminate against a woman you discriminate against her husband an children. you and i know that it takes two working parents, sometimes two jobs by each parent, to pay the bills and keep the food on the table. so these are very serious concerns and ways that we need to fight back and stand up for the women of america. mr. ellison: congresswoman maloney, i know you might have to run, but i appreciate you staying here with me, i think the people of america need to hear from a person like yourself, congresswoman maloney, who's been laboring in the vineyards of economic and
civil rights both. you know, for a few years now. you know what you're talking about. you've been doing this work. you served the community for many years. i just want to see if i can get your views on another issue, that is that one of the things that republicans have been doing is having this program to cut, cut, cut government services, which, of course, has led to reductions in public employees. and so, for example, while the private sector has added about 1.7 million jobs over the last 12 months, during the bush administration we were losing jobs, the public sector has lost about 400,000 jobs. when you consider the fact that women are disproportionately likely to work for the public sector, their employment decline has been particularly hit when public sector
employees get laid off. is i -- so i just -- i want to keep connecting the dots tonight, if i may. we started off the conversation with cuts to women's health and this deceptively entitled bill, the so-called, i don't want to repeat it because it's so wrong, but the protect life act, it's not the protect women's lifes -- lives act. mrs. maloney: that the a -- that's a petr name. mr. ellison: then you have cuts to programs that oler women are disproportionately relying on, then we move to the wage gap and now we're seeing cuts to public mes are fall manager heavily on the shoulders of women. what -- you mentioned an agenda. are we really talking about an agenda, not just a single program put a whole agenda? i yield to the gentlelady. mrs. maloney: the gentleman is correct to connect the dots. you're correct that when you cut education and health care, these are the two areas that
women are employed in predominantly and in many cases, they have achieved leadership positions in these two fields, yet these are the two areas that have been cut the most in the municipal area i a cross the country that have hurt our states and cities and the gentleman is very correct to point out that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. many economists have come out in support of president obama's jobs bill, including two nobel laureates and one economist that i like to read because he's employed by the private sect yo , which means -- sector, which means if he's wrong he's going to get fired, he was a republican economist, chief analyst for senator mccain when mccain ran for president. and this is mr. zandi. mr. zandi said that president
obama's economic plan, the jobs bill he's put out, would create next year 1.9 million new jobs, add 2 percentage points to the g.d.p. and also cut the unemployment rate by at least 1%. i use his numbers, since he was senator mccape's advisor and economist, but there's a drum beat of economists across the country that are saying you cannot cut your way out of a recession. and that we are getting dangerously close to a double dip when you combine all these massive cuts with what's happening in europe and the instability of the country's finances and certain of our allies and this is an extreme challenge here at home and economists have universally said that we need to invest and
continue to work to get the economy moving by investing in job creating areas such as the infrastructure bank, such as rebuilding our bridges and making sure they're safe. one part i particularly leek as a former teacher is the plan to rehab schools and make them ready for the 21st semplingry. that will employ people across this country and invest in making our schools appropriate. i know that even in the great state of new york, some of our schools are not properly wired for computers. mr. ellison, when you and i were in school, all you needed was a pencil. today our young people need computers, they are competing not with the people in the class but with people around the world and they need to have high tech access and our schools have to be wired for the 21st century. the investment in creating good jobs by building high speed
rail, to move us into the 21st semplingry and repairing our infrastructure with our roads and our trains and so many ways and also making sure that our teachers and our police and our fire are not laid off during this recession when we need to invest in helping america. everybody tells us, everybody economist will tell us, the best investment we can make for the future of our country, is to invest in education. we can't afford to be not competitive with modern schools and not competitive with the prop number of teachers so that our classrooms are not so overcrowded. that's a particular area that i like in this particular jobs program. mr. ellison: i like the jobs bill as well. it's too bad that the american jobs act did not -- they -- it will not even be debated in the senate yesterday.
you would think we could debate the bill at least. if republicans have different ideas about job creation than we do as democrats, i'm ok with that. let's debate it and get it out on the floor. but they don't want to have the debate. i think that before we, you know, you mentioned public sector getting support. mrs. maloney: i would like to point aplaud what you just said. i believe there's no idea that is so frightening or threatening that it can't be debated in the united states congress. and so i agree with you, let's have debate. the president put forward his program. let's see what the republican program is. let's bring it down have it debated and have the economists across the country and across the world weigh in with which program is going to get the economy moving and move us with greater strength in the greth of our economy. mr. ellison: as you know, the president challenged them, the republicans, to do this. he said, look, i'm putting my
bill up here, you bring yours up here, we'll see which one creates more jobs. and folks like mark zandi, an economist who has advised both republicans and democrats, took an evaluation. he said the republican plan is not likely to create jobs next year. people are employed this year and next year and what are they doing about it? they're just cutting basic services in local government. they're getting rid of health regulations in the e.p.a. they're doing things like creating cultural fights like the one they did today trying to sort of divide americans based on people's deeply held views about the issue of abortion when we need to be getting people back to work which is in my view, trying to take our eye off the ball. i want to throw out a couple of facts that may contribute to the dialogue. here's one. in september, 2011, just the month that just passed, the
public sector lost 34,000 jobs. 82% of those jobs were women's jobs. this is important fact. this is according to the national women's law center. also, the damage in public sect cror was driven largely by cuts to local government, education. say that again. congresswoman maloney, you're a former teacher, i know this is close to your heart. the damage in the public sector was largely by cuts to the local government's education. in this field, one that is nearly 3/4 women, 24,400 jobs were lost from august to september. since the recovery began in 2009, this field has lost more than 250,000 jobs. what does it mean when we -- when we as a society disinvest in public education? one thing it means is that
women workers will be hit harder because that's who 3/4 of our teachers are. it also mean ours young people will be deprived. as a person who has been in the classroom, congresswoman maloney, what does it mean when a classroom gos from 20 kids to 35 kids? what does it mean to the kids who might not be catching on to the lesson or who may have a learning disability? is it even possible for a competent, caring teacher to teach all the kids, given that some, you know, may need extra help? i yield to you, congresswoman maloney for your views on this. . mrs. maloney: schools are overcrowded and the quality of teaching goes down and that is troubling when you talk about hemorrhaging so many jobs. according to the bureau of labor statistics, there are 14 million
people out of work. and three million jobs that are out there now. so if we could miraculously fill those three million jobs overnight, there would still be 11 million americans out of work and looking for jobs. for every job opening, there are five people, at least, standing in line for that job. and what i find particularly troubling is that many of these people are young people that have invested in their education. they have taken out student loans. they are burdened with huge student loans and can't find employment. so they are facing a terrible situation. and studies show if you can't find employment in the early years of your career, it affects your earnings and self-confidence and productivity for the rest of your life. through no fault of theirs, they
are confronting the worst employment situation in my lifetime and really in decades. so we need to work together. one chair that the republicans and democrats should work together, in creating jobs and moving our economy forward. regretfully, some people don't want to do anything until the 2012 election. the people out of work can't afford to wait until 2012 and it is incumbent upon us to act now to help them. mr. ellison: you just mentioned a moment ago this idea of re-investing in our schools. today, i had a visit from a number of superintendents in my state of minnesota. and they were not all from the fifth congressional district, but a cross-section of the state.
and they told me that there were literally nearly 100 different school districts going to the voters for a referendum so they could pay expenses because the state government is backing off its commitment, because the federal government is backing off its commitment. i mean, the fact of the matter is, we have a disturbing trend here and they told me, they said, look, if we could get part of the american jobs act passed that would help us with these old boilers, old, beat-up pipes, windows not opening and closing, if we could get money, that could free up money for our teachers. when you think of the american jobs act which goes to this issue of investing in our
schools and hiring -- keeping our teachers out there, preventing 280,000 teachers from being laid off, what do you think about this idea of really just making sure that the facilities of our infrastructure are sound for our kids and people working in schools? mrs. maloney: you focused on one of the critical parts of the president's job proposals, modernizing our schools. not only would it create jobs, to modernize the schools and keep the teach rs working and police and fire and invests in better education, better environment for our young people to learn and grow and to modern idse them to the extent that they are wired appropriately for the 21st century. these are important areas that we need to work -- look at and think about.
i want to point out the unemployed. the jobs aren't out there. when you don't continue the unemployment insurance, there is no hope for these people. it is better for them to look for a job and continue trying and not give up hope so they work towards that end. i want to tell you how much i enjoyed sharing with you information on the jobs program for the president and really how the opposition, our friends on the other side of the i'll, their agenda to -- aisle, their agenda that cut programs against women and to make the choices legal in our country and which provides the best health care for them. the progressive caucus has always stood up for women, children and families and i want
to thank you and the caucus for on standing up for women, children and families and i yield back. mr. ellison: i know you have to take care of other important responsibilities and i thank you. because i think it's important for people to know that congresswoman maloney is the author of the credit card bill holders credit card act. and when you use your credit card and got fees, terms being changed without any notice to you, when you use that credit card and late on one credit card, they used to jack you up on the other card because you were late on another card. when people benefit from credit card justice, you have to thank representative maloney. you cannot use that card and say
things are better. they are better because congresswoman maloney. and this is an uphill climb for you and not easy. you had to work on boards, work on democrats and the senate and you got it done and this country cannot pay you back for the good work you did. and congresswoman, maloney, i wish you many, many years here in this congress. i just want you to know that that accomplishment is a towering achievement which will stand the test of time and is historic. i know you have to do important things, but i didn't want you to leave without me mentioning how important that service that you gave was, not to mention the work you do every single day, on rights of all people.
so, -- >> mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for your statement. the credit card holders bill of rights, it saved consumers over $10 billion in the last year by cutting out unfair deceptive practices and i'm using the terms from the federal reserve and i'm proud that it helps americans better manage their credit and no longer can people raise any time, for any reason, trapping people in a never-ending cycle of debt. i had consumers who purchased items and paid so much in interest over the time that they could have paid for the car or washing machine and not paid it off. and this is wrong and unfair. and central to this bill, it gives consumers the opportunity and the right to make a
decision. so if they're going to raise their rate, they must notify them and the consumer has the choice of whether they opt into a higher rate or pay off their card or go to another provider that may have a lower rate. so it puts more competition in the system. lowered the interest rates, the fees, and really helped consumers. and i want to say, we were co-chairs of the consumer committee caucus, we started that to build support. and you were a strong part of helping me pass it. it was difficult it but i'm proud that the president has signed it into law and benefiting americans and bringing more ability for them to control their own businesses, their own assets, their own credit. and i must say this was -- when it did pass the house, there was strong republican support for it
in both the house and the senate and i'm pleased that americans have this added benefit in their lives. thank you for your leadership. it has been a pleasure to join you tonight. mr. ellison: thank you. and have a wonderful evening and thank you for the great work you have done. i'm going to remain a few more minutes to help the american people understand what is in the american jobs act. it is an excellent piece of legislation. we have been talking a lot tonight in this special order about women's rights, but we have been talking about jobs. and these subjects go right together. it's important as we talk about this subject tonight that the america know what is in the american jobs act. it will put americans back to work. which is now, not later, not next year, but now. the emphasis is now.
it will preserve and creailt jobs now. and put money in the pockets of americans now and give businesses tax breaks now a will provide a boost to the economy right now. what we are aiming for, republican colleagues have failed to produce any kind of jobs bill. they say that cutting important health regulations will create jobs. it won't. they say that cutting taxes for people at the very top at the income scale, corporations will create jobs, it won't. companies are awash incorporate money and won't use the money even if we give them more money. what they don't have is customers. why don't they have customers? america cans aren't working. and when businesses find that they have customers and orders,
they will hire people to fill orders. when thiff excess capacity and not going to mire people, they are going to hire people, because they have sales that they need to make. this is the basic and fundamental difference of opinion. but i do believe that after years and years of trying, trickle-down economics must be discarded and dismissed and thrown away as a discredited economic theory. trickle-down economics, republicans, believe in trickle down, they believe if you give money to the rich, it will trickle down to the rest of us. they are wrong. they have been proven to be wrong and yet they never stop coming here and saying if we give them another tax cut and
rich corporations more money, if we gave them more money, all the profits, they might hire somebody. they are wrong and history has been proven to be wrong. i don't know where why they are going with this discarded theory of economics. the american jobs will do something different. it would put people back to work and people working again. this will boost aggregate demand, aggregate, add it up, and with that, more customers, more money, this economy will take off and they will have a reason to. here's the other thing. the american jobs act and there is important thing that it does that it invests in our nation's basic infrastructure and invests in our nation's human capital.
it puts targeted tax breaks, not just giving money to rich people , but it gives tax breaks and puts money in the pockets of american workers and american employees so they will add and grow jobs and puts money into job training which does upgrades for our people so they are more productive and better at what they do. the job-saving and job-producing action will put paychecks into the economy and provide needs and invest in economic growth. i want to quote mark dandi, who is unbiased. he said, quote, president obama's job proposal would stable idse confidence and keep u.s. from sliding back into recession.
add two percentage points to g.d.p. and 1.9 million jobs and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point. now, that's a big deal. wouldn't the people watching this show, mr. speaker, like to be able to see america go from 9.1% ununemployment to 8.1% unemployment? the american jobs act is paid for. unlike the two wars that the republicans got us into, and medicare part d and tax breaks under george bush and the the american jobs act is paid for. president obama has offered pay-fors which covers the cost of the bill. this is something the republicans aren't used to which they may not quite understand the american jobs act. they like to spend money which we don't have and done with the two wars in iraq and afghanistan
and did with the bush tax cuts and did with the big farm give-away. but this bill is paid for, which may be why they don't understand why things are paid for and they understand adding to the deficit. . they may not have a jobs bill of their own other than claiming getting rid of important health regulations will grow jobs, they're refusing to act on the jobs act. majority leader cantor said the jobs act was dead, his word. the republicans not only failed to produce or support a jobs bill, they're refusing to act on this bill and i think eric cantor also said it was unacceptable. that's another word he used. now that's, again, fine with me. if the majority leader can say, look, i don't like this part
but i can go for that part, let's get the bill up here, offer amendments, but by all means let's start talking about jobs up here. the republicans are more invested in protecting millionaires from paying their fair share than helping the american middle class to work. by a 16-point margin, mr. speaker, the americans support president obama's proposal to create jobs. 52% to 36%. 52% of americans want it, 36% of americans don't. by a 16-point margin, americans support president obama's proposal to create jobs. by a 15-point margin, more americans trust president obama to do a better job creating jobs than congressional republicans. 6 % of all americans, mr. speaker, at least 62% of the people surveyed, support a balanced approach, that means
cutting spending and raising revenue to reduce the deficit. and, mr. speaker, three out of four americans support raising taxes on americans with incomes of $1 million or more. these are the so-called jobs creators republicans like to talk about. the only problem is, they haven't been creating jobs. what will create jobs is businesses and small businesses that have orders and have consumers and have people working and have people who have money to spend at their businesses. that's what will create jobs. i think it's important, mr. speaker to point out to the american people that, you know, the three components of the american jobs act are designed to win. one, the american jobs act and reinvesting in america. preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and keeping first responders, firefighters and teachers on the job. modernizing at least 32,000
public schools across the country. myself and congresswoman many maloney were talking about this, talking about supporting new science labs, school renovations, both rural an urban, but as i talked about earlier today, the superintendents in the schools i represent, some of them have boilers about to go out, windows that aren't fixed up right, roofs that need repair, basing stuff. this would put thousands of mens back to work as we give our young people a good, decent place and a modern place to go learn in. of course, another part of the american jobs act, all under this important category of investing in america, is making immediate investments in infrastructure. modernizing our roads, our railways, putting hundreds of thousands of americans back to work. project rebuild, a great effort, an effort to put people
back to work, rehabilitating homes and businesses and stabilizing communities. levranling private capital and scaling up successful models of public-private collaboration. of course, expanding wireless internet. expanding wireless internet to 9 % of americans an first responders by freeing up the nation's spectrum. the second element of this important american jobs act which republicans should support and democrats do support is tax cuts for employers and employees. now this is not just some giveaway. this is targeted tax cuts that are designed to succeed. some of my friends on the republican side of the aisle, like to say democrats don't like tax cuts. this is not true. we are for tax cuts when they are targeted and designed to help the average working american, not just some giveaway to rich people. i have nothing against rich people. i like rich people.
in fact, one day when i leave congress and go back to the private sector, maybe i can be one of them. but the fact is, right now, right now, the fact of the matter is, we need tax cuts that are targeted and designed to spur the economy, not just giveaways, hoping and praying that the money will trickle down. specifically what i'm referring to, mr. speaker, is cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year. the president's plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers' payroll taxes in half in 2012, providing $1,500 in tax cuts to the typical american family without negatively expanding, or impacting social security trust funds. things are tough around the house. things are tough around the kitchen table. an americans can really cruise this, particularly now. it will help maintain aggregate d demand and it would be very
helpful. also, mr. speaker, allowing more americans to refinance their mortgages at today's near 4% interest rates which can put more than $4,000 a year in a family's pocket. also cutting the payroll tax in half for 98% of businesses. the president's plan will cut in half taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll. mr. speaker, another important element of the american jobs act that has to do with this tax issue is a complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages. the employment -- excuse me. the president's plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll by adding new workers or increasing wages. that's a targeted tax cut. that's a tax cut that's going to get people to hire somebody. in the just some give money to rich people and hope they hire somebody, this is a targeted tax cut that will actually be of value. the next one, mr. speaker, encouraging businesses to make
investments by ex-tanding 100% business expensing into 2012. this extension would put on an additional $85 billion in the hands of businesses next year. the third thing, mr. speaker, that i think is important to mention is helping the unemployed with pathways back to work. some people like to refer to our social safety net. i think it's much more effective to refer to it as our social safety trampoline. that is, when you fall down, america, caring, compassionate nation we are, provides a way for people to bounce back. this is what this third element of the american jobs act does. returning heroes, offering tax cuts to encourage businesses to hire unemployed veterans, now, i know that there's some republicans who would vote for this provision, there's got to be. businesses that hire veterans who have been unemployed for six months or longer would
receive a tax credit up to 5,600 -- up to $5,600 and that rises to $9,000 for veterans with a service related disability. i've got to believe that there are a few republicans that would give the green -- an agreeing vote to something like that. in the same veen, the most innovativerer form to unemployment insurance in the last 40 years. to prevent five million americans from losing their benefits it includes work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater fecks pecks -- flexibility to use unemployment funds to best support job seekers and connect them to work, including in this innovative program things like work sharing, unemployment insurance for workers whose employers choose work sharing over layoffs, improve reemployment services for long-term unemployed through
counseling assessments, three, bridge to work program, a plan builds on and improved innovative state programs where those displaced take temporary, voluntary, or pursue on the job training. so mr. speaker, i'm now about at the end of my time tonight. this has been the congressional progressive caucus and we are here with the progressive message, which we like to come to as often as we can, and what we're talking about tonight is standing up for the rights of women, more than 50% of americans are female, my daughter is one of them. and i just want to argue that for this country to rise to its full measure of greatness, we have to have full and equal rights for everybody, especially women. today, there was an attack on women's rights and constitutional rights today.
there have been assaults to programs, that disproportionately women rely on, like medicare, social security, medicare, medicaid. also employment sectors that women are employed in, such as the public sector. this is too bad and we need to stand up against it. but also, jobs. instead of dealing with divisive social issues, where americans of honestly held conscience disagree very seriously on this issue of pro-choice, pro-life, instead of dealing with these old issues, old thins we have been fighting over for years and will probably never be solved, why don't we talk about jobs. so we did go into the american jobs act tonight. we talked about the key parts of this important bill by president obama, first, investing in our infrastructure and in our people skills. second, targeting tax breaks designed to put people back to
work, not just giveaways to the rich and third help for the employed, three very important features which i believe will really help america. all we want, mr. speaker is a chance to debate these issues on the house floor, bring amendments, we can bring these amendments, we can debit them, vote some up, vote some down but it's just wrong to deny the american people a chance to get a good jobs bill, mr. speaker. so tonight i just want to wrap up by saying that it's always a pleasure to come before the house and discuss critical issues facing the american people and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, sir. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for one hour as the designee of the majority leader.
mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. do appreciate the opinions of our friends across the aisle and those who have spoken here tonight. and i know we both have similar goals, get people back to work. but when i hear my colleague across the aisle say republicans keep proposing plans that have proved failures, the truth is, the failures that republicans have supported were the things that our democratic friends were in favor of. i sure like president george w. bush but in january of 2008, he
took a page right out of the democrat's playbook, proposed $160 billion stimulus, $40 billion of which went as rebates to people that didn't pay any income tax. so you had people getting rebates that didn't but in bate in. that money didn't do any good. then we come around and end up in late september, early october of 2008, having unfortunately the treasury secretary appointed by a republican, pull a page out of the democratic playbook and help the folks on wall street that contribute and vote 4-1 for democrats over republicans. bailed them out.
some of us made clear, you don't abandoned free market principles to try to save the free market. if you have to abandon free market principles to save the free market, it's not worth saving. the trouble is, we'd gotten away from free market principles and that's why we were in trouble. we had fends across the aisle demanding that loans be made to people that couldn't afford the loans. we had friends across the aisle that were verifying here in this room and in other hearing rooms that, by golly, fannie maye, freddie mac, they were healthy, there were no problems, when it turned out they were rotting from the inside. so apparently, as smart as my dear friends are across the aisle, they have not been taught
history very well. the things that have failed are the very things that are being proposed again. the $700 billion wasn't enough and actually president bush's treasury secretary, the second worst treasury secretary in the history of our country, exceeded only now recently by timothy geithner in just how a poor a job that's been -- just how poor a job that's been done, they spent maybe $300 billion of the $700 billion, so the obama administration got around $450 billion of that $700 billion, president bush unfortunately listened to chicken little paulson as he ran around saying the financial sky was falling. and that ended up all going to
president obama and secretary geithner, for them to squander. which they have. and basically used it as a slush fund, in fact. then we're told we have got to build bridges, we've got to do infrastructure, how could anybody disagree with infrastructure? well, most of us didn't agree -- disagree with doing infrastructure, as long as it was governmental functions. trouble is, the president had $400, $450 billion from tarp still left over, asked for $800 billion on top of that and then it turned out that $800 billion may have been closer to $1 trillion by the time they got around to having what was available under the bill. of course 4 it cents out of every $1 of that was borrowed, much of it from friends and neighbors across the world in china. but here again these
governmental giveaways, the governmental rebates to people that didn't put any bait in, the giving more and more money to entities that were not creating jobs, the fiascos like solyndra and understand even after solyndra, leader reid down the hall was able to procure another $700 million for a similar company in nevada. i mean, this is insane. my friends were just saying in the last hour that republicans keep proposing plans that have proved failures. the failures of republicans are when we adopt the democratic strategies on these things. it's time to get back to the principles on which our government was founded.
it's very basic. very simple. you give equal opportunities to people to access, you stop paying people to fail and we can get this country going again. now, we also had a bill today that was finally going to allow people to exercise their first amendment rights. there's not supposed to be, under the constitution, under the bill of rights, the first amendment, the government's forcing people to practice religion that is entirely opposite from the religion they believe. so we passed a bill here in the house that would allow health care providers who believe with all their hearts, soul and mind,
most of them it's a religious conviction, that to conduct an abortion and to take and kill a baby in utero, remove it, kill the baby, in utero, out of utero, but it is wrong. and having had my wife's and my first child come eight to 10 weeks prematurely and sitting for eight hours, supposed to be only two, but i couldn't leave and they didn't make me until i'd been there for eight hours, with that little child, her hand clutching to the end of my finger, she was hanging on to life, the doctor pointed out, look at the monday tier -- monitors. they've stabilized since she's been holding onto you. she's drawing strength, she's
drawing life from you. that tiny preemie, my daughter, kind of clinging to life. and my friend as i cross the aisle condemning people like me or health care providers who think it's wrong to take that life when they just want to cling to life, give them a chance. and i was a little surprised, a bit embarrassed for our minority leader pelosi when she said here on capitol hill, about that bill that would allow people to practice their religious beliefs and not kill babies, the quote from our former speaker pelosi was, quote, under this bill when
republicans vote for this bill today they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. well, there's good news for former speaker pelosi. we didn't vote to allow women to die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene. that did not happen and yet the bill passed. good news, apparently the speaker did not read the bill, she didn't know that what this allows is a health care provider not to have to kill a baby if it's against their religious beliefs. and also no women will be allowed to die on the floor if they do -- floor, if they do
there will be severe and dire consequences for any health care provider that allows that to happen. there is nobody, despite the former speaker's contentions here on capitol hill, there is nobody that voted for that bill today that would in their wildest nightmares want a woman to die on the floor without a health care provider intervening and the bill doesn't do that so whatever nightmarish bill the speaker was referring to when she thought she was talking about the bill we passed today, good news for her, she didn't know what she was talking about, it does not allow women to die on the floor. it just allows people who believe with all their heart, mind and soul, their religious beliefs, that killing a baby is wrong. that when that baby wants to cling to life, as my little girl
was clinging to my finger, and her heart rate stabilized and her breathing stabilized, they can live. they don't have to be killed. they don't have to be killed in utero. it's good news. it's a great thing. and i hope that the senate will pass it and not be dissuaded by those who misread the bill, maybe they were reading some disaster book or something, because obviously they were not reading the bill that we passed. now, there's also a real easy fix to establish cuts in the federal budget and it would be so great if our colleagues down the aisle, the senate, colleagues across the aisle, the democrats, would take the fact
that this house agreed to cut our own budgets, our own budgets in this legislative session by 5% and say, hey, rest of the federal government, look what we've done. we've not talked about it. we did it but we haven't really talked about it. and the truth is, by congress, by the house at least cutting our legislative budgets by 5% this year, and as i understand it we're going to cut 6% next year, it gives us the moral authority to say, every federal department in this government, congress has cut -- at least the house has cut our own budgets by 5% this year, every one of you, cut your budgets by 5% next year. we have the moral authority to do it because we've done it. now maybe the senate doesn't want to do that, but it's the
morally responsible thing to do. and then if it comes through and we do cut our legislative but the here 6% in the house, we have the moral authority to say, hey, federal government, every department, every agency, we have cut our own budgets 5% last year, 6% next year, so you're going to cut 5% next year and 6% the year after that. that's 11% cut. now we're on the right track. and if you don't want to cut some invaluable program, there's good news. cut it off some program that's a waste. my friend, daniel webster from florida, had been working -- looking into the different transportation agencies that provide rides to people, to get to their place of appointments,
whether it's with the v.a. or whether it's with the doctor, whether it's with the federal government, different agencies. 85 different groups provide rides. how could that be? well, the rules the way they were set up in 1974 by a democratic congress that also set up the screwy c.b.o. rules that do not allow a good score with for things that really do help the country, that same time they were also busy sticking different agencies that do the same thing in different committees so that we have massive duplications of those type of things. well, all we got to do is start cutting those things out and i hope and pray that before i leave congress, this body and the one down the hall will have the courage to step up and say, you know what?
i know i've been on my committee for a number of years and i've got seniority and i know this committee is critical and this committee is critical, but it's time to reform the committee process and the only way that we'll ever be able to completely eliminate or come close to eliminating all the massive duplication, replication of the same program, spending massive amounts of money to do the same thing and yet we could combine those and save trillions of dollars over the next 10 years, we need to have a welfare committee. we'd take the food stamps out of the ag budget. people hear how big the agriculture budget is and they just can't believe it. there are not that many farmers. they don't know between 70% and 80% of the ag budget goes for food stamps. let's put that in the welfare
committee. you know, robert at the heritage foundation has done fantastic work and he was telling me, it takes him two years to find all the hidden welfare provided from all the different subcommittees, all the different agency budgets , it takes two full years to do that. it's time to change things here and i realize that with a democrat-controlled senate it's not going to happen this session. but i hope and pray that the next session of the senate that begins in january of 2013 will have people in the house and the senate, regardless of their party, that will finally reform the government here in washington and to use the president's words, fundamentally change the way we do business so that we don't set ourselves up to provide massive amounts of
waste, fraud and abuse. now, it helps to reform government if the people here in washington who vote on the bills and down pennsylvania avenue who sign bills or veto bills actually read them. . wow. what a concept. it would help if the president himself, before he had gone out on the road condemning congress for not passing his american jobs act, had actually had and american jobs act. he went around this country, spending millions and millions of dollars, some say it was campaigning, whatever he was doing, he was condemning congress depor passing a bill that didn't exist. so that weekend, on monday,
monday evening, they finally had a bill, and i got it printed out, but turns out nobody was filing it. and yet that didn't stop the president from running around saying we were refusing to pass this bill. pass this bill right now, right away. in fact, if he had taken 10 minutes out of his schedule without spending millions of dollars, picked up the phone and called one of his democratic friends in the house, saying i'm running around the country and nobody filed the bill. i needed to ask someone to file the bill. didn't bother to do that. kept running around the country and condemned us for not passing his bill. i realized if the president had
read his bill and i did. he hadn't read it at all, i decided, you know what, if he is going to condemn us for not passing an american jobs act, i filed one. i was willing to negotiate. and it would create jobs, because it deals with a tariff of 35% that we put on every american-made companies' goods here, which keeps them from being able to compete globally, because nobody else in the world slaps that kind of tariff on their own goods produced in their country. we are doing it to ourselves. and the american public has been convinced by people here in washington, hey, it's a corporate tax so you don't have to pay it. of course they pay it.
the corporations are nothing but a collection agent. and the way the crony capitalism has been working around this town, the only way you get away without paying taxes is if you have a friend done at the other end of pennsylvania avenue or in the senate, perhaps. because friends of those here in the house are not farring so well and having to pay taxes. if you are close friends with the president, you really enjoy each other's company, top executives and the president, good news, you are probably not going to pay any taxes, no matter how many billions you make. why not level the playing field which would bring back manufacturing jobs and i'm surprised the unions aren't for this. it would bring back union
manufacturing jobs in massive numbers back to this country. and i know there are a lot of environmentalists in the united states who don't want the manufacturing jobs back, even though they provide good union jobs, folks who would probably vote democrat, they don't want them back. because they think somehow -- and it's unbelievable that they think this, but they think driving those jobs out of the united states and into countries that pollute four to 10 times more plusing the same products as there was added to the atmosphere here, that somehow they have helped the environment. not realizing that that pollution goes up in the air in the way the world turns, we get a lot of chinese pollution right here in this country, even though we don't have the jobs or
the tax revenue from those, we suffer the consequence of running those companies out. we get all of the disadvantages of running them out and none of the advantages. and we hurt our economy and hurt our ability to prepare for any type of defense that may be necessary to those who want to destroy us. bass anybody who knows history knows that country that is looked to as the secure and protector of freedom must be able to provide all of the things that it would need in a battle within its own country. and if it can't do that, it's not going to last very long as the protector of freedom, which means that freedom won't last very much longer. now, the president talked about his bill so much and it would be easy to be very cynical, since
the president went on the road and wept for six days before there was an american jobs act filed, which was my bill, it might be easy to become cynical and say, it doesn't sound like the president had any intention of getting the bill voted on. all he want todd do is run around the country and condemn republicans when this was a political game. he had no intention of that bill being pushed, even being filed. there is a dramaticically important piece of evidence that would seem to establish that leader harry reid and the president were not serious at all about his bill passing. what would that piece of
evidence be? well, it would start with article 1, section 7 of the united states constitution, which says all bills for raising revenues shall originate in the house of representatives, but the senate may propose or concur with amendments on other bills. the critical part was all bills for raising receive news shall originate in the -- receive news shall originate in the house of republics. not hard to find that the president is raising receive news and raising taxes. no question about it, the president's bill has to originate in the house. no question about it. raises revenue, everybody knows that, leader reid knows that. so when i heard that finally the
president's bill was passed in the senate -- not passed, but filed in the senate, then i knew, because i know something about the constitution, well, that has to be a house bill. the president is popping people with extra tax and raising revenue and obviously, it has to originate in the house. now, normally, unless there were games played in this town, that would mean the bill starts here and we would take up the president's bill and if it passed, then the senate would take it up. but over the years, both parties apparently have played a political game where if the senate wants to start a bill that raises revenue, they will take a whose bill that has already -- a house bill that has already passed, strip it out of
every word and substitute for all that language of the house bill, the senate bill. and then under the gamesmanship up here in congress that has been considered to satisfy the requirements of the constitution, because technically the bill started in the house, it has a house bill number on it and so, it did start in the house, they just took out every word ks and then put in the senate bill. and from a practical standpoint, it originated in the senate, but from a technical standpoint, since it has a house number on it, then obviously they slide by under the gamesmanship here by saying it is a house bill. and that's what happened with obamacare. the house had not passed a bill that the senate would take up on
the health care, back two years ago. so what the senate did was take a house bill, h.r. 3590, and this is the actual name of the obamacare health bill. it's entitled -- and i've got the first volume of the two volumes that make up the 2,450 pages. h.r. 3590 entitled, quote, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers' credit in the case of members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees and for other purposes, unfote.
obamacare is h.r. 3590, and it was a bill the house of representatives passed, namely to help our veterans, to help our armed services. our members who have pledged their lives, their for the tunes to serve in the military. that's mainly who it was for. give them a first-time tax credit for the purchase of a home. just seems so cold-hearted to have taken a bill that started out to help veterans and our armed services' members and beginning on-line one, page one and strip out every single word of the bill to help our veterans and substitute therein
obamacare, 2,400 pages. that's what they did, because that was the game. because they knew in the senate if they were going to pass a bill that raised revenue under article 1, section 7 of the constitution, they had to take a house bill so they could play the game of saying, well, it dep originate on the house. and we stripped that language out and put our bill in. that's the only way that the president's so-called jobs bill could originate in the senate practically is to take a house bill, strip out every word, keep the house bill number, keep the house bill title and put the president's so-called jobs bill in there. so the only way that bill could ever have a chance of becoming law -- and leader reed knows that and he is a -- leader reid
knows that and the president was a local instructor in law school and surely he had to have read the constitution and understood that. he would know as would leader reid that for the president's jobs bill to meet the american jobs bill, that leader reid would have to strip out the house bill. when i heard that leader reid filed the president's so-called american jobs bill, i found out what house bill number and what house bill title that leader reid had stripped every word and substituted the president's so-called jobs bill. and i found the answer.
he didn't do that. leader reid filed the president's bill with no co-sponsors -- little trivia, the american jobs act, my bill, i think it has five co-sponsors. the president's so-called jobs bill, zero co-sponsors. mr. reid filed it. mr. speaker, it is s. 1549. that's a senate number, s. 1549. that's a senate bill. leader reid did not bother to do what would be required, even though the gamesmanship of capitol hill to strip out a house bill and the only reason he wouldn't do that and only one
reason the president wouldn't request he do that and that's because they have no intention of this bill ever passing. i only have the first few pages, because the president's bill is actually 155 pages i have here, but that came before i -- that came before i got a copy before it was filed by anybody. and then i heard that leader reid had actually filed an amendment so the president's so-called jobs bill. and i thought, agh, he is no longer going to play this ridiculous charade of acting like a bill to a pass that he knows will never become law. owe, ok, he has filed an amendment, the new bill has surely got to be some house bill that was stripped of every word,
but it turns out it was senate bill number 1660. . . it is still a senate number, it is still originating in the senate. there's not even a charade, facade, being shown here which makes very, very clear senator reid and president obama never, ever intended for the so-called jobs bill of the president to pass. never intended for it to pass. it never did. smoke screen is all this has been, for weeks now. millions and millions and millions of dollars running around the country, demanding we pass a bill that neither leader reid nor the president had any intention of ever having pass because they knew the way the procedure works here, when a
bill like this that raises revenue originates in the senate and the senate were to actually pass it, then the senate clerk would send it to the house, would go to our clerk, and they would review it and they would find that it raises revenue as the president and leader reid know and acknowledge and they would do what's called blue slipping it, they put a blue slip on it and in essence saying, the house cannot take up the senate bill because it raises revenue and that means under article 1, ex-7, it must originate in the house and therefore it's being sent back to the senate without any action whatsoever, because obviously people at the other end of the hall were playing some kind of game. knowing that a bill that raised
revenue that originated in the senate and did not have a house number, does not have a house title would never become law, was all a game. all a game. and apparently the goal of this political game played by the president and leader reid has as a goal the president winning the game, the political game, and getting re-elected and the american people losing because there was no bill that was ever seriously intended to pass by the president or leader reid. that is tragic. simply tragic. the american people suffer, people losing their jobs and the only reason that the unemployment rate did not raise one more time again, that it
stayed at 9.1%, that disastrous rate, was because so many employees who had been out on strike came back onto work. if they had not done that then the unemployment rate would have reflected the truth. this country's still in big trouble. all while the president travels around making speeches about passing a bill that neither he nor leader reid had never any intention of passing and becoming law. as the american people suffer. now, i heard my friends across the aisle here tonight, that they wish in essence that the republicans would bring their jobs bill, well, there's great news. apparently while my friends hadn't noticed, we have passed about a dozen bills out of this
body and sent them down to leader reid that will create jobs across the country, will bring down the price of gasoline, will bring down the price of energy, all kinds of bills we've sent down there and they're sitting in the senate. so for all of those people who have said the president is flat wrong when he says that we have a do-nothing congress, and as he's traveling around this week saying there's a do-nothing congress, i'm going to defend the president here. for those that say the president's completely wrong when he says it's a do-nothing congress, well, i'm going to defend the president. and i stand up for him because the president, when he says there's a do-nothing congress, is one-half right. and he ought to be acknowledged for being one-half right when he says there's a do-nothing congress because there is a do-nothing senate. they're sitting on bills that
would create jobs, bring down energy prices and would bring jobs back to america. easing the burdens that have sent companies fleeing from this country to south america, to china, to india, to other countries, we bare them no illle -- bear them no ill will but we want our jobs back here in americament and how wonderful to have the president's -- america. and how wonderful to have the president's big jobs czar as a guy who has sent thousands and thousands of jobs from his own company overseas. well, he apparently knows what he's doing because since he's been our job czar for president obama we've had thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands more jobs continue to flee and go across to other countries. he knows what he's doing. he did it with his own company. and now we're continuing to have that happen with other companies.
well, obviously since the president, based on the things he said about his so-called jobs bill, has not read the bill, clearly, that's how we know he's not misrepresenting things, he just doesn't know what his bill says. hand in fairness, he could not possibly know what his bill says because he was on the road for four, five days, the whole time the bill was being written, demanding we pass a bill that hadn't even been written. but, i'll just put through some of the provisions here. we're told once again, just like we were in january of 2009 that we must pass the president's bill, just like in 2009, because it's going to provide bridges and infrastructure. i'm surprised that in 2 1/2 short years the president was
thinking people would have already forgotten that he used that sales pitch to sell a nearly $1 trillion bill that didn't do anything he said it would. and then i found out today, a friend, nick mulvaney pointed out this morning that when adjusted for inflation to the current level today, every interstate highway in this country had $425 billion spent in total to construct all the interstate highways we have in the country. yet the president in january of 2009 talked about creating all these new roads and infrastructure and bridges and yet there was only a tiny fraction of all that money that was used at all on such
infrastructure and if he had taken half of that money and used it on infrastructure we could have had an entirely new interstate highway system to mirror the one that we already have. amazing. the kind of money that was squandered with nothing to show for it. that's the embarrassing part. if we had more people employed today than ever before then even though it was the abandonment of free market present -- principles, i would have to be grateful that there were new jobs and people were employed. you want to help people, let them get a job that was not a giveaway from some government agency. let them earn their own keep. for those of us that believe the bible and don't try to shove my religious beliefs on anyone
else, but for those of us who do believe the bible, you can look. before there was a fall from grace, before there was such a thing as some people call sin was ever introduced into the world by improper choices, god gave adam and eve, not adam and steve, but adam and eve a job. he said, tend the garden. in a perfect paradise, when there were no thorns, no sweat, a perfect paradise, people had a job. tend the garden. a job is a good thing. it builds self-esteem and it allows people to give of themselves, to help others. not to come to washington and use and abuse taxing authority
to take other people's money to give to our favorite charity, but for individuals to be blessed because they earned money at their own job and then helped people. i believe the creator knew how much good that did our hearts, minds and souls, to earn something and then help ourselves. others who need it. that's not what you find in the president's so-called jobs bill. just when we thought surely washington had learned a big, big lesson about the disaster when the federal government starts getting into the business of financing things, we have the president proposing what he calls the america infrastructure financing authority. page 40, it's another massive bureaucracy, who would control
it? oh, well, it's a financing authority so maybe it's not run by the government like fannie and freddie had government fingerprints all over them, all over some of the worst problems. maybe, maybe the president learned a lesson from the damage done to this country by fanny and freddie being improperly manage -- fannie and freddie being improperly managed. but then you can turn the page, page 41, and see, oh, well, the board of directors of the american infrastructure financing authority consists of seven voting members appointed by the president. well, how about that? how about that? i guess the president didn't learn his lesson, he thinks the government is still the way to go about not only funding housing for 100,000, 200,000,
300,000 or so, but now we'll fund billions of dollars in infrastructure financing, stand good for that. ironically, just as in the president's stimulus bill, so-called, in january of 2009 where the president promised all this great infrastructure, turned out it was just a tiny bit of infrastructure compared to the overall amount, we find he's done the same thing in this new so-called jobs bill. there's a little bit of money for infrastructure. but compared to $450 billion it is a tiny drop in the bucket. well, there's a little revenue generated here. by auctioning off some broadband spectrum.
and i see there are provisions here where the public will relinquish some of its licenses, other people relinquish different things. always hate to see that word, when the government makes people relinquish things. but the language is there. but then what we get by selling off a little bit of broadband spectrum is found on page 75 of the president's bill, called the public safety broadband network. if individuals in this country were disappointed that the federal communications commission, the f.c.c., did not totally control the airwaves the way they wanted them to, maybe they wished there had been a fairness doctrine that had been reinstated, maybe they wanted the federal government to just exercise with an iron fist its authority which i think would be unconstitutional, but to limit
speech, well then people see would have to be encouraged -- people would have to be encouraged by this new entity. because it will take over the broadband for us. but not to worry, we call it a corporation. so it won't be government, right? well, wrong. you look at page 76, even though it says it will be established a private nonprofit corporation, turns out, the members of the board will be the secretary of commerce, secretary of homeland security, attorney general of the united states, director of office of management and budget and they will go about appointing 11 more individuals to serve as nonfederal members of the board, well, happy days. . well, happy days. happy days. more and more government. and it's interesting, there is
low money for re-employment programs. how many re-employment programs are we going to throw money away on to train people that don't exist? how about allowing the public sector to have that money that is not available to borrow when the federal government is sucking that money out of the use by the private sector? it's not there to be borrowed and used to buildup companies, to buildup jobs, create jobs. oh, no. the federal government is taking it to build more government, more training programs for jobs that don't exist. and then there is a new program, 106, that most people never heard about it. and i really doubt that the president knows it is here. short-term compensation program and it does say it is initially
voluntary, but it also says if an employer reduces the number of hours worked by employees in lieu of layoffs, for example, an employer -- and i have had people tell me they were doing this -- they didn't want to lose their valuable employees. so they agreed among themselves they would take a reduction in hours and pay to save the company weather the storm and maybe get to 2013 when the company would rebound because we have new free market principles put into place, things would take off and people would make a better living. well, under this provision, if you are under the president's new program and you reduce by at least 10% the hours of your employees, then according to subsection 3, those employees would be eligible for unemployment compensation.
that means the unemployment tax rate for that employer would go up and i have heard from employers who said if you raise my unemployment tax rate, i'm going to have to lay off a whole lot of employees in order to save their jobs and weather this sorm storm. and it does say under subsection 7, if an employer provides health benefits and retirement benefits under the defined benefit plan, then the state agency is required to certify that such benefits will continue to be provided, which means the employers i talked to who are struggling just trying to hold on, they aren't going to be able to hold on. they are going to have to keep providing benefits at the same level and weather the storm. and that's what companies
normally do just to survive and that's what mom and pop operations do. not here in washington. one of the best things i heard all year is when chairman ryan said the vision he has for our budget includes finally adopting a zero-baseline budget and i'm so grateful to chairman ryan. we need to have a zerobaseline budget. no automatic increases. it is time it quiets. because a mom and pop operation, any operation, any business, when times are tough, they have to cut. not here in washington. under the rules set up in 1974, there is a formula, so we have automatic increases every year. it's time to stop it.
if an agency is going to get additional money, they need to prove that they should get it. but as i started off this hour saying, this house has adopted a budget that cut our legislative budgets by 5% across the board. it's time we exercise our moral authority and said everybody else in the federal government is go to go have to have the same kind of 5% cut across the board and when we do 6% next year and it's time that everybody else in the federal government has to do it, too. now there are so many other provisions that have nothing to do with creating jobs, and you can't look at page 134 and see the president who has talked about all these millionaires and billionaires who need to pay their fair share even though we are approaching 50% of the country who will not pay income
tax. if the president believes what he says, it is time to call the bluff and say, all right, let's have a flat tax, everybody pays the same amount. doesn't matter if you are a billionaire, poorer workers, everybody is going to have an investment as the president likes to say, in this government and will have more interest in what happens. and more interest that we don't waste so much money up here and we can do that. this is why i'm sure the president never read the bill that he demands we pass that i explained earlier why we know now, neither the president nor leader reid had any intention of this bill passing so they didn't meet the constitutional requirements, but at page 135, the president's bill defines
what he has been calling a billionaire-millionaire as a tax whose adjusted gross income is about $1525 -- 125,000 and family filing joint, $250,000. but if you are a gay couple living together, then you could be grateful to the president combause you could claim 200,000 or $225,000 as your exemption amount. but even at that rate -- and i'm from east texas and the public schools i went to are awfully good but they taught me when the number has six figures in it, is nt a million or a billion. when the president says $125,000, if you are married,
that's the exemption you've got before they start slapping you with extra tax. and i haven't heard anyone else talk about this, not only does the president not do away with the alternative minimum tax, as the title says, there is an additional a.m.t. amount in the president's bill. now there's a jobs bill. people, you call them millionaires and billionaires and someone who makes that, you slap them with alternative minimum tax and take away the tax, it is time we have a flat tax across the board, everybody would pay for their fair share and more money you make on a flat tax and more money you are going to pay in. and there is a strong justification for two deductions only -- the interest, mortgage
interest deduction and charitable contribution deduction. now, that would be a fair tax, everybody would pay their fair share and since the president's not aware of how oil companies work and since they've spent more and more and more money than ever in the interior department budget to consider permits to drill for oil or gas and we've gone from 140-something permits that cost a whole lot less to process to process double-digit permits, we're losing jobs. i hear from people in the golf affected by the deepwater horizon explosion, by the president's good friends at british petroleum, who were all set to endorse the president's cap and trade bill before the
blowout and had to postponethat, but when you eliminate deductions that only keep independent oil companies alive, that it doesn't affect the majors only one way and you drive out the independent producers and the majors will be able to charge more than ever. mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. gohmert: in the few minutes i've got left, with so many wanting to destroy our way of life, with so many out of work, such a troubled time here. i want to finish my time on the floor tonight by reading the words of a man named abraham lincoln in 1851 and wrote to his stepbrother encouraging him about the last illness of his father. he said, quote, i hope father
may recover his health, but all events tell him to remember to call upon and confide in our great and mercyful maker who will not turn away from him in an ex treatment. he notes the fall of the sparrow and knows the numbers on our head and won't forget the dying man who puts trust in him. 1858, lincoln said, our reliance in the love of liberty which god has planted in us, our spirit which prized liberty which is the heritage of all men, all lands everywhere. destroy the spirit and you have planted the seeds at all doors. familiarize your change and you prepare your own limbs, accustom to tramp on the rights of others and become the fifth subjects of the first cunning tyrant that rises among you. and from his speech in 1861 as
he left springfield, illinois to head to washington and i close with this. i now leave not knowing when or ever, ever i may return, with the task before me greater than that which rested upon washington, without the assistance of that divine being whoever attended him, i cannot succeed. without that assistance, i cannot fail. trusting in him who can go with him and remain with you and be forever good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. and with that faith, that same divine being that i have hope for the future, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, sir. the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
live from the state assembly chamber in albany. >> he tells committee members that the defense department needs to be more transparent with its funding. he is also critical of congress and its handling of the current budget. secretary panetta is going to buy martin dempsey. this committee hearing is three hours. [applause] >> we will come to order. we want to welcome the members
of the public in attendance. we remind our audience that the committee will tolerate no disruptions. this includes standing, holding up signs, or yelling. if anyone disturbs these proceedings, we will have the police escort you out immediately. the committee meets to receive testimony on the future -- the committee will stand in recess until the capitol police escort the disruptive individuals out of the room and restore order. [indistinct mumbling
the services committee meets to receive testimony on the future of national exempts in the u.s. military 10 years after 9/11. perspectives of the secretary of defense, leon panetta, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. this hearing is part of our ongoing series to abolish it lessons learned since 9/11 -- to evaluate lessons learned since 9/11 and to apply those two decisions we will be making. as we brought to a close, we have received perspectives from former military leaders from each of the services. the former chairman of the armed services committee as well as outside expert. today, we will change direction as we look through the viewpoints of the chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff. our witnesses have spent decades serving our nation. thank you both for being with us and for your public service. as i continue to emphasize our successes in the global war on terror and in iraq and afghanistan, we appeared to lulling our vbbe nation into its false confidence. while i agree that the military cannot be exempt from belt- tightening, we have to put this debt crisis into perspective if we are to find our way back to fiscal responsibility. defense has contributed more than half of the deficit reduction measures taken to date. there are some who want to use the military to pay for the rest, to protect the sacred cow
that is entitlement spending. not only should that be a non- starter from an economic perspective, it should also be a non-starter from a moral perspective. consider that word, entitlement. entitlements imply you are given the benefit. i cannot think of anyone was offended that ahead of our troops. they are entitled to the best training, equipment, and the leadership our nation can provide. all of this talk does not translate well into impact on the force and the risk of our nation. yesterday, former chairman duncan hunter encouraged us all to answer these questions before we voted to cut any more from defense. is it our primary constitutional duty to defend our nation? is the world suddenly safer
today? is the war against terrorism over? i hope our witnesses can help us understand the ramifications of these possible cuts in relation to our structure as well as our ability to meet future needs of our national defense. how can we make short the department of defense is a good steward of the taxpayer's dollars without increasing risk to our armed forces. the u.s. military is the modern era's killer of american strength -- pillar of american strength and value. we recognize the struggle to bring fiscal discipline to our nation. it is imperative we focus our restraints on the driver of the debt instead of the protector of our prosperity. with that in mind, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. [indistinct yelling]
committee will be in recess while the destructor is removed. -- disrupt there is removed. -- disrupter is removed. [applause] committee will be in order. i yield to the ranking member of the committee, mr. smith from washington. >> i hope my comments can have a more calm and affect on the audience. i doubt it. i thank you very much for having us here. we have had a number of experts analyze and our national security needs. we have the two people who are most in charge. it is a honor to have you here. they do not have an easy job as they tried to wrestle with the budget challenges.
i agree, the cuts we are facing in our department to place -- do place national security interests. we have to figure out how to accommodate the cuts that have been put into place. there will be difficult challenges in that. i think we should also point out, in addition to the frustration, it is not just that it would require for the cuts in defense. for the cuts in all discretionary spending. i am concerned about innovation and a number of other areas that have already been cut and face more cuts. it is important the committee understand the way that was crafted. it requires across-the-board cuts. every line item in the defense budget, and in all discretionary spending, has to be cut by the exact same amount, which is in st.. it will get to the point where
we would have to build one and a half aircraft carriers. you cannot do that. it is the crazy way it was written which would make it impossible to budget. the second piece that i do not think the folks have an understanding of is how devastating running a government on continuing resolutions is. the gentleman have to make budget decisions when we cannot pass bills. they have to do it on something that does not fund the government the same as an appropriation bill. it does not give clear guidance. that costs us money and creates problems. i would urge the congress to pass the appropriation bills so we can find our -- fund our government. it's costing us money and making it more difficult to do our jobs.
both of those things are threats. i am also mindful of the budget challenges that we face. they are real. our budget is 40% out of wack. we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. it needs to be fixed. i believe everything has to be on the table. i am aware of the choices faced by the department of defense. above all, the impact on our troops and our ability to continue to adequately provide for them. to make 21 thing that should always be without dispute, we can disagree about the mission of our military, once that is set, there should be no disagreement that we have the highest obligation to give our troops the support, equipment, everything they need to carry at the mission we told them to do. it would be irresponsible not to. with that challenge, i believe
we need to put everything on the people in trying to deal with the of the budget deficit. -- everything on the table in trying to deal with the budget deficit. i am willing to say that we need more revenue. if we cannot take that piece off the table, it is going to meet the concerns we hear today that exist for other parts of the budget as well. i hope we will consider that. i look forward to the testimony and their guidance in how to deal with the challenges we face, on the budget and on the national security side. we could not have two more able people in those positions. i look forward to their testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. excuse me. let me welcome our witnesses. we have secretary of defense leon panetta. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey. welcome to your first hearing in your new positions before this
[indistinct chanting] >> how many lives? how many lives around the world? how many lives are going to see sacrifice? >> dingell and will resume. -- gentleman will resume. >> distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you. for the first time a secretary of defense, i would like to join you in recognizing general
dempsey. he is a brilliant soldier. he is someone who is a proven leader on the battlefield and off the battlefield. i am delighted to have him alongside me in his new capacity as chairman of the joint chiefs. on behalf of the men and women of the department of defense, i want to thank the members of this committee for your support, for your determination to join me in every way possible to try to ensure that these men and women succeed in their mission of protecting america. as a former member -- what gentlemen, suspend. -- >> dingell then suspend. -- gentleman suspend.
continue. >> as a former member of the house for 16 years, i do believe that congress must be a full partner in our efforts to protect the country. for that reason and in that spirit, i have had the opportunity to consult and will continue to consult with you as we face challenges that the department of defense must confront in the days ahead. these are difficult times. i need your full deadened, your full consul, and your full support -- i need your full guidance, your will consult, and your full support. this is an important effort to look at the future of national defence and the west military 10 years after 9/11. -- and the u.s. military 10
years after 9/11. we have been at war for 10 years. putting a heavy burden on our men and women in uniform to defend our nation and to defend our interests. more than 6000 two hundred have given their lives -- 6,200 have given their lives and more than 46,000 have been wounded during these wars that we have been engaged in since 9/11. the conflicts have brought untold stresses and one told -- untold strains. >> gentleman suspend. [indistinct yelling]
our nation's history. workforces have become more lethal and more capable -- our forces have become more gleeful and more capable. -- lethal and more capable. special operations forces, unmanned aerial systems, counter-ied technology and the fusion i have witnessed between the military and intelligence operations have provided the key tools we need in order to succeed on the battlefield in the 21st century. make no mistake, we are succeeding. 10 years after 9/11, we have significantly rolled back al qaeda and al qaeda's militant allies. we have undermined their abilities. -- to do the kind of planning
involved in the attack on 9/11. we are closer than ever to achieving our strategic objectives in afghanistan and iraq. we continue to work for democracy. we confront countries like iran and north korea and others that would constitute a threat to our security. bottom line here is that these conflicts that we have been through, that while we are moving in the right direction, the fact remains that we are at a turning point. a turning point not only with regards to the challenges we face, but a turning point with regards to the military as a whole. the current mission in iraq comes to an end, as we continue to transition security
responsibility in afghanistan, and as we near the goal of defeating al qaeda, the department is also facing a new fiscal reality here at home. as part of the debt ceiling agreement reached in august, the department must find more than four hundred $50 billion in savings over the next decade. our challenge is taking a force that has been involved in a decade of war and insuring that as we build the military for the future, we are able to defend this country for the next decade at a time of fiscal austerity. we need to build a force that can confront a growing array of threats in the 21st century. as i pointed out to some members the other day, one of the differences is that as we came
out of past wars, we essentially were able to enjoy peace at a time of peace. now, as we confront the fiscal challenges that this nation faces, we are doing it at a time when we are continuing to confront a series of very real threats in the world to our national security. we continue to confront the threat of terrorism. regardless of what we have been able to achieve, and we have achieved a great deal, there remain real threat. not only pakistan, but somalia and yemen, north africa, and other places. those terrorists who continue to plan attacks in this country. we continue to have to deal with nuclear proliferation in the world. we continue to have to confront rising powers in the world. we continue to have to confront
ciphertext and the increasing number of those attacks that to us every day. as we confront those threats, we have to meet our fiscal responsibilities. that will require setting a clear set of strategic priorities and making some tough decisions. working closely with the service chiefs, secretaries, and commanders, i intend to make these decisions based on the following guidelines. first, we have and we must maintain the finest and best military in the world. a force capable of deterring conflict. a force capable of projecting power. and a force capable of winning wars. second, we absolutely have to
avoid a hollow force. we have to maintain a military that, even if smaller, will be ready, agile, and deployable. after -- as i said after every major conflict, world war i, world war ii, korea, vietnam, what happened was we hollowed out the force, largely by doing deep, across-the-board cuts that impacted equipment, training, capability. whatever we do in confronting the challenges we face now on the fiscal side, we must not make that mistake and we will not make that mistake. third, demand a balanced approach.
we have to look at all areas of the government for potential savings. from deficiencies that trim duplication of bureaucratic overhead, to improving competition and management and operating in investor programs, procurement programs. and in personnel costs that have increased by almost 80%. reevaluating a worm on theization efforts -- our monetize asian effort to read all of that needs to be considered -- monetization efforts. all of that needs to be considered. finally, most importantly, we cannot break faith with our men and women in uniform. the all-volunteer force is central to a strong military. it is central to our nation's
future. we have a lot of very effective weapons at the pentagon and department of defense. a lot of sophisticated technology. we could not be the finest defense system in the world that the men and women who serve in uniform -- world without the men and women who serve in uniform. they put their lives on the line every day. we have got to maintain our faith with those who have deployed time and time and time again. that is something i intend to do. if we follow these four principles, i am confident that we can meet our national security responsibilities and do our part to help this country get its fiscal house in order. to achieve the required budget
savings, the department also must work even harder to overhaul the way it does business. an essential part of this effort will be improving the quality of financial information and moving towards audible financial statements. today, dod is one of only two major agencies has never had a clean audit on its financial statements. that is inexcusable and it must change. the department has made significant progress towards meeting the congressional deadline for audit-ready financial statements by 2017. we focus on first improving the categories of information most relevant to managing the budget. we need to do better. we will. today, i am announcing that i have directed the department to
cut in half the time it will take to achieve audit readiness. by 2014, we will have the ability to conduct a full budget audit. this focused approach corteses the information we use in managing the department -- approach prioritizes the information we use in managing the department and will improve the way the pentagon does business. d tove directed the d.o.t revise the plan within 60 days and still achieve overall audit readiness by 2017. we owe it to the taxpayers. -- to be transparent and accountable for how we spend their dollars. under this plan, we will move closer to fulfilling that responsibility.
the department is changing the way it does business and taking on a significant share of our country's efforts to achieve fiscal discipline. we will do so, but we will do so while building the agile, deployable force we need to confront the wide range of threats that we face. i want to close by cautioning strongly against further cuts to defense, and for that matter, to other discretionary accounts, particularly with the mechanism that has been built into the debt ceiling agreement. it is a blind, mindless formula that makes cuts across the board, hampers our ability to align resources the strategy, and risks hollowing out the force.
i understand that this formula. when i was in the congress serving on the budget committee, i served on the conference that developed this approach to dealing with these kind of cut. even then, every time the cuts were to take place, the congress postponed it because it was mindless. it was across the board. it was designed as a gun to be put to the head of congress so that it would do the right thing. i guess what i am urging the committee, the super committee to do, is to do the right thing. come up with the decisions that should be made on the 2/3 of the budget that has still yet to be considered for deficit reduction. you are working with the 1/3 of the budget and it has taken a million dollar hit. defense is going to have to pay up almost half of that.
if you are going to be responsible, you have to consider the mandatory programs and revenue spending that is part of that as well. i truly believe that we do not have to make a choice. -- between the schools' security and national security. -- fiscal security and national security. to do that will require we have to make tough choices. they are quizzes that could -- a heart twitches that could have impacts on the constituencies -- they are choices that could have impact on the constituencies you care most about. i have been through that. during the period following the
reductions after the fall of the soviet union, during the process, i lost 25% of my local economy. i know what it means to go through this process. we have to do this right. we can do it right. we can do it responsibly. to do that, i need your support. to do everything possible to prevent further damaging cuts, and to help us implement a coherent strategy driven program and budget that we will identify in the months ahead as critical to preserving the best military in the world. it is tough, it is challenging, but i also view this as an opportunity to create a military for the future that will meet the threats we have to confront. i pledged to continue to work with the closely as we confront
the challenges and i thank you once again for your efforts to build a stronger military for our country that can protect our people in the future. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman. >> thank you. members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the future of national defence and our military 10 years after the attacks on 9/11. i want to begin by introducing the handsome marine over my right shoulder who i recently appointed as my senior enlisted adviser. he is 32 years united states marine corps. served his country and the core with great distinction and honor. he has been appointed as my senior enlisted adviser so that he can help us accomplish the tasks you just heard the
secretary articulate and in short we remain in contact with the young men and women we placed in harm's way. [applause] as this is my first time before you, i want to make note that i look forward to continued cooperation for the important reasons outlined by the secretary of defense. i want to affirm that i take seriously the responsibility of maintaining a military that preserves the trust that is placed in our hands by the citizens of the net the state. i believe we can sustain that trust -- of the united states. i believe we can sustain that trust. over two million men and women have deployed overseas in support of operations in afghanistan, iraq, and elsewhere. award went force has demonstrated with initiative,
strength -- our point force has demonstrated great initiative, strength, and resulted our military has demonstrated its ability to adapt and learned. -- learn. in keeping with the theme, let me point out a few lessons. we live in a competitive security environment. capabilities that with the monopoly of nation states are now across the security landscape. as a consequence, we must learn faster, understand more deeply, and that more quickly. second, -- and adapt more quickly. second, relationships matter more than ever. we are committed, even in the face of some of the budget pressures, to expanding the
onslaught of cooperation at home and abroad. third, -- the envelope of cooperation at home and abroad. third, we feel a truly unmatched team. we need our services to be the masters of their unique service cultures. the must operate as a single, cohesive team. we must continue to value and advance joint interdependence. fourth, information is essential. we have expanded what we refer to as our low density capabilities. we have fielded many new technologies. we must continue to unleash innovation and challenge ourselves to leverage these capabilities in new ways. finally, leadership remains at the core of our military protection. it is why we have been able to learn, adapt, and achieve the
results i described. developing the next generation of 20 liters will preserve our generationvantage -- of leaders will preserve our nation's advantage. we are looking to build the don't force we need in 2020. this board y -- the joint force we need in 2020. it must preserve our human capital and have the capability to provide military options for our nation postal leaders. it must be affordable. i am committed to reducing costs without compromising our nation's security needs. we must make hard choices and balance risk. as the secretary mentioned, avoid hollen the force. these twitches need to be delivered and precise. -- these choices need to be
delivered and precise. -- delivberate and precise. i would like to thank the committee for your support to men and women in the military. they deserve the future that they have sacrificed to secure. thank you, and i look forward to your question. >> thank you, chairman. congratulations on your new employment. president reagan once said that many people go through life wondering if they have had any impact on their fellow men, if they made a difference. it seems marines do not have that problem. the first round of cuts from the budget control act will reduce the funding for military from $450 billion.
what kind of risks do you face as to implement these cuts? will there be any missions you can no longer do? is this a fallacy, we have to do the same missions with less? >> thank you. we are involved in trying to figure out the answer to that question. i can share some insight. it will require us to look at what our national security strategy has been. as an articulate it currently -- articulated currently. i mentioned that what we owe our nation is option. it would seem unconceivable that we would come back to this committee and say, the are not going to do this. if the nation needs us to do it,
we have to find a way to do it. that is going to require us to prioritize. we have to build in some versatility. as many have testified, we generally find we do not predict the future with any accuracy. it has to be a combination of options and versatility. it has to be capabilities and capacities. we need the capability to do things and we need the ability to sustain those capabilities over time. that is capacity. tell me what you want me to do, i can build you a joint force. we are working on that now. the risks will accrue as we determine where we have to limit capabilities, if we get to that point. we need less and then find ourselves asking more of our young men and women.
it is the mission and the institution. >> thank you. many have said that defense has to be on the table. i understand that. the first cut of the deficit reduction act, military paid for about half. i made the comment that we cannot solve the financial problem we have on the backs of the military. who will have our backs the next time we are attacked? i do not believe that dod should have to pay one penny more in discretionary budget cuts. i know you commented on this in your opening statement to read based on our conversations and our visits up to this -- statement. based on our conversations and our visits up to this point, i
yourd like to confoirm vision. do you agree that no for the cuts should be recommended? >> absolutely. we are having to cut a half trillion dollars out of the defense budget. that is going to take some difficult choices. i think we agree that as tough as it is, it is manageable. we can do it in a way that protect our force for the future. it is going to take us to the edge. if we face additional cuts or the sequestered doubles the cut, it will devastate our national defense. it will require that we have to go at our structure, we will have to haul it out.
-- hollow it out. it will badly damage delicate abilities for the future. i do not say it as scare tactics. it is a reality we have been going through how we take 450 billion plus out of this budget. what weapons systems do we look at? what reductions do we make? what kind of personnel to we have to look at? what do we do with regard to areas that have to be tightened up? these are all going to be tough decisions. as i said, there is an opportunity here. we can do this the right way. if we are facing additional cut. if we are facing a doubling of those cuts. the responsible approach is going to be impossible. that is what i am saying.
but i think you mentioned a word. -- >> i think he mentioned a word. if it came to that, we would be breaking faith with the men and women who laid their lives on the line for us. that is inexcusable. no one on this committee would support that. thank you very much. mr. smith. >> i do think it is important to emphasize that we have not said take offense off the table. the fed has already been on the table. -- take defense off the table. defense has already been on the table. it was mentioned, somewhere in the neighborhood of forever $50 billion. -- $450 billion. as we look at those cuts and the potential to stop that, it
is important to know what the threat is. we have heard it increases the risk. that is never explained. what does that mean? another way of looking at it is, what missions would we not be able to do, specifically. in terms of a given region of the world, a threat that we would not be as robust against. could you tell us a little bit more specifically when you say it increases the risk. what risk? for won't be able to do national security reasons? >> obviously, we are going through the process now. what we want to do is establish what is that larger strategy? it is not numbers driven. it is driven by a strategy that we can shape. it tells us, what kind of force do we need, we know it is going to be smaller, agile,
deployable. if that is the larger strategy and we are still shipping that in conjunction with the president. what we have done that, then we are going to have to make specific decisions about where the reductions are made. without telling you that decision had been made, no decisions have been made. i can give you an example. if we decide we have to maintain or force structure presence to deal with china and china's expanding role, and the other issues that exist in that sense that part of the world, if we decided that the middle east is also an important area where we have to maintain a presence, then, by virtue of the numbers we are dealing with, we will
probably have to reduce our presence elsewhere. perhaps in latin america, africa. if you are talking about risk, part of the risk would be having less of a presence in those areas. >> play out what that presence does for us. i could do it, but i am curious to hear your answers. what does that do for us? why is that in our national interest? >> if i could elevate and look down. the way we measure risk is the likelihood of something occurring and the consequence of it. thermonuclear war is highly unlikely and therefore, we will be able to assess the risk to our nuclear deterrent as it is affected by budget cuts. if you work your way down to the
regular conflict -- to irregular conflict, we can do that at every grade. we are engaged in a conflict today and have been if we look at carefully at our history. if we look back to 1993, the attack on the world trade center is the first time, we have been involved in a conflict with violent extremist organizations who are network globally, who are syndicated, and who are decentralized. they are not sitting in one place to be acted against. they are network. one of the places they sit is pakistan. one of the places they sit is the african continent. to defeat a network of adversaries, we have to be a network. we cannot be this hierarchical,
cold war military. we are not any longer. our present on the african continent is part of the network of building partners and gaining intelligence and when targeting reaches the level of refinement, we can act on it. we have to be networked against the threat you are talking about. part of that requires our present in africa. >> that is an excellent answer. part of our presence is deterring our enemies from doing things. it is instructive that we are not dealing with the high likelihood that iran felt comfortable doing an assassination on our soil. part of that has to be a calculation that they do not fear what the consequences of that would be. you can extrapolate that out to a whole lot of other places. that is an excellent answer. i yield back. >> thank you.
we will now proceed to the members having the opportunity to ask a question. i know you all want to ask questions. i will be following the five minute rule, ask you to consider that in your questions and our witnesses in their answers. >> thank you. usually, the resolution of big issues matters requires decisions about a number of smaller issues. i have a question about two of our programs that i think could be affected and reducing our cost and increasing capability. yesterday in our subcommittee hearing, near the end of the day, you voluntarily brought up the issue -- there has been a confirmed requirement for claims for a number of years.
as one of your general said, we are applying the blades of helicopters. just yesterday i think a letter reached your desk signed by 12 members of congress. we would appreciate your personal attention to that if that is possible. >> you will get that. >> thank you very much. the second issue. -- the original acquisition strategy included a competitive edge in program because of the thousands of engines to reduce cost. because of the positive experience with the alternative engines beginning in the mid 1980's. contrary to assertions by some, there never has been a f-35 engine competition where the 135
won. in 2006, the deputy secretary of defense signed a referendum of understanding to procure the competitive engine. that same year, the department, due to cost pressures on the f- 35 program, saw to cancel the competitive engine and use the r&d funding to cover overruns in the aircraft program. in spite of these actions, congress funded the program through 2010. now the manufacture of the competitive engine wants to sell fund the engine as soon as possible. the department of defense continues to be a major proponent of competition in its programs except for the f-35 competitive engine.
in your speech, you said, "we will look to procure bent reform to improve competition, cost control, and delivery when examining modernize asian and operating cost." what kind of message is the department sending by opposing the efforts of the competitive engine to sell fund r&d for all -- own program? >> i am a strong supporter of competition. i do not want a petition to cost me more money. i want it to be cost efficient to -- i do not want competition to cost more money. i want it to be cost efficient. all those who have looked at it indicate it is going to result in more cost to the defense department to proceed on that path. i will say this, the
manufacturer that wants to engage in self-funding had developed an approach. we need to look at it to determine if it is cost- efficient. it is going to cost me more money, that is not what i call good competition. if it saves money, i am willing to look at it. >> is it not true that some can it do -- continue to say that pursuing the engine will save us money? >> there are those who have indicated that there are some savings here and that we could achieve better competition. frankly, it is disputed within the department. and the hut -- i have to work through that. >> contradiction always makes things better and cheaper. it should be no different here. thank you for your commitment to look at this personally. >> thank you.
>> thank you. thank you for being here and your leadership at these critical times that face our nation. i made mention about the concerns you expressed to me last week in a number of meetings with military families. i want to ask a question about military retirement reform because there is -- there are a number of proposals concerning our retirees. recent budget pressures within the department have resulted in greater awareness of the increasing cost of military personnel programs to include military compensation, health care, and retirement. the defense business board recently declared that the military retirement system was
unaffordable and that -- and proposed a plan that would convert the system from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan that is common in the private sector. benefits would be three years to five years as opposed to the 20th. they would not be payable until age 60 or 65. this would seem to be a significant change in the culture of our military retirement benefits. the questions i have for the secretary and the general r., have we arrived at the point where the form of military retirement it is necessary? is the proposal of the defense business board the right decision to combat readiness? if the proposal is not the right
solution, what would be a model that you believe might work? should the payment of benefits immediately upon retirement the continued as part -- be continued as part of any reform initiative? i ask the questions because those are concerned that have been expressed to me several times last week. >> i understand. as a result of that report, there were a lot of people who were nervous that somehow that would be implemented. the bottom line is we have made no decisions with regards to that decision. the president has proposed a commission. one of the recommendations was a proposal to establish a commission that would look at retirement and provide grandfather protection for those in the service. i would support that. this is what it comes down to.
when we are looking at for under $50 billion plus -- $450 billion plus, i have to put everything on the table. compensation and retirement areas. at the same time, i have made clear that we cannot break faith. we have made a promise to people on duty that we are going to provide a certain level of retirement. we are not going to back away. we are going to maintain our promise to read those people have been deployed, they have put their lives -- our promise. those people have been deployed, they have put their lives on the line. we are going to stand by the promise we made to them. one of the commitment i made is that in any circumstance related to this issue, we are going to protect those in the service today. we are going to grandfather them in. having said that, are there areas that need to be looked at, for example, there are
individuals that served 12 years, 14 years, 15 years, when they get out they have no retirement to take with them. is that an area that we ought to look at to determine whether or not they should be able to move those benefits to other areas? are there some reforms that can be made along those lines? those are the kinds of issues that we ought to be open to consider. i only think it ought to be done recognizing that we have to protect those on duty. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. i want to address something i have seen in the discussions about this. i reject the characterization of our military retirement program as gilt-edged -- guilt-edged. it might turn out that our current plan is unaffordable. when we put a retirement program
together is because these young men and women who serve for 20 years who put themselves in harm's way, who moved 10 or 15 times, some of them can buy a house, some of them cannot. we move them around, not voluntarily, we tell them to go with the nation needs them. that retirement program need to be different than anything you find in the civilian sector. we can figure it out. we need the time to do so. if it is unaffordable, we will react. i want to reject the idea that my retirement program should be compared to someone else's. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. secretary, the day, and when i have heard you previously, you have seemed clear that he believed -- you believe we should make note for the cuts in the defense budget beyond those
that have been enacted. is that true? >> correct. >> does the president share your view? >> he does. >> as commander in chief, i think it is important for him to be able to speak at and say, we have gone to the edge, to use your words, and that no more cuts should come from the defense budget. i am hopeful we can have a bipartisan agreement on that. you used a word that caught my attention in your statement. you said, "if there are for the cuts, there could be irrevocable damage to our military." a fair number of people have the opinion that, ok, if there are cut, these are enacted by the super committee, we can always make up for that the next year and put some more money and everything will be ok. explain to us what you mean by "de rigueur local" --
"irrevocable." >> it comes down to the statement, the core of our profession. the men and women who comprise it and to develop as leaders. we consider ourselves to be the preeminent leader development institution in america. we have a case to make their. if some of the cuts occur in the magnitude, and more importantly, with the target as they are described right now, and it causes us to risk -- this goes back to the notion of do we have the time to reduce the force overtime? that is one we lose that score. we have seen this happen in the 1990's, right after desert storm. we created a bathtub, a few
will, of captains and majors who exited the service. then we had to regroup the army by 65,000. where we suffered was not in the basic rifle infantrymen. we can grow that. you cannot grow a lieutenant colonel or certain major in 20 weeks of 30 weeks. we have a migration of the talent that of the army, that is irrevocable. >> but return back to you for one other question. this series of hearings has been about 9/11. 10 years ago, one could see a clear trend towards terrorism. but the method of attack was certainly unexpected. it is undoubtedly true that we will expect things that will be affected by our actions here.
one concern that i have is for things like research and development. those kind of not specific programs, you do not know how they will lay out and yet they laid the foundation for future. as you go through implementing what you have already have, how do you take into account preparing for uncertainty? it seems to me that that is absolutely central to national security in a complex world. >> the one thing that everybody agrees is that nobody has accurately predicted the future. you can identify large areas where you would expect that future prices might lie.
if we have a strong defense, we have to be prepared to react to surprise. we have to be prepared to react to something we're not expecting. that is the reason. i think you hit on something very important. we need to have sairesearch and development. we need the creative areas in the department that look at those kinds of potential problems that develop approaches to those kinds of develop -- to those kinds of possible crises in the future. to have that kind of imaginative looked at where we will be, what kind of potential enemy we will confront, that gives us the capability to begin to design a truly agile force that is in response to those kinds of threats.
we have to be flexible and agile enough to respond to any threat no matter where it comes from. >> thank you. >> thank you both for your leadership and for your statements about the military and their families. i think that is very important for them to hear and for us to be very gage did. how would join all my colleagues to join me on the personnel committee. sometimes the committees are a little slim. we need your support. i wanted to ask you about our commitments and how close the gap. we do know that our resources -- we would not use the word shrinking. this certainly would be diminishing, like the unprecedented rise we saw in the last few years. is there anything in addition to what you have said that you
would like to share on how we close that gap? >> ! that question could >> the gap between our resources and our commitment -- explain that question. >> the gap between our resources and our commitment. where you would like to -- what you would like to say about that. >> we need to make these reductions. we're dealing with limited resources. but we have to defend this country. we have terrorists other youtube -- who continue to threaten our country. we have to be able to dismantle those kinds of operations.
we still have two wars that we are in good admittedly, we are drawing down in iraq. but we're still fighting a war in afghanistan. we're trying to transition their, but we are in a war. we have threats from iran and north korea. develop aying to nuclear capability. these are pariah nations that constituted a threat to our security. they constitute a threat to the security of the world. they are still there. we still have to do with them. we have cyber attacks that coming at us left and right. we have to deal with that threat. that is the battlefield the future. china, in the south china sea, has greeted concerns for us as to our ability to be able -- has created concerns force us to our ability to be able to --
>> let me interrupt. is there a way that congress can better assist you in that? >> you sure can. as we go through the process of developing that larger strategy, i need to bill to sit down with you and brief you on that and get your best to put on that. that will be the place where we have to make choices as to what those threats are, what the things are that we have to be ready for, and consider the risks. what will be the risk involved here? there will be risks here. i am not kidding you. when you cut the budget by $450 billion, when you make the choices we will have to make, there will be some risks out there. those risks have to be acceptable. but there will be risks. we ought to know that. >> he mentioned that we do not really have a cohesive national security strategy. .
need something close to cold water nichols when it comes to agency collaboration. would you agree with that? and what, again, do you think that we should be doing to promote it? should there be more reporting mechanisms to the committee in terms of what actually is being done about that? we know things have changed since we entered iraq. there is great progress in many ways, but at the same time, in other things, we're not there yet. >> i will not sign up for the extra reporting, but i would like to respond to the question of what we're doing to get out the lights. the secretary has us embarked on a strategic review. the idea is that we really need to understand what we must do
for the nation. we have projected it out to 2020. we can look back and have four operating memorandums. we're trying to do across the immediate fiscal crisis to determine what the nation needs, not what does the department of defense need. one of the answers to that question is tremendous integration with other agencies of government that have those relationships accrued in ways that are absolutely remarkable. >> thank you. >> mr. jones. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. i have the privilege and honor
of visiting walter reed in bethesda. one person asked me this question -- why are we still in afghanistan? we had secretary gates testified before this committee. i will read enough that i think will get you to understand the question period by the end of this calendar year, we expect -- virtually all of those forces are in afghanistan. that is a key point. that is why we believe that,
beginning 2015, in accordance with the present strategy. if our assumptions proven correct, there's plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change. i support the chairman and most members of this committee that we do not want to see cuts that would this make the military. but with $120 billion being spent each year in afghanistan, karzai is a corrupt leader. i hand this out to riveted the comes to my office.
it says the number of people who have been killed in afghanistan and the cost. how do i answer the lance corporal who has been there twice, severely wounded the second time. many have been there four times or six times. we will be there until late 2014 and significant reduction in 2015. mr. secretary, you know a is a no-win situation.
what do you say to the mother and father, the wife of the last marine killed by a corrupt government and a corrupt leader in a war that cannot be ignored. if you give me an answer, are you willing to reconsider what secretary gates testified before this committee? >> congressman, our present strategy in afghanistan is one that was developed by the president of the united states and by our allies who are in nato at the lisbon conference. it is to gradually transition our forces out of there by the end of 2014. that is what we're doing and
that is what we will continue to work at in order to do it right. we are in the process of making that transition. we have already taken down, by the end of this year, the first 10,000 of the surge that was put in. we will take out the remaining part of that surge next year, by the end of the fighting season. then we will begin to take down the remaining force through the end of 2014. so we are on a path to gradually transition down and remove our combat forces from that area. i have to tell you -- talking with general allan, as difficult as that war has been, the fact is that good progress has been made in terms of security. we have trained the afghan army and police. they are operational now.
we are making transitions. we have transition several areas. we will transition and other bavaria's in the fall to afghanistan security and governance. we will continue that process through the end of 2014. yes, there are concerns. yes, there are problems that you have identified. but in the end, there is only one reason for this mission. that lies in the fact that afghanistan was a safe haven for the taliban and for al qaeda to conduct the 9/11 attacks on this country. one thing we do not want is afghanistan becoming a safe haven again for al qaeda. that is what this mission is all about. >> mr. secretary, mr. chairman -- >> thank you. >> al qaeda is dispersed all around the world. let's bring them home. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr.
chairman. thank you, secretary and general. i first question is for you, secretary panetta. it has to do with the military buildup in guam. secretary of defense carter indicated that the palm of realignment was on the table for cutting. i feel that this comment is in direct contravention of this country's agreement with japan which was reaffirmed in june of this year. these comments, along with certain actions by the navy, have created a sense of uncertainty and that isn't helpful. does dod remain supportive of the guam realignment and the greed implementation plan? >> we continue to stand by that agreement.
we will continue to work with japan on this. the challenge will be to try to make sure that we do it in a cost-effective way. that will be the challenge. as to what we need to do, as to the effort to try to reduce our presence there, i think that is something we're committed to. >> thank you. that is what i wanted to have. >> may i add very briefly? >> yes. >> i mentioned the strategic review we're undergoing. one of the questions we're confronting is the issue of forward presence -- how much power, how much rotational this conversation will occur in that. >> very good. there have been a number positives of the elements for the military buildup. the senate has raised concerns and suggest that we rethink the entire program. i believe this is otherwise given the current threat environment in the asia-pacific region. what are we doing in view of the
other agency partners in getting japan to achieve tangible progress in okinawa? further, what is our government doing to help the government of japan to achieve tangible progress? >> to kind of spin off of my earlier answer, what we're trying to do is become articulate with their friends and allies about our intentions. we are not the only nation that is facing a new fiscal reality. so japanese partners are facing some similar cases. we have some issues on the korean peninsula as well. they are related to our future charity and the new fiscal environment. i can just assure you that the conversations are ongoing. >> good. secretary, another problem here is that do we not expect to see final master plan for the military buildup in dot? cost increases are becoming an
issue. i think that is what you mentioned. can you give us an answer on that? >> first of all, i am not sure about a military buildup. at this point, what we are engaging in, as a result of the number we have been headed by the congress, is that it will be an effort to reduce the budget in a responsible way. but what i can share with you is that, as we develop a strategy for what we will need in the future, as we develop the decisions that will be part of our budget presentation early next year, i fully intend to consult and advise with you on that process. >> very good. one final question, general. as we move to a post-iraq and afghanistan military, what areas of the world do we need to refocus on. >> that conversation is
occurring even as we sit here. clearly, we have some emerging regions in the world that we had somewhat neglected because of the demands in iraq and afghanistan. you last what concerns me in the post-iraq and a guest and -- i am concerned that we will convince ourselves that the job of defending this nation is complete and that we can somehow go back to where we may have been in the mid-1980's, which is a military that was not sure of itself or its support. that concerns me. again, back to one of the ehrlich questions about leaders, we have to keep the right leaders in our military. that means we a train and educate them. we have to continue to inspire them so that, when you need them, they will bill -- they will still be there. >> thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, i heard the chairman said that we have only
five minutes. if i had longer, would complement to on all the things you have been very good that until this time. i will get to the point. less than a month ago, when you appeared at a senate committee some the two hours, you made the statement that if we allow $6 billion in additional cuts, it would be like shooting ourselves in the head. i think that would be a good analogy. but that was more across-the- board cuts. even though we said $600 billion, it would still be like shooting ourselves in the head. but i took it from that that what you really mean is that, for us to ask for $600 billion in additional cuts to defense before we have done a strategic analysis and review would be perhaps reckless, irresponsible, even dangerous to the country. is that a fair depiction. >> all of that. >> if that is the case, mr.
secretary, then would it not also be reckless, irresponsible, and dangers for us to do the for under $50 billion in cuts we have already done -- to do the $450 billion in cuts we have already done before the strategic review and analysis? >> the reality i am dealing with -- >> i am not blaming you. >> i realize that. but the reality of having to reduce $450 billion and do it over the next 10 years, obviously, the better approach, had read the resources in this country and had we managed our budget's more responsible way, the better approach would have been to develop a strategy to be able to discuss exactly what we need, determine what resources would be to meet the strategy and then come to you and say
that this is what we need to do the job. >> but to the more the same. one of them is perhaps reckless and perhaps more dangerous. you could say that the other one would be, too. we heard a lot about risk. both you and the chairman mentioned that there were risks in institutions. yesterday, we had the former chairman in here with terrific expertise. we have former chairman skelton who made an observation. i asked him to give us the biggest warning he would offer us as a committee, congress, and the nation. he said that in his tenure in congress, he saw 13 conflict. 12 of the more unpredictable. that means that the president, whoever he might be, will have similar unpredictable missions that we cannot foretell right now. when we talk about acceptable
risk, is it not true that we're not just talking about risk to the mission or the institution but risk to the men and women who are performing those missions? >> you're absolutely right. >> with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you both for your service to the country. >> i want to take a moment to highlight your announcement today about moving up the audit ability target. it will in fact help us get toward the goals we're talking about this morning in a smart way coming inefficiencies, and auditable set of books.
you said you want to have a military that is capable of reacting to surprises. last march, president obama had to react to situation that arose in libya for we had a humanitarian disaster on the brink of happening. what he did at that time, which i think was the right call, was exercised what i think he described as unique capabilities to help nato intervene. we had a submarine fleet in the mediterranean, to scranton, to florida, in a matter 48 hours, neutralizing deduct the's air defenses. -- neutralizing gaddafi's air defenses. a submarine fleet is somewhat of a cold war relic. obviously, the events in libya demonstrated that it gave this
country the ability to react to a surprise. but we are at a point where all three of those books will be going offline in roughly 10 years. we are now slated 0.4 sailors are being deployed in seven- month -- we are now at a point where sailors are being deployed in seven-month stints. we are dealing with the shrinking fleet size. i want to ask and get your view on the roles of our submarine fleet, post-9/11, particularly in other areas of the world that you mentioned earlier where underseas warfare seems to be on the upswing with some of our potential threats. >> i have always considered our submarine fleet to be an essential part of our forward presence projection and also the capability of being able to respond to the kind of surprises that we run into in the defense business. i think we need a full range of
capabilities in order to be able to address the threats of the future and the threats of the present. submarines have provided that additional arm, particularly with regards to our fleet. i think that is absolutely essential to our defense in the future. >> good. thank you. maybe we could get you to come up to the commission and mississippi in december. >> if i could get, congressman, except for one saturday every year in december, i completely support the united states [laughter] of] >> thank you. a corollary to that issue is obviously the replacement program, which we have spent a lot of time in this committee and the sub-part mini. you mentioned, general, the nuclear deterrence, which is a low-risk situation right now, but nevertheless a risk. i was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the need to move forward with the replacement program that the
navy has worked hard on. >> as you know, we have been studying and must continue to steady the capability given -- continue to study the capability given to us. it is the most survivable leg of the triad. i considered to be indispensable. as we move forward, it could change. but for now, i think we are exactly where we need to be. >> thank you. one last question, mr. secretary. secretary gets, about a year- and-a-half ago, announced an initiative within the department of defense to really look at our regime of export control. >> yes. >> which are also in cold war mentality. again, i realize you're pretty new into the saddle. but if you have any updates you can give us on how that is progressing and your own views in terms of -- like >> are fully
support what -- in terms of -- >> i fully support what secretary gates is trying to do. not only for purposes of technology in the industries we have here, but we are in a stage now where, very frankly, as we develop those 9 ounces -- develop those alliances, nato performed very well in terms of libya. the question is, if we are going to develop those kinds of capabilities, develop those kinds of alliances, the have to be able to have the latest in terms of technology and in terms of weaponry. that means we have to be able to share that kind of technology. i am working very hard to try to see if we can do away with some of the barriers that were established. >> some of us would like to work with you on that for. this is a good time to which
the navy had a pretty. [laughter] -- to which the navy happy birthday -- to wish the navy happy birthday. [laughter] >> i am interested in knowing if this is the first opportunity we have had to hear from you directly -- you share his enthusiasm for that aircraft? will you commit to helping make sure that we move forward with it? >> i am supportive without caveat of the development of a fifth generation fighter. i am concerned about the three variants, as we go forward in this fiscal environment, whether we can afford all three. but i am eager to learn more about that.
i have great respect for the generals judgments. that is something we need to keep an eye on. three variants is critical challenges for us. >> it is good to see. i look forward to working with you in your new capacity. i watched a video last week of the new aircraft landing. my question is, with two trulls ongoing now basically, it has been on probation, which the term probation does not exist in any of the acquisition areas. it probably has created or could be considered a black market on the snowballed aircraft. what remains now as far as items that would allow it to be moved from its probationary status? >> this is the fifth generation
fighter. it is something we absolutely need. is it really does the job well. what we want to do is make sure that, as it goes through this test period, that we are able to understand all of the issues involved, that we're able to be fully confident that this airplane, once it goes into production, it will be something that will be totally effective and will be totally capable of serving the mission that is required to do. the term probationary is out there. but what that means is give us a chance to test it. give us a chance to see how it performs. if it performs well, obviously, it will be able to make the grade. >> thank you.
the other thing is guidelines for 2013 and the budget, where it states that departments shall identify programs to double down on because they provide the best opportunity to enhance economic growth. i did have the opportunity to go visit fort worth where the s-35 -- 127,000 direct jobs right now. if we can remove some of the instability in our purchasing of this aircraft and move forward with what we initially intended to do -- and i and stand the budgets start -- the budgetary constraints we are in right now. i am convinced and i do not think he meant to the way you said it -- we have the resources. we do not have a tax revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem and an allocation of where those dollars go. but i would hope that, if that is what the administration would like and we're trying to
increase jobs, then this is an aircraft that we do want to go forth, looking forward at what time is doing and how fast china is producing their aircraft, which is quicker than we had anticipated. i hope they would look at the as-35 very carefully as meeting the on the challenge. >> i certainly will do that. -- meeting the omb challenge. >> i certainly will do that. >> i look forward to working with you into the future. i think we can all agree that we are making the fiscal a bipartisanhaon basis. i have to areas of inquiry that
i want to explore with you briefly. first, it has to do with organic manufacturing base. in the past, i think it can be argued that we probably threw down too much and some contingencies came up, issues came up. it took too long for probably to go back to that organic base, build up those capabilities. congressman schilling and i are on this committee. we crossed the mississippi river and political lyles. the second issue has to do with reserve components for the guard and reserve. a lot of us have concerns that come as we begin to draw down,
that we will see the capabilities of those forces also declined and across the spectrum. first, i would like to ask both of you to respond to the issue of the organic manufacturing base. how does that fit into the overall plan, making sure that those capabilities are maintained, that they do not decline like they did before? >> two very important issues. number one, one requirement i have with regards to our overall strategy is to make sure we maintain our industrial base. i absolutely have to have that. if we will be able to have a strong defense, if we will be able to maintain a strong defense, if we will be able to respond to the crises of the future, i have to have the industrial base that can respond to that. if we have to mobilize quickly, what and as quickly, i have to have an industrial base in place. if we cripple that, we will cripple our national defense.
i am asking that we develop a strategy. we can go through some of these decisions and make very sure that we are affecting the base they talked about. so those skills and capabilities will always be there when we need them. it will require some decision making. we will have to be able to get the cooperation of the private sector. i met with them and i am fully confident that we can get that. on the reserve and guard, i will let the general speak to that. we have gone through a remarkable time were the reserve and the guy has really performed in an outstanding fashion with regards to the wars we have been in. we have been able to rotate them in. they have gotten battle experience. they're better. they're more capable. they're more experienced. i do not want to lose that. i want to retain that kind of experience the best we can. secondly, i would like to keep them on some kind of
operational capability so that we can basically move them into roles that will continue to benefit from that experience that we have gotten from them. >> thank you. >> i do not have anything to add on the defense/industrial base. i can assure you that it is prominent in our strategy review. as part of the reserve component, if we are to to what we say we are, which is a learning organization, we need to learn some lessons as our relationship with the reserve component has changed over the last 10 years. as we developed this strategy, we might find things that we decide we do not media elite. they can be placed into the reserve component. the things that were in the reserve component that we now realize are needed immediately, they can be active. what do we need to see is a
very healthy discourse among the components to determine what is our new relationship based on the last 10 years of war. >> thank you. i think both of you for your service and your support for these issues. one little area of disagreement in december, we will have to argue the outcome of that game. [laughter] thank you verizon. >> i have two children who are west point. >> thank you very much. [laughter] i yield back. >> thank you for being here. thank you both for your service. mr. secretary, i want to thank you for the clarity of your response. there should be no further cuts in our military and defense. equally, i appreciate you stating the belief that that is the position of the president. this is so important that our country know and that our
adversaries around the world know that we will be prepared to defend the american people. general dempsey, with the number of threats that the secretary identified that are rising, not being reduced, it is very important that we be able to cite a to-conflict war. i'm very concerned with the drawdown, the army below 225,000, the marines below 186 -- that puts us at risk. will we be able to face a two- front war? >> that analysis is ongoing, congressman. but i can assure you that i will never advocate a strategy for this nation that would limit us to be able to do one thing at a time. because that is not the world we live in. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i am very honored. i worked with ranking member
susan davis to promote military families, service members benefits. they have the resell system. they operate in the most bizarre locations around the world. it is a really great morale- builder. it is a way of showing our respect to our military. and we have extraordinary facilities. what is your view about our military resale system? in light of the budget constraints, can we count on behalf of this benefit to be available? >> i view that as a very important announcement for the families that are out there. having served two years myself,
my family benefited from that. i and stand how important that is. it is something we will continue to provide. as we go through the process of looking at the infrastructure, there may be some areas where women have to reduce air -- where we may have to reduce our presence. >> a side issue has been raised, the number of military families that work in remote areas around the world that simply could not find employment otherwise. it has so many side benefits that should be considered. i am really pleased that this issue has been brought up. the importance of the national guard and reserve, as a 31-year veteran of the reserves national guard, and the proud father three sons were in the national guard, as we really get into the
circumstance of budget cutting and determining prioritization, i cannot hear enough. i do know firsthand of the extraordinary success like the 218 brigade out of south carolina -- our reserve appreciate serving overseas and in the country. >> there is another factor here that i think is extremely important to the reserve and the guard. the reserve and the guard reaches out into every community across this country. it makes every community in a part of our national defense system. to some extent, every community has to participate, not only in service, but also in sacrifice that is involved when we defend this country. for that reason, the grassroots operation of having a strong reserve, a strong guard that can help us as we confront the crises of the future is
something that i want to assure you that we will maintain it. >> having served multiple course in iraq and afghanistan, most of the time, when they get on a c-13, it is a national guardsmen. the highest compliment we can pay the guard and reserve now is that you cannot tell what soldiers are enacted, which soldiers are guardsmen, and which soldiers are the reserve component. we're certainly one source now -- one for snow. thank you. -- one force now. thank you. >> welcome. we look forward to many more appearances before this committee. i do not relish the job you
have. you have a very difficult task and you of the extraordinary challenges they face as a country. we would all have known for some time that, as we face the death and the deficit, the defense department would have to observe its fair share. but we all know that we want to do it in as a thoughtful way as possible. i appreciated, general dempsey, when you said you are a learning organization. as you talked about the assessment of risk, how you develop strategies and uss those risks, just a comment. i would hope the two will also take into account that not every risk can be dealt with through military response. there are limits to our capacity to deal with every threat militarily, that there perhaps other ways as well. just a comment for the record. as a learning organization, i'm sure that is something you will take into account as well. also, i wanted to reiterate the importance of the national guard
and reserve. in the fifth district of massachusetts, most who are serving today are doing it through either one of those great organizations and they have done it with such dignity and professionalism. but i wanted to go in a slightly different direction. yesterday, the former chairman of our committee, i testified in a hearing that "the strength of the military flows from the dedication and skill of an all- volunteer force. indeed, the new defense budget must maintain our nation's security by keeping "the profession of arms" professional. i believe this is a view you both share. with women now playing an ever increasing role in our military, supporting our all-volunteer force requires an understanding of the issues and challenges confronting both the service man and the servicewoman. an issue i would like to address today is the issue of sexual assault in the military, which is reported with alarming
frequency. mr. secretary, in 2010, there were 3000 two hundred 30 reports of assaults in the military. -- 30 to 30 reports of assaults on the military -- in the milk -- 3230 reports of assaults in the military. the stories i hear from returning women veterans and the be a organizations and massachusetts, those numbers are accurate. obviously, it is unconscionable to begin with that so many of our brave service members are subjected to this criminal and predatory behavior. i would also -- however, were also concerns me is that this systematic abuse will affect our readiness by keeping patriotic women from enlisting more reenlisting in our armed forces. in a time of two wars, a massive
budget cuts, our military needs to attract and maintain the most capable personnel possible. in 2008, when and then we became the first woman in our nation's history to be confirmed as a four-star general, women made up 14% of our active duty personnel. we must make sure these women's needs are being met. there are several important steps to address sexual assault in our armed forces. this work has been done through the combined efforts of many of my colleagues. when he appeared before our committee interviewer it, i raised this matter and responses to it from secretary gates. i asked him why the department had previously resisted efforts to put certain protections in place. he responded that he had not
realized that the department had resisted. he said he would find out. i have a very simple question. mr. secretary, in this time of austerity where we face massive budget cuts to the department of defense and potentially threatening cuts, can i count on your support to fund new initiatives aimed at preventing sexual assault in our armed forces? i do not want to see this budget environment become an excuse to not fund these initiatives. >> absolutely. thank you for your leadership on that issue. it is an issue that i am paying a lot of attention to. women are performing an outstanding -- in outstanding fashion for the department of defense. they put their lives on the line. they're doing great in terms of helping to defend this country. i think we have to make sure
that we provide all of the protections necessary so that what happens in these horrendous sexual assault cases, they should not happen. it does happen -- when it does happen, justice should be rendered quickly. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, in your discussion of the range of threats that we might face, you said that nuclear conflict is unlikely. it is unlikely because of the strength of our deterrent. it is credible and unreliable. at a time when china and russia are investing in their nuclear weapons infrastructure, we're looking a proposed cuts that would create vulnerability and instability crude our investment
rate looks at the issue of deferred costs. mr. secretary, i will ask your question that i know your answer. we had discussed this on tuesday. i appreciate your commitment to the modernization of our national security administration. it is important to have you expressed those opinions in this venue. as you know, we're heading to the prospect of an omnibus in which there could be significant cuts that occurred to our nuclear weapons infrastructure. i know you are aware that the new treaty is being proposed. the president and the senate are taking up the issue, recognizing the issue, going to lower numbers -- you actually have to set aside increase dollars so we can have both security and understanding that we need deferred maintenance and go forward with their minimization program. modernization requires
investment in the long term. this is my commitment to congress. the administration will pursue these programs and give the bill is for as long as i am president. the program includes an $85 billion investment for modernization. this program resides in the department of energy. secretary gates, enjoying commitment to the program, set aside $8.3 billion or the next five years to invest in the program. sector -- secretary gates then said that this modernization program was carefully worked out between ourselves and the department of energy. for we came out on the play significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the new start agreement. this modernization project is in my view really important. my question to you is that, do
you agree with secretary gates on the modernization program? what is your assessment of the proposed cuts? the modernization program, in addition coming across from the president's budget that is fully funded, it came out of the house budget which was fully funded. it came out of this committee fully funded and then stumbled in the appropriations committee. as we know, with the omnibus moving forward, your statements are even more important now. i want to highlight one of the issues with your support of $8.3 billion. as those funds come out of the appropriations committee with cuts, in effect, your funds are being used for water projects across the country. i think you may have an opinion about that. [laughter] >> as a former member, i know they will reach for whatever
they can in those committees in order to try to see if they can fund those projects. i understand that process. but i think it is tremendously short-sighted to reduce the funds that are absolutely essential for modernization. we are in lock step to our positions and frankly with the president -- we have to fully fund the modernization effort with regards to the nuclear area. this is too important. we have always been at the cutting edge of this technology. we have to stay there. there are too many other countries that are trying to reach out to develop this capability. if we are not staying ahead of it, we jeopardize the security of this country. for that reason, i certainly would oppose any reduction with regard to the funding. >> your statement is very important to identify the this is not an area where we can
find savings, an area where cuts would actually expose risks. if it begins to a atrophy, it will fall into a decrepit state. as we look to lowering numbers, with less and our ability to hedge. >> there is a nexus -- for the record, i am sorry. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you very much, mr. secretary and mr. chair for being before our committee and answering a great diversity of questions. i want to echo the remarks of
my good friend and colleague mr. jones. i know he is no longer in the room. but i really do appreciate his vigilance encouraging continuing to highlight the importance of bringing the troops back home. i know we started the day with protesters in the room could sometimes they seem disruptive or their taxes may be -- or their tactics may be lacking. but there is huge dissatisfaction in our country about the representation that they feel that many of us give them in congress and one key area it is about ending the war. many people feel we were misguided getting into iraq, that we have been in afghanistan to long. with the budget deficit, we cannot justify $120 billion per year. i want to echo mr. jones and say that i have been on the committee for three years. but i have the feeling that we find ourselves often in somewhat of a unconscionable inertia
around the war. 2014 turns into 2015 and 2016. and people wonder when we will end the war, particularly after the capture of osama bin laden, after the reduced number of al qaeda operatives, and, in fact, and in light of security concerns for countries over the world that we're not adequately prepared for war to defend ourselves. i do not think it is unrelated that we are facing these huge need for budget cuts and there is satisfaction out there for the way we do things. on the right is our growing deficit and responsibility. many on the left is why we do not and the war and wire which any $120 billion? i think that is why we are facing such difficult cuts. i just feel -- it is important to echo that. i agree with so many of my colleagues that we need to have
a strong defense. i am proud to represent the greatest shipbuilders in the world. and then stand that we do not have a strong enough navy, that there are pending threats from china and we do not want to be a smaller force than they are. so they're true needs and our military. there are true security needs around the country. i believe that this war, which has been crippling us as a nation, which has had excess of cost, which has had us prepare for ground wars and not be prepared in other areas has to end. all that said -- i know you stated your own opinion on that -- i just feel the importance of reinforcing it and think that i reflect the thoughts of many of my colleagues in congress and certainly the majority of residents in my district. this is an issue here about frequently. on a completely different topic, as you are pondering the difficult cuts the need to be made, i wanted to echo the
remarks made about the defense business for. i do appreciate your response to that. it is still a plan that is under consideration. thank you very much for really talking about the difference in the retirement system for military men in civilian life. i think you said it very well. i strongly oppose the plan. i did do not agree with making those kinds of cuts. with the commission on wartime contracting signing between $30 billion and $60 billion and wasted weapons programs that need it -- that never make it into fighters'there are other pe
cut. you stated your numbers. i am pleased to hear them. i wanted to add my voice to others. >> i recognize the frustrations. i have been through these wa rs. we are in the proces of ending q.e war in ira with afghanistan, i am confident that the president is committed to ensuring that we transition. we just have to do this right. what i do not want to have them is if we do this in the wrong
way are so fast that if it becomes a safe haven for the taliban or al qaeda and the other subjects, then the world will look at us and say how can you let that happen. that is what i'm trying to prevent. >> i would like to answer that one for the record. >> thank you. congratulations on your appearance in new roles. i want to thank you for your comments about irresponsibly -- responsibly disengaging. we had many sons and daughters to have served there. i want t hehem to serve.
i want to congratulate you on your announcements about 2014 and 2017. it is overdue to have an audit. by has neither one of us will be here. -- perhaps another one of us will be here. i am cautiously optimistic. i appreciate your taking this and trying to get that done. looking at these budget cuts, those in the works and those that are potentially out there, i am mindful of the former chief of staff of the army he used to talk about the tyranny of personnel costs. i know that is us some concern as to have stepped up to meet our obligation to the men and
women who are serving in terms of medical care and pay raises. we are keeping faith with those who have served. i was recently in fort bliss texas business in my favorite soldier. you're talking about families and soldiers about the story that was ripping around the united states army. there is the high level of concern about the retirement benefits.
that wanteaking faith to focus on this retirement. they would get something substantially less than what they had signed up for. i want to be absolutely clear. i want to hear the your adamantly oppose -- that you are adamantly opposed to making that happen. >> i am adamantly opposed to changing the retirement benefits for those where currently on active duty. i am open to the potential changes to the retirement system as part as the overall compensation for the future. >> absolutely. we can not break faith with
those that have served and deploy time and time again. they were promised the benefits. they're going to be protected under any circumstances. >> i yield back. >> >> thank you very much. thank you. i want to congratulate each one of you all for your suspicions. of afford to working to you. i answered on this committee for almost five years. one thing i have noticed is that from time to time we needed the presence of our capitol hill police officers to maintain order in room where we conduct our business. i certainly respect the rights of people to come in in protest what we are doing. they did not have a right to end
the meeting. we had a large contingent of protesters today. we were able to proceed with the meeting. we were able to proceed with the resources to maintain order. i appreciate their service. i also noticed during his streak from time to time there are disturbances throughout the world. these disturbances may interrupt some of our interest around the world. it is necessary for us to have some kind of force to maintain order. i hated that human beings have to have some protection,the
strong over the week, and they take over from the ben strong folks. this is something like competition, like capitalism. it is a natural human phenomenon. we must have sufficient force when necessary to bring about the kind of relief we need in terms of maintaining order throughout the world. this is why we need a sufficient military force that is ready to respond immediately to whatever the circumstances may be. people always try to get more innovative and coming up with
new ways of doing things and hurting people and hurting us. we have to stay a few steps ahead of that at all times. if we do not, then we are not taking care of our business as elected officials in country. having been said, i believe that global nuclear disarmament is necessary of our country and our species in order to survive and flourish. do think program should be on the table it will reduce the spending over the next 10 years. >> we strongly believe that we
have to maintain a strong deterrent against the countries that could potentially use nuclear weapons. with regard to reducing our nuclear arina, i think that is in the area or i do not think we ought to do that unilaterally. you ought to do that on the basis of negotiations with the russians and others to make sure we're all walking the same path. >> certainly. i agree with this comment him the army has spent $2.7 billion trying to build and and balances platform. it is a program that is now five years behind schedule. it is over budget.
it fails to meet the needs of our soldiers. an article of. earlier detailing some of these failures. it explained the program was unable to perform the simplest tasks. >> i think you on their responsibilities. they cut a total of 1.6 $5 billion out of the ground-based missile defense system. the only defense system
currently in place, are you committed to the adequate resources and of the ground- based missile defense system in the future? >> i am committed to adequately resource in what we have. >> de believe there are now an adequate number? >> i believe it is too limited. do you think there are an adequate number of those to counter the threat to our homeland and to provide for testing? >> we had a chance to visit norad and stratcom and look at our capability. i think we're in good shape.
>> i look for it to continue this. as already scheduled budget cuts to the department of defense in access for the next 10 years begins to take place, do you anticipate the army reducing the number of brigade combats? >> as former chief of the staff and currently chairman, i do anticipate that the army will reduce the number of brigade combat teams. not just because of the new fiscal environment. what have we learned of the last 10 years. we take a look at how many agreed combat teams seem need.
the role and another battalion. we now know they need them. we will reduce the number of combat teams. it to be more capable. >> even if we had all the money we need it -- >> are you anticipating a reduction of the teams that would correspond to the number of trips being brought home from those countries? >> there is a relationship between what they established as a demand. we know what a steady state demanded.
we know there has be a minimum of 30. one is just out. one is ready to go. 30 is not the number. >> if there is this, how would impact the ability of our military to address the kinds of threats that you talked about earlier? >> all bets are off. it is clear that. it will increase the number of risks within the military. in addition, we would hollow out the force. it required these cuts that would affect the training of " .mpyrea
of hearings together. you are the fifth in the series. i have written it down because of something that stuck with me. the real question with regard to services are simple. what do you want our military counter. what readiness to what the military to sustain? we are here. this is almost what we were forced to do. from your vantage point, what is this vision they want to share with us i'm curious about your joint force statement.
>> i think the general who testified it the right buttons. we have to look at the threats that are out there. we're dealing with a variety of threats that remain out there that are serious. it keeps the pressure on terrorism's of people cannot attack the country. we are involved in those wars. spear have to bring them to an end. these of the threats they constitute. we have got to be able to deal with the middle east and the unrest that is going on. we have to deal with the challenge of china and rising powers. this is a quick rundown of the
threats that are out there. if we're going to defend this country, we have to have an effective choice. that is what we have got to do. problem?that the i have had these discussions. i represent hawaii. we have counterinsurgency and terrorism. all of that are different to attack different problems. he has a limited amount of resources. what rises to the top tax can anything not rise to the top? >> you have to be dam flexible. >> this is a conversation we're
having with ourselves. if you're not too busy we will not mind having the honor committee. the intellectual framework is that when we get to a 2020 when the jet taken into account the capabilities. what is this capability. they did not exist 10 years ago. what will this allow us to do with the conventional force? as we continue to pile, we run the rest.
we will have to make some decisions about where in the world we will take more or less risk. this is a matter of understanding demographic change, climate change, economic change and which countries are appearing to align themselves against our interests. our interest will not change. we need access to resources. we need freedom of navigation. we need to be partnered with issues of common interest. we will be able to articulate that world them back at where we are today and use the next four years when we submit four to build it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for joining us today. thank you for your service.
this is one of the most important decisions that we all will make in a long time. your statement earlier this talk about the decision making guidelines. i am in full agreement with the priorities and making sure we have a deployable forces and the capabilities. the question becomes as you are faced with reductions in the next 10 years, how do you calculate those risks? heidi made priority decisions and a round that is very dynamic and changes all the
time? threat emerge. threats disappear. as you look at prioritizing, prioritizing, what are the three areas that you say have to be preserved? what are three areas most likely to be cut? >> it would not be fair to throw those issues out there. here in the process of looking at all of those areas in trying to decide what we need to confront those threats and how we can respond in where is it that we can see some reductions. with what i think will be something that is pretty clear. you have a smaller force. if you have a smaller force,
you're not going to be able to be out there responding in the areas we do now. the decision will be what are the areas we have to prioritize? we have to maintain a presence. are there other areas? in year, we have a structure. it is pretty broad. do we need to maintain all of that at the same time you're dealing with these other needs? you can see the trade gossip had to be made based on the nature of the threat. by doing that, it is a
relationship with data. these are the kinds of issues that i think you have to be. >> very good. >> thank you. just to be clear, i did not become the chairman of the joint chiefs to oversee the decline of the armed forces. it is a state that would have this nation in the military not be a global power. you'll never hear a say that will be very good and pacific bell we boy ignore the indian ocean. we cannot do it. this is not who we are as a nation. we will remain a global power. it to be the most dominant military in planet. as we look at the future and
characterization, and is not a matter of ignoring anything. we can say that. it'll make us feel good. at the end of the day, we will not ignore anything that threatens our nation. risk is managed in terms of time. that is an indelicate answer. i can flesh it out for the overtime. i were to say we have to do to were three a day to our three -- if i were to say we need two or three things things at a time, you take up the rest. there are 10 things we need to be able to do. these we can take some risk in terms of time whether it is time to activate the component or generate it. time is the independent
variable. >> thank you. >> thank you. congratulations to both of you. my mom is 100% italian. congratulations on being the second secretary of defense. let me associate myself with his remarks. i represent a district in northeast ohio. it is critical that we have this money that we are spending. i spent years when i was first on this committee dealing with the very amendment. sometimes the waivers that were given they provide the materials for the military. as you continue to push down to
the bureaucracy, some of this is taken into consideration. the one issue of want to talk to you about the pc off and, young kids have been killed in action. -- that you see on and off, and done the kids have been killed at in action. one and the issues that i have been concerned do iwith is the d to come back can never be reestablished. there in the obituary section in the back of the paper. there are not parades. there are not huge services and community recognition. one of the issue is the extreme and prolonged levels of stress that they have in multiple tors. and being able to deal with this.
i not only as combat troops in dealing with the stress afterward. this training program was established by liz stanely. it is being shown it is bullet proofing the thing. it helps them deal with the stress levels. we see they do have diminishment with your ability to focus. to see ande starting study in the fields of neuroscience is that you can change the shape of your brain. this is important when you begin
to teach the soldiers to raise their performance. it is a more efficient use of their faculties. also being able to deal with the stressful situations afterward when they come back. i think if you look at this program, it can have a transformational affect. that is my own opinion. it can have transnational a fax. -- effects. the reports are getting there. it was there. it was one from the marine times article.
they earned this. and i wanted to bring that to your attention. economic of some is alternative approaches. they can deal with what they're going to see and smell. >> i am willing to look at anything that helps be able to do the men and women. this is a real problem. they have the suicide is taking place. it is an issue that bothers me terribly.
it is unacceptable. we have to go into. they have to face in the edible -- incredible threats. there pulled out of that. they have to face that. maybe at some point we can have a committee on it and bring the ones there. >> that is a good idea. the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you. thank you for your service and dedication. it is an honor to be with you today. i am reassured by your comments. he said not having a global influence is not an option. it is if $1 tram with a cut goes into it.
-- $1 trillion worth of cuts goes into it. we will have this conversation with the american people. we have to build up there for some reason. we have a humanitarian disaster. other parts are trying to see it. there's not going to be a way for us to respond to everything. we have to have the conversation with the american people. we cannot help israel if we had a buildup at have one or some other area. we have to have the conversation. i do not think the american people realize that not having this is one of the options that will be able to take away. bringing it down from that
view, talk about i e d -- ied's/ you had dinner paxson. they are deployed. they get stuck to the field even if it is only in a the% solution. --an 80% solution. i was there when they got the silk underwear because of the way things were going. this is the extents of what they can provide to our marines and soldiers. it is hopefully a cleaner extraction as opposed to a way to combat. what kind of outside of the box ideas are you bringing to the fight on the number one threat
to our men and women? 70's term of art casualty's are caused by that. -- 70% of our casualties are caused by that. >> how will these budget cuts affected the fight? >> thank you. speaking of defeating the ideas are thought about in three aspects. you have to defeat the device in network that produces it. then there is an issue called signatures. it is one of the creative ways we have been getting after identifying with the signature the component of an ied > that work is ongoing. what we have done is said that
the ied is the enduring threat. sweeney to institutionalize it. it cannot be -- so we need to institutionalize it. it cannot be considered a one- off. this organization is fully funded. we can account for what you said. if it goes deeper, we have to take a look. everything will be affected if there is another phase of this thing. >> i think one of the real success stories was the ability to develop the vehicles that had to be done on a quick timetable
to get them out to the battlefield. under most circumstances, that would get taken eight or 10 years. they said we need them. we need them now. we required it be produced within a timeframe. we got it done. we got it out there. this is the model i think we have to follow as we deal with these kind of threat. we cannot sit back and allow this thing to go over a long period of time. we have to get it done. >> the normal process had to be bypassed. thank you both. i yield back. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. it is always good to share a table or opportunity with you. i had a series of questions. i will send them to you in
writing in save a little bit of time. in discussions about maintaining our industrial base, numerous questions have risen. the key for the missile is made in china. many of the components that deal with the targeting of critical weapons are also made overseas. from the far left to the far right, various think tanks have been had to do with the military. it is very expensive.
i will send you that matrix. and is about where those things are. i will let it go at that. you can take a deep breath. >> thank you. i wanted to say what an honor to be here. i appreciate your willingness to serve our country. i want to touch on something on a personal side. this is very important.
there are men and women that are currently serving our country both here and abroad. what this discussion is doing to them as they move forward. i had the opportunity several months ago to sit down and some soldiers. we talked to them about what they can do to help support them. this one soldier looked at me and his pride wife was sitting at his side. he looked at me with tears in eyes and said "do not worry about me. it just take care of her." we are fast approaching as we reach the frustration of -- many times this joint committee is a microcosm of all the problems we already have in congress. as a move toward this deadline date, it is that soldier and his
wife and his family that is the real victim. time and time again, our military families have been the ones that have been the insurance policy against political debate here in washington. it is unconscionable. i think all of the answers are provided today relate to specific operations. i want to give you an opportunity to talk about the effectiveness. our military families are certainly not a mean to the varied discussions here having here. i have small children. i work very hard to ensure that they know that they are loved and they feel secure. when you have a soldier serving overseas and whose spouse is at
home having to worry about whether or not that paycheck is going to come for them to put groceries on the table or not to make a car payment our house payments, you said that no matter how awesome our technology is moving forward, our men and women in uniform are what make this military great. i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that aspect of what we're looking at down the road. >> i thank you for that question. our men and women are out there putting their lives on the line. it is in order to defend our democracy. i think that one of the great national security threats is the disc functionality of congress
and the inability to confront the issues that we face now. i think your concern is that this committee might fail to revive the leadership that it has been given or the responsibility it has been given to come up with the additional deficit reduction. that concerns me as well. i served in this house for 16 years. the leadership was there on both side of the aisle. you were together to fridatry td solutions. what is very important for the super committee and all members of congress is to take the time to think about the sacrifice that those men and women go
through to but their lives on the line in ordered to be able to defend this country. if the members of the congress would be willing to engage in same kind of sacrifice, then i think they will have earned the right to represent those constituents. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> it is hard to answer a better question then the secretary just it. everything we are doing right now and every deliberation about strategy and how we will uxor different reductions, but how we will deal with different reductions, the wounded warriors are the first issue we discussed. if we only and up with $1, it will go to a family. >> i appreciate that.
>> thank you. first of all, thank you so much for a decade of distinguished service. thank you for a dedication to maintaining a strong military. of a great one. they still saw themselves as it were a power pitcher it was weakened by world war ii. it turned to the united states. we assume that role. there's nobody behind us. china is the rising power. and at the want to turn the responsibility over to china. we have to maintain the strongest power. let me put three questions for word.
individuals between the ages of 18 and 22, 757 of them -- 75% are ineligible. in 1973 it was the last year we had the draft. in 1974 we disbanded the service. in 1979, and jimmy carter put it back on the table in response to the soviet invasion. it still exists today. it is not even in your budget. it is under the financial services committee. the question is, do we still needed to? in south korea, i believe we are moving up from one year to three
year and a company. it is for our 28,000 presence there. that decision was made during the height of the iraq war. this was next to nothing. we are phasing out of iraq now. we will be phasing down in afghanistan. both will expand. do you really need to spend the $13 billion that i believe is necessary? can we do something that is more cost-effective? given the expansion of this. it goes to and from. the last issue our concerns. i would like you to take a look at this. if we look at the height of the cold war, and i was in the
united states army, we had a military much larger. there are more officers there today. it is a much smaller force. we have as many animals as we have ships. i think this is duplicative through the rest of the military. i would like you to take a look at that. could you go through those three questions, please? >> we are looking at this from bottom to top. the secretary will take the question about selective service. some of the rank inflation was result of international partners and their desire for their flags, we are looking at that. believe me. this is part of our strategy review to look at some are forward presence. it is notably in korea and europe.
we determine how best to do it in affordable way. we are alert to the fact that it might become cost prohibited. we do need some structure there with families because of the message it sends. it increases and have soldiers there for longer amount of time. >> we're in the process of looking at everything that costs a lot of money. that is one of the thing that costs a lot of money. we need to determine whether or not we can find some savings. on the registration, it is still required. there is a system. it is not associated with us. we ought to maintain the registration aspect. as the good for the budget cuts and into the future, if we face one of those surprises and one
of those crises that suddenly occurs, we have to have some mechanisms in place to respond. the volunteer force is the best. i would not trade it for anything. it has served its purpose. we always have to be ready for the possible contingency in future. >> may i have 30 more seconds? >> without objection. so ordered. >> in terms of looking at forward basis, whether or not we can demonstrate our support for our allies, whether nato or south korea through routine military exercises, we are spending almost 4% of our gdp on defense. i think only four are spending the required 2% required under
the nato charter. in south korea, and they are spending their gross domestic product on defense. we are north of 3.6%. we care more about defending [unintelligible] we need to strike a balance in that. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes mr. scott from georgia. >> thank you. i appreciate your being here. we have talked a lot about the cuts on the top line. i represent the air force base.
properly managed, we can take our cuts. i cannot think of a better person to help us manage the new. one of my concerns is when i look at these things that we're doing that are drivers. the energy act of 2005 says that in new facility, we can have 0% of a fossil fuels by 2013. that means no matter of gas. that means no coal. in liezel petroleum. -- that means no petroleum. is that realistic? i think this is just one example of policy that has been put in place with many intentions. it will take energy as a percentage of your operations
from approximately 3.5%. it is up to a more significant portion of your budget. what other cost drivers are there like that that we could make some changes to that would help you reduce your cost? >> as part of the strategy approach to look at the overall means and to determine where we go, i really do have to put everything on the table including what you just discussed. we have to look at all of that to make sure we are implementing the most cost- effective approach to dealing with these issues. at a time when we bring getting a blank check and things are doing fine, you could do all kinds of things. i am in a situation. i have to tighten the belts. i had to look at everything. this is something we have to
look at to make sure it makes sense. >> i hope you give us a list of things they need. i do believe that in order for us to reach our top goals without affecting national security, we're going to have to look at cost drivers like that. with that said, i know that you waited three hours for me to ask that question. we are ready, willing, and able to work with you to solve this challenge. i yield back meantime. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman, mr. young from indiana. clyde thank you. thank you mr. secretary. thank you for visiting us today. i have been incredibly encourage, more so than any that i have attended so far.
you have discussed in direct way the need to assess risk to accept it. to articulate precisely which risks where willing to accept to do the whole probability of risk times anticipated costs of any given threat. that's exactly the sort of analysis i have been pushing for four months. i know others have as well. i think he for year leadership. we will be able to prioritize missions. that will inform our spending decisions. in washington. where do they fund personnel? what skill sets and david? that is the way we do business. it is really repressing. i am going to pick it -- p ivot a bit.
perhaps you will be required to get some more clarity as to what our nation's doctor and is. you indicated that -- doctrine is. you indicated that our country is becoming a safe haven for terrorists. that is a bit too vague for me. we got bin laden. al qaeda has dispersed. if there is a safe haven, it is in pakistan. what is this doctrine that justifies a ground presence in afghanistan? success if itsure i is justified to have an american presence? what is the exit strategy? it is going to take will pass my reserved time for you to be able to answer that.
as you get halfway into entering the first question, my time will expire. i just want sheet to encourage you to clarify. people are losing their legs and dying. we owe it to them. i am going to focus on one aspect of our exit strategy. that is our fiscal commitment to the region. it remains open ended. we're spending $120 billion a year. as far as the eye can see, we're going to continue to spend money in that region in form of foreign aid and military assistance to harden the forces there. what is this administration's economic strategy for afghanistan? it was required to present to this congress before you were sworn in bac in dean.
we're still waiting on it. -- back in june. we are still waiting on it. >> i understand the concerns and issues you raised. both of us can fully respond to it. i did not support going into iraq. if you look at iraq today, it is a more stable country in very important region. it is exercising self- government. it is exercising the kind of rights and responsibilities that it never enjoyed in pass. as a result, it becomes a more secure area. it becomes an area in which they can govern themselves. they can exercise the responsibility of maintaining stability. i hope that we can do the same
in afghanistan. >> that is the economic strategy for afghanistan. that is nearly what i am asking for. if you wish to follow up, i understand. >> the economic strategy is a lot easier. resources. an oil none has been fully developed. providing that kind of support and allowing them to be economically independent is going to be part of the solution. otherwise it will not work. >> as you say independent, i think trade. might trade be part of the answer? >> very much. >> i am very encouraged to hear that. i look forward to moving the ball forward. >> the chair now recognizes mr.
platts. >> i am honored to be here. we are blessed by you. i want to first express on a policy gratitude to be assessment of where we are. that we do not do this on the backs of our courageous men and women in uniform. you both have the been a very rigid played very important roles of in assessment of where we are with the cuts that are already coming and what that will do to national security and our commitment to the men and women and in uniform. it is so important