there is concern about jobs being lost but also lost expertise and lost capability and as the newspaper wrote who will fill its role? there has been a stated possibility by a spokeswoman from the 440th that new c-130 j.'s would be sent to polk but the uncertainty remains. are the c-130s just going to leave and what is the support fact your for what we need at fort greg? pope air force base became pope airfield although we have had both the air force reserve components there so it's quite a serious concern and has risen to

the level of the attention in both houses of congress and i'd like to see what your responses. >> congressman the unit as an air force reserve will be leaving. the intent is to take this c-130 j.'s and put them in little rock arkansas. general jackson would tell you there is a problem with recruiting in that area in his reserve unit. he would also tell you is this it before every decision we are making right now hurts. they have to did downsize as well. this move would save them $23 million a year. it would save them about 600 oddities because of the wing that leaves. it allows them to save a 10 million-dollar a year air service support agreement. the active air force component would leave the air mobility operations group there to run the green ramp to schedule and oversee the airlift that comes in today to help do a lot of the

training for the second airborne. a higher percentage of the training is done by aircraft that come in to support the second airborne as opposed to just the airplanes that are stationed there especially the larger airplanes that require training on the c-17s. we will support it as we have in the past but this is in an effort to save money. to downsize their people they have to take cuts as do we. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> at this time i will recognize mr. coghlan for five minutes. >> thank you chairman and thank you secretary james for your relatively new assignment as secretary of united states air force in general welsh for your service to this country. this year the national commission of the structure of the air force release their findings of their two-year extensive look at air force, at force structure and united states air force. the overall thrust of the

findings were to shift more components and capabilities to the guard and reserves. i agree with many of the commissions findings including its finding that there are certain core capabilities better suited for the guard and reserves such as missions in cyber, isr and space mission support. now i realize the final issue of this support is under study but can you tell me where you believe the air force and the military in general can benefit from shifting these components or capabilities to the guard and reserves like those recommended by the commission? >> congressman i want to associate myself with what you just said. in philosophy i agree with everything you just said in our plan in fact does shift more responsibility to the guard and

reserve as we go for it. it's a good deal for the mission and it's a good deal for the taxpayer. the areas of isr in cyber in particular we agree and we are old string that within our plan for the national guard and reserves so i will say there is much of that commission's work and the vast majority is good research and it's benefiting us and we agree with most of it particularly the continuum of service, the associations and better integration so those areas we are very much in agreement. there are a couple of areas where we don't agree at least not yet in the one that want to highlight he was the commission calls for an additional reduction to the active-duty forces to the tune of about 35 or 36,000 for sure or f-35 15 that is more than we think is prudent. what we want to do is continue to deliberately analyze mission by mission how can we shift more to guard and reserve and over the past year i want to give credit to general welsh and the

other leaders who have been doing this in a very collaborative way thinking it through from an operational perspective of putting as much in the guard and reserve as can possibly be done. >> general welsh. >> i think mission cyberis an example. right now are percentage is 60% done by the active duty and 30 by the guard and 10% by the reserve. this is one clearly that we have to look at where is the right percentage mix? we started up a serial the guard and reserve recently and we have gone to 30. a great example of how this works is the guard cybersquadron in washington work for google so they have skills in the door that we can use now on behalf of national security and to support the same. this is an area ripe for further exploitation -- exploration. >> we have discussed and certainly you brought forward in this hearing that we have to make decisions in one of those

decisions was certainly the a-10 but i want to commend you to look further into the guard and reserves. i just think and i want to commend the air force for being more forward-thinking than the other branches of the service but there does seem to be this institutionalized protection in the culture in terms of maintaining the force levels of the active duty relative to the reserves. i just think whenever we can shift i think there are tremendous opportunities for savings, not simply in the airmen to airman cost between active duty and guard and reserve but also the legacy costs. when we look at savings and the fact that there are so many on active duty for 20 years in the united states air force who will drop 50% of their base pay the day after they retire plus some of the benefits and that guard or reservists will not withdraw

until age 60. there are other issues besides airmen to airman cost that we need to look at. i want to commend you to that and the last thing certainly the issue of sexual assault which has been epidemic in our military. they area disturbed what happened it lacked one air force base i went to my own air force base buckley air force base in colorado and the command they are and they briefed me on what they were doing and prevention in terms of sexual assault and i was impressed with what they were doing and hoping that is occurring. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for your service. secretary congratulations on your new posts. general welsh let me start with you. last year there were some heinous web sites hosted by members of the military that triggered a sweep of various locations for the air force.

as i understand that it was mostly their lockers some of which were pornographic for sexually harassing or a hostile workplace. at the time when that was reported i asked the vice chief of the air force what action had them taken against those that were responsible for posting those 32,000 inappropriate items and he said he would have to get back with me. he hasn't gotten back to me. do you know what happened to those airmen that have sexually explicit or inappropriate pornographic items placed in

their personal spaces and in their cubicles? >> congresswoman there were not 32,000 pornographic things down. there were 32,000 things deemed to be inappropriate. >> understand that but what happened to them. >> most of them nothing happened. that health and welfare was done under my direction after getting approval from the secretary. i wanted the air force to have a discussion about respect and the strength of diversity and the things that make our peep old feel not valued in the work lace. >> we have a one star general who is being tried right now for having possession of pornographic information so are you saying that those that didn't have pornographic items were not? >> no, i'm not saying that created there was in a particular thing we were looking for. we were looking for anything we could find to have that discussion.

the pornographic items that i know about that were found were found in work-based computers and they were couple of examples of that. they were not necessarily connected to an individual. they were found during a search. there was action taken against the couple of people as a result of those inspections and i will give you the details. >> will you report that to me? >> i will. >> further i was told there was a sweep of government issued computers. >> there was a sweep of all government computers workspace etc.. >> there was? okay, i didn't know that. thank you. general i don't know if you've seen "the daily beast" article that was recently published called spies, lies and brave in air force. are you familiar with this? >> i have not seen that article. >> i would commend it to you for reading. it's an undercover agent story. it's very disturbing about the air force office of special

investigations informant program and it seems to repeat a pattern at the air force academy taking vulnerable trainees and me making them and forman's, using them and then putting him in jeopardy and then ending their careers when things go wrong. in the case that was referenced in this article the airman first class claim claimed she was raped as a result of gang a snitch for osi and i have two questions that i hope you can answer. how many people are participating in osi's informant program in what ranks are the informants that are participating? >> congresswoman i don't know the number but it's broad and i will find out the answer and get it back to you. >> can you find that out as

well? .. as if they could use, if we would allow him to serve as a confidential informant alterra investigation and the rocky mountain region. we did that which led to a number of arrests. >> my time has expired, but i'm more concerned about the debt or airmen on herrmann and assist in the dea in the transaction. maybe we can pursue this offline

>> at this time i recognize congressman's, for five minutes. >> thank you. madam secretary, thank you for your visit. i enjoyed having lunch with you there. if we follow the law, if a sequester is not repealed the additional cuts that will have to be made to the f35 and other weapon systems that are important to national security command that is one of the reasons i have so many questions about the cuts to the a10 until the sequester would be repealed. if i could, now will see you in georgia later this month. a look forward to that as well. i know you are in a ten pilot. does not decision yet taken lightly. i have serious questions about

the speed at which the dry out -- drawdown of the kayten is going to happen. the potential for the weapon system to common, smaller quantities should this question not be repealed and whether we like it and not sequesters the law. getting a repealed as much easier said than done. potentially we would draw down the 280 years so a chance based on the desire to replace them with newer, more advanced weapons systems and to potentially not end up with the western tip of weapon systems. the same thing with the f-22. we end up cutting that order to less than half. we're talking about three and half billion dollars year on the

eight and. we assume that we are going to a fly close air support mission, and we know that we will support an amendment and on to tubman women on the ground the other weapon systems cost more to fly in the tendons. at the cost premiums and time per hour factored into the projected savings and it possible and would like to see the analysis of that when you get an opportunity, but we also just made significant investments. they do have a life expectancy. i will move on to another issue. i would appreciate the analysis. if we draw the kayten down over

24 months what happens at the sequester is not repeal them we don't have the f35 that we intend to purchase to replace? >> i will hold a long discussion just to be clear, as we start to transition, the air plan that will pick up is the f-16, not the f35. >> yes, sir. we are drawing down some f-16s. >> we will have less capacity. that is what sequester level funding does. >> have voted against it. i hope that we get it repealed. think it is abortion. the men and women are expected to take the size of the cut, the percentage of cuts. all of our secretaries have agreed that there were things we could do to reduce spending. in the end and ask us to do more faster than we had been

anticipating. that jay stars, you mentioned this earlier. the recapitalization is proceeding in favor of the plan and we had, the rapid approach. i just want to make sure that as we approach this next generation that we don't leave a gap in the capability to be in high demand asset. how do we plan on maintaining the capability until the next generation is ready? >> there will be a loss of capability. back to the theme, if there is not more funding coming from somewhere, not assuming there will become of the only way for us to recapitalize which i believe the rate things we have to do is to somehow take money from programs we had, downsize capability in that area to

reinvest in stock to recapitalize. is the only way to do it that we can come up with. i would love to have on the money to do this with, but we don't have it. it will be risk is to start that >> thank you both for your service. i look forward to continuing these discussions. >> on now recognize mr. nugent for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the panel for being here. specifically want to thank general welch. want to go back a little bit. one of the cadets was david parallel. he ultimately had to leave the academy and then win in that his air force through rotc. f-15 strike eagle pilot today. i will tell you from his parents and from me because i remembered issues the dividend paid in you were a strong supporter in

personally talking them to be night think that really goes back to your integrity as a father, as a leader who of the students and cadets. and having two sons that went to a different service academy that kind to say that kill army the air force, but it was something like that. my question is to secretary james. as referenced, and non-lethal weapon that the air force developed, they have done an extremely capable job of doing that. the air force would like to apply that. they're looking at a reusable air frame to the ploy. that's pushing it up to 2025. you have the ability today to use a current air frame that is not reusable but is certainly

one that would work, and as the cruise missile delivery system that we have a surplus of. want to make sure everyone's on the same page as it relates to champ. we have had this committee, we had combatant commanders testify that they want champ, have a need for it. bipartisan and bicameral support of congress. congress wants champ. we want to make sure that everyone is on the same page. the only element standing in the way, the air force as an amazing job of developing this and actually getting it in a test phase where worked. it is one and i think we talked about, not only to give ability is one that i would love to see is to build more of.

and you look back at some of the infrastructure things that we had to do, it would have been nice if we had that type of vehicle to take out that infrastructure with that totally destroying it we have to rebuild it and spend billions of dollars doing it. so what i'm asking is, you have a political approval, you have to bend commanders. it's not limited by demand. would you confirm for me that chant is only limited by budget? >> i would love to, congressman. he stopped me. have to go find out. >> i don't know the status. >> that is not the intent of my question. >> i should know. i don't know the status. i have to get back to you. >> if you would. from what we have is basically $10 million. we can feel this weapon in 2000, 18 months.

would certainly give an added, particularly on issues we're facing today, china and obviously a resurgent russia in regards to issues it would be one that i would think would be nice have in inventory, particularly since the combat commanders of testified that there would certainly love to have that. of course i don't want to say anything negative about the air force. i have not been a member of the air force. going to use san antonio one of my favorite times. but i have three sons that currently serves in the united states army. just to go back obviously it is a capable platform. i do understand the budgetary commitments that you have and why you have to do certain things you probably don't want to. lastly, i do want to touch on religious freedoms because i

remember when my sons first went to west point, i don't know who they got it from, but it received a bubble, pocket version that actually one carried in combat in afghanistan i would hope that we -- and the remembered the academy was about faith. it was a component to keep our cadets strong, not only academically but the tenants of being a cadet. but faith is important. i recognize that from your service at the academy. so i just want to continue to stress that that is important on this. general, thank you so much for your service. thank you from the parents of david, one of your pants. secretary, congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> i yield back.

>> at this time i recognize mr. bernstein. see you have time? and no his appointment. >> it would be my honor to yield >> thank you. you are now recognized five minutes. >> thinking. i appreciate that. appreciate the opportunity. for your service and now want to invite you to the air force base, very much looking forward to your coming in very proud of the missions there. certainly appreciate your comment earlier. i wrote it down in tweeted and about how the b-2 is now or symbol of valid today. some and we are proud of that. i look forward to having you come out. i did want to address the a tense as well. i do believe they have the most effective and most cost-efficient platform that we have for close air support. i do not agree that the b-1 is the same or remotely piloted aircraft is the same as the soldiers on the ground.

they want to see the .. coming over the horizon. general, you mentioned in your opening statement to eject with general the narrow. you did not mention, and i know you have heard from the general about what he thinks. he is quoted as saying that the kayten is the best closer support platform that we have today. in diaz said that publicly. it is the most cost-efficient. we have a ten operational cost. 17,398. the be 154,000 to under 18. 22,954. there is difference in cost per flying hour. i will welcome the cost analysis that you're going to provide for representative scott. i would like to see that as well part of that i want to ask you about today dealing with the wing replacement program that has been under way. we had invested in these

aircraft, the best aircraft were close air support that we have. and right now the air force as 1703 wings and a contract. congress appropriated funding for approximately nine additional wings bringing the total to 182 wings and had been replaced. currently 603 new wings had been delivered. by the end of the year over 100 will be delivered. how much money has been spent by the taxpayer already? >> i don't know the exact numbers. we do these upgrades on all of our aircraft. we do this on all of our police aircraft. we can find out how much was spent. >> i would like to know. thank you. is the aircraft plant to fill the current contract? >> until there is an approval, authorization and appropriation by the congress to do anything we will continue doing what is currently in the plan.

the issue for us is not about cost per flying hour with a closer support mission. it's about all the missions we provide to the theater commander where we effect of peter fight is actually in about for five different areas. one is air superiority. it saves a huge number of lines on a heavy battle field. the second thing that the army wants us to do as an air force is to eliminate the enemy well to continue the fight through attack and strategic depth interdiction, stop their ability to move supplies forward, don't let them resupply. the fed thing they want to do is eliminate the in the second echelon forces so that they can't commit it at a time and place of they're choosing. all of those have a huge risk to the ground commander. of course we do close air support. we divert everything went happens.

the kayten cannot do any of those missions. the other airplanes that we have been in close air support can. as we look at what we have to cut we have to bounce across. thus the debate. that's what we're looking this way. >> i understand and appreciate the roles. very important. we're talking 740 million the year. if there was a 6% reduction in air force civilian through attrition you can achieve that. have you looked at attrition, natural attrition of the civilian work force as a possible way to help keep this unique capability in our fleet? >> actually civilian reductions were looked at in civilian reductions are going to be happening as part of that headquarters story anthology about earlier. civilian work force will be coming down. with the analysis was done in order to achieve the same savings as the eight and even though these are completely different things you would have

to take down an additional 10,000 civilians to equate to the same amount of money roughly speaking as the kayten. one wanted to save civilians are already coming down. this will be 10,000 unstoppable we're already planning. most of our civilians are not on staff, not helping oddments staff. most of them are doing to prominence. >> the long time has expired i will now recognize mr. bryant's time for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for visiting with us today. general, one of the personally thank you for coming of awaited tulsa and visiting my district and certainly your words were inspiring. i'm pleased -- i was pleased to hear what a great are you have for the people that fight our country's battles and you represent them well on the hill. i want it to a start by asking, i know you fly airplanes.

i want to ask which airplanes used to fly. >> the 810 and the f-16. >> and those aircraft, did you have a heads up display? >> i did in both. >> and in that handsome display was their velocity vector? >> not in the kayten. it was in the f-16. >> in today's heads up display, we have villars, i lf, pack and made the f, of the avionics integrated with the display in a very robust way that increases safety and improved performance of the pilots and the crew especially when they're operating in fatigues situations . g think it is important to have this kind of avionics credibility in aircraft these days? >> i do. >> do you think it's important to have to rain awareness and warning systems in a multi function display for aircraft

that fly in areas that sometimes require very low flight and dangerous scenarios? >> if it is practical and affordable, absolutely. >> and of course when it comes to threat indication, c1 thirties' often fly in difficult places. threat indicators important. the other thing, one of the concerns i have especially regarding the c-130 fleet that i dealt with in the navy is the various configurations of display, various configurations of avionic systems. it seems like every aircraft you get in there a certain software this different, different places for switches and buttons. sometimes it creates a difficult -- it puts off in the news and difficult positions were one tiny ad in might be different from the others which brings me to this c-130 h. fleet and avionics modernization program which i think is critical for

our c-130 h. fleet. the key thing in mind experiences this is about safety i no there atm required navigation performance metrics that have to be met. acquisitions for the navy, i flew airplanes. that scene is first and. on top of that there's a safety piece. the safety pieces really developed the technology that has come. what i have seen over and over again in the department of defense is it seems like airplanes that have jet engines could the fancy equipment that makes the pilots say for and airplanes that have propellers don't. you know, i have flown in the tactical community fighters. i have also farm and propeller aircraft, the department of defense. it seems like it is cross forces i would just like to get your take on that. can you briefly and 30 seconds

share with me your thoughts? >> i think that change was the c-130 j intentionally. upgrading the aircraft we already have is the problem. falls into the same discussion we have been having about setting have farm modernization program. >> madame secretary, the fiscal year 13 and fiscal year 14 nba privet the air force from canceling or modifying the avionic modernization program. i you aware that? >> i am. >> madam secretary, are you aware that congress has appropriated funds for a mp, not just authorized but appropriated funds? >> yes, i was aware. >> and in fiscal year 2013. >> yes. >> fiscal year 2014. >> yes ..

my understanding about the c-130 program is the general proposition of course it's a major avionics program as you pointed out. the problem is affordability giving that we are where we are. we have funded in fyfifth team, a portion which would go to the issue of airspace compliance but not the full program and again our position has changed due to affordability. there have been a couple of studies out there and i think we are waiting eight gao report on

this as well. >> so congressional intent is one thing and you are doing something else. that is the challenge and i just want to be really clear what the congressional intent here is and has been for a number of years and we see the department of defense going in opposite directions in these laws. they are not just passed by congress but signed by the president. >> it this time i yield myself five minutes. secretary james in general welsh thank you for coming in to answer our questions and provide testimony. i want to focus on the third air force proposal to remove -- i will tell you upfront i'm in the fight to kill this one just as i have fought to kill the other two. the previous proposal suggests a 35th associate union its reserve base in georgia and pope army airfield in north carolina. first we explained dolphins didn't have the infrastructure for the units in the air force agreed with us. then on the pope which is now being abandoned as well in favor

of closing their units. now keesler air force base is being told the c-130s are going to be sent to little rock. that makes three different bases for these airmen in three years. seems like the seems like beer seems like the air force is hell-bent on moving these aircraft out of south mississippi. the general claim the other day that he could save 600 billets and the hundred million dollars in reference to a question my colleague senator was -- wicker claiming to move itself was budget neutral. can you tell me who was responsible for those dollar amounts? is that an air force reserve number or is that active air force number? >> the people are air force reserve savings of bit of air mobility operations at pope but the plan was put together by a general cell that general cell that is their mobility air force's lead and lieutenant general jackson air force

reserves. >> i might ask for all of that and read and cost justification as well. have a tremendous amount of respect for it general salvo but whoever did the meth in this instance is dead wrong. we talked about deactivating the three and 45th which means 145 active duty and 35 civilians. that's 365 total not 600 and that assumes no one stays in the air force. i can line up the so-called savings you will see pay and benefits but i will provide that at a later time. in addition as i'm i'm sure you're aware since hurricane katrina keesler has been approved an expanded to the tune of $58 million to accommodate the c-130j. add that money which would be wasted to the three to $5 billion in permanent change of station cost for the active-duty force i fail to see where we get anywhere near the savings by moving these planes to a base that is already stretched way too thin.

in fact it's interesting to know oftentimes the simulators training in little rock are so full the air force and some of our airmen and international partners to keesler air force base to train. the unit that was deactivated in 2007 will be reactivated to accept these plans. it was a c-130 a.g. and even if we pulled those pallets back and it's going to take an additional five to six months and plenty of training cost to even qualify them to fly the j. model aircraft. now i ask unanimous consent the following list of awards given to keesler air force base as well as the airmen of several of the units i am honored to represent that are currently proposing the dp commission be inserted in the record. without objection, so ordered. secretary james in general welsh i'm sorry but i'm not going to let the air force get away with living families in disrupting communities and moving airmen around when it they feel like it without justification. i've been close to watching

these proposals for over two years. when keesler won for the greatest baseman nation i thought no way what our commanders try to take these planes from the top-performing base rate as you can imagine my disappointment when i saw this in the most recent news. general welsh and secretary james general salvo said this move but because neutral and said he would check into quote the specifics of what might be required in little rock that wouldn't be required at pope or any other location where we would they set unit. i'm going to be a little more specific. i don't care about how much it would cost to move the planes to pope. i don't care how much it would cost to move them to dov is. i want to know exactly how much is going to cost in actual dollars fuel and other relocation cost manpower downtime for these planes to move to little rock air force base. i've been asking for justification for these moves for over two years and i've yet

to see nancy that shows any cost savings. where savings. we are officially running short on time so i request request you full cost justification to the office in writing as it is possible. i will be anxiously waiting and can make get your commitment that you will provide that information to make? >> we will get you some answers. >> madam secretary and general welsh thank you for being here to answer my question and i look forward to hearing from you. i would like to personally extend an invitation to you both to see these units first-hand. the community loves them very much in the great work that they are doing. do you by any chance know when you may have an opportunity to do that? >> i very much would like to visit. >> thank you very much. my time has expired and at this time i recognize mr. gallego for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and madam secretary-general welcome

to the committee. as you may know the district i represent has a significant air force presence. one of the challenges here in d.c. we talk about sequester but a lot of times that doesn't necessarily translate for the folks who are watching at home. in a very tasty grill sense can you tell us for folks in san antonio for example what sequester his and what it is has done to them? people don't necessarily feel any different today than they did before the sequester so how would you explain sequester and its impact on dell rio or san antonio? >> the first year of sequester will it was probably transparent to people in many card -- parts of the country because nothing fell out of the sky the day the sequester took effect. we are starting to see where the 15 budget and we will see orbit

in the 16 budget and beyond where the stay sequester levels that the impacts will be significant over time. we will have $20 billion less per year in our spending plan and that is going to affect things in a big way. >> when you say in the way can you give examples of what that would mean for someone who is listening driving down the street or on the radio. if you tell me it's going to impact me in a big way that doesn't say everything. >> in the next five years we will cut 500 airplanes from her air force and around 20,000 people from our air force. that is a huge impact on who we are so an institution. it will create more facilities that are not fully manned and our installations aren't fully utilize which will create more of a discussion about brac and for the future is going to have an impact.

>> what impact does that have on the u.s. readiness in terms of being able to respond? >> if i could jump in and i say this as someone who was on the outside and only recently on the inside but the thing that i worry about most going back to the sequester has to do with the preparedness and the readiness of the airmen in the military at large. what all of us want is we want to make sure they have the training and equipment so they can do their job and stay safe if we send them into harm's way. in some ways i think our air force is done such a fabulous job over the last 25 years. we are the victim a little bit of our own success because thank goodness there haven't been that many crashes and accidents that there have been some and i worry that if the money gets tighter and tighter we may see more fatalities and more lost aircraft. that's something you can't capture until it happens and i hope it doesn't happen. >> two extra questions in the short time that i have.

is it your testimony that the policy sequester endangers the lives of our sons and daughters in uniform over the long-term and that would be question number one. let's use that one first. does the sequester impact, does it endanger the lives of our sons and daughters? >> the way i would put it is it compromises our national security in a way that i hope won't have to but i the same token our air force will always respond and they will always be a magnificent air force but i want to make sure they are safe and effective as we can get to them. >> if people say why can't you just cut -- what's wrong with that question? >> we absolutely must save more money and you heard me say that's one of my top three priorities in every way shape

and form so it takes a while to shift an aircraft carrier and i think we are making progress but we are reducing headquarters. >> madam secretary the point i would like to make is you cannot find enough efficiencies to get over the of sequester. you cannot cut your way out. >> that is correct. >> general do you have any information about how if you found every efficiency you could there wouldn't be enough? >> it's not going to be $12.8 billion a year and a only will he keep the air for safe and ready to react is by sizing ourselves to the size we can afford to keep that way which means we must get smaller. >> i thank you both for your testimony and texas is an incredibly friendly place. san antonio and dell rio anytime you would like to visit please know you are always welcome. >> i've been there -- thank you.

>> at this time return for a question. >> thank you mr. chairman and madam secretary i know you have been on the job for 11 weeks and i look forward to working with you on the c-130 and the issue as we go forward. switching topics i'm interested in the launch vehicle program. in 2012 acquisition strategies included 14 rocket course open to competition. can you say what the status of this competition is? >> there are several new entrants who are actively trying to get them ready to compete and that i would guess is going to happen probably within the next year or so. i am a big levering competition. i think it's going to definitely bring down our costs. just having the competition out there on the horizon has brought down costs for that program and i will say over the next i

believe five years there are new competitors are fighting they end up being able to compete they will be competing for i believe seven out of the eight launches that will be happening particularly for our gps satellites that we put up some years from now. >> when you think about russia's invasion of ukraine, their occupation of south ossetia and abkhazia in georgia they are complicit in helping the assad regime in syria and helping the mullahs in iran going around the sanctions in iran and you think about them being involved in producing nuclear centrifuges for iran giving edwards noted an asylum. it seems we are not friends with moscow. do you see it being a problem that we rely on moscow for rocket engines? >> it is worrying.

we are going to take a look at that. i will also tell you for the immediate future we have two years worth of supply for those engines so we are okay. in the short-run i will say although it's worrying it's also true that this is a long-standing relationship and it has weathered various storms. it is something we are going to take a look at and see where we go in the future could. >> does our current position violate the current suspicion of u.s. military-to-military cooperation with russia? >> i have to assume the answer is no that we would not be in violation but let me please check that for the route. >> please do that for me. thank you so much for being here. i yield back. >> at this time i yield myself for one last question. general welsh i'm concerned about readiness levels in the air force specifically that it will take until 25th 23.

what risk level are we assuming will result. >> congressman i am worried about readiness in the air force as is the secretary. the things that affect readiness are more complex than our money each year. there things like investment and training space and threat systems. on live virtual simulation capabilities as we get more modern aircraft we are the only place you can re-create the threat environment because you can't afford to do it in the real world. those things have not been funded over the last 10 to 15 years because we have that tied up spending money on operations and supporting operations. it is time for us to get back twofold that treman training readiness. it will take us 10 years to rebuild those things that are behind the power curve especially as we bring on an airplane like the f-35.

>> i will just say ditto. i thought that was an excellent answer that the chief just gave and i want to associate myself with those remarks. the top concern is if we would get into a contested environment that's a more complex environment and it's more difficult for the pilots and that is what your mother used to tell you practice makes perfect. i think that makes sense and that is the sort of training we have not been able to do enough of. >> what do you think will happen if we do not turn off sequester and 2016? >> of course you see what our proposal is and the choices that we would make. it is not what we wish. i feel that our national security concerns would be compromised too much and again realize these are tough budget times but i ask you to please try to reverse that sequester. >> we will not be able to execute the strategic guidance if we go to full sequester funding. >> i think the majority of the

committee would agree with you and many members of congress we have to do everything we possibly can to turn off sequester for our military and national defense spending. it's just not right that we we are trying to balance our nations budgets on the backs of our men and women in uniform and their families. so we know what our number one drivers of our deficits and debts are henry need to address that. it's not defense spending and as we have seen recently all across the world it is not becoming safer. it's becoming dangers in this congress has an obligation to make sure that our men and women in uniform at the tools and the equipment and the training and the leadership that they deserve and that we expect them to have and that the american people expect him to have so that they can keep this nation safe at home and abroad. with that i want to thank you for your testimony and think the members for your questions. it was a fantastic hearing and i want to tell secretary james for your first appearance in front

of the house arms committee you deserve and a rating so said the bar has definitely been raised. you can only fly backwards from here. i am sure you will do a great job and thank you for your service to your nation. thank you cheer beautiful wife betty and your beautiful daughter lives and their service which is typically as great as anyone who wears the uniform. with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> what are the unique challenges and to finding war in cyberspace? what hostility or military actions? >> clearly from a policy perspective we will try to wake our way through those issues at the tenets i think that are applicable here are the fact that whatever we do within the cyberarena international law will pertain that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that cyberis taking us down in armed conflict scenario that the rules and the law of armed conflict will pertain every bit as much in his domain as it does in any other. i don't think cyber is inherently different in that regard. i think those sets of her seizures, those sets of policies in law as a nation has put us in

good stead and it represents a good point of departure. two members of congress were guests on friday's "washington journal." we are from republican rob woodall who sits on the government reform and budget committees. he talked about spending the irs and allegations that the cia spied on senate staffers. first democrat michael capuano who discusses the proposal to eliminate fannie mae and freddie mac. this is just over an hour.

as for joining us on the "washington journal" as representative michael capuano democrat from massachusetts and he serves on the financial services committee where he serves as the ranking member of the housing and insurance committee. we will get to those issues in just a minute. congressman i don't know if you heard our first segment this morning on the "washington journal" talking about what eric holder had to say about reducing prison time for drug crimes. do you have any immediate thoughts on that issue? >> guest: i liked like the concept. i've never been a supporter of mandatory minimums. i think we should have guidelines that require clear and unequivocal explanation as to why they would need -- they take away the concept that each of those are individuals and they treat everyone the same and i also think they do burden the system. i think the concept is a good discussion to have and i look forward to seeing the details. >> host: when you were mayor

of somerville massachusetts how much time did you spend on drug and crime issues? >> guest: a fair amount. drugs were part of it that they were mostly the root of other problems breaking sand robberies and assaults and to me that's the bigger problem. it's one thing if you want to destroy your life and that's not good but it's a home of the thing if you want to break into my mother's house to support a difficult habit. so it's a twofold thing. there are some drugs that pretty much always lead to that situation and other drugs that don't and i think the distinction is important. it's not some moral thing to me it is the impact on society that is the most important aspect of it. >> host: we invited you to talk about some of the financial issues going on in the country right now. what is the status of freddie and -- freddie mac and fannie mae? >> guest: they are still in them but the moment. the u.s. government is using them as a piggy bank. we did have to loan them an awful lot of money,

$180 billion. that money is excellent and paid tax and we have not allow them to count it as payback. if i launch a $10 you gave me $10 back and i would say you still only $10. we have made virtually no progress in trying to reform them. everyone agrees that any and freddie got out of line and we all agree they need to be reformed but there has been virtually no significant discussion on the house side as to legitimate proposals. there is a proposal that was passed out of the financial services committee on a totally partisan basis that it's been sitting around since october and they haven't even brought to the floor because they don't have the votes. that doesn't mean -- they don't have the votes on the republican side. that tells you is an unreasonable proposal that never had a chance of passing anyway. the senate has two proposals. they are slightly different in the present i think the real basic question is can we do this

in a manner that helps the middle class as fannie and freddie did for many years afore to four they got out of line and? i think those senate proposals have good merits to them and the house proposal at some point we'll have to come around to something a lot closer to those. >> host: the most recent senate proposals sensually does away with them. >> guest: that is fine. there is one basic question herd taxpayers should stand behind the bonds that sub board mortgages and that's a difficult concept for most people. the last time the government did not stand behind those bonds was 1928. since 1929 the government has in some form or another set of the whole world goes crazy, if the whole mortgage world goes crazy we will come in and do something which is exactly what they did with fannie and freddie. in 1928 the average mortgage was

approximately given out at a 5% premium but here's the catch. it required a 50% down payment for every mortgage and the mortgage had to be repaid in five years. the 30-year mortgage was not invented yet and the result of that is worst of all of 50% down payment. anyone who owns a home understands what that means. i don't know people who could afford 50% down on any home ever. if you could the result result of the five-year. >> versus a 30-year mortgages raising that average of 2.5 times more. if you are paying two or $3000 a mortgage that's a mortgage would cost you four, five or $6000 a month. again i don't know any people who could do that. .. that was the problem they were

doing. they should not have done that. i don't think you have the authority to do that. i think people should of been held accountable. all that being said, if we can generally provide the same type of opportunity to fannie and freddie were doing for 70 years, building the middle class, everyone i know that owns a home, including me, could not have afforded it without the type of opportunity that fannie and freddie were providing. if we can get that, it is a relatively simple thing to do. it does mean destroying the two entities as entities, but creating something that looks comparable to what it did before without the ability to do the crazy stuff. to that.nate proposals the dude a little bit differently, but that is the underlying proposal. "washington post" this morning opines. ideally, they write, government would get out of the mortgage --ured visitation business

securitization business. what was reality? governmentally, the should do nothing in a perfect world. i never lived in a perfect world. i do know what for 70 years for and delta middle-class. i had the opportunity to buy a home 34 years ago. i am still in the same home. everyone i know, build any degree of what they had surveyed by buying a home and staying there. little a

oversimplification, but that is the basis of what most of us do. my children went to college because i was able to remortgage at home. i think that again, if you can show me any place in the history of this country where there was a middle class without government backing of the bonds, not individual mortgages, and done -- the moneys coming in were invested in a thoughtful, conservative manner, then i will listen. there's no history of that in the united states of america. at the good old days of the 1920's and not since then. in 2008, do think the mortgage crisis was handled properly by the federal government? it was not handled correctly getting into 2008. once it hit and one sits like this in the face, more or less, yes. i had problems with some of the details we did. i don't like the fact that we allowed some individuals to go unpunished. i don't like the idea that we let some people get paid.

in general, yes, it was absolutely necessary and appropriate. my district, some of the greatest universities in the world. during that time, i gathered several groups of the world's leading economists and asked them a similar question about what should i be doing. everyone one of them said we have to be doing something big and something fast. overall, conceptually the answer is yes, we did. we should not have gotten in the situation we were in. host: is homeownership a good goal? guest: as far as i am concerned it is. it provides stability in your life. your mortgage stays the same why your income in theory rises a little bit each year. homeownership to me is still the --t -- it is not a guarantee education is the best thing you can get. the next best thing you can get is a good solid investment for

your money. that is a home. most of us can afford. it would be massively could all enter at the internet very host: michael tweets in. our high prices for housing good or bad? good for people who own a home and bad for people like my kids who do not. it is always trying to find a balance. -- thece of housing government has not got much they can do. they cannot do zoning and developed in certain areas to increase and decrease the supply. that is a local decision. we can say whatever the price is, if you are close to being able to afford it. it is really the monthly mortgage. i could never-- to buy a home cash on the barrel head. i have to take out a mortgage.

is my nevere what going to be and can i afford that? the federal government has limited ability to impact the cost of housing. frompresentative capuano, "the new york times," they had a hearing for stanley fischer, lael brainard and jerome powell to join janet yellen on the fed. what is congress's role when it comes to the fed? how much control do you have? control, not much, oversight -- a lot. . frank, we -- dodd frank, we wheeled them back. circumstances" could open up trillions of dollars worth of debt, we close back. if we find other problems, we will do it. the fed has a long history of

relative success. that does not mean everything has been perfect. the economy -- everybody will tell you, every economist and every individual. in the equally shared slow improvement but everybody accepts that the economy is not heading down. most believe it is heading up. a little slower than we would like. the fed has played a role. host: do you agree with the ending of tapering? ?uest: tapering of qe yes. my hope is that it is done slowly. gotten intot have it, it would have been nice if people had had their eyes more firmly set. hopefully some of the things from dodd frank will prevent that from happening again. when you get out of a mess it would be nice to snap our fingers and get out, it is going to take a slow time. numbers onll put the

our screen. our guest is representative michael capuano, in his eighth term. he represents the 7th district of massachusetts. somerville, roxboro, massachusetts and 75% of bo ston. guest: you miss a couple, don't get me in trouble. host: if you want to call him, go ahead. annie, go ahead. caller: hi, how are you doing. i want to find out about fannie mae and freddie mac. about nothing ever said cinematic -- about fannie mae. our of america just sold .ortgage to some odd company they refused to take my son's --

buying this home. it was set up to be taken out of the bank every month. he is a disabled veteran and is tax exempt. he has a fixed interest rate of 7%. even putting taxes on it, i do not know how because he is tax exempt. i have to mail the payments in now. they have to -- you're bank of america mortgage is now owned by a company called penny mac? let's see what congressman capuano has to say. guest: difficult to answer that with limited information. i suggest you contact your member of congress, they can walk you through individual items. especially if your son is 100% disabled, there are special

programs depending on how they got disabled and if they are officially 100% disabled. i suggest you contact your member of congress and walk through that with them. host: are homeowners or mortgage holders, are their rights protected? guest: some, not all. a contract between you and the person who loans you money. one of the problems in 2008 was that banks, relatively heavily regulated, were out of the mortgage business. the mortgages came from unregulated financial services institutions. they are subject to rest regulation and oversitght. there are some rights but it is a contract between you and the lender. muchcontract pretty controls like any other contract, like your lease with tenants or a landlord.

an agreement between you and the car company when you buy an automobile. certainly things that are in the contract, you have obligation to have to live up to. host: in art from bethlehem, pennsylvania. caller: how are you doing? -- now thatwould be science has proven that the third tower destroyed on 9/11, building seven, was brought down in a controlled demolition -- host: eric is one of those thinks building seven was brought down on purpose. john from wilmington, north carolina. your question for michael capuano. caller: good morning, c-span. i wanted to call and comment on how the federal government is incentivizing thanks to with the on people loan guarantee programs. whether with fannie mae, freddie va, all these,

programs. -- i will just use an example. if someone bought a house at the peak of the market for $200,000. down 20%, they got a loan for 100 $60,000. the value of that house drops to $140,000 and you lose your job. you go to your bank and say i am having trouble. can you reduce my interest rate or my payment? what can you do for me? the bank looks at you and they say that is cash money. if we can put this person out on take this, we can't house back. we do not even have to sell it for $140,000, we can sell it for half of that and we can turn the bill in to whatever government agency is backing that. host: your final question is -- caller: not only is the taxpayer

difference,for the they are driving home values down to a point it has an effect on all americans. host: thank you. guest: i agree with most of what he said. i do not agree with the taxpayer being on the hook. the concept is right, when fannie and freddie failed, we took it over and gave it to an agency called the fhfa. we have had the same argument with the former administrator, mr. dimarco, for as long as we can remember. many of us thought people in the situation you just mentioned, there are other ways to help them. i kept arguing to take the 30 year mortgage, if they were meeting their mortgages prior to a 50 year it mortgage. we were unable to move them. they thought it was fine and better for the economy to do the

situation you are. theo have a new director of fhs -- we have a new director of a congressman from north carolina. most of the things you are the houses below water and situations you described, have been settled the way you mentioned. there are many of us that fought it. we are the minority voice. i do not disagree with almost anything you just said. in, didn't fannie mae pay back their government alone like tanks? -- government loan like banks? guest: i think we need to create a government agency to merge the two. freddie bothnd paid back all the money they borrowed. , we have notawm

allowed that as counting towards paying off their loan. there is a lawsuit by shareholders of fannie and freddie. fannie and freddie were created as government agencies in the 1980's. quadrant private agencies, the ndseral public -- pension fu would buy shares just like any corporation. shareholders have been denied the opportunity to sell shares at a reasonable amount or share profits fannie and freddie has had because the government has taken anevery penny. we did not do that with gm. i think once they pay their loan back, we should reform them or let them go. i personally think we should reform them. i actually think there is a lawsuit, it has a very good chance of succeeding.

that will show what the government has done is not appropriate. host: congressman, what is the difference between fannie and freddie? guest: it is the way they get the money. it is a technical issue. to the average homeowner it does not matter. different people qualify for different things. it is mostly in the way that they loan, they actually borrow money to put out two loans. you said earlier that without fannie and freddie you would not have been able to get a mortgage. i did notn though qualify for one of their loans, buy them existing, just like unions. when unions raise wages, they raise everyone's wages. freddie lowerd mortgage rates for a vast number of people, it lowers mortgage rates for everyone. i come from a high income and high-cost area, boston. the point. by lowering mortgage rates, if anyone who provides the nonqualified loans, they have to

be competitive. that pushes those rates down. i think that by providing relatively affordable, relatively affordable interest rates. in terms, the 30 year mortgage. you couldayments, have the greatest terms and the greatest rates but if your down payment is 50%, few people can afford that. to have all three of those. by having all three of those you cannot discriminate against people, you have a great opportunity to build the middle class. which is what america did for 70 years. until the people of fannie and freddie, in my opinion, decided to enrich themselves by finding loopholes. i think they went beyond what the law allowed. there was -- it was never what the people who created fannie and freddie or its supporters ever anticipated or would have authorized. host: next call for congressman michael capuano comes from

arizona, democrat line. caller: how are you doing this morning? the sameon is -- thing over and over again. in the 1960's, we dealt with the anon and jobs. the 1960's, we dealt with the vietnam and jobs. in 2014 it is iraq and jobs. why do the same problems keep going on? question that a is above my pay grade. i do not disagree with some of the things you said. i can't tell you what i tell my constituents, i can only answer for myself. i do not elect the rest of congress. if i have the minority view, so be it. i am a child of the vietnam era.

it does feel very similar. i am hoping we have finally, i thought maybe we had, we have learned our lesson when it comes to foreign adventures. tweets.a of tranquility guest: fannie and freddie are not government agencies. they have not been for 30 odd years or 20 odd years. greed is a human nature. not the solet is owner of that term. neither are they exempt. everybody i know has some degree of greed, that is why we have the laws and regulations. to control our human weaknesses. i want to be clear -- fannie and freddie -- i think greed played a factor but they are not government agencies. fallacy.he big

i wish i knew directly, i believe it was during the reagan administration. it was around that time. host: the same question we asked about the fed, what kind of and control does congress have over fannie and freddie? guest: very little. when we spun them out, we said do what ever you want to do. we gave them very general parameters. there was little oversight for some time. there were little problems. i was mayor and now i am in congress. if i do not hear about people's departments, things are going well. i only hear the bad things. no one picks up the phone and says social security was great. they pick up the phone and say they would not give me my check. when you do not hear bad things, you do your best to oversee it but there is no motivation. there is motivation to check things when you hear something

bad. i think congress did that. iadmit that people like me -- fully did everything i could to push up the percentage of home ownership the cause of the things i said earlier. it is a great path into the middle class. having seen what we have seen in loanssome of these no doc and people getting mortgages they should never have gotten, i think we all did not do our oversight as well as we should have. i would like to find a bill that would read provide the opportunity and the responsibility of regular oversight. host: ron tweets in. dodd frank is filled with loopholes. glass-steagall had to go to fuel homeownership growth. guest: i do not agree. i voted to keep glass-steagall in 1998, 2000, whatever. glass-steagall worked.

when things worked i do not see any reason to change them, but we did. the frank, i am one of original cosponsors of the bill to reinstitute five spiegel. i have another bill that would institute it through a backdoor way through a private market approach will stop dodd frank is full of loopholes. that is the nature of any legislation. the strongest bill we could pass but that requires making compromises in order to get the votes. ado think dodd frank was great step forward. if you allowed me to draft it, even barney frank or chris dodd, if you allow them to draft it without compromising, it would be different. many fewer, if any, loopholes. host: marshall, texas, kevin is on the line. michael capuano is our guest. caller: thank you, congressman.

you said that fannie and freddie are not government entities and they have been spun off. that is really, you know, not right. the government was backing down. they were backing them. investors knew that. guest: that is true. that makes it a government entity. i go on the side that we need to spin them off. i have two reasons. the first reason -- you mentioned that this yourself. you find it politically helpful if you can get people into homes. government controls things -- that is going to be one of the considerations -- that is a dangerous situation. you mentioned before fannie and

freddie you had to have a 50% down payment. times have changed. people's access to capital because of free trade, because of technology -- we have access to capital that we did not have 70 years ago. the phone right now and get a $50,000 loan from my credit card. simple as that. i think if you had freer markets in the mortgage industry, there would be competition and there would be banks. there would be less than 50%. host: kevin, i think we have got the point. guest: i could not disagree with you more. allou did that, that is well and good. some people could do it, i have high limits on my credit cards and i have a home equity loan i have not access in a while. that is the exception, that is not the rule. what about young people? what about a 25-year-old who just got out of college with

loans? of the cost of housing in places like massachusetts texas, there like are many more people in texas who have accessed fannie and freddie than there are in massachusetts. a higher percentage of the population. all your statements are thoughtful, but their academic. no situation in the history of --rica where your situation except prior to fannie and freddie. purely private market. it was very simple, do-it-yourself. the average mortgage in 1928 was 5%. down, 5 year mortgage repayment. could people buy homes? some people good, but not the middle class. i do not know your economic background or situation. theppen to think that creation and the maintenance of the middle-class is the greatest success story in american history. it is the one thing we have

given to the world war than anything else that is important. most other societies have two classes -- the rich and the poor. my family would have been in the poor category. provideallowed to ourselves the opportunity to enter the middle class which is a better lifestyle. i do not want to play without. we had a very long history of successful record until greed took over. bywas allowed to take over the lack of government oversight and by human nature. host: wild and wonderful tweets in. hard to have affordable mortgages unless you have a supply of affordable housing. that is a decreasing commodity. guest: correct. affordable housing is two things. a good social policy but it is also tied to the amount of housing, regardless of what term. have sufficient amount of housing to meet the deed, then the concept of

affordability disappears. like anything else. if i only have two coffee cups and i have 500 people who want them. and have 500 coffee cups only two people want them, i can make it affordable. we have been unable or unwilling, it is a big expense financially, to be able to create as much housing. there has been a good social concept that i happen to share that is is is a good thing for society to specifically provide provisions that provide affordable housing for certain economic categories of people who will never be able to buy their own home on their own. i happen to think everyone in america should have a right to decent, safe, affordable housing. that does not mean the taj mahal. that does not mean mortgages they cannot afford. it means there is a gradation which is affordable housing. some people disagree with me. disagree, they

have an obligation to increase the supply so people like me are not necessary. if there is enough supply, affordability takes care of itself. there is not enough supply, so there is an imperative to deal with that. " continues.l capuano guest,ob woodall is our a republican from gia. a republican from georgia and he represents the seventh district in georgia which is where? timothn y eastern suburb. >> host: when you say suburbs? what is the economy like?if >> guest: there are folks y who have taken a beating you have full offer but our program

talking about what eric holder had to say. talking about reducing prison time for drug crimes. what is your general thought process? i tell high school students if you go to california you will find the teamsters have unionized marijuana growers. can is something california experiment with. i do not think that is coming to georgia anytime soon. folks in my district look at penalties for drug use in d.c.

penalties for drug use the same not views kind of crime here as it is in my part of the world. i wonder why the federal government got into criminal law. that is the province of communities and better handled locally where community norms can apply. i do not fault. experimenting in other states. i think we are going to stay on the straight and narrow. host: you are a member of the government and oversight committee. you were at the hearing, the lois lerner irs hearing. what is your impression of what happened? not all have our best day every day. down some caffeine this morning so i would not get agitated. my chairman called ranking and said he was sorry. things will go differently. we are talking about a branch of

the government going after american citizens for what they believe. even according to the instant -- to the inspector general's report. if you criticize the decisions of the government, you are more likely to endure scrutiny for your group's proposal. that is a serious charge. it is not a month ago, not a year ago, this has been going on and on. jail. has gone to the fbi -- you cannot tell what is going on. . frustrated because you need the confidence your government works folks back home are frustrated because you need the confidence your government works for you. host: did what happened between darrell issa analyze d elijah cummings take focus off of lois lerner and the irs? with the media.

they did not take the chairman's focus off. the second time lois lerner came before the committee. the first time, she pled the fifth. the president was saying there is not one smidgen of corruption leader ofhave the this division of the irs saying i cannot talk about it because i could incriminate myself. host: what happens next? guest: we're still putting together information at the government oversight committee. we are having to use the subpoena power to get information. this isd think something that both sides of the aisle in all four corners of america would be concerned about. and yet we still have a tough time getting information. my counsel to everyone who gets

in trouble is be honest about what is going on. let's clear the air as soon as we can and deal with it and move on. the irs has not been as candid with the committee as we would have hoped. you are not going to see the committee give up. redirect theo focus, but i tell you our chairman is laser focused on getting the american people answers they deserve. host: representative woodall, what is next on the budget committee? guest: working through the numbers right now. the obama economy has 10cerbated debt for the next years to about $1.2 trillion in lost growth. balanceto find that to using the same proposals we used last year. we are going to do it. i'm not only sit on the budget committee, i serve as chairman of the republican study committee budget task force. moreually have a budget observant than the house budget.

distinction you will see between the president's budget and the house budget is not a fact that he never balances and we do. not the fact that we are trying to pay down debt and he is not. we lay out big ideas and big solutions for the big problems out there before us. the biggest disappointment we had on the committee when the president introduced his budget a month late last week was that there were no big ideas. he did nothing to save social security disability insurance, which is going bankrupt in 24 months. he did nothing to protect and ensure thedicare and solvency of social security or to pay down the debt that is a stranglehold on the economy. i understand why some people do not want to take on big challenges that the president gets paid to take on big challenges. take on big challenges and i am disappointed we do not have him as a partner on the budget. host: do you think there will be

benefits and the relationship between paul ryan and patty murray? guest: i do. you see that in the conversations with chairman ryan. when we are having a conversation about what went right and what went wrong in december, he sticks to those commitments. this was not a bait and switch conversation. this was a very hard, difficult conversation and they came together. look at what has happened. we have a farm bill, we were able to sort that out. we have a budget deal, at least for two years in th -- two years, passed. work on the to appropriations bills. i see glimmers of hope. not necessarily between the congressional and the white house relationship, but between the house and the senate. when i read my constitution, it is article one for a reason, the house and senate have a special

obligation and the a special relationship. host: the end of march brings another deadline. guest: we are taking right along. i believe what you are going to see is a continued commitment to moving legislation forward. i do not think you see folks dodging anything, they are embracing the ability to do something. 2010, no one came to sit on the sidelines. everyone came because they wanted to make have decisions to make a difference. the: isn't the debt limit, short continuing resolution running out at the end of march? guest: we are funded through the end of september. do not worry between here and september. host: i apologize. representative rob woodall from georgia. joseph in new york, democrat,

first caller. caller: good morning. i would like to know why blockingns are progress in this country. you are against raising the minimum wage. you are against extending unemployment. you are against every progress. meantime, you guys are living a big life. to guys are going all out destroy them this country. that's not right. guest: what i have learned in three years with the voting part of my district, i thought folks on the other side of the aisle were out to destroy the country. what you believe about me i believed about the democrats. i learned everyone loves this country that we have different

ideas about how to make this country better. you talk about on a plummet and i will tell you i am committed to every american accessing -- you talk about unemployment and i will tell you i am committed to every american accessing the unemployment they have paid into. wagealk about the minimum and i will tell you i do not want to see the minimum wage raised out of washington. we have the highest use unemployment rate the country has ever seen. that is the wrong direction for america. raising the minimum wage at the federal level will exacerbate that. 34 states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum or are considering legislation to do so. raisingt your community the minimum wage to anything you would like it to be. we will find out if that works and if it does we will adopted in georgia. we willstroys jobs, look to georgia.

host: unemployment insurance? thet: we are committed to 26 weeks. i read they have an agreement on the senate side, five republicans and five democrats. we do not have that on the house side. what i hear from employers back home is the longer folks remain on unemployment the more difficult it is to get back into the workforce. if you have not worked for two years is it because no jobs were available or because your skills were not up to the task. getting folks back into the workforce should be our priority. folks getant to help unemployment checks, i want to help them get paychecks. host: mitchell, republican in maine. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. guest: the morning. caller: thank you for your vote raising the debt ceiling. i also appreciate the ongoing work with your revenue reform.

thingsly doing the right trumps politics and peer pressure for you. theill congress face scientific evidence of the building seven and the world trade towers -- host: that is our second call this morning. the building seven, 9/11. we have already talked about that. we have not given you a chance to answer. we have several callers who talk about building seven being pretty blown up -- being pre-blown up. fan of lettingig science speak for itself. i am not an engineer. i've read the same reports you do and i come to a different conclusion. i do consider that a settled matter. host: bill king tweets in. we elected obama. to ask you about

that. the largest item in the medicare.s budget is the second largest item is social security. the third largest item is economic growth. it continues to taper and will be interest on the national debt. think about that. the third largest item in the federal budget would be paying interest on the national debt. i don't think anyone voted for the president to have interest as the third largest item. it is the fastest growing item in the budget and doubles as a percent of our economy over the 10 years of his budget. you elected president obama because you believed in his big ideas for tackling big challenges that face this country. this budget does not seem to reflect any of those. i would welcome a conversation with the president to do the big things and the difficult things that make a different place of your family -- in the lives of your family. host: irs scandal is worse than

watergate, liberal media will not talk about it. next call comes from grace in new york. i was so angry i forgot what i wanted to say. congress is a mess. you keep on downgrading your -- your president. he is your president, too. you are making us the laughingstock of the whole entire earth. you keep knocking the man. we are not getting anything done. you are saying you are there to do the people's work, do the people's work. host: we got your point. i appreciate your frustration. having been on the job for three years, this is not what i expected. aboutht be frustrated

different things. let me ask you to do this. let's not paint congress with one brush. there are different members and there is a house and a senate. if you are looking for hope, vice president kerry promised the ukraine $1 billion in loan guarantees on march4. introduced legislation in the republican house to follow through on that promise on march 5. we passed that on march 6. te still has not moved forward on legislation to fulfill the vice president's promis. se. vice president's promie together as a nation. i am an american first and a republican down that list. host: answering the previous tweet. potusted for gop house,

serves congress. down innate race georgia. have you endorsed any candidate? of great have a lot men and women and we will be well served. it will answer some of the questions about who we are as a party. georgia is a good republican state. we have republicans from across the continuum. it will be a great place for the nation to watch to see who we want to be. host: representative woodall spent 16 years on chapel hill, a chief of staff to john linder of often do thisould program. what is former congressman linder doing? guest: he is enjoying a well-earned retirement and spending time with his grandchildren and wife. he has one of the biggest mind , writing and commenting on issues.

trying to move the debate for. obligation as citizens. host: tom from pennsylvania. caller: to follow up on the call for government reform. let's have legislative district reform. i doubt we are going to see that. my one-year-old could be the house republican gop the local operatives and get the majority with the way those districts are drawn. restoringn, how about the pay cut that we took when the bush tax cuts expire. be done now. you talk about people going to jail. nobody went to jail after the financial crisis, they got a bailout. where's my bailout? guest: a lotto. asking where their bailout is. i hope we can agree that we are not in the bailout business.

i would rather talk about how we can stop a bailout. are right about redistricting. i was doing a town hall meeting last week and a lot of folks -- and walked fulks through the districts. we have one of the 5 most republican districts in the nation. the five most democratic districts are gerrymandered worse. district,no's president obama that 97% against mitt romney. both ends ofem on the spectrum. i would be happy to work with you. host: in 15 minutes you will start a debate on the doc fix for medicare payments. guest: this is why i tell folks

do not believe anything i tell you will happen 10 years from year.t will happen this this was a provision that started in 1997 and has never gone into effect. it was intended to prolong the life of medicare. congress has put it off. this measure we are going to consider it looks more like a permanent fix than anything we have ever seen before. we ought to either enforce the law or repeal the law. that is true with immigration policy and the president's health care bill. it is true as it relates to medicare. we have not been enforcing this law. host: pat is a republican in south carolina. you are on "washington journal" with congressman woodall. caller: good morning. you are on the oversight committee. guest: yes, ma'am. any wasteu never find

the government has until the press comes out with it. get moneyou ever back from the department that wasted? why are you looking at their budgets before they have the money to waste? why are you catching them in line item budgets? before we lose it. look: pat, i want you to at not just where the line items in the budgets are today aware where they are projected to be this year. spending and federal agencies is at its lowest level as a percent of our economy in my lifetime. when i have in him congress, we have reduced the spending goes agencies have been doing. $1.91ere spending trillion, we are taking their spending down. do not havetee we that authority.

that is in the appropriations committee. they have been doing a great job. our responsibility is .dentifying problems i could not be more proud of darrell issa and the way he has been targeting issues. when he finds a smidgen of corruption the president does not believe exists, he goes after it. with our limited resources, we are doing everything we can to solve the problems. -- tax reform. what did you say? efforthe has spent more on fundamental tax reform to anyone i have seen in decades. i am a fair tax guy. i want to replace it entirely with a consumption tax code. what dave camp has done is he has laid everything out ahead of time. it was not in a closed cigar smoke filled room under cover of darkness. he laid out for all to see. we will end up with a better proposal.

my constituency would prefer the fair tax but they would take anything over what we have today. we need more economic growth. i do not want to cut wages, standard of living, air quality, but we can fix tax code. the fair tax repealed the income employment, state and gift taxes. a single national consumption tax of taxable property or services. what are the political realities? we have more cosponsors on the fair tax than any other fundamental tax reform bill in congress. they are continuing to be added every day because it eliminates every exemption in the tax code. there is no reason washington would support it. we have cosponsors because citizens back home support it. it would be the largest transfer support back home. i had some boy scouts in my office yesterday. william, chris, campbell, declan

, we were talking about their opportunities and responsibilities in the future. every time we add another penny in debt, we trade responsibility by transferring that authority back to folks by taxing not your productivity by your consumption. we will provide a new level of opportunity for youngsters. we have stolen it from them with national debt. host: tweeting in. low does voting to repea obamacare for the 50th time create jobs? , the question is how does obamacare destroy jobs. i see that every day back home. i see that and slower growth in our economy in every metric that comes out. repealing obamacare refuels all those burdens and regulations

that destroys jobs. i am not the only one who sees a it, smiley. the president keeps putting off regulations until after the next election. his own health and human services department tells us 80% of small business policies are going to be canceled under obamacare. is something the president does not want to see happen before the next election. i wish he would work with me to repeal that. smiley,t uncertainty, ask any business man or woman, uncertainty is a job killer. the president amplifies uncertainty with every delay he unilaterally imposes. host: tony, rhode island. caller: thank you for c-span. i am a career -- i am a korea vet. politicians give us a lousy $20 with social security. grocery, gas, everything is going up more than 1.7%.

this president is terrible. i am independent. they do keeps saying not take money out of social security, that is a lie. reagan took $2.5 million. with the equipment we have today, what is going on in washington, we already know money has been taken out of social security. you cannot say it has not. it has. it is a sham. this: i was talking about last week, we know how to solve social security, there are not that many levers to pull. taxes, raise the level of taxation are raise the amount of money taxed. you can change the qualifications, 66, 67, 69. there are not that many levers to pull.

we should not have social security recipients 12 months away wondering if this is the year social security is going to go bankrupt. we know what the problem is and we need to come together and do that. the best thing we can do other than get the economy back on track is to provide permanent certainty that social security will be there. have the men and women on both sides of the aisle to do that and i hope we have the leadership. host: freelancer tweets in about tax reform. guest: i do not know what you mean by class warfare. the power to tax is the power to destroy. if i decided to tax all purple pies, there would be no purple pies left. now, we tax productivity. we destroy productivity because we do. if you have enough money to buy

a mercedes, you have enough money to help make this government go round. aat is why i support consumption tax. income tax burdens people trying to move up the ladder and escape poverty. consumption tax taxes those people who have already escaped oupoverty. i am all about the latter. i care about can you make tomorrow better than your today. we live in a land of opportunity. doing?ow is john boehner fan of johna big boehner. he has a tough job. we have elected 435 ceo's to conserve on a giant committee together. john boehner, i do not love the results but i love the way we get them. he believes in individual members and he believes, imagine believes that if you allow ideas to come to the floor vote,low an up or down

that the best ideas will win. it is so easy for the speaker of the house to believe you are the smartest person in the room. that is not john boehner. he says america is going to be better at the people's voices are heard through their 435 representatives. it is messy but it is the way this country was designed to work. a speaker who believes that my constituents' voices are important. host: ronnie from new jersey, democrat line. caller: hi. you turned down a caffeine fix? you are wonderful. it is the same old thing, broadbrush. are un-american. i think you are close to being a good old boar. i hear the same thing from southerners -- host: what is a good old boy? caller: he knows what it means.

good old boy. southern boy, proud of their heritage. you stop people from voting and stuff all kinds of down there. this president took over from a war criminal that put this country in such a hole. i would like to see any republican do as well as this president has done. aknow certain constituents, guitar owner who i will not mention, has called this man a mongrel. guest: i appreciated the warm way you opened the call. i think we ought to be able to disagree on ideas without being disagreeable. i can't think your ideas are terrible while believing you are a good human being. district i have more

first-generation americans than any other republican district in the country outside california or florida. rights arek voting being trampled in my district i will tell you the option. i cannot get folks to the po lls fast enough. my counties is a majority minority county. what you are saying is true of the state of georgia before i was born, not today. if you love faith, family, and believe in education and community, you can call yourself a republican or a democrat, it does not matter. you will be with me at the ballot box. i want everyone who believes in this country to get to the polls. i am never afraid of your ideas. i am afraid of apathy. if we can have a battle of ideas this country is a better state. in georgia we see more voter turnout than we have seen in decades. host: congressman, is immigration going to come to the house floor this year? guest: i hope it does.

what we have is a trust problem. i had a serious conversation with some thoughtful folks. i said what can we do to get this process moving. they said we cannot. if we can negotiate a deal, the president will choose not to enforce the party does not like and enforce the part he does like. this lack of trust, we have to overcome. we can if we begin with border enforcement and interior enforcement and changing the rules on the books. people in my district that have been trying to get into america legally for more than 20 years. their number has not yet come up. if you want to bring your sister in from mexico legally you had to apply in the 1980's for your number to come up legally today. let's not pretend this is a who camenly of folks

here the wrong way. we have a problem with folks trying to get here the right way. if we could build trust by solving those problems that we can agree on, i am certain we could create the momentum to solve those problems we do not yet agree on. host: what about the dream act? the house, cantor in second in command, a big believer in moving legislation did not haveldren any choice in this matter. we should welcome them into the country. thoseround at some of young people. you'll find folks that you would be proud to call your neighbor. who you will be proud to be a citizen beside you. ordinarily, our immigration willy-nilly.nd of there is no thorough investigation of who you are going to be and how you are going to turn out. in my district, we have valedictorians in our high

schools. we have opportunities to say you are amazing, we want you to be a part of what we have going on. here is my standard -- if you are going to put your hand over . .hers, if you have something you want to contribute and take advantage of that opportunity, i want you to be here. it is absolutely true that we have got to take care of the folks who are trying to do it the right way. ' heartstand why folks are touched by children in these circumstances, but families have been sep