i agree with you one of the critical voices or grant you didn't say this, but i am, that is missing from today's hearing are those of the families of the ubb miners. for that reason, i would like to read a part of a statement that was sent to the committee by gary and patty qualls, the parents of wayne quarles who perished at ubb, and then get your thoughts on it. quote, something is going to have to be changed, that these people that are in charge of running these mines need to be accountable. this is going to keep happening because our laws say we will protect you to these companies, not the miners. how many more will go unperished because of out of date laws that go back to 1969? this state was afraid to touch blankenship, so he was let go with however he wants to run this company. my son and 28 others were just at work. they had no one protecting them. please don't let their deaths be in vain and that another family be destroyed thankful was from mr. quarles' letter.

and i would ask that his entire letter be made part of the record, if not now, at the proper time. >> without objection. >> thank you. there was a boss at ubb by the name of dean jones who perished who wanted to bring his crew out, not once, but several times because they had no air. he was told if you do so, then bring your bucket and look for another job. this man and his crew stayed because he needed his job, even if his life was in danger. because of these men being threatened, they are now dead, end quote. so i know you have touched upon this already, president roberts in response to earlier questions, and i know ms. woolsey brought up the situation where there are no other jobs and how the coal miners need the good pay that is associated with working in our underground mines. but there is still something missing here when there is that production factor put over the people factor and over the safety factor. perhaps, and as i said, i know you already commented on the

gist of this letter. but could you relate to us what the inspections are like in a union versus a nonunion mine. >> thank you very much. and thank you for your interest in health and safety for so many years, congressman. i would just like to follow up on the edward dean jones. i met his widow at the time we released our report. she is a very young person. and mr. jones did keep his men off the section because he didn't think it was safe. and for that he was told he would be discharged if he didn't go up on the section and work in an unsafe area. if this management had listened to him, maybe we would have more people alive today, and maybe this wouldn't have happened. so we have good people everywhere trying to do the right thing if we just gave them a little more authority and a little more power. but there is a world of

difference between an inspection at a union mine and a nonunion mine. there is three minimum health and safety committee representatives of the united mine workers at every union mine. they travel with the federal inspectors. they travel with the state inspectors. and they file reports on their own. they inspect the mines themselves, at least four times a year. in some places they inspect the entire mine every month. so there is another set of eyes that being a representative to workers at all the union mines. and that's not true at a most nonunion mines. the protections that they have at nonunion mines are the federal inspectors and the state inspectors. so it's a world of difference. >> thank you for that response. dr. kohler, legal me ask you, do you feel you have sufficient personnel at and if so how do you keep them with you? >> the workforce challenges

spread across the mining industry. they're not just confined to msha. we experienced them at niosh. universities, everywhere. everyone is struggling to hire and recruit talented personnel into mining. just to give you an example, msha and niosh both compete for entry level mining engineers. a student coming out of virginia tech or university of kentucky for example starts around 65 to $70,000 a year. we can offer that same graduating student $33,000 a year. now it's easy to see the difficulty we have in competing. it's a big, big problem. >> how do you suggest we remedy it? besides more pay? >> yeah, i think that if we want to be able to recruit and retain competent people, we have to have compensation schedules which don't necessarily match

those available outside of the government, but they have to close the gap. >> we'll -- the public sector will never be able to compete with the private sector? >> not fully. but if we're serious about recruiting and retaining quality people in these key positions, something has to be examined and action taken. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the ranking member on workforce protections, ms. woolsey. >> thank you. for closing arguments, no doubt. >> yes, please. >> thank you. well, it's clear that we recognize that the entire system failed the miners a at upper big branch. past congresses should not have slashed funding for mine inspectors. msha needed to do a better job. the bureaucracy obviously needs

to be scrubbed to bring it into the 21st century. but they didn't do anything on purpose. and massey exploited msha's weaknesses and those weaknesses in the law. and they hurt their workers. this is the 21st century. together in a bipartisan way, mr. chairman, and it's your subcommittee that i'm honored to be the ranking member of. we have to put our heads together. we have to ensure that we move into the 21st century, that we enact meaningful reform. otherwise we're not going to be honoring the lives or the deaths of the 29 workers who spilled their blood at upper big branch. and we cannot let them be forgotten. they should have taught us a lesson. if they didn't, then we're

dumber than nails. and we won't go forward. we'll keep spinning in a circle, talking about it until the next disaster occurs. i don't want that to happen. so let us work together so that it doesn't. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady, and certainly there is a commitment to work toward fostering better results, better safety. the mine, as you know, declares, and i quote from it, the first priority and concern of all in the coal or other mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource, the miner. and i think in this room we understand that. there may be differences of opinion and perception of facts in the way we look at facts. certainly we've seen evidence today that the funding issue has continued to increase.

now how that's worked out, there may be question how we use it. what bureaucratic problems we put in the way, what things we neglect to encourage more. in the opportunities we've had to visit mines together, we've seen some best practices that are very useful in promoting health and safety for workers, as well as promoting economic stability for the mine itself. and i think we need to capitalize on those things. i appreciate the panel here in front of me as well as director main, secretary main in being in front of thus morning as well. questions that were brought up, comments that were made are helpful to making a final -- i take that back, not a final conclusion, but an a ongoing conclusion of how we move forward in making sure that this

extremely important industry with people that do things that i've already indicated to you i'm not a miner. i don't intend to be. other than mining for ways of encouraging the mining industry and those that work in it to foster a situation that moves our country forward. that comes by carefully looking at the problems, looking for solutions, and looking for ways that we can be as little in the sense of being intrusive in the industry, but also doing the proper oversight that makes sure that we all move forward with safety and security. i think the testimonies given today, the comments made will assist us in doing exactly what my ranking member says in working out a suitable agreement in the not too distant future. having said that, there be no

further business, the committee stands adjourned. >> the west virginia upper big branch mine has new owners today. they say they're permanently sealing the mine with concrete. bore holes will be filled along with fans that pull bad air out of the mine. all be capped to prevent any access. the company says the jobs will be finished by summer. several family members filed suit yesterday against the former owners.

this weekend marks the anniversary of the bloodiest battle to be fought during the civil war. up to that point, the battle of shiloh, with almost 24,000 casualties, and we'll tour the battlefield with chief park ranger stacey allen, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, and sunday night at 7:00 p.m., the angel of the battlefield and founder of the red cross, clara barton operated the missings' office in a d.c. boarding house until 1868. join us as we rediscover the third floor office as it's prepared for renovations, this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. this saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2s book tv, join our live call-in program with distinguished former navy s.e.a.l. and author chris kyle as he talks about his life from professional rodeo rider to becoming the most lethal sniper.

at 10:00 p.m. on afterwards -- >> if you think of yourself as a family and you think of yourself as a team. she said when i get a raise at work, he is so proud of me. it's like we got a raise. but i felt as though she had redefined providing to include what her husband does and she had a lot of respect for what her husband was doing. >> the richer sex on the changing role of women as the breadwinners of the family and how that impacts their lives. also this weekend, "america the beautiful." director of pediatric neurosurgery declares the empires past with america and shares his thoughts on what should be done to avoid a similar fate. sunday at 3:30 p.m. book tv, every weekend on c-span 2. house republicans passed a budget last week that keeps defense spending at its current level, which is $8 billion more than deficit reduction numbers agreed to in negotiations with the white house. president obama, meanwhile,

proposed cutting nonwar spending by 1%. defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs chair martin dempsey explain the budget to the house budget committee secretary panetta said he is counting on congress to enact further budget settings in order to avoid automatic a defense spending cuts in 2013. this is 2:45. >> the hear willing be in order. the committee will come to order, excuse me. first off, let me just start by welcoming our secretary of defense, former budget committee chairman, secretary panetta. as you see, we're used to your face here in the budget

committee room. and i don't know when it is the last time, secretary, you been in this room. it's a real pleasure. you have respect on both sides of the aisle here. we want to tell you how appreciative we are of your time. we haven't had a sec def here in a while. and this is a topic that is so much more budget relevant these days than ever before. we're so appreciative of you being here. i want to welcome everybody to today's hearing to examine the president's budget request for the department of defense and to explore how the federal government can meet its highest priority, providing for the common defense and strengthening our national security. as i mentioned, we have secretary panetta here who is no stranger to this committee. in addition to his extraordinary background as secretary of defense, cia, he served as chairman of this committee. we also want to warmly welcome the other two distinguished joining leon panetta, martin dempsey. in the 38 years since graduating from west point, he led troops in combat, served as a combatant commander and most recently as

the chief of staff of the army. thank you for your service, general. welcome to the committee. we also welcome the department of defense's comptroller, robert hale who is no stranger as well to this committee from his years of service to the congressional budget office. again, welcome back, secretary hale. relative to last year's request, the president's budget calls for a $487 billion reduction in base defense spending over the next decade. this comes on top of already planned spending reduction for the global war on terrorism. the united states remains a nation at war, and our troops remain engaged in a fierce enemy overseas. it's difficult to square this reality with the president's steep reductions in both troop levels and funding levels. the timing of the cuts raises serious concerns that the decisions are being driven by budget airy concerns as opposed to strategic priorities. mr. secretary, i think you have a unique perspective on the tension between meeting our national security requirements and getting spending deficits and debt under control.

while they have yet to offer a balanced budget, our friends across the aisle have called for a balanced approach. of course, budgeting is about setting priorities. such calls assume that all of government's activities are equally important. that the blind proportionality can substitute for a clear-headed analysis of our priorities and responsibilities as policymakers. like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with efficiency and accountability. yet, many fear that arbitrary and deep reductions that the president has proposed in the defense budget would lead to a dramatic reduction in our defense capability. i commend you for your efforts to fund defense priorities within a rapidly shrinking budget. your predicament in my opinion, secretary, is due to failures elsewhere in the federal budget. according to harvard's neil ferguson, a financial historian, the fall of great nations is the result of their excessive debt burdens.

and their path to decline, defense spending is always the first casualty. the failure by the administration to deal honestly with the drivers of debt, specifically when it comes to government spending on health care is a failure that imperils our economic security and now our national security. the president's budget in my personal opinion charts a path to decline. in addition to examining the deep defense reductions in the president's budget, i hope today's hearing informs us of the consequences to our security that would result from the disproportionate cuts to defense spending under the budget control act sequester. congress has a solemn obligation to ensure our troops fighting overseas have the resources they need to successfully complete their missions. and to adhere to our commitment to their service upon their return. every citizen owes a debt of gratitude to the military families that continue to make untold sacrifices for our

security. and for the freedoms that we cherish. we are in deep gratitude. we want to make sure that we honor them with the right kind of priorities, with the right kind of defense policy. with that, before hearing system from secretary panetta and general dempsey, i would like to yield to ranking member mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join chairman ryan in welcoming you back, mr. secretary, to the budget committee. welcome, general dempsey. welcome undersecretary hale. thank all of you for your dedicated service to the united states of america. and please extend our thanks and appreciation to the men and women who serve in our military. our country is secure and free because of the sacrifices they and their families make every day. the president, the department of defense, our armed services, armed forces, along with the state department, intelligence community and law enforcement deserve a great deal of credit

for the important work they have done over these last many years. we have successfully redeployed our troops from iraq. captured or killed countless terrorists actively planning attacks and greatly diminished al qaeda's capabilities. we forged a coalition that successfully helped the people of libya end dictator moammar gadhafi's brutal 40-year reign that included the lockerbie bombings that killed innocent americans. and of course we concluded the master mine mind that helped support 9/11. we must continue to support the strong military that is second to none. and as president obama made clear, and i quote, the size and the structure of our military defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around. but during this difficult fiscal period, we have to be much smarter and more efficient in how we shape our defense budget. the strength of our military depends in large part on the

strength of our economy and the long term strength of our economy depends in large part on putting together a plan to reduce our long-term deficits and debt in a credible and predictable way. last year the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen warned policymakers of this risk. as people here know, he said, and i quote, our national debt is our biggest national security threat. everybody must do their part. from 2001 to 2010, the base pentagon budget, separate from the war effort, nearly doubled. in 2010, the united states spent more on defense than the next 17 countries combined. and more than half of the amount spent by those 17 countries was from seven nato countries and four other close allies, japan, south korea, australia and israel. last year admiral mullen argued that the flush defense budget

had allowed the pentagon to avoid making difficult choices. he said, and i quote, with the increasing defense budget which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. it hasn't forced us to prioritize. it hasn't forced us to do the analysis. end quote. we can no longer afford to have taxpayer resources spent without doing the analysis, without insuring that every dollar is spent efficiently and infectively invested. we can no longer go along with business as usual if we're going get our fiscal house in order. there is now wide bipartisan consensus that all spending, including spending at the pentagon must be on the table as we figure out how to get our finances back on track. even this committee, where agreement is sometimes difficult to come by voted last year on an amendment to the budget that emphasized the defense spending should be considered as we strive to bring the deficit under control. and last august as our

colleagues know, the congress codified that consensus by passing the budget control act which capped discretionary spending including security spending. today we find ourselves in a hard position. we're facing the prospect of an across the board $1.2 trillion sequester beginning january 2nd, 2013. if we do nothing, the defense department will be cut by another $500 billion over the next nine years in addition to the cuts under the caps. no one believes that across the board reduction is the preferred way to get the finances in order. however, any effort to return off and replace the sequester must be done responsibly by reaching agreement on a deficit reduction plan that is balanced and lays a strong foundation for our security. we have time. the president's budget 2013 provides an alternative. i hope that will become part of the discussion here in the house. the president's plan responsibly replaces sequester with even greater deficit reduction through a balanced plan that

calls for shared responsibility. it makes key investments in our long-term economic growth. it puts a priority on protecting key investments in defense rather than protecting tax loopholes for special interests and tax breaks for the very wealthy. the defense budget is built on a forward-looking strategy developed by our top civilian and military leadership. it maintains our unparallels military strength as general dempsey has said. it's a military with which we can win any conflict anywhere. some have criticized the cuts in defense and the defense budget as being too deep. i think it bears reminding that under the president's budget the spending levels remain high by historical standards. we will still spend more in 2013 in real terms for defense than during the peak years of the korean war, the vietnam war, and the cold war. even if you exclude war funding, even if you exclude war funding,

average annual defense expenditures under the president's ten year budget will still be higher in real terms than the average an annual expenditures during the korean war, the vietnam war, and the cold war period under president ronald reagan. in addition, the reductions in the president's defense spending are only half, half of the amounts recommended by the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission. secretary panetta, when you were sworn in as secretary of defense, you said the choice between a fiscal discipline and a strong national defense is a false choice. i agree. and i'm confident we can work together to get our fiscal house in order and ensure that we have the strongest military in the world. thank you all and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. let's start with you, secretary panetta and then you, general dempsey. >> thank you very much. >> make sure your mike is on, if you don't mind. or pull it close. there you go. >> got it.

>> chairman ryan, congressman van hollen, members of the budget committee, it's a real honor and pleasure to be able to have this opportunity to appear before you. this is home. i spent 16 years in the congress and a good chunk of those years in the budget committee. so this is a place where we fought through a lot of the same battles that you're fighting through right now in the '80s and '90s. as a former chairman of the house budget committee and former omb director, i have a deep appreciation for the very important role that's played by this committee in trying to achieve fiscal discipline and helping set the federal government's overall spending priorities. as you know, i had the honor of working on most of the budget summits and proposals during the '80s and '90s with both

republican and democratic presidents -- president reagan, president bush and president clinton. and the work of all of those efforts ultimately produced the balanced federal budget. believe me, i know firsthand what a tough and critical job you have in this committee. particularly given the size of the deficits that you're working with that unfortunately face our country again. it is -- it is no surprise that there is a vigorous debate here in washington about what steps should be taken to confront these challenges. we went through many of the same debates in the '80s and '90s. huntsville -- thankfully, the leadership of both parties were willing to make very difficult decisions that had to be made in order to reduce the deficit. today, you face the same difficult choices.

and while i know there are differences, the leaders of both legislative and executive branches of government have a duty, a duty to protect our national and our fiscal security. i know that as elected members of congress, particularly the members of this committee, you take this duty seriously. as i do, as secretary of defense. i do not believe, as i've been quoted, i do not believe that we have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. i believe we can maintain the strongest military in the world and be part of a comprehensive solution to deficit reduction. the defense budget that we have presented to congress and the nation seeks to achieve those goals. the fy '13 budget request for the department of defense was the product of a very intensive

strategy review conducted by senior military and civilian leaders of the department with the advice and guidance of the national security council and of the president. the reasons for this review are pretty clear. first of all, we are at a strategic turning point after a decade of war. and we have been through a decade of war. and at the same time, during that decade, there was substantial growth in defense budgets. second, congress did pass the budget control act of 2011 which did impose some spending limits that impacted on the defense budget to the tune of $487 billion over the next decade. we decided that fiscal situation that we were confronting presented us at the defense department with an opportunity to establish a new defense strategy for the future. we developed strategic guidance before any budget decisions were made.

because we wanted those budget decisions to be based on strategy, not the other way around. we agreed that we are at a key inflection point. the military mission in iraq has ended. we still have a very tough fight on our hands in afghanistan, but 2011 did mark significant progress in reducing violence and in transitioning to an afghan-led responsibility for security. and we in our nato allies have committed to continue that transition through the end of 2014. last year successful nato operations did lead to the fall of gadhafi. and as pointed out, targeted counter-terrorism efforts have significantly weakened al qaeda and decimated its leadership. but even though we have had those successes, unlike past drawdowns, let me stress that, unlike past drawdowns, and i've