so many of us believe that while we have to make the tough decisions to freeze spending in all accounts, if you're going to freeze spending for our schools, if you're going to spend freeze -- to freeze spending for seniors, for home, housing programs, environmental cleanup programs, we should take the same brush to scrub the department of defense. i don't think any military leader, general, admiral, would say he or she is opposed to having the department of defense run in as efficient a manner as possible so we could expend every single dollar to the department of defense for our men and women in uniform. i would hope that the president and you all would reconsider this notion that there are some agencies that are protected while others that do important work are not. i know you mentioned also some reduction and cuts being made in d.o.d. that doesn't mean we can't continue to examine it and i suspect congress will continue to do so.

i wanted to get into one final subject and that's the proposal put by our colleague and friend mr. ryan, the republican budget proposal, which you mentioned before. again, i would agree with those who said it's appreciated when someone puts forward a proposal. i agree with mr. connolly that i totally disagree with it and i hope you continue to talk about how it would impact our seniors since it would seem to move us toward privatizing those programs when we see what happened to seniors' 401k accounts in the last few years. having said that, i appreciate that you were here, i suspect you've answered my question by having answered any number of members' questions in the past. .

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> taking a look at the $787 billion stimulus program signed into law a year ago, $332 billion has been committed, $176 billion has been paid out as of january 26. you can keep track of the stimulus money at c-span.org /stimulus to watch hearings and speeches and congressional debates and limpings to the government and outside wash dog groups at c-span.org/stimulus. >> watch "washington journal" for conversation, comments and your calls about the day's public affairs, live daily from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> an update on haiti earthquake relief efforts from the state

department. from earlier today, this is just under 40 minutes. >> it's been a couple of weeks since two of our most senior officials working on haiti policy have visited with you, so we would start off with kind of a haiti update briefing with our chief of staff and the administrator of usaid and we'll pick up on other subjects after that.

>> i know many of you all know and have been doing a great job of bringing to the floor and the united states' commitment to the work being done in haiti not only to the haitian people and the international community and the coordination that had been necessary for the large-scale effort that is ongoing in haiti right now. we are seeing improvements not only in the coordination but for the delivery of the different services and resources that are necessary, given the magnitude of this tragedy. so we are hopeful to see the progress that we are seeing in that regard. we have been working with the haitian government. we have continued daily meetings not only with the prime minister and meetings happening with the president to sort through their priorities, listen to them as they are thinking through their forward planning as they look ahead to the next steps. we spent at a time at a

conference in montreal and there was conversation about the need for haiti and see haiti grow outward from port-au-prince and what that means in terms of their thinking of how they see the recovery and building of haiti in the future. at that conference, there were many countries from around the world pledging to haiti not just today but tomorrow and the next day and many days ahead. many of them have been long-term partners with haiti so it was nice to be in a place with people who had familiarity not only of the haitian country and the challenges and the opportunities that are in haiti and that's what i think everybody is anticipating focusing on as we look ahead down the road. we are anticipating that conference which will be a pledge from each country to support the building of haiti to occur in march. and we are anticipating that at that time, an assessment has been done by the u.n. that will

allow us to make the judgments and commitments that will build a better haiti or as the haitians have said, a new haiti, for the government and citizens of that country. we are very cognizant of the fact that haiti alone and certainly just the united states can accomplish the scope and task that is necessary of what needs to be done in haiti. we are looking for critical partnerships around the globe in support of the government of haiti and people of haiti as they define what their future should look like. that is a broad overview. and will be happy to answer questions and i will turn it over to my colleague. >> i will hair a few broad thoughts and -- i will share a few broad thoughts. first as cheryl points out, rebuilding haiti is a partnership with the haitian government and we are fortunate

to be working with the haitian government across the range of sectors. in most cases, it is the government of haiti through coordinating systems on the ground that is providing the strategic leadership about what gets done in what neighborhoods and at what pace. and that has been very important to guide the efforts of our collective response efforts, but also efforts of other donors and other partners. second, the recovery effort -- this is now shifting as we are ramping up the relief effort and we are trying in a focused way to do things that are sustainable, appropriate and that can contribute to a strong haitian recovery in terms of the economic recovery and in terms of recovery of the capacity of public services to sustain services provided to the haitian population. when we were talking earlier, our priority and focus was on saving lives through search and rescue and it has evolved. third, every day, we are focused on doing better than we did the

day before. and we track sector by sector. and i'll remind the folks and enjoy sharing this because it's an important point that it is the resilience of the haitian people that is the primary vehicle through which most relief is provided. i was reminded of that when i visited and walked through a settlement near the presidential palace and walk through that environment and pulled up a blanket and saw a 12-volt connected to an invert ter to a power strip and people are using those types of system to get information and to get make effective decisions about where to go for food, supplies, shelter and other forms of support. in the food sector, we have now provided food in two-week rations to 800,000 haitians. the rate of daily service has more than tripled from an

initial rate of around 45,000 served a day to now more than 120,000 today. the reason for that significant improvement has been putting in place a fixed distribution system at 16 sites throughout port-au-prince and the u.s. military together with the world food program, the government of haiti and a number of n.g.o. partners has come together to make that system an effective one. our reports from distributions that are done by providing coupons to women who can receive rice and will be able to receive other commodyits, distributions have been -- commodities and in addition to those fixed point distributions, we have served more than 250,000 people outside of port-au-prince in neighboring cities. that is an important step forward for the overall relief effort. and we will work towards the

target of two million people served. in shelter, our target is 240,000 and 300,000 households in providing them services and the capacity to provide shelter and shelter that would be protective in the ent it rains. we believe through the combined efforts of a number of n.g.o. partners and the government of the haiti we have reached 70,000 of thousands households with plastic sheeting and kits and training to help support their efforts to build and to maintain a shelter for themselves. the rate in terms of the number of people we are reaching has increased significantly in the last 10 days. and we continue to track that. and believe we have enough materials, plastic sheeting and shelter kits to serve up to 260,000 households. so we believe that system is on track. there are challenges that remain, sanitation is one of

them. and exploring how we support efforts to remove rubble in a way that allows for effective placement of these shelters and of families is another challenge that we are working through under the leadership of the government of haiti. in health, we have had similar progress. we have had worked with the c.d.c. and government of haiti through its 43 hospitals to help put in place a disease surveillance system that has 51 surveillance sites. we will be starting vaccination campaignses. they will be targeted to different subgroups of the population. we continue with the trauma and medical service that has been provided by the disaster medical assistance teams and comfort that has been in the theater. medical professionals have seen nearly 25,000 patients.

that's a tremendous achievement. of course, the needs with such a tragic situation are far in excess of that. but it is an important point. and we are now working collectively with our n.g.o. partners and partners of pepfar to help transition some of these medical assets that were brought down by the disaster medical teams to n.g.o. partners who can help sustain their ability to serve haitians and make sure the assets get integrated into a health care system for haiti. the other focus in the health sector on post trauma and popet-operative care and increasing in haiti by identifying the capacity at 31 sites that have the capacity to provide those services. in water, water has remained a success story. we have had approximately two

million liters delivered to 160 sites. and that has increased steadily week by week and we have not seen shortages of water or in pockets with settlements. sanitation is more of a challenge and so we are making that an increasing priority and expanding distribution of chlorine tablets at water distribution sites to prevent disease spread. other parts of the relief effort include a jobs program. we are now providing through the government of haiti in partnership with the government of haiti nearly 5,600 daily jobs. many of these jobs are on clearing rubble and clearing rubble for planned development through the government of haiti. that will be very important for both creating space to build latrines and creating sites where people can settle in a more effective and sustainable way. over time, more of these jobs

will migrate to those areas where people have left and gone to second tear city, there will be expanded employment opportunities and transitioning that to the private sector, will also be an important priority. sector by sector we are trying to make sure we continue to solve problems and do better every day, do that in partnership with the government of haiti and help create the basis for sustainable activity so that the haitian people have access to services that they need in what continues to be, of course, a tragic emergency response situation. thank you. >> can you give us an update if there is one on the 10 americans who have been held? >> we don't have any further updates. they are continuing to be held and the judge is supposed to be looking at their case and making assessments.

we don't know if that will be done today or the next day. >> has there been contact between the two governments on this case? >> i'm not aware of any, but i'm aware of the fact that we have reached out to make sure we had consular affairs services. i don't know if that constitutes -- >> not between the delainyees. >> we reached out to the government to have access. lawyer. i'm always afraid to say the wrong thing. >> what does it say to you about the american response and how people are reacting here that this gupe of americans did feel compeled to do what they apparently did do? >> i can't speak to these individuals' motivation but one of the most human instincts out there is to make sure in any particular instance we are

thoughtful how we treat young people and children. this department took a firm stance that we were only going to be paroling in individuals who were already in process for adoption and make sure they had been adjudicated. because in any other instance, you don't know if you were separating a family or not. and one of the thing that is uniquely important in these situations given the vulnerability of children we are focused on that particular goal. i appreciate that. in this instance, individuals were making assessments how they could participate in that but the bottom line has to always be that we are trying to maintain families and children with their families. and separating them does not serve the larger objective which is ensuring that orphans who are orphanned have been adjudicated to be and families who are seeking them. >> just for the record, what is

the process typically is for someone who wanted to adopt a child from haiti, especially because it's my understanding that this particular church group wasn't listed as an official adoption agency with the state department. what should people be doing? >> if you want the actual step by step, we put that on our website. but as a general matter, the process actually begins with two separate sides, someone in the united states gets reviewed and determined to be actually eligible to adopt a child, which is a background process that one goes through and to the extent there is an international adoption, there is another process that you go through with the state department. on the other side, what is happening, countries are making determination that a child is indeed eligible to be adopted in the particular instance of the protocol that we and the prime minister agreed to, we agreed to make sure that given there were children who had been

adjudicated by a court in haiti to be orphanned or had been identified in the process as having been orphans were children that should be united with their american families. anyone who didn't meet that strict requirement, given the circumstances in haiti today. obviously as this process goes on, there will be no doubt children who are legitimate orphans. the government of haiti will make that ajude occasion and assessment of them and that is the time which children will be become available for adoption and then the normal processes on this side would work. >> you mentioned the shelter, that 70,000 of the households have been reached with plastic sheeting and materials and you can serve 260,000.

what is the gap between those two numbers? >> it's how many we reached today. every day, we are reaching more and more households. 10 days ago, the total reach was under 10,000. so you had a quick ramp up in the last 10 days. and we track the total number served and the rate at which we're serving. so that's basically it. the other parts of that that make this challenging are finding sites that are appropriate for families to build the shelters and often that comes down to rubble and rubble being removed. this is still -- especially a lot of the homes that have collapsed are in dens, urban neighborhoods and there are a lot of structures that need to be removed in order to create space. the jobs program is helping to do that and the government of haiti is helping in that effort determining how and where that

rubble is being removed and alternative uses for that rubble, can it be recycled. so those things are under way, but they do create a bottleneck in the way which we can scale up. >> the government of haiti -- these aren't tents? >> some of them have been tents. the government of haiti has asked for both tents and plastic sheeting. they are deeply involved. senior government representatives are in the shelter cluster which is the group of n.g.o.'s and u.n. officials to identify priorities so this is being done at that direction. for a variety of reasons, plastic sheeting can be more durable and more effective in terms of protecting families against rain. they can be easier to clean

which is from a disease perspective and more room and flexibility for families as they put these together. there are a variety of reasons why different strategies are appropriate in different contexts. >> do you have the demographics of this disaster? we get various numbers going around, is it two million people needing full food aid for a year? do you have a better handle on that? >> the original estimates were as high as four million. we were doing planning around four million. i think that number has probably come down to around two million, which continues to be the planning metric that we use in defining, for instance, how much food assistance we should be providing, how we are working with the world food program, the size and response over the course of the next year. that's a very rough and inaccurate overall estimate and the reality is on the ground, every morning these teams are

getting together, how many did we reach yesterday, what is the area of need. through n.g.o. networks and government of haiti, we are able to reach more and more people in different parts of the country and even outside port-au-prince. they have been going to other cities and they are receiving support as well. it is probably less accurate to say there is one fixed number that fits across every sector. >> on the decentralization issue and there is a difference of opinion on the ground in haiti about the wisdom of moving people out of the city into tent cities as it were or letting them build their tents or temporary foundation right where they are. where does the u.s. stand on this and if we are assisting in moves to establish a temporary tent cities, what's to prevent those from becoming permanent

and township-style development outside of town? >> i think there is a distinction between decentralization, which is a concept that the president and the prime minister and other senior leaders in haiti have promoted publicly and privately, including supporting transport for more than 200,000 people from port-au-prince to other cities throughout the country. that is a very different construct and concept than the question of how you deal with settlements in and around port-au-prince. so we are following the government of haiti's lead on the decentralization point. on settlements in port-au-prince, we are supporting between 600 and 700 identified settlements, some are larger, some are smaller and the priority is what's the best shelter strategy in that environment, how do you address, food, sanitation and water and

potential health risks. we are dealing with haiti. there is a shelter cluster that addresses these things and has grown to include 20 experts from around the world that have gone down to implement the strategic decisions they are playing out. >> there are discussions around decentralization at the conference in monday tree all as to how the urban areas are growing or not growing. >> these tent cities that are being established outside of town, are those -- are they temporary? would the people come back to their old neighborhoods or is it medium-term thinking? >> i wouldn't use the term tent

cities as a long-term strategy. it has been around dealing with temporary shelter needs for a population that is displaced and making sure they are protected against, access to food and water and the government of haiti is leading the process of identifying how and where would you build back communities and housing that meets certain code for anti-seismic construction. there is a whole range of thinking that is on the horizon. i wouldn't use the phrase long-term tent cities. that isn't part of the strategic concept. >> can you talk about the capacity of the haitian government right now. i understand in the days after the quake they were scattered. is there an assessment of the u.s. government's part of the percentage of the government that are functioning now or certain sectors that are able to function, for example, customs?

>> we don't have a formal assessment. in the beginning, we were functioning with the president and prime minister. their ministers are taking leadership responsibilities and we can talk about the planning efforts under way in the clusters and sectors. they are having more and more of their ministers taking on responsibility not only in the relief but anticipated recovery. >> i would just add we have all seen the photographs of ministries destroyed in the earthquake. people lost family members and the tragedy they have been through is tremendous. the fact that civil servants and political leadership ministers, the president and prime minister are so actively involved now is a pretty strong testament to their commitment and leadership, whether it is identifying the

rubble priorities and jobs programs or any number of other things, we are doing this in direct response to splanners and officials in the government of haiti. >> looking forward, when it comes to the local economy and rebuilding that, is there a plan or idea about providing loans for local businesses, loan guarantees from banks to get that rolling again? >> all of those are things that will be examined very closely because you want to build an economy that can be sustainable and we want to create the best opportunity to do that in an effective fashion. that is something that had been anticipated prior to the earthquake and there were a number of investors who had traveled down thinking how they could invest and how the local businesses could spur economic growth. that has to be a central element of the planning that gets done

over a long haul and the president is focused on. when they come forward with their plans, that will be a central part of it. >> talking about the jobs program, you mentioned that 5,600 through u.s. participation were working right now. you didn't mention a goal. is that something that is going to grow? i'm wondering about the u.s. program working with the government. and is there some plan or hope that this expanding these programs gets the private sector going instead of food aid and giving people passes so they can go to other private markets that are up and running? >> you are absolutely right. let me start with the private markets piece. i would reiterate, in every sector, the single most

important relief strategy has been the private market. food markets have been operating throughout and are now very robust. we are seeing people buying a range of food items, cooking and charcoal is moving. that's just in food. it is absolutely true in water. we have a convoy of 200 trucks that go back and forth. but a lot of what they bring is distributed through private markets and through n.g.o.'s. but private markets have been a huge part of the successful effort to get water to where water is needed because there are local water companies that have the capacity to do that after the disaster. in every area that we work in, we are together with the government planning what is the right strategy to make sure we are providing food to those populations in need, but doingç that in a way cognizant of the government.

and there has been an active discussion of that. people are tracking market prices and understanding the impacts of the relief efforts on private markets. that's an important point. on the jobs program, that is directed by the government and in concert -- and you made reference to launching various programs. the way these programs work, at the government's introduction, local mayors identify priorities in their areas. they work through their own members of the committee nisms or partner n.g.o.'s to identify what needs to get done and they go out and hire people, pay a minimum wage and provide that employment opportunity and get important public works done. that is also a part of a transition strategy to private sector, employment-based system. >> is there a goal on that? >> our goal is more every day

under the direction and capacity of the government. that's true across every sector. and so just a few days ago that number was 2,800 and now it is 5,600 and it will grow significantly in february. >> how many haitian orphans are still waiting to come back to the u.s.? can you address these 10 americans. is there any concern t that this has put a long-term damper on the relationship between u.s. and haiti on adoptions? >> 575 children have already been processed through. i don't have a good number, but i could get back to you on what we anticipate. i would imagine there is at least another 100 children, assuming they get their paperwork in order that are in the pipeline. there may be more on that. in terms of concern, actually, no and i'll tell you why. we have had very good relations with the leadership of the

haitian government and in particular, sat down and talked through the careful parameters we were placing on those children that we would allow to have humanitarian parole. and we were taken very seriously the need to ensure that the children who were in process were going to be paroled out of the country and not seeking to have any other countth children paroled. it is was time for the other n.g.o.'s working on the ground to ensure they were placing children with families or identifying families that might have extended families. so that process has continued to pace and i feel good about the careful parameters we have placed on the orphans. >> based on what you know, it has been several days since these americans were detained, is there any knowledge as to whether there was any malice. >> i'm reading the same reports that you are about why they did

it. i think we will have a date by the end of this week. we are having conference calls with the other partners. >> and the venue is the u.n.? >> the venue will be the u.n.. >> united nations's comment today about situation in haiti was volatile, security situation , take control of the food convoy. you spoke of how things are orderly. what's the contrast? >> there are three or four different distribution systems for food. one is if we can sign food and commodities to n.g.o.'s that go out across the country and many have language -- long-standing relationships. fixed point distribution system has been stood up and has really

significantly increased the capacity to meet population needs with two-week rations and there are other variety systems through private partners and sector. we are getting reports every day across all 16 fixed-point distribution sites and the full range of partners that we work with around safety and security and we have not seen a consistent trend or -- there have been isolated incidents where order has been challenged in one form or another. but across the board especially at the 16 sites where women are getting coupons and coming in and picking up food and then leaving, it's been remarkably effective and it has been orderly. we obviously continue to work on this and think about it. the haitian national police and our department of defense are all working as a team to provide security to food convoys and at

these sites and that is obviously helpful. it's been orderly. we have people that were out at 12 of them today and calling in and telling me about it. it sounds like a big step forward. it's just a point to note about the haitian population and their commitment and resolve and resilience. >> we have seen some of the medical workers who were early to arrive and now leaving. is there any concern that now some of these very initial phases is sort of ending that folks will still be in need? >> i would say and i would encourage as a message that we are in an emergency relief situation and will continue to be in an emergency relief situation for many weeks to come. and i think the people who recognize this more than anybody are the people who have gone to haiti and doing this work. and when i was just there recently had a chance to visit

whether it was a spanish medical team or medical team from the u.s., they appreciate it. many of these teams go in and have a two-week window for their own sustainability and cycle out and others replace them. every day that goes by, more haitian capacity, medical providers that can step in and provide services, et cetera. so this is a normal transition. but we wouldn't expect nor would it be appropriate for there to be a large-scale exit of medical or health vol u tears. the -- volunteers. the opposite is happening. we are saying we need nurses in these parts of the country for this function. we need prosthetics because the system will change and evolve to meet those needs.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house currently in a recess. when members return votes on bills debated earlier today. members expected to take up the measure to raise the federal debt ceiling. live coverage of the u.s. house when members return here on c-span three. comcast/nbc universal merger. there will be a hearing to explore the possible impact on the media marketplace. you can see it live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> markets don't often work, but they forgot all that. >> nobel prize winning economist on the 2008 economic collapse and its effect on "after words" on c-span's book tv. >> a look at the defense dement budget request for fiscal year

2011 and president's goal of ending the don't ask, don't tell policy. rick mays was a guest on today's "washington journal." it's 40 minutes. ? guest: still part of the transformation. trying to prepare us what -- trying to build weapons systems that we need, military that a strong and steady. host: the numbers show what they are asking for. in 2011, the proposed budget,ñi $708.3 billion for the depar÷m nt of defense, up from $693.4 billion, which is also a jump from $659 billion in 2009.

what kind of bang are we getting from the book? guest: remember some of the money -- some of that is afghanistan and iraq money now that they put it in the budget so it is not growing as fast as you think but it is still a huge budget. it is an expensive department. it has a lot of people. weapons systems are expensive. the bank you're a getting from the buck you see it in comeback -- combat today, in haiti during humanitarian relief. host: is there a significant difference in the budget process under this president than under george bush? when i ask you that, i'm talking about the supplemental that we kept seeing for the iraq war. will weaken said -- continue to see those for iraq and a afghanistan? guest: they said we will not have more but i think we will. there will probably be a small supplement to pay for the war in afghanistan,çóñrçó $33 billion t

they don't have covered that they will have to find. host: the secretary and chairman will also be talking in front of the senate armed services committee about the qdr -- tell us what it is and why it is important. guest: they have a panel of experts meet and try to decide the future of the military, what size it ought to be, the missions, what threats now and in the future. and to make a course change if they need one. that is where we are at right now. we had the results -- to try to talk about what threats and what they have to do about it. host: talking about the quadrennial defense review, is it easier for the two gentlemen to make their case for why their budget is what it is? depending on who you are speaking to, if your report says you don't want the weapon of the lawmaker once you are on the wrong side.

it can help you and can hurt you. but it does give you a course to follow. that is the idea. at least you have somewhere to go. host: we are talking to "of the army times" congressional editor. if you want to talk aboutçó the defenseñr budget, and we willçóo talk about the phase-out of " don't ask, don't tell pierre, give us a call -- is there anything in particular on the chairman's mind that he is going to want to talk to these two gentlemen aboutñi the defense budget? guest: he is interested in a variety of things. he will ask a lot about afghanistan. he has been paying attention on what exactly the strategy is. he has grave concerns about our ability to get out there in the time line obama administration

has laid out. it is concerned is not necessarily over what we are doing but the nato allies not providing the trainers they promised. if you can't train the afghan police and the military to take care of themselves and provide security, we don't have an easy way to get out. host: what about the what are some of their concerns as we go through the budget process? ñrñiguest: thatñr we are not spg enough, not spending in the right place. they are very worried about missile defense programs, and lower priority in the obama administration, and it ought to be a higher one. becoming a debate over the defense budget for about 30 years, and you can sort of tell where it is going to go. host: we are talking with rick maze from "the army times."

we want to take a look at what secretary gates said talking about the politics and the future of the c-17. them i am fully aware of the pressure to continue building c- 17 and proceed with alternate engine for the f-35. let me be clear. i will strongly recommend the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs. we have restructured the f-35 program and believe it is on track to become the backbone of u.s. air superiority for the next generation. nonetheless, the progress and performance of the f-a 35 over the past two years has not been what it should. in number of key goals and benchmarks were not met. as a result, i will withhold $614 million in performance fees from the lead contractor, since

the taxpayers should not have to bear the entire burden of getting jff program back on track. host: your thoughts on what the secretary had to say. guest: they fired the general in charge, which is a big sign that this administration expects high performance. we have not done this kind of thing in quite some time. it will be a fight for congress because congress keeps trying to save these programs, save money and have been go faster and don't have the same doubts. it will be an interesting debate. last year the administration won about 90% of the things they tried to do cancelling weapons, which is quite a victory. host: while some focus on these two systems? guest: both are new and expensive, really two pieces of equipment they need -- many something for the next generation. the fighter jets we have now are wearing out.

joint strike fighter is the thing we need to do. and the second engine is just a question of how much do you spread work around, and do you need an alternative engine when you have one that works perfectly. this is a time where carl levin is on the opposite side of gates. host: the next call from maze comes from fred from do we, maryland. go ahead with your question. caller: i'm not happy with the defense spending. i don't understand it. i am unemployed and i'm sitting at home and it really doesn't make sense for us to be spending a lot of money spent in that area. host: is there anything specific in defense spending that puzzles you? caller: all of it. i don't agree with the war, period.

i don't agree with spending a lot of money to kill people. under the republican administration and the last eight years we spent a lot of money doing that. and it is unnecessary. this country, in the u.s., we are out of work and we are sitting at home and we are more concerned about plane -- bombs, it is ridiculous. host: will the secretary make the case that by dealing with the weapon systems and by putting this money in the defense budget that it will somewhere down the line create jobs? guest: at the defense industry tried to make the argument, if you are buying whenever, blank, it will create blank number of jobs and that is why we need to do it. but the defense budget is not an efficient job creating told. the sentiment the caller had is probably not what we will hear today but probably this year because of the defense budget is one of the few agencies that was not frozen.

getting a big increase where others are not. there are a lot of democrats to wonder why we are spending more on defense when other domestic programs are not being increased at all. that is not a foregone conclusion there is still a chance the defense budget might be reduced. host: jacksonville, florida. bruce on the line for independences. caller: the first question is, the contractors that we have working in iraq and afghanistan, does that come out of the military budget? the second question is -- which you pretty much covered, c-17, the extra gulf strains that congress wanted and they backed off to the three that the airforce really we crested -- requested get i forgot no. 3. guest: some of the contractors

-- some don't. it depends on exactly what they are doing. some of the money for reconstruction is paid for by the state department. but the direct support for military functions as part of operating costs of the defense department. c-17, just because they did not request the extra one does not mean someone will not try to add them later. they are little, tiny executive jets. host: michigan on our line for republicans. go ahead. tim? caller: hello, robert? how are you? do may a favor, if pedro is in the studio, tell him i said hi. can i preface this, as far as your lines are set up -- host: kennedy to the question, please? we are running out of time.

caller: as far as the defense budget. if you were to take half of the money in the defense budget, theoretically, and use that money to start building desalinization plants, i am sure glassworkers in toledo would love that. and accompanying piping that goes with it. i'm sure a lot of steel workers would like that. if you started building more turbines, you could take the gun right out of iran's hands because i am sure they have a lot of sun and wind, and they say they need nuclear power for electricity. you take thei] trump card right out of their hands. here is the alternative energy you need. you would be putting americans to work. and i got a feeling that if we irrigated those peoples desert, provided them with electricity and jobs, i bet you would have a hard time getting people to sign up for al qaeda. guest:ñi i think that is the lo-

range goal of what we are trying to do in the middle east, but you have to get over the violent stage in the meantime. i think one of the lessons we learned just trying to restart the oil industry is people who don't want stability will try to blow up the oil pipes. if you tried to build a desalinization plant, people who don't want that to work will try to blow up the desalinization plant. you have to first find a way to stop the violence before you can move to that step. host: silver spring, maryland, the caller those unidentified on the line for democrats. but what had appeared silver spring. .

the budget the way it is right now, i agree to because we cannot do anything. we have to accept it the way it is and i suppose there is pressure on that. thank you. guest: contractor costs are a huge factor and it costs more to hire a contractor than someone

-- have the army do it themselves. the turning point in using contractors is when the house appropriations committee tried to get an answer from the defense department as to how many defense contractors we had working on our behalf in iraq and the defense department couldn't answer and couldn't answer for more than six months. i think it may be out of control and will probably see legs of that in the future. host: one of the headlines in "usa today," u.s. military dismissed fewer gays. secretary gates and chairman mullen will be talking about that. the president addressed it in his state of the union. >> this year, i will work with congress and military to repeal the law that denies gays from serving the country that they love because of who they are.

it is the right thing to do. [applause] host: rick maze, you wrote about that. what is in the president's mind? how willing is the secretary and chairman to carry this out? guest: a willingness is not a question when it comes to serve the president. they are willing to try. they have dozens of questions about implementation, how it cannot be done quickly, how this is not the right time to do it, but in the end, they are ready to start on the course to get it done.

certainly not as fast as people in the gay rights community may want, and it is a long road, and it is not a sure thing. host: how much support does this have fromxd officers? why do they have to go to congress to implement this decision? guest: the law is clear. homosexual melanie is not conducive to -- homosexuality is not conducive to servers in the army. the law was set in 1933.

bill clinton tried to pass anñr amendment. this left us with this don't ask, don't tell. the discharge members have been down from the military, maybe 1500, only because they were gay. host: washington, d.c.. tony, go ahead. guesño'ñicaller: i am a veteran. if someone wants to go to war, they have the right to. since it is a law, itñi seems strange, selective in the ways that we follow the law.

i just looked at this video of the general wesley cox that said the u.s. has invaded seven countries in five years. then i sell former president bush makingç!eu'announced -- i saw former president bush would be making an unannounced visit to the white house this week. my question is,ñi the defense department has a notorious reputation of not being able to account for trillions of money given to them.

cynthia mckinney was interviewing donald rumsfeld and they could not account for this money. how come this is not brought up? are we planning world war ii? host: sorry to cut you off, you gave us a lot to work with. guest: i do not think general clark was talking about places we were going to convey, but places where we could have to take action. that is what the qdr referred to. here are the threats that we may face that we may have to take

military action. on the question of lost money, he is right. there was a time when the defense budget could not balance its books. there was a lot of money missing. they have done a great job since then. i cannot tell you that they cannot account for every dime, but it is no longer trillions host: next up is arlington, new york. ted on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. common sense tells you any human being, gay or straight, that is willing to risk their lives for our freedom is just -- we've got to be in a debt of gratitude. although i question the timing of this whole thing.

but i had two quick questions. one, i think in places like korea where we have military, japan, europe, i don't know who covers the costs of those operations in those -- i think the europeans ought to pay and the koreans ought to pay and the japanese ought to pay the costs and then some reimbursement to the united states. and you know, lastly, i think that off subject, the government ought to use its institutions like the military, like medicare . they could sell medicare to young and healthy people in need of health insurance. the military could be used and be reimbursed and the government could recoup its expenses around the world for its military. thanks for c-span. .

. host: if we were to subcontract out the military, how would that make them different from contractors like black water? caller: those contractors are very expensive. i will not say exactly where the military should be located and used. that is another series of questions. but if it is decided that we should be in a location, in a country with a good economy that can pay for it, it should be from their wallets, not ours. guest: that argument has been going on to world war -- since

world war ii. some of the costs are picked up under the -- by the local governments under the agreements that we have with them. we do not have u.s. troops in asia, europe because the host countries want them. there are there for u.s. strategic interests. we are in the east because of concerns about china, world balance. if you could convince china -- korea or japan to pay more for them, great. if you can convince china and japan to pay more for them, that's fine. i don't think it's what america is about, it's a french foreign legion idea, we'll rent ourselves out and go do something. there are armies in the world that do that but when they do that, they're willing to

volunteer for any united nations peacekeeping mission because the money they get for that is willing to do it for the money that keeps their uniforms and everything. >> previously, he's worked for "the army times" as chief pentagon reporters and has written on fallly -- family and law issues for "the army times" news service and has been a staff writer for "the navy times" as well. he left the service as specialist five in the army and was staff writer for the european "stars and stripes," in vietnam he was an enlisted man assigned to germany as an information specialist and speech writer. who did you write speeches for? >> the commanding general, who went on to become the army chief of staff, i'd like to think it's my speeches that got him promoted. >> chad on our line for

republicans, you're on with rick maze. caller: i served in the navy for 10 years. the whole don't skrk don't tell policy didn't work. we worked around individuals who we kind of suspected were homosexual and we got along with them but when you open up a policy for, you know, openly gay and lesbians to come to the military, it's going to have additional infrastructure costs, i'm serious how expensive the costs are going to be and also the impact on morale to know that the person that you're working with is openly gay or lesbian. you have some people who are more conservative and don't actually believe that's a proper way of life. for me, it doesn't really matter but i've met plenty of people who don't believe that. i'll take my answer off the air. >> well the questions that you raise are the questions at the heart of the don't ask, don't tell debate and what you do about it. it's a question of

accommodating, because he's right. right now they work around things. nobody is going to try to tell you without a -- with a straight face that there aren't gay and lesbian people in the military and haven't been there all along. it's a matter of what co-you do if they openly serve. and the question of accommodation is a big one. what if someone doesn't want a gay roommate. they're worried about violence against gays once they serve openly, whether the military has the power to protect them from violence and the evidence right now is that they can't really protect them entirely, that there are some very sad incidents of gayçóxdñi bashing 34il8 tear. that's what they face. i think that's what you're going to hear today, more about the need to study practical aspects of how you open the door to gays and lesbians that serve in the military.

and the fact that some people won't like it and will oppose it is one of the greatest concernsñiñr that the military leaders have because it's an all-volunteer military and you have to have people willing to join. they worry about if you have openly gay people serving that you'll have recruiting trouble among the -- they're not so worried about the young people being able to volunteer but they're worried about what will their parents say and their friends say and will it be a stigma about joining the gay and lesbian people will be able to serve. host: is representative skelton of the same opinion? guest: levin was ready to open the military to gays in 1993, he didn't see the point of the don't ask,ñr don't tell policy

skelton is deeply opposed, remains deeply opposed to opening the military to gays sentiment a lot of other lawmakers are going to have and you're going to hear why now. we're in the middle of a war, got all kinds of other things going on, why do you have to do it now. and it's a good question to ask but it's one of those things that i know from 30 years of writing about the military, there's never a good time to make a change, especially if you don't want to make a change. as a large institution they don't want to change, they're resistant to doing that, it's hard to get uniformed military leaders on board to do that. >> the administration's insistence that now is the time, is it more political or do they sy it as a way of recruiting and keeping people that have certain skills that are beneficial to the military? guest: well the numbers are so small that it's not a big

recruiting tool one way or the other. there's some evidence that in their pools of experienced people, linguists and medical specialists in places where you don't want to lose them, it hurt but it's not a recruiting thing. as long as the economy is bad, the military is having no trouble recruiting whatsoever. for them, it's one of the thing he is wants to do and wants to do it in the first term he promised he wall try to do it and this is fulfilling the promise he made. host: our next call from michael on our line for independents from louisiana. caller: good morning. hello? host: go ahead, michael. caller: i just heard your last caller, he made points about gays in the military. i have family members who were military branch and friends of mine that were gay, not my family members but i had friends that were gay in the

military, and one of them that was kicked out for it. there's no reason for the prejudice we find in the military against gay people today. there's no point in it. pledge disin this country is just ridiculous and we need to wake up and stop worrying about whether or not he or she likes another he or she. it's just ridiculous. we should wake up and just start doing what regular people do toward each other, we're all americans, and get over those prejudices. we got over having blacks in the military, having women in the military, why not have gays in the military? they do everything we do. just because you're gay or someone's gay doesn't mean they're weird or alien or they can't do something. i mean, -- host: we'll leave it there. complete integration of racial

minorities and women in the military didn't happen overnight so why is there the push by certain members in the congress and the president, to get this done so quickly? >> for one thing, there's a big difference between -- when you took minorities into the military, it was easy to tell where they were and where they weren't, because they looked different. and a gay man or lesbian woman doo not look differently. you don't know where they are right now. but i think the strategy for opening the military to gays is going to be similar. they're going to not open the entire military. i think they'll try not to do it in combat arms because they're worried -- worried about camaraderie issues and things like that. and so, i think that that is really their plan to do it in phases, maybe a few occupations at a time, not unlike what they

didçó with women. i don't think they'll do like they did with minorities. when they opened the military to minorities they segregated them into units and it was an all black unit andñi there was question of would they ever work with a white unit, it was a difficult questions i don't think they'll face here now. i think it'll be more like women where you let them in a few occupations at a time. the question is, what do you do with gays or lesbians in a combat unit and still closetted because they can't come out or face discharge? that's what they face and when they're talking about maybe we need to be more lenient with the discharge policy and not make it don't ask, don't tell but never ask and never tell so you don't have to have those fears. >> members of the committee are certain to ask about the military's plans for troops in iraq and afghanistan. this is what admiral mullen had to say. >> by the end of this year, the remaining 10 combatbury gadse in iraq will be reduced to six

advisory and assist brigades and all troops will be withdrawn by december of 2011. in afghanistan, likewise, key focus is the development of competent afghan national security forces and our requests also make that a reality. accelerating the afghan police infrastructure, training and equipment. host: rick maze. guest: it's fulfilling what they promised, we'll have combat troops out by naug iraq. that's a day a lot of people thought would not come so fast. host: how do they ke de-fine what a combat troop is and what açó mission is? if a guy is walking around with a loaded weapon, ready to shoot if somebody shoots at him first, he's ready to shoot back or defend his co-workers or what not, isn't that a combat mission? gipe if you think about the

definition doctor guest: if you think about the definition more simply, are you in a unit able to carry out an offensive military operation, that's not what they're doing. from now on forward the war against terrorism and insurgents or whatever it is we're fighting ghens iraq will be carried out by iraqis, we'll provide logistical support and air support and those kinds of things, we'll be in a supporting role entirely and the offensive military power will rest with somebody else. host: back to the phones, pat on the line for democrats, welcome to the freshman. caller: good morning. it's amazing, rick maze acts as if the argument concerning homosexuals in the u.s. military is some new cause that was suddenly invented and it is absolutely absurd that we have to study this for another year. as the son of a general, my father was former director of o.s.i. and my brother just retired after being in the military as a navy seal for 34

years, i can tell you this, there are gays every where. admiral whitaker, who is a dear friend of mine, director of the kennedy center in washington, was a homosexual. i know lots and lots of people who are in the military who are fighting, that are gay navy seals. this is absolute bigotry. as our country, which is going down in flames economically, by a military industrial complex that has literally turned our country into an a.t.m. is wrecking the united states. host: pat, let me cut you after for just a second. what was it specifically that rick maze said that made you think he's some kind of by got? caller: i feel like i'm listening to dick cheney, he's going to turn around and he's going to go back to his editorial page and act as a mechanism to ensure that gays

are not going to be treated equally. which they're not. guest: well, i've never been called someone who acts like dick cheney before, i find that kind of amusing. i think it's clear. i said the debate has been going on since 1993, exactly the same debate they we had then, they could have done this then, they've been discussing it the whole time. i think i've been clear that there are gays every where in the military right now, they're in the service now, already there, they've been there all along. host: next up, georgia, richard on our line for republicans, welcome to "the washington journal." caller: thank you, sir. quick, question, why are there so many earmarks that have -- in the defense budget that have nothing to do with defense? putting in line item vetoes, a lot of these excess items could be vetoed out?

host: give me an example of one of the earmarks you're talking about? caller: i really don't know of exactly, i was reading an article here a while back, there are some 4,000 earmarks in the upcoming budget that has nothing to do with defense in itself. host: we'll leave it there, thanks for your call. guest: the earmarks are not in the budget, they get put in after it arrives in congress, and they do it because the defense department budget is a big budget and there's lots of places they can do this. the second thing is you know it's a budget that's going to be passed. if you're trying to get something done,s that bill that's going to end up at the end of the year being signed into law. that makes ate target. there are 4,000 -- he's right, 4,000 may be a small number in terms of how many earmarks are in the budget where lawmakers set aside something that wasn't

requested by the administration that evades normal plead your to be put there. host: defense secretary gates talked about programs for troops that need rest between assignments. >> recognizing the strain that post-9/11 wars have put on military families, we have put in place a program especially for ptsd and traumatic brain injury. we'll broaden information sharing between the department of defense and veterans affairs making the transition out of military service. we'll increase the time spent between deployments if for our ground forces with a goal of achieving a dwell to deploy to 2-1 and 5-1 for guard and reserve. host: the programs that secretary talks about, how much is that going to jack up the

defense budget? guest: because -- one of them could be expensive but basically we're not talking about a lot of people involved who have serious injuries. the medical costs for them are not huge, it's not a big thing. it's something we should have been doing all along, the fact that we're this far into the war and you still have problems with people getting care for war-related injuries is a stad fact. he talked about more time at home, though. that potentially is an expensive thing. we're cutting down on deployments to iraq, that's a good thing. but if you say we're not going to have people deloy as -- deploy as often but you have as many missions you need a bigger army. if you promise everybody they have two years before they go off on their next deployment, you have to have enough people many place to do and having more people in the military is

an expensive proposition. host: are there provisions in the budget to increase size of the military? guest: no it assumes we won't have more deployments that once we pull people out of iraq, they're going to stay home and no new people going to afghanistan and no new emergencies will arise. host: our last call from jefferson, colorado, chris, on our line for independents. caller: hello? host: hello. caller: nice to see you again, or look at you on the tv, good morning, rick. i have a question about the constitutionality of federal income tax and this is basically something most of the debacles mentioned, especially concerning now i want to ask rick if he would go over what

the constitutionality of our rirnltes are to pay federal income tax? guest: i'm sorry, you're outside of my military -- of my expertise. i wish the caller were correct and we didn't have to pay them is all i can tell him. host: rick mays, "army times" thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. >> in about 10 minutes from now, at 6:30 eastern, the house is coming back in for votes on measures debated earlier today and late they are week, members are expected to take up the measure to raise the federal debt ceiling which passed in the senate. defense secretary gates and joint chiefs chairman admiral mullen testified before the senate armed services committee today on the administration's plan for ending the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. here's a look at their opening remarks while we wait for the house.

>> mr. chairman, last week in the state of the union address, the president announce head will work with congress this year to repeal the law known as don't ask, don't tell he subsequently directed the department of defense to begin the preparations necessary for a repeal of the current law and policy. i fully support the president's decision. the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we must tissue how we best prepare for it. we have received our orders from the command for the chief and we are moving out accordingly. however, we can also take this process only so far as the ultimate decision rests with you, the congress. i am mindful of the fact, as are you that unlike the last time this issue was considered by the congress more than 15 years ago, our military is engaged in two wars that have put troops and their families under considerable stress and strain.

i am mindful as well that attitudes toward homosexuality may have changed considerably, both in society generally and the military over the intervening years. to ensure the department is prepared, should the law be changed, and working in close consultation with admiral mullen, i have appointed a high-level working group within the department to begin a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. the mandate of this working group is to thoroughly, objectively and methodically examine all aspects of this question and produce its finding and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of this calendar year. a guiding principle of our efforts will be to minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks with special attention paid to those serving on the front rains. i am confident this can be

achieved. the working group will examine a number of lines of study all of which will proceed simultaneously. first the working group will reach out to the force, authoritatively understand their views and attitudes about the impact of are repeal. i expect the same shortstop divisions that characterize the debate over these issues outside of the military will quickly seek to find their way into this process, particularly as it pertains to what are the true views and attitudes of our troops and their families. i am determined to carry out this process in a way that establishes objective and reliable information on this question with minimal influence by the policy or political debate. it is essential that we accomplish this in order to have the best possible analysis and information to guide the policy choices before the department and the congress. sec the working group will undertake a thorough examination of all the changes

to the department's regulations and policies that may have to be made. these include potential revisions to policies on benefits, base housing, frat earnization and misconduct, separations and discharges, and many others. we will enter this examination with no preconceived views but a recognition that this will represent a fundamental change in policy, which one -- one that will require that we provide commanders with the guidance and tools necessary to accomplish this transition successfully and with many -- with minimal disruptions to the department's critical missions. third, the group will examine a change in the law on military effectiveness, including how it might affect unit cohesion, recruting and retention and other matters crucial to the performance of the force. they will find a way to mitigation and manage any negative impacts.

these are, generally speak, the broad areas we have identified for study under this review. we will continue to refine and expand these as we get into this process or engage in discussion with the congress and other sources. in this reward -- in this ward we -- regard we expect the working group will reach out to outside experts with a wide variety of experiences and to that end, the department will as requested by this committee ask the rand corporation to update their study from 1993 on the impact of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. we also had received some helpful suggestions on how this outside review might be expanded to cover a wide s.w.a.t. of issues. -- a wide swath of issues. this will be open to views and recommendations from a large variety of sources, including members of congress. i suspect our approach will make some wonder why it will

take the better part of a year to accomplish our task. we have looked at a variety of options be when you consider the ultimate imperative of getting this right and minimizing stress, it is clear that we must pr seed in a manner that allows for the examination of all issues. an important part of the process is to engage men and women in uniform in this 350ered since after all, they will ultimately determine whether or not we make this change successfully. to ensure the working group is able to accomplish its mission, we determine wed need to appoint the highest level officials to turn it out. i am naming the department of defense general counsel, jay johnson, and general carter hamm, to serve as co-chairs for this effort. simultaneous with reviewing

this process, i'm asking for a review of regulations used to implement the current don't ask, don't tell law and present to me within 45 days a way to enforce this law in a fairer manner. i asked the general counsel to conduct a preliminary prere-view last year. based on that, we believe we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform. y will now conduct a final detailed assessment of this proposal before proceeding. mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee, the department of defense understands that this is a very difficult and in the minds of some controversial policy question. i am determined that we in the department carry out this process professionally,

thoroughly, dispassionately, and in a manner that is responsive to the direction of the president and to the needs of the congress as you debate and consider this matter. however, on behalf of the men and women in uniform and their families, i also ask you to work with us to, insofar as possible, keep them out of the political dimension of this issue. i'm not ask for you not to do your jobs fully and with vigor, but rather that as the debate unfolds you keep the impact it will have on our forces firmly in mind. thank you for this opportunity to lay out our thinking on this important policy question. we look forward to working with the congress and hearing your ideas on the best way ahead. >> thank you. admiral mullen. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain. thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss with you this very important matter. the chiefs and i are in complete support of the approach secretary gates has

outlined. we believe any implementation planned for a policy permitting gays and lesbian it is serve openly in the armed forces must be carefully derived sufficiently through -- sufficiently thorough and thoughtfully executed. over the last two month, we have reviewed the fundamental premises behind don't ask, don't tell, as well as its application in practice over the last 16 years. we understand perfectly the president's desire to see the law repealed and we owe him our best military advice about the impact of such a repeal and the manner in which we would implement a change in policy. the chiefs and i have not yet developed that advice and would like to have the time to do so in the same thoughtful, deliberate fashion with which the president has made it clear he wants to proceed. the review group secretary gates has ordered will no doubt give us that time and an even

deeper level of understanding. we look forward to cooperating with and participating in this review to the maximum extent possible and applaud the selection of mr. johnson and general hamm to lead it. >> you can see this entire learing -- hearing here on c-span after the house is out tonight. the house is coming back in for votes now on issues debated earlier today. research, development and technical standards and for

and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 1050 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1050, resolution providing further amounts for the the expenses of the committee on official conduct in the 111th congress. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lofgren: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the matter just considered. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a resolution, a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, u.s. house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives i have the honor to transmit this sealed envelope receive fred white house on tuesday, february 2,

2010, and said to contain a message from the president whereby he submits a copy of the message continuing the emergency order. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202d of the national emergencies act, code 1266d provides for the consideration of a national emergency unless prior to its anniversary of declaration the president submits to congress a notice to the effect it will continue beyond its date. i have sent to the register the

enclosed motion declaring that executive order 13396 of february 2, 2006, with respect to the situation is to continue in effect beyond february 7, 20 10. the situation in or in relation to this which has been addressed think bithe united nations security council of november 15, 2004 and subsequent resolutions has resulted in the commass consider of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against international peacekeeping forces. for these reasons, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency and related measures block the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in the area, signed, barack obama, the white house, february 2, 2010. the speaker pro tempore:

referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the house will come to order. will members take their conversations out of the chamber. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. before the gentleman begins, again, members, the house will be in order. please take your conversations out of the chamber.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate your bringing the house to order. as i rise today to honor the sacrifice of navy hospital petty officer second class shin shii who died in afghanistan on the 23rd day of january. the petty officer was -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. given consideration of the nature of the address will the house come to order.

the gentleman will pr proceed. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i will start over in respect for the officer he deserves respect. i rise today to hon more the sacrifice of navy hospital officer second class shings is shii owho died on january 23, 2010. he was i assigned to dallas, texas when he volunteered to go to afghanistan. he was there for three months when a suicide bomber attacked while he was on a foot patrol in helmet province. 25 years of age, he's survived by his mother and father. they are residents of my county, shelby county, and they're the third casualty -- he's the third casualty from shelby county in the last few months, the second this year, in operation enduring freedom. we've had 13 heroic soldiers

die in the middle east since 2002. mr. speaker, i ask that this house take a moment to remember the sacrifices -- sacrifices of armed forces including the sacrifices of petty officer shii. thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the family for their wonderful son and the sacrifice he's made for his country. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to ask house members for some help. about three or four years ago we found a man in savanna, georgia, in his late 40's, maybe early 50's, who does not have identity. we have no idea who he is or

where he came from, but he's an intelligent, apparently college-educated, middle-management type guy, maybe from indiana, mr. burton actually helped us on him a little bit because he has memories of indiana and denver, colorado. we've talked to the f.b.i., they've done a background check. we've talked to social security, they've done a background check. we've gone to many federal agencies and asked them for their assistance trying to identify this gentleman. he has no social security number, so he can't get a job. he is totally -- he's forced to be homeless if not for the charity of some people who have taken an interest in his case. if anybody knows a way to identify somebody, i would respectfully ask you to please let me know what it is and i will be glad to follow whatever lead you can give me. i appreciate that and thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, each nation is sovereign. but across the airwaves of american television today we saw flashed three americans who have been held by the leadership in iran. three innocent americans who crossed, by mistake, on a hike, into the sovereign area of iran. i make a plea today for the president of iran to release those individuals. today he sent a message to say he would release them if we release iranians who are held in american jails. i believe that the right thing to do is to address the innocence of these americans. and to be able to engage in diplomacy on setting them free. if there's any cause for any innocent person who happens to be of iranian descent who is

here in the united states jail, i know that our leadership and criminal justice system will engage. but to hold hostage our innocent americans who by accident during a hike conspicuously crossed over and admitted it was a mistake is a shame on the international front and does not do justice to human rights around the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: the administration made a tragic mistake when it decided to try khalid chic mohammed and his con -- khalid heek -- khalid sheik mohammed and his confederates in a courtroom. they don't know where they're going to go next. if you didn't have guantanamo bay, you'd have to build it.

that's the place he should remain, this is the place he should be tried. we should resume the military try brunals where he and his confederates indicated they wanted to plead guilty. we should forget the nonsense about bringing them to civilian courts in the united states. if it's too dangerous from new york, if it doesn't make sense for new york, it doesn't make sense for anywhere in the sovereign territory of the united states. guantanamo is the perfect plates for them to remain, do not close guantanamo, keep them there, try them there, give them their meeting with justice there as well. mr. speaker, they're not attacking us because of guantanamo bay. they're attacking us because of the statue of liberty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further requests for one minutes? hearing none, the chair lays before the house the following

personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. ehlers of michigan for today, mr. ellison of minnesota for today. mr. tiahrt of kansas for today, mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe of february 3, 4, and 9 for five minutes each, mr. jones february 3, 4, and 9 for five minutes each, mr. moran, february 3, 4, and 9 for five minutes each, ms. ros-lehtinen today for five minutes, mr. burton today, february 3, 4, for five minute, mrs. miller, today for five minutes, mr.

reichert today for five minutes, mr. conaway today for five minutes, mr. inglis today for five minutes and mr. deal on february 3 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special order heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. conner of michigan, mr. berkley of nevada -- ms. berkley of nevada, ms. woolsey of california, mr. defazio of oregon, ms. kaptur of-hour. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under pe speaker's announced policy -- under the peeker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and you should a previous order of the house, the

following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, there's grim update coming out of the nation of iran. last week, the government of iran executed two of the 11 people who had been arrested and sentenced to death for peacefully protesting the government. they were hanged. iran announced yesterday that nine more people sentenced to death will be hanged in the public square. on saturday, 16 more protesters went on trial for their lives. hundreds of people were arrested in december when liberty advocates again protested in the streets of iran by the thousands and at least eight people were murdered by the government. what was their crime? speaking out against a rigged presidential election last

june. speaking out against a dictator who murders his own people, ahmadinejad. the people reject the tiny tyrant of the desert, ahmadinejad, and are killed in the streets and sentenced by the government-controlled courtrooms to die for peacefully objecting to fraudulent elections. so death by hanging from the liberty tree was their fate. but their silent voices are still heard proclaiming freedom throughout the land of iran. they died martyrs for their country they died for human dignity, they died alone but not for themselves alone but for every iranian that believes in the human right of freedom. next week, on february 11, iran will mark the 31st anniversary of the islamic revolution. the revolution promised the people of iran liberty but it has imposed tyranny. the occasion is usually marked by a government-run rally throughout the country but

teleleaders of the freedom movement are asking the people to once again risk their lives and stand in opposition to government tyranny. and government controlled rallies. the government is accused of executing two protesters to scare people into into silence on the anniversary of the revolution. now the tiny tyrant in the dez erlt, ahmadinejad, said the islamic revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race. what a lie. the iranian government doesn't know what the word liberty even means. the head of the islamic revolution guards in tehran, brigadier general amadi, warned in the media that the opposition movement would be barred from making an appearance on february 11. he said, any voice, color or gesture which is different from that of the islamic revolution and from the iranians' voice should be driven out of the

people's marches, saying violatedors will be severely dealt with. so much more freedom of speech, so much for freedom to peacefully assemble and protest the government. plus those in the media are being controlled as to what they can report, allowing only government propaganda to be preached to the people. is this what the iranian government calls liberty? this is tyranny by dictator ahmadinejad. the united states should not beremain silent about the oppression of the iranian people. the next great hope for the world and world peace is that the people of iran remove their illegitimate regime that is duly and legally authorized by the people the united states should stand with the iranian people in their request for freedom and let them know we support their voice for freedom over tyranny, liberty over oppression, and twhile dictator may kill the body of those freedom fighters, he will not succeed in killing the spirit of freedom that they have

proclaimed when they lived. . ahmadinejad is trying to intimidate his people and the world. he is threatening the world again saying iran will deliver a telling blow to global powers on february 11. could this be a threat? another advance in iran's quest for nuclear weapons? our quarrel is not with the people of iran. the world's quarrel is with the government of iran. the illegitimate government of iran is the world threat to peace. ahmadinejad is waging internal war and he wants to wage war against other nations. we should protest tyranny, oppression and murder in that country. iran needs a regime change because a nuclear iran is not a

nuclear option and that's just the way it is. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? mr. conyers from michigan. for what purpose does gentlelady from californiaize? ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as secretary of state hillary clinton announced a new women's action plan for afghanistan last week, i want to praise secretary clinton for this critically important initiative because i believe improving women's rights is one of the important ketion to peace in afghanistan and as matter of fact, many other parts of the world as well. the action plan includes the following initiatives. improve security for women in

afghanistan, provide girls and women with better education, expand women's access to judicial institutions, improve women's health care, expand economic development opportunities for women and increase women's participation in the political process in every level of government. mr. speaker, there's a great need for these initiatives because women's rights have been ignored or destroyed in afghanistan for many years, especially under taliban rule. in afghanistan, the lives of girls and women are at risk every single day because many laws actually don't exist to protect women and there are many laws that actually discriminate against women. and it's also important to remember that the health care is so poor in afghanistan that it has the second highest mortality rate in the world. hundreds of girls' schools in

afghanistan have also been destroyed by extremists. the list, mr. speaker, goes on and on. but in the united states, we can help. we can help improve the lives of women in afghanistan. if we do this, it would be a devastating defeat for the violent extremists in that country and a great victory for progress in afghanistan. as a state department official said last week, and i quote, progress is not possible if half a country's population is left behind. afghan women must not be viewed simply as victims who need to be sheltered. they must be respected and valued as leaders. a reserve of talent that afghan society needs to draw upon in order to prosper and succeed, unquote. mr. speaker, i want to mention just one particular example of

how women can help afghanistan to prosper because when women are allowed to work, they invest up to 90% of their earnings in families and communities. that's twice the rate of men. and it has a powerful multiplier effect. so, mr. speaker, improving the status of women has been a central part of the smart security platform, which i have been urging for afghanistan. i'm convinced that smart security would do far more to win the hearts and minds of the afghan people than military action. that's why i oppose president obama's plan to send 30,000 more troops to afghanistan. we don't need more troops. we need a new strategy. this new strategy must focus on economic development, humanitarian aid, better education and health care and human rights. we must encourage and we must help the afghan people to build a better future and show that

we, the united states, are on their side. certainly women's rights must be at the heart of this new strategy. in fact, advancing women's rights might be the most effective anti-terrorist strategy we could have in afghanistan. so let's support and secretary of state clinton's ideas and suggestions by empowering the women of afghanistan. it will help keep them safe and keep us safer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. moran from kansas. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: mr. speaker, i would like to claim that time and speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burton: mr. speaker, the president of the united states, president obama, is sending a budget up here that we just found out about in the last

couple of days, $3.8 trillion in the fiscal year beginning october 1. and that's about a 30% increase in outlays since 2008. $3.8 trillion. the president eel budget includes more than $2 trillion in tax hikes at a time when this economy is really suffering with a nearly 20% jump in taxes in the first year alone and it's going to hit tax increases on small businesses, investors and families and going to violate the president's campaign pledge. the president's budget bors too much from our -- borrows too much from our kids and grand kids. it will run a record budget deficit of $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011 and throughout the next decade the defendant will never go below $700 billion and 2020, it will be over $1 trillion a year and the national

debt is going to double in the next five years. we can't sustain this kind of spending. the president's proposed spending freeze that he talked about is a step in the right direction but only $15 billion. $15 billion out of a budget of $3.8 trillion is less than a drop in the bucket. when he talks about freezing spending, that's not going to solve the problem. we need spending caps if we're going to get control of spending. the president pushed through the stimulus package which ended up costing over $1 trillion and hasn't helped unemployment. he said it wasn't going to be more than 8% and still over 10% right now. the president said he wants to have another stimulus package. he calls it a jobs bill. it's going to cost billions of dollars more and it's not going to create jobs, just going to

increase the deficit more. and c.b.o. says that if we pass the energy tax he's talking about because of quote, unquote, climate change, it's going to increase taxes on energy by $870 billion. and then to cap everything off, the president continues to want to bring these terrorists to the united states for trial. these people are enemy combatants. as my colleague, dan lungren talked about a while ago, they should be tried in a military court in guantanamo where people won't be intimidated. imagine what it would be like to be on a jury with one of those people. everyone would be scared to death that their life is at risk if they rerpped a decision to put those people to death or cause them a great deal of harm. we really need to deal with them as an enemy combatant and need to deal with them in guantanamo and give them the military justice they deserve.

i hope that the president might be paying attention. i can't address him, because we can't address people outside the chamber. if he were listening tonight, i wish he would take these things to heart because the american people are concerned about the direction of this country. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. berkley. mr. jones. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: i ask to speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: i would like to continue the theme and that is the president's vision for these united states over the next 10 years. that vision is exemplified in his budget that he brought to congress yesterday, which for fiscal year 2011 which doesn't start until october of this coming fall would spend $3.8

trillion. it is a record. $1.3 trillion in 2011. $2 trillion in increased taxes and accumulate, 8.5 trillion in deficits over the next five years and double the national debt. that is not a vision for america that my grand kids want to look at and see. to put that in context. if you look at the cumulative deficits during the previous eight years, they to the tote taled $8 trillion but if in the first 15 months, it is $1.8 trillion and surpass the $2 trillion number sometime during the second quarter ffment you look at the first quarter deficit under this administration of 2010, it is larger in 15 months than all but two annual deficits in our nation's history. again, mr. speaker, that is not a vision for america that my

grandchildren would embrace, nor is it one we ought to embrace on behalf of my grandchildren. my appeal is to the budget committee. the budget committee takes up the president's budget and i would appeal to my former colleagues on the budget committee to ignore this flawed vision for america. it is unsustainable and is not one that is worthy of us to consider in the leet least. i would ask to bring forth a budget that addresses what i believe is the single greatest threat to our way of life and that is the goth of this government as represented by spending growth. 29% of goth in spending since 2008 -- growth in spending since 2008. our colleagues have the ability to do that. they have the ability to say let's put out a budget that truly does address this threat, grave threat to our nation, to our prosperity. let's -- couple of suggestions i

would make. roll back spending to 2008 levels and start the spending freeze there. let's put a hiring freeze on today for all federal government agencies except d.o.d., homeland security and intelligence communities, a true action that every family around this country knows what it means. i'm reminded of the folks and you see them all the time, folks searching for a way to lose weight. they are looking for a new way to that diet plan and always willing to start the plan tomorrow. mr. speaker, any of us can start a diet tomorrow, but we need a spending diet that starts today and i would ask my budget committee colleagues to start that process. we need it today, not 20 months from today when the president's statement of a freeze. his freeze won't start until october 1 of 2011 and it is a

fig leaf at that. mr. speaker, these are tough times and hard times, this isn't being republicans or democrats, but about a vision we ought to have for this country and ought to include ways of fixing today's problems however difficult those might be with today's money. we have taken the process of using future generation's money to fix today's problems and we cannot continue to do that. i would ask that my colleagues consider a balanced budget amendment, that is if you ask me what is the most important constitutional amendment we ought to be considering among that broad array, it would be a balanced budget amendment that would force congress to make those tough decisions, not a commission out there that could be some sort of a facade but a true balanced budget amendment that everyone has to operate one, families, counties have to operate under.

we ought to be doing the same thing and i would call for both of those things and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise tonight to hon nor the brave work and supreme dedication of the command and crew of the u.s. coast guard cutter mohawk. the moe 45uck has just returned from -- the mohawk has just returned from a two-month deployment and is home at coast guard sector key west. during their deployment they were diverted to haiti in response to the earthquake that hit on january 12. the mohawk was the second cutter on the scene and the first to have coast guard crew members on the ground in port-au-prince. on behalf of our grateful nation, i thank each and every crew member for their role in this humanitarian mission.

my most supreme appreciation goes out to corpsman second class elias gomez. coreman gomez will be receiving commendations and awards for his heroic actions in the gruesome scene that was port-au-prince. corpsman gomez set up a mini hospital and triage directly in the streets of the capital he set broken bones, he closed wounds, all the while having to create tools and making do with limited supplies. his actions were as resourceful as -- as resourceful, as inventive, as innovative, as they were lifesaving. corpsman gomez's medicine was an example of american values at its finest. this great american and father of four truly led by example. i join with those whose lives he saved in thanking him for all he has done. through efforts like those of

corpsman gomez, the wonderful crew of the u.s. coast guard cutter mohawk helped save countless lives and performed their mission in accordance with what is the best traditions of the u.s. coast guard. their assistance was both essential and invaluable. we have all seen the devastation that is present at the island nation of haiti and it is beyond words. the united states has a unique duty to protect, to defend, and to support freedom and all people around the globe. as proven by the men and women of the u.s. coast guard cutter mohawk, this noble cause lives on in our nation's oldest continuous sea going service. the effort of the command and crew of the mohawk have supplied a liveline of humanitarian assistance to haiti and will certainly help

ignite the spirit of hope for recovery in that devastated island nation. every day, i give thanks to our local coast guard personnel, no matter how they serve. their effortings are first and foremost -- their efforts are first and foremost to safeguard our florida coastline. this fact is never lost on me or anyone else in south florida. we feel their presence every day and take comfort in the fact that the men and women of the coast guard sector miami, as well as the sector key west, truly live their motto, always ready. we as a nation can never repay those who serve, but we can take pride in knowing that those men and women have served not just our community but our neighbors in need as well. their humanitarian mission reminds us all of what it means to be an american and why we should be so proud to save

every -- proud to say every day, i am an american. the commitment of the u.s. coast guard is illustrative of how we must do all of our parts to help our continuing relief efforts in haiti to each and every member of the u.s. coast guard cutter mohawk, i say thank you. commanding officer robert t. hendrickson, executive officer john k. driscoll, corpsman second class lice gomez and all the crew as well as the families who support these heroes, thank you. your works are tom our great nation. always ready. and we thank you for it. thank you, u.s. coast guard, thank you coast guard cutter mohawk, welcome home. god speed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. defazio of oregon.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, several weeks ago, our nation received a very vivid remirnede that islamic terrorists are still at war with our nation and are bent on killing innocent american citizens. on christmas day, an islamic extremist attempted to blow up northwest flight 253 as it was on its final approach from amsterdam to net roe airport with a sophisticated bomb smuggled in his underwear he had been radical azed ial qaeda and trained in yemen. following his capture, he was only questioned by f.b.i. agents for a total of 50 minutes then after that initial questions, he was sent to the university of michigan burn center, probably the best medical care in the entire world, all at taxpayer expense. then, attorney general eric holder had to decide how to

proceed. did attorney general holder and the justice department immediately share the information they had gathered with senior intelligence officials? no. did attorney general holder declare the terrorist an enemy combatant and turn him over for further questioning? no. did he have the f.b.i. continue to question in order to obtain more actionable intelligence? no. so what did attorney general holder have the f.b.i. do? he instructed them to give full miranda rights to this terrorist, including the right to remain silent and gave him not one, not two, but actually three taxpayer funded attorneys. guess what, after he lawyered up he shut up. the attorney general did this even though this terrorist had fresh firsthand knowledge of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula, even though he had previously given actionable intelligence and now we have made it difficult to obtain any further intelligence, intelligence that could have led to the disruption of other planned

terrorist attacks or assistance in unwinding this terrorist network and we need to ask the question why. i believe that attorney general holder has built a culture within the justice department that seems to put the rights of terrorists ahead of the safety of our nation. let us remember that prior to becoming attorney general, eric holder and his law firm represented many, many terrorists. pro pro-bono. that is, for free. these terrorists held in the military justice system and argued fir their transfer to the civilian justice system, wanting to give them full constitutional rights. as well he has placed other attorneys who also represented terrorists held by our government into high-ranking positions within the justice department. the attorney general has not answered questions as to why senior intelligence officials were not consulted on how to proceed or why this terrorist was not treated as an enemy combatant. mr. speaker, it almost seems

like attorney general holder has gone into the witness protection program can with regard to the christmas day bomber. if this congress is to do its duty to proovide oversight, attorney general holder must answer these questions. unfortunately, the lack of his consulting with intelligence officials or senior national security officials is nothing new. attorney general holder did not consult with senior military or intelligence officials before deciding to try k.s.m. and other 9/11 conspirators in norblingt he did not consult with the police commissioner or mayor about security concerns and now new york officials have finally come forward and objected to this trial being held a few blocks from ground zero because of their security concerns and the cost associated as well. the administration is now looking for a new location to hold this trial as well as budgeting $200 million for the first year alone to cover security costs. so this decision not only makes

us less secure and gives terrorists a platform from which to spew their hateful rhetoric, anti-american rhetoric, it will cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, all to extend a pre-9/11 mindset that views terrorism as criminal intent instead of illegal acts of war. mr. speaker, i would respectfully offer some advice for president obama and attorney general holder. hand over the christmas day bomber to the military and intelligence officials and allow for an appropriate interrogation that will yield additional intelligence that will protect america. keep khalid sheikh mohammed and other terrorists slated for civilian trials in new york city or wherever they end up at, keep them at gitmo and try them before a military commission. a year ago, they were prepared to plead guilty before a military commission before eric holder made this decision, we could have executed one of them by now. i hope the president and his

attorney general rethink their current approach which i believe is very dangerous for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. ms. kaptur of ohio. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm just back from a trip led by our colleague steve lynch to afghanistan and pakistan and what we saw there, welcome, -- what we saw there, mr. speaker, was america's best doing incredible work. the u.s. military is clearly the best trained, best equipped and most disciplined fighting force in the world. i'm committed to keeping it that way and to supplying them with resources they need to get their work done. i'm also commit to consigning their mission to achieveable objectives and the projection

of -- protection of america's national security interest. there are many memorable moments of this trip, mr. speaker. the first person i saw in afghanistan was lieutenant colonel rick simmons of south carolina, formerly the veterans affairs officer of pick ens county, he's -- pickens county, he's now chief of protocol. skipping the dinner with delegation gave me an opportunity to have dinner with him and seven other personnel at his pardon me. in kabul, afghanistan, i talked with susan anderson, serving in the american embassy as an economic analyst. she's a graduate of union high school and the college of charleston. in canned harr i met two members of the national guard unit from wilford, south carolina which deployed recently, justin mcphee and zack greg pelosier. justin's home is about five miles from mine, passing by

benson rhode island as i travel on highway 25 north will remind me to pray for justin and those serving with him. he's on the explosived or nants detonation team. when i thanked him for serving our country and tried to complimenten him on doing his dangerous work he gave me the standard response of our incredible all-volunteer force -- it's my job, sir. at dinner hosted by america's ambassador and female members of the parliament, we were asked to offer our comments, i remembered a soldier killed by improvised explosive device, i wanted them ho hear his name one week to the hour after we paused for his funeral. i wanted them to know how precious his life was to his parents, his brother and our mutual friends.