standardize trading collateral [unintelligible] any one of those? all of those? >> on derivatives title, jack reed and judd gregg, remember chairman dodd assigned teams with derivatives designed to judd gregg and jack reed. .

>> if consumer issues exists, we want the fed it to implement it, we do not want rule making and enforcement combined. that is the arrangement we have arrived at. we made it the first real offer on.

there was a process where rules would be made. there is a veto process. if the safety and soundness or systemic risk is created -- there is a veto process by some regulators and we offered that in the beginning. by the way, dick shelby, judd gregg, mcconnell, others were in discussion that to make that in a way that worked for all of us, we made the offer and it was accepted. we were down to issues that i promise you and you never dreamed of in your life. we were 20 runs down in to four -- in treasury, working on whether there is a conflict and there is a judgment and how does it work out? it got down to judicial issues.

that is the fine-tuning it got into on consumers. the major concept was absolutely agreed to. >> what about the ability of the consumer agency to conduct [inaudible] >> they had to go win on a joint examination, which is what they said. a joint examination -- conducted at the regulatory level. it was a huge win, but what we are concerned about is enforcement. that's an area where we were able to reach accommodation and we accommodated on the democratic side, the issues where we had to sure -- were we had to ensure enforcement would not be part of the round.

i think the rearranging -- i'm going to come clean on this -- the rearranging of the deck chairs is one of the silliest efforts i have seen. it reminds me of being in business years ago and have a company in trouble. what did they do? they change the organizational chart. they still make lousy widgets, but they had a meeting and this person moved to this box and this person moved over here -- nothing changed, still lousy widgets. that's what this whole reorganization is about. it's not worth the effort in my opinion. ots going into occ makes sense, but everything else is moving back chairs around. we need to make sure the regulatory agencies in place do the things they are supposed to do. i probably shouldn't say this but i think it's all been kind

of silly. at the end of the day, this is my prediction -- nothing changes much. but let me say this -- and what will change as it relates to the standards of these entities are held to. the fed will have its wings clipped, no doubt. it will still be supervising -- i know the way the bill sets out, they will be supervising the large entities, the large and middle size entities. the debate is whether they will be the smaller institutions they now have. there is all kinds of lobbying taking place right now by the board of fed governors run the country. they like their marble buildings and stature and relevance and i'm being funny -- not trying to make fun of them. i don't see any reason to change that to be candid.

it seems silly. like we're doing something and we're not doing anything. [crosstalk] >> [inaudible] >> they are included. >> federal regulation? >> yes. the rule making scope covers everybody involved in financial activity. everyone. >> [inaudible] >> del have state charters just like state banks do. the ftc has been hamstrung because they have an arcane rule making ability. this change is this and create a rule making standard that is across all financial standards. one of the things i think many of you are missing is that

credit unions, me and the banks, people like that across the country would like to see a level playing field. everybody is focused on this consumer issue in such a backward way in my opinion and did not realize that those people have to live by certain standards and this is the way it is in all industry. they want to make sure everybody has to live up to the standards they live up to. federal branch will stay in place just like it is now. the dodd draft and frank draft -- no use rate issues. this was a major step forward. all republicans want to make sure enforcement's days -- don't get the consumer out of bounds and as a veto process that exists. i think we accommodate a very

good balance. >> [inaudible] >> starting monday, there is two weeks left. >> why does that involve [inaudible] >> it is envisioned that should the house pass it, that reconciliation would end up last few days before recess. i think he feels pressure and i understand that, to try to get something out of committee before that process occurs. >> you said the proposal senator dodd put out on monday will be where you left off. how so? >> we are still trying to get things in the middle of the road and we sort of hit the pause button. even the things we have worked through, the language will not

be crafted. it takes a long time to get this legislative language cranked out. even some of the things we have worked through, unfortunately, will not make it into legislative language as a result of hitting the pause button yesterday. we did not have one of those of my sessions tonight and we're not going to have won tonight. we will continue working together, but the bill will be like you coming to cover the press conference and you start writing your column and then you get halfway through and then stop. that is the way the bill is going to be. on the plus side, it will be a much better product and what he offered in december. a much better product. this is not going to affect my attitude in one way -- we will continue to wake up every day and try to get good at financial regulation. >> [inaudible]

>> said the consumer was not the cause of the break down. there has been no break down. what happens is you are on the 5 yard line and the lights went out. there has been no break down and we will continue to try to work through things. i'm disappointed, especially as you can imagine, after all of the things that have occurred over the last month. but all i think republicans want to see a good financial reform bill. i think democrats want to see a good financial reform bill. if we cannot do this in a bipartisan way, and i have hope that we will, we can't do anything anymore in the united states senate. hopefully we'll get this done.

[inaudible] >> now, more on financial legislation regulation or with senate banking chairman christopher dodd. he offered a preview for new financial regulations that will be presented on monday. hear, he explains the key provisions at this 15 minute news conference.

>> let me thank all the -- i put out a statement earlier this morning indicated -- indicating we are right -- on a positive

and optimistic track for the reform package in the senate. without wanting to sound like a mutual admiration society, let me commend my colleague from tennessee, bob corker -- he and my staff have been partners as we have tried to fashion a bill. we are not there yet. as i have said over and over, having learned at the side of ted kennedy, bills of this magnitude, nothing is done until everything is done. while we have made great progress, we need to move along. i intend on monday to put out a proposal on the table. that is the next step. i have been promising that to many of you in this room that we would have a proposal on the table and each week we'll let it slip a little bit because we felt we could get a little further along in developing a consensus product. so the proposal offer on monday does reflect a lot of the ideas bob corker and others have

brought to the table. but clearly, we need to move along. what i am facing is mostly the 101st senator, and that is the clock. particularly in an election year. that clock becomes a rather demanding member because as time moves on, you limit the possibility of getting something done. particularly a bill of this magnitude and complexity. if i did not put a proposal out, i want to try to get to the committee, if we can before the easter break, we will come back almost to the middle of april. so we have a low brick -- we have a limited amount of time and in break in may, june, and august. and it's an election year, so the time is limited to get this done. the idea of putting a proposal on the table is not a reflection of this breaking down, it's the opposite. the process is moving along well, but i thought it was important to put a proposal on

the table. i am grateful to bob corker. the major parts of this bill, there is four parts. we intend to stop for of the notion that some institutions are too big to fail. that is going to end. we reached broad consensus on the and i think to mark warner and bob corker. major achievement and never again should the american taxpayer be exposed to the tune they were because institutions became too big to fail. second, we want an early warning system for systemic risk silicon pick up these trips when they occur by institutions are byproducts that put our financial system at risk. so we have a lot of consensus around the idea. it is not complete. third, we want to be in a situation where we are dealing with derivatives and exotic of

-- an exotic instruments. we're working on it and how you provide that transparency and accountability is a major source of the factors contributing to the economic difficulties in the country. and the issue of the consumer -- how we better protect consumers, including the possibility of having a strong agency that will be able to engage to address the consumer needs. we're not there on that either, but we are getting there. all this will be further advanced by having a proposal on the table, otherwise it's a lot of conversation. i think members and others who have a strong interest in this on monday will have a chance to look at a document and react to it. my goal is for a week after that, to begin markup on the bill. utilizing the week between the proposal to continue conversations and bring ideas to the table with a goal of coming to the table with a consensus bill an end to the floor of the

set. so i wanted to express my sense of optimism about this. i know there's a tendency to look at the statement said wonder if there has been some retreat. there has not been in my view. to thank all members of the committee for the tremendous support for the last number of weeks on this issue and recognize bob corker because he did step up. that has been so valuable in this process. so let me address any questions. >> how do you plan to treat the consumer piece of your bill? >> we are working at. i can't negotiate at this table. that's why we have members and are talking. it's a major issue and we're working at. all lot of progress has been made trying to find -- tried to find a proposal that it enjoys broad support.

>> center corker laid out what he thought there was it -- senator corker laid out what he thought there was a deal on. >> i will take a look what is out there on monday i think you'll see it -- there are about 13 titles to this bill and it's going to be a different proposal than the one i proposed in october or november. so it will be changed from that proposal, but i'm not going to negotiate in the press. >> senator corker said it would be a travesty to have the bill marked up in a week. he says it requires more time to mark up. >> it may. all you want me to give you a time schedule and i try to do that, but i realize by doing that i'm reading my own problems by giving it dates and times. this is -- i'm more interested

in getting this right then getting it on a certain date. but i need to set some marks to try to drive the process. i've been involved in a large of markups in the last 30 years and i have learned all lot from democratic and republican leaders and chairman and one thing is consistent -- you need to move things forward and set proposals on the table to get people to react to them and then set times to try to go forward. that can flip based on where we are. getting it right is more important than getting a date. but i don't have a lot of time left in this congress. a lot of us know how this can go by quickly. look how long it takes even a nomination on the floor of the senate to go through. sometimes days just to get through procedural motions to get to a vote. i'm hoping to avoid a lot of that if we can get a consensus. >> center corker -- senator

corker said reconciliation on health care could poison the well. >> that's an issue we are aware of. the administration cares deeply about this bill and they want a bill. we're constantly in touch with them. i've already talked to the secretary of treasury and we talk almost every day. the chief of staff calls and asks what the status is and we have a great interest in moving forward on a bill. there are other matters on the table and i've been involved in that as well. but the real problem i'm facing is the clock. the 101st senator, i don't know the coined the phrase, but if you have been here a number of years, you can appreciate what happens in an election year. the longer you get into a year, time can play a factor in to what gets done. >> in going to the markup, how

concerned are you about holding onto bipartisanship? >> that is what i have been trying to do. i acknowledge and recognize -- the best product in my years with every major bill i have been involved with without exception, involves having a partner. i'm going back to the days of child care legislation and family leave legislation. there's not an exception i was able to move something on without of that relationship. a bill of this complexity, i mentioned before major pieces and there are other parts, but the major pieces require cooperation. i'm not sure you get as good a product without it. it's not just a political factor, but it's a sensitive evaluation as well. i'm determined to try to get that, recognizing a i don't, it's going to get harder to get a bill done given the time -- given the time constraints.

my relationship with bob corker , and others and members of my own party -- they are all critically important that i talked to them all the time on trying to move forward. this proposal will introduce and reflect a lot of what those conversations have produced over the last several weeks. >> two years after lehman brothers, lawmakers are still at loggerheads -- >> we are not just dealing with one issue. you're dealing with a set of issues that have gone unattended for almost 80 years. you can go back to the 1930's when the last time any effort was made at trying to reform the financial services sector. too big to fail -- $700 billion is what the american taxpayer had to write tax -- had to write checks for. i'm determined we will close the door for ever. that may be the single most

important thing we do -- making sure we can regulate or provide transparency or accountability of exotic instruments that contributed to the economic troubles we're in today. we need to fix that and we're getting close to do it. we need to have the ability to look over and see what's going on in our economy. the idea that no one saw this coming, i don't buy it. but having a council in place will allow us to make the determinations and giving consumers -- how many times of the talk about the legislation for 1994 and the federal reserve did not do anything when it came to promulgating legislation that could have avoided the catastrophe with home mortgages? it was a major reason we saw the tumbling of our economy. this bill will address those issues to the large extent, maybe not exactly as i've been like, but as close as i can to building a consensus here in the senate. >> how much does that affect the

process and you lose any effort? >> that the issue we are all aware of but it's not the only thing and suggesting is the only reason we're doing this -- we are at a point where you can talk about a bill and we have had 52 hearings alone on this bill. i put down a proposal in november, a discussion draft that had a lot of discussion and trying to find a compromise proposal. there's been a lot of progress on that. let's put aside reconciliation -- the moment has arrived to put down a proposal. we walked outside to -- they need something on paper so they can say i like this for bill like this. that only happens when you have a proposal on the table. that's why we need to put this out on monday.

>> [inaudible] >> we would have to postpone the elections to do that. >> [inaudible] >> a lot of things are unanswered still. i have 22 members on the committee, almost a quarter of the senate. it's not just two of us. we're dealing with a lot of members with a lot of ideas and a lot of interest. as chairman of the committee, i need to pull that together in a way that produces a consensus bill and that means a consensus on all sides. i will try to report where there is consensus in the committee and where there is not, it will have to reflect something different. that does not foreclose the option of getting to closure. >> that seems to be a growing group of progressive concerned about this. how concerned are you?

>> it's a complicated institution. yet to deal with all sorts of people. >> to what extent would and negotiations? >> markups have been around for a long time and you have to put a proposal on the table. every day i read stories about what is in and what is out. you cannot put a bill together that way. this will give you something to exit report about. >> [inaudible] >> the dollar amount? we do not have a cbs korea. -- a cbo score yet. i can guarantee you it is far more exorbitant then what would be for what we're going to do here. if we can in the $700 billion of bailing out firms that have an implicit guarantee from the federal government that they could never fail, that's

something i am determined to and in the limited time i have before i retire. i don't want to ever again read about an institution that reached that that is that the american people had to pull the chest out of the fire. >> [inaudible] >> sometime this spring because they have to get into summer and august and barney has worked hard and weeks ago put a bill together. it was hard for him even under house rules to get a bill together. we are talking to his staff and others --

>> [inaudible] >> i wanted all night, all day, every camera you can find. >> [inaudible] >> has senator dodd says he plans to have the banking committee take of the bill on march 22nd. the house has passed its portion in december on a party- line vote. >> obama and his socialistic ideas of the government, deciding salaries, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> tonight, michelle easton,

founder and president on promoting conservative women in leadership roles. that's tonight at 8:00. >> tonight on "prime minister's questions close could the prime minister announces that the government detailing the project setting the stage for national elections. the prime minister takes questions on funding for the military in iraq and afghanistan. that is at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> the health-care debate moves to the house budget committee as committee members marked up health care legislation. we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 eastern on c- span3, c-span radio and our website, c-span.org. the budget meeting is part of the matter to put the legislation to a vote. democrats want to have the bill approved under expedited reconciliation procedures.

the rules committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. the house speaker says she hopes to start debate on thursday with both possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on health care debate and it is the -- and visit our health care of, or even read the legislation and see what president and members of congress are saying and join in the conversation yourself on twitter. you can find cost estimates for the bill and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate floor debates, committee hearings, and other events. >> the new head of the national highway traffic safety administration, david strickland, testified before a house subcommittee on its agencies handling of toyota call recalls. bobby rush chairs the commerce subcommittee on consumer

protection. this hearing is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> we did have to postpone this meeting, so accept my apologies for the delay. we do value your time. so please accept our humble apology and we will now proceed with this hearing. this hearing today is a subsidy on commerce, trade, and consumer

protection. the subject matter is nhtsa, the role ahead. the chair recognizes himself or five minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. the subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection welcomes all participants here. our main purpose for coming together today is to assess nhtsa's effectiveness. last month, promised americans but -- america pause motorists, passengers and pedestrians that if this subcommittee things of its jurisdiction responsibility to reauthorize nhtsa, we will help nhtsa regain public confidence this is our first

occasion to welcome nhtsa office administrator, mr. david strickland to this hearing and to the said committee. during his first several months at the helm of nhtsa, have been a rocky and filled with difficult challenges. i know him to be a highly intelligent and care and professional. i am assuming he will shoot straight with us. the members of this subcommittee can quickly support and moved through this subcommittee and the full committee and the

florida health. i look forward to the witness panel and the crash data analysis, the research, and rulemaking to promote the killer safety. although i am not very stringent about time restrictions on statements, this is a different day. i will not hesitate to keep us on. and on the right path as much as possible. we expect a number of members to

participate. i will ask my colleagues to operate with a full understanding as it relates to time considerations. before i yield my time, like to say a few words about today's hearings. let me be clear. this is not a hearing about people in total recall or its practices. please try to restrain yourself from hearing too far away from our purpose of examining nhtsa and its configuration, its organization, and nhtsa's performance in the area of defects investigations, safety standards, and enforcement. i want to thank all of our witnesses to have taken time out

of your very important schedules in order to advise this subcommittee. we are more than thankful to you for your patience. let us work constructively and clubber to flee to ensure -- and collaborative lee, to ensure that nhtsa can fill its stated mission of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing costs due to [unintelligible] through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. you are all great american's annual become even greater americans if you help us improve nhtsa. i yield back the balance of my

time and recognize the ranking member for five minutes, my friend from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank you for your patience and we welcome the witnesses on both panels. i would like to start out this afternoon by simply congratulating the national highway traffic eat -- national highway traffic safety administration. vehicles today are safer than ever and in 2009, there 33,960 highway fatalities, which is to many, but the fewest since 1954. at the rate of fatalities in 2009 was 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. when this record was first recorded back in 1979, there were 3.3 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. i think that should make a

public feel more comfortable, even though one death is one death to many. as a result of all the focus on toyota, some commentators have opined that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. those opinions are wide ranging and. to many different issues ranging from nhtsa's authority to the way it as utilize its authority. the president of the safety research and strategy company which does all of consulted -- consulting work for trial lawyers testified during a hearing last month, when he was asked does nhtsa need more tools or authority, he simply said i think the number of errors were made in the process of these investigations, not so much that the tools were not available as much as the tools were not employed.

i think is important we consider all of those things as we move forward. as far as unintended acceleration, this is a problem that has cut across three decades and multiple administration's without successful resolutions. similar to nhtsa positive findings in the early 1980's and 1990's when it commissioned and indigent -- intact -- when it commissioned an investigation of unintended acceleration or the more recent reviews between 1999 and 2000, the current investigation has not answered all questions and may never do said to everyone's satisfaction. regarding nhtsa's actions, it is not clear what they could have done that what they have already done and whether the outcome would be any different. administrator strickland testified last week that there simply was not a strong enough

case to force the issue of a mandatory recall even if that had been decision by nhtsa. if a problem cannot be clearly identified, a proposed fix will not have a meaningful benefit. i might also say that to date, the office of inspector general within the department transportation announced the initiation of an audit of nhtsa 's defects investigation to include an examination of its handling of toyota as well as the broader issue of the process that odi employs to examine safety defects. the office of the inspector general is similar to those of these hearings, simply to determine whether nhtsa has the tools available to investigate safety defects and identify possible improvements to its current procedures. i think that's what this hearing is all about as we move forward. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> the chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee from illinois for five minutes for the purposes of opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am so happy we are having this hearing today. without a doubt, the national highway traffic safety administration's profile has risen dramatically as a result of its role in responding to the dangerous problems with toyota's vehicles, probably a little higher than perhaps you had wanted or anticipated. this hearing will give us the opportunity to explore whether nhtsa has the resources, expertise and authority necessary to investigate reports of safety problems and enforce existing safety rules. i want to welcome mr. strickland and congratulate him

on his new position and welcome him to this committee. i know that you are an advocate for consumers and it was a pleasure to be able to work with you earlier on the consumer product safety improvement act when we worked together when you were in the senate. i know of your commitment to consumers and consumer safety. my guess is that right now, you -- we will find some gaps that need to be filled and i look forward to working with german rush in the subcommittee and with nhtsa in crafting legislation to address those gaps. mr. strickland, in addition to discussing issues nhtsa issues's oversight activities, looking forward to begin a dialogue about children's safety in and around cars and other protective safety measures.

i appreciate that we had a moment before this 10:00 hearing to discuss this of debt. in past years, congress has enacted legislation requiring nhtsa to issue specific safety regulations dear to my heart and has the children transportation safety act signed into law in 2008 requiring rulemaking on a rear visibility standard and a power with the standard. i know that you are working on both of these issues as we speak and it is my hope that both of these will be very strong to protect children. i think the hardest thing i have done in this congress in my 12 years is having parents come with pictures of their children who are no longer with us, sometimes because they

themselves inadvertently -- and i think we know in large part, due to design problems, actually were responsible for those children's deaths. it's the most unbearable thing to think about -- these were preventable. yet, these parents turned this tragedy into a crusade to make automobiles safer, not just in traffic, but not in traffic. i am looking forward to working with you to create standards that actually do prevent those accidents from happening. my concern is that in the past, congress was forced to take action because nhtsa was not initiated badly needed rulemaking on its own. i look forward to working with

you to make sure nhtsa has the tools it needs and that uses its tools to protect consumers. i look forward to that very much. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back >> the chair recognizes -- i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from [unintelligible] >> thank you for holding this hearing. it's an honor to have you today, mr. strickland. you have an important responsibility that is too often kept on the back pages of most newspapers and magazines. it is only when something dramatic like these tuileries call hearings comes up -- these toyota recalls hearings, understanding the role your agency place. you add me like you are a young

man, so i don't know if you go where you were on december 2nd, 1994, but i know where i was. i was not sitting in that chair, even though i was suppose to be sitting in that chair. i was supposed to be testifying that day in a recall hearing on sidesaddle fuel tank explosions involving general motors pickup trucks. i did not get the opportunity to testify because a settlement was reached that day between your agency and the secretary of transportation and general motors whereby $51 million was paid for a supposed consumer safety program so that the recall hearing would not go forward where people like me would have an opportunity to talk about the impact on human lives of the fact that do not get solved. i was going to testify that day about client of mine, a young

woman in iowa who had the right side of her face burned off when the pickup truck she was riding in was involved in a collision at the pickup truck rolled over on its side and, because of the placement of fuel tanks outside of the frame rails, the flames went up the side of the pickup truck and a golf her face in flames. her husband who was driving the pickup truck pulled her young son who was seated between them through the broken windshield and got him to safety. when he went back to try to rescue his wife, he reached into grab her and pulled out big chunks of her hair that burned off in the fire. he went back to his son and said mommy is in heaven now. but, miraculously, this brave young woman survived and went through months and years of grueling, painful skin grafts, hair transplants, and

incredible disfigurement because of that defect. when we gather for these hearings, we spend a lot of time talking in very arcane, technical language about sudden and -- sudden i anticipated acceleration and electronic control safety devices, but we rarely talk about the human impact of the failure to act. so, when you think about the important responsibilities your agency have, it is important not to think about where we are today and where you are going to take that agency going forward, it's important to look backward at the legacy of this agency and why there are some people who feel it has not fulfilled its responsibility to keep the american public safe. i look forward to the opportunity to have a meaningful, long-term conversation with you about the important responsibilities you

have an outlet forward to hearing your testimony today as we work together to get to the bottom of this unexplained problem. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus, the dean, my friend from the state of michigan, mr. dingell for five minutes. >> thank you for your kindness and courtesy. i commend you for this hearing, which is very important and i also commend you for your fine leadership of this subcommittee, for which you have done a splendid job. i want to observe the response by nhtsa to these safety defects has been sluggish. likewise, nhtsa possible decisions to terminate several and turned it -- several at internal analysis related to the defective toyota vehicles since 2003 due to a purported lack of resources leaves one with the

impression the agency lacks the proper level of personnel and appropriations with which to fill its mandate. we want to find out if that is the case today. if that be so, the safety of the american public is at question. as was the case with its sister agency, the consumer products safety commission, nhtsa has suffered years of stagnation in funding and in many cases has endured production and personal levels, most notably in its office of defects investigation. nevertheless, the agency possesses a number of powerful enforcement tools, many of which or augmented under the transportation recall enhancement accountability and documentation act of 2000. in addition to being able to compel manufacturers to recall defective vehicles, this survey

impose civil penalties for non- compliance and criminal penalties for falsification or withholding of information. we must ask ourselves today why these authorities were not used in the case of recent toyota recalls. put another way, are the problems with nhtsa's response to the recalls traced to a lack of authority or to ineptitude and lack of resources? at present, it appears the latter is more persuasive, although i will not discount the possibility that improvement can be made in the statutes of conferring nhtsa its authority. hard as aggression of nhtsa's authorities must not lose sight of what i believe to be malfeasance of a part of toyota. in properly addressing the problems that led to the recall of over 8 million vehicles, to

reauthorize without a view of compelling better behavior would be a self defeating exercise. two weeks ago, my questioning of the twi ahead of sales for north america indicated all of toyota's decisions relating to recalls are made in tokyo. more disquieting is the fact that u.s. officials, the secretary of transportation, and the then-head of nhtsa had to fly to japan to persuade toyota to initiate recalls in the united states. in brief, we must examine how best to oblige automobile manufacturers selling vehicles in the united states to comply quickly and fully with our regulations and laws. in closing, i suggest my colleagues bear these comments in mind as we begin what must be the first of many conversations

about improving the federal oversight of transportation safety. i further ask these discussions and their resulting legislation will be bipartisan, collegial, and subject to [unintelligible] because these are the hallmarks of this committee's best work over the years. thank you for your kindness and i think the witnesses for appearing before us and yield back the 58 seconds remaining to me. >> thank you. it is the normal practice of this committee to swear in the witnesses. if you stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> baidu. >> record reflect the witnesses --

>> i do. >> let the record reflect the witness answers in the affirmative. the chair is getting ahead of himself -- it has been a long day. the chair wants to recognizes the administrator for five minutes for the purposes of opening statements. >> thank you. my statement is not as important as the committee's questions, so i can understand you wanting to hurry and get to business. >> that's a great beginning. [laughter] >> thank you for your kind words, all of you. before i begin my formal remarks, i want to take a second

to acknowledge that note about the human toll. we have a tremendous amount of debt on today's highways and i am happy to report some very good news, but 33,000 people is a tremendous amount of people to die. one person is too many. the personal toll it takes on a family is absolutely catastrophic. in my time that i serve as a staffer on the senate commerce committee, i had the opportunity to spend time with countless victims, including mothers and fathers who killed their children in unfortunate accidents and people that have been disfigured and burned because of traffic accidents and defects. you can never properly captured what this means to people. so i am fully aware of the

responsibility i have in that every day this agency has one goal -- to keep people alive and safe on the road. we can never do that job well enough. we just simply cannot. but it does not mean we cannot try and we will continue to put forth maximum effort, as we have, to make sure we accomplish the goals. thank you for observations and they are taken well to heart. >chairman, ranking members and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the national highway traffic safety administration and its importance a programs. transportation safety is the department's highest priority. nhtsa's safety programs are an integral part of addressing that priority. even before i was sworn in as administrator on january 4th, i knew nhtsa's programs work and a

work well. we just released numbers that show a continuing decrease in number in the amount of overall highway deaths. the secretary as morning released a report that traffic fatalities have declined for the 15th consecutive quarter and will be 33,963 in 2009, the lowest annual level since 1954. but, we must do more. the loss of more than 33,000 people represent a serious public health problem to our nation. we will not rest until the number is 0. so how do we get there? highway safety is a complex problem and nhtsa has built a broad [unintelligible] the linchpin of our data is good at engineering. when i was sworn in, i felt was important to look at whether there's a need to improve nhtsa

's effectiveness in this era of rapidly changing technologies. one of my first decisions was to question whether nhtsa is being well served by the four vehicles that you authorities on which relies to regulate. the reality is, while current authority does work, and various constituencies have learned to work with them, they were written in the 1960's and 1970's, when the world and the automobile market were profoundly different. .

" we will take -- asked our staff to the existing authorities, is a question, and make their best recommendations. i believe the self-assessment is critical and supports the president's goals for accountability in government. while we are taking a hard look at our authority, but also commit to look at the current ethics rules. i believe the standards set by this administration are the highest ever established. i fully support secretary lahood's desire to enforce these across the department of transportation. next question i asked is whether we have the support we need for our programs. nhtsa has reversed and experienced work force.

we will take full advantage of their talents and expertise. if we find we need to shore up our work force in certain areas, we will recruit aggressively. we are currently requesting the authority to hire 66 more people next year. we will target these positions to meet our program needs. it appears i am out of time. i will cut my remarks here. i stand ready for questions. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. administrator, our goal and the goal of this subcommittee as it relates to nhtsa is to look forward and determine the best

way that we can fisher and assist in nhtsa said -- the weekend -- the way that we can support and assist nhtsa. as i look at the scenario of toyota as a framework, i wonder about a safety -- about the safety and quality of the automobiles on american highways in general. what reason can you give us that

we should not think that the recent toyota recall would not replace itself -- replay itself with any other automobile dealer at manufacturers automobiles for american highways? can you assure us that this toyota recall is really something that is an aberration as it relates to automobile safety? >> i would say that the toyota retairecall is indicative of how

nhtsa uses its authority to get to the bottom of something. when the secretary of transportation to office, they were observing certain issues with toyota. they felt so strongly about it that mr. medford went to japan to inform toyota that they did not feel that toyota was holding up its obligations to inform and interact with nhtsa to address safety and recall concerns. that effort began on december 15. that was the day of my confirmation hearing. that is a good reason why the senior staff on defects was in japan and not at my hearing. better for them to be in japan explaining to toyota what they were doing wrong than sitting in the hearing room in washington, d.c. when i took office on january 4, i was upbeat about the

issues. -- i was updated about the issues. toyota was beginning to get the message. i met with them personally the first time in january 19. i informed them that i had learned about the sticky pedal situation. the executed the stock sale on january 21. that effort -- they executed the stop sale on january 21. i do not see toyota as indicative as an example of failure. i see it as nas-- nhtsa doing is job. we get the results we need. i think toyota in a wide-ranging recall executed is the type of response that i would want as an administrator. i think that is what this agency is expecting. i would hope that in the future, other automakers would do the same with the same set of

facts. >> can you give us any assurances that the automobiles right now as far as nhtsa is concerned pedal level of safety -- have a level of safety that is greater than what we have experienced with toyota? >> there are two parts to that answer. i will go back to the success which is tabbed -- we just have regarding the current data. we've had the lowest number of deaths since clinton did before. nhtsa is succeeding in its mission. do i feel that vehicles are generally safe or will be safe and will not have another issue like toyota? it is the responsibility of the automakers to warrant that their vehicles comply with the federal standards. it is their responsibility.

we're not planning these cars as safe. it is our job to enforce and police the marketplace. we will do that. the automakers have to uphold their obligation to comply with our standards. it is my job to make sure that they hold to those standards. this agency will hold that line. >> the chair recognizes the next speaker for five minutes. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. as i said in my opening statement, i do think the agency should be commended. the highways are safer today than they have never been from a statistical standpoint. you would agree with that, i am assuming. >> yes, sir. >> there have been a lot of articles written and a lot of testimony recently that in nhtsa

has not fulfilled its responsibility, that it is a lapdog for the industry cannot a watchdog for the industry. there has been a lot of criticism out there about the agency. as the administrator, how would you respond to that in a general way? do you think the criticism is valid or not? >> it is not valid at all. we have been a very active agency since i have taken office. the agency has been very active since secretary lahood has taken office. if we review the work done on 20 of the, the agency opened eight separate investigations when there were complaints about the acceleration. a lapdog does not open investigations. it is our job to find any vehicle safety defect the presents an unreasonable risk. any time of complaint, and data,

or anomaly in the number of complaints or what we see from the early warning system, our folks take a look at it. they go forward and investigate. if we cannot find a defect, under that statute, we cannot force a mandatory recall. that does mean we think the vehicle is safe. at that point, we cannot make a step toward peace. we will keep looking. when we find a defect like these other instances, we act quickly. i do not think the history of our action in this area before i took office or the 10-year. a lot of people looking, i think this agency has been quite active. >> if you find the defect, you can require a mandatory recall. >> that is correct. >> i have heard a lot of discussion about subpoena power.

it is-standing that you could issue of information requests. do the manufacturers have to respond to that request? -- it is my understanding that you can issue subpoena requests. does the manufacturer have to respond to that request? >> yes. we want to get every document they have a question. they have to give that to us. they also have to respond to information requests. it has a better purpose. we not only get documents, we ask direct questions that they give us answers to. it is a much sharper tool. the agency uses that frequently. we spensent three large querieso toyota regarding the timeliness of their submission regarding the formats and the sticky pedal. we sent a large recall query asking for all of their information and asking about all

of the sudden acceleration incidents. that will be a large amount of data to review. if we find in the review that there is a violation, we will move forward accordingly. >> have you found the lack of subpoena power of a hindrance to the agency doing its job effectively? >> in my review of the work with toyota, toyota has been slow in years past. i will say that they have not been as responsive as my staff feels they should have been. since i have been in office, they have been very responsive. i hope that will continue in the future. in terms of the ability to subpoena and information requests issued in responded to, i have got no evidence that is a problem in terms of getting a response. >> and know a lot of your budget money goes to the states and the rest is spent between behavioral safety and vehicular safety.

in 2005, congress directed nhtsa to conduct a national motor vehicle crash cause jason -- crash causation survey. it said that 95% of crashes were due primarily to driver fault or negligence. are you familiar with that study? do you have any thoughts on that? >> i am familiar with it. i cannot give you chapter and verse. i can talk more specifically about behavior. that is the largest component of risk on the highway. that is the reason why the budget is designed to attack a highest risk. impaired driving, not wearing seat belts, driving distracted. those are the hugest risks for everyone on the road today. vehicle defects are important. we have to address them. there are significant. in terms of the overall risk profile for highway safety, the behavioral side of the house

comprises the largest risk. that is the reason why our program for safety is designed the way it is. quick thinking. >-- thank you. >> my questions will require a yes or no answers in light of the time situation. do you believe the nhtsa makde mistakes in the recent toyota recalls? >> no,, i do not. we pushed the recalls when we have the evidence of an unreasonable risk defect. the answer is yes, we responded appropriately. >> what authorities does nhtsa lack with which to address

defects in automobiles deemed hazardous to public safety? please submit the answer for the record. does nhtsa have a place -- have in place a ranking system for determining priority of defects 'investigations? >> the answer is no. we rank risks by profile internally. there is not a 1-10 >> there seems to be broad agreement about the need to increase resources for nhtsa to carry out its mission. you need additional resources? >> the president's budget gives us more resources. we will have the resources we need. >> please submit to us for the record how much more resources you need and in what area. i want that submitted directly to the committee and not through omb.

james lent reveal the the decision to recall three of vehicles sold in north america are made in japan. do any other manufacturers require your information for details or decisions made relative to recalls that made in any country outside the united states? is toyota it unique in that? >> it appears that toyota is unique in that. w>> it strikes me that this is a bad situation for the safety of the american people. >> the system toyota uses could be much more efficient. >> it would require them to have a response made in united states by someone who complies with our laws? >> i think they have someone in america to respond directly, we

could act more quickly. >> i would appreciate if you would submit to the record held this would be corrected. -- how this would be corrected. is there quantitative difference in the response times between domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers to nhtsa data inquiries? >> the domestic manufacturers tend to respond faster than the foreign. yes. >> what is the cause for this? >> there are several reasons in terms of design of leadership and other factors. >> in the case of toyota, it is because the intermission has to be prepared by toyota -- the information must be prepared by toyota? >> that has been identified as a problem. >> the recall decision is made in tokyo. >> that is correct.

>> is their quality or quantitative difference in the data provided by domestic and foreign manufacturers? >> the quality of that it is very similar between foreign and domestic. -- the quality of the data is very similar between foreign and domestic. the differences because of their manufacturing and information systems. they comply. they are similar. >> why was it that the secretary of transportation and the secretary -- the acting head of nhtsa had to go to tokyo to get cooperation of toyota on recalls in the production of information? >> they were responding to nhtsa, the acting administrator, and the secretary to slowly. at the time, the secretary and

the acting minister felt they needed to go directly to convey that message. -- in the acting administrator felt they needed to go directly to convey that message. >> the message was to urge we have to comply more expeditiously with the safety concerns? >> that is correct. >> i have to go to get more expeditious cooperation from toyota. -- they have to go to get more expeditious corporation continued. >> that is correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on september 1, 2009, rules were put out dealing with the automatic reverse system and windows. let me quote this. nhtsa proposes requiring systems on the windows equipped with one-touch closing or express

operation. in a letter of march 10, 2010, that was sent to you, and relaxed and, chairman rush, and myself point out that such windows generally already have on the reverse -- auto-reverse technology and are usually found on the driver's window where children do not sit. intention of the legislation was to protect children. here is the point i want to make. i find this stunning. you have a chart. this is one alternative of five that were proposed. this is before your tenure. alternative one is the one that i described.

it says on this chart that the cost per window for this remedy is $0. the total incremental cost is near $0. the annual fatality benefits 0. the annual injury benefits near zero. the preferred alternative to protect children was a no cost, no benefit solution. i would have thought it embarrassing to put that in writing and choose that as the preferred option. i would hope that nothing like that happens again. let me describe alternative #two. -- let me describe the second alternative.

requiring all power windows to meet european standards. the cost per window is $6. i think most people would find that reasonable. the total incremental cost is $149 million. the annual fatality benefits and injury benefits are 850. two tests and 850 injuries could be saved. that is a modest production. that is its $6 per window. -- that is a modest production. that is at $6 per window. i want to go back to the families talking about the children who were choked by these windows. it has to be maddening to them that this could have been corrected for $6. that is the european union

standard. why is it not a standard here? my request is the we reject the alternative number one. how can that happen? can we expect it will not happen anymore? that a no-cost, no benefits solution will not be proposed? >> as you know, i cannot engage in a discussion about the rule currently being worked on by nhtsa. i understand we have received new data from a lot of constituencies, including those report closely with you. the agency is taking a hard look at the data. when the rule is finally promulgated, we hope we will -- i know for a fact it will be based on sound data and science

and most efficacious for safety. >> let me make a very strong recommendation that you do not propose rules that have absolutely no effect. congress stated very clearly that we want to protect children. i am sure you will agree with that. they do very much. i yield back. -- thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> mr. strickland, in your opening statement that we received, on page one, the third paragraph, you wrote that one of the first questions you asked when he became the administrator of nhtsa is whether the current statutory authority drafted largely in the 1960's and 1970's is sufficient

to address the modern automobile and global marketplace. and you answered that question? >> the question is still being worked on by the staff. i have a great deal of experience in looking consumer product safety statutes for my prior employe. you have to be careful examining these things. there's a lot in the statutes that is functional and works well. we want to improve upon a strong authority. my legal and program staff are undertaking that work right now. when we have completed the work, we will be happy to share our thoughts with the committee. i am looking forward to working with you going forward. >> i look forward to having that conversation. let me get back to one of my earlier point about the legacy of the agency that you now head. in your statement, he noted

correctly that steve -- safety is the highest priority of the department of transportation. we know the office of defects investigation or odi is on the front line of defect investigation and prevention as part of the department of transportation. mr. whitfield ask you of. . . question -- mr. whitfield ask you a very appropriate question about mandatory recall power. can you explain why your agency has not initiated a recall since 1979? you can often influence the recall by going through the initial stages of the process. most times, an automaker will not want to go through the full process. it takes approximately a year. it is a public process. a lot of automakers to realize they are facing public scrutiny

with the defect. if they know the agency can prove it, they will effect a voluntary recall. most recalls are voluntary. all recalls since that time have been volunteered. huge number are influenced by this agency. that is the no. we want you to look at. we influenced well over half of the recalls that happen every year. that is the real number that is indicative of the power of odi. we do not have to get to the point where an administrator after a year of hearings have to sign an order. automakers will go forward and take care of the recall voluntary -- voluntarily from the work of odi. i am skeptical that in 30 years, there's not an incidents were automakers and responded every time in the call for

recalls. i also want to talk to you about how you described that the mission of the agency has changed in response to changes in the automotive industry. >> i do not think a recall is a change in mission. it is a change in how we have to approach the job because of the change in the marketplace. there was a time when america was the world leader in automotive manufacturing. we're no longer that leader. >> i am talking about something different. when i was growing up, it was during the muscle car era. you could tear apart and engine in your basement and put it back together having a basic knowledge of the internal combustion engine. you cannot do that now. one thing that came out during our earlier hearing was the concept of black box technology that has crash data in it. it is driven by complex computer codes.

sometimes the manufacturer is willing to share it with your agency. sometimes manufacturers have been reluctant to share the data or provide the ability for your own employees to have the keys to the kingdom to download and interpret the information independently. would you agree with that? >> i agree. >> i am concerned about our own report for this committee hearing suggesting that your agency's budget dedicated to vehicle safety has remained relatively stagnant over the last 10 years. your resources are far below the resources that were available for this type of investigation when the agency was at its height. when you have a demand for computer engineers and electrical engineers and people who are not based on mechanical backgrounds, i am concerned the

level of funding and staffing of personnel within your agency may not be adequate to meet the incredible demand for the changing technology of the automobile industry. have you done an independent review since assuming responsibility to make your own judgment on whether that is critical case that we need to address? >> of a couple of responses to that. the work of odi and the engineers that do the work, they are some of the finest in the business. as the technology evolves, the experience of our investigators also revolves. we have 125 engineers. we have by the electrical engineers. we have a software engineer. we ohave engineers and our ohio facility. we have resources for consultants when we need additional expertise.

there is not the notion we do not have the proper expertise to handle the data. i do not think that is the case at all. recognizing that you cannot always budget with what you have, the president has provided resources to hire 66 new people. we will use that to leverage our resources and strengthen. we will be looking at doing long-range studies on these complex systems that the secretary spoke about in the prior hearings. i am confident the we can handle the current marketplace. of course we can be stronger. >> of the 62 employees you have identified in the budget request, how many do you propose to allocate to odi? >> that is an ongoing process.

i will be happy to come forward with the information when a decision is made. >> can you provide a breakdown of the people working in odi with engineering degrees by name, job title, and particular expertise? >> i would be happy to do that. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from michigan, mr. sutton -- ms. sutton, for five minutes. >> i am close to michigan. thank you for being here. i have a number of questions. they touch on different areas. bear with me as week shifted around. -- bear with me as we shift around. beginning with the black box technology that we've heard a lot about. secretary oflahood talked about

the difficulty of getting information from the black boxes. we do not have the keys to the kingdom for that information. when i heard you as a representative dingell about having access to data, he said we have access to data. it may be toyota that keeps information in japan. i was under the impression based on the last hearing that we could access information from our domestic manufacturers in a way that we cannot get from toyota. could you clarify? >> in his question was about the quarterly reporting data that we receive from all automakers.

there are some differences in how they present it. we can understand all that. that is what i thought he meant. in terms of data reporters, you are right. toyota has proprietary systems. up until a week ago, the was only one tool in the country that could read it. we did not have that tool. if we wanted to get information from a toyota vehicle, it was very difficult. it is an understanding that toyota has provided my staff with three of these readers. i am not sure that we have received them all yet. that is what trend has promised to provide -- that is what toyota has promised to provide. the courtly -- quarterly data is similar. there is a difference between the detroit automakers that use a commercially available tool

that we can read vs toyota where we could not until week ago. >> that was the only hindrance to having access to the black boxes? >> we can access it. we still need a toyota representative to help become the data. it is not fully transparent even when we download the box. -- we still need a toyota representative to help decode the data. >> is that something they are required to do? is that voluntary? >> we are undergoing a change. by 2012, if an automaker chooses to have a and en edr on board, s to comply with certain

standards. they do not have to have an event recorder on board. it is not mandatory. >> that is interesting. we will have to follow that and see the consequences of that rulemaking. with respect to what we have been reading, we have been reading in "the washington post" about the relationship between some of those who used to work for nhtsa and those who've gone to work for the car companies. at this moment, toyota is in the headlines. your article mentioned that two former defect investigators -- the article mentioned that two former defect investigators left and took jobs with manufacturers. do you think there is an apparent conflict of interest? as members of congress, we're charged with ensuring that the public interest is always the

key. you can understand that people are more than a little concerned when they see that cozy turnover and revolving door. >> note ethics laws were broken. -- no ethics laws were broken. when they left everything they did fully complied with the current federal laws. no laws were broken. i will not quibble with you on express. perception is reality. -- i will not quibble with you on appearance. perception is reality. we're committed to strengthening the ethics requirements for the department of transportation. i fully support the secretaries

efforts. i will hold every employee at nhtsa to the highest ethical standards, as the secretary hold everyone dot to the highest standard. the obama administration has made this a focal point that this will be the most ethical administration in history. we look forward to working with you going forward in handling the issue of the parents -- the issue of appearance with employees in a post-employment situation. >> i appreciate that. the public trust is critically important. i would like to indulge in one last question. during hearings we've had in the past with representatives of toyota and secretary lahood, we heard information about how recalls of vehicles had happened in other countries.

these recalles were stemming frm problems similar to what happened in this country. is there anything that requires auto manufacturers to report to nhtsa problems beyond our borders with vehicles sold in this country? >> there are a couple of requirements. they have to report foreign recalls the involved components used in u.s. vehicles. they also have to report foreign service campaigns. the question is whether they did this time. we will investigate those issues. we received a lot of data from the tread act. we're looking at other types of

information. we look forward to working with congress to find ways to buttress those abilities. >> the chair seeks unanimous consent that mr. markham be allowed to ask questions of the witness. hearing no objections, it is so ordered. >> thank you for your hospitality. the early warning system of helped to create with the tread act was intended to provide the public with early information that auto manufacturers receive about safety-related complaints. the bush administration issued a regulation that deemed almost all of the information submitted by automakers to be confidential

business information. as a result, the early warning system has become an early warning of secret. i have a summary of the public information contained in all of the early warnings submitted by toyota in the last quarter of 2008. there were reports of injuries and death because of speed control. that is all the information you get. the public cannot learn whether those relate to sudden unintended acceleration. they cannot learn what happened. they cannot learn whether any consumers may complaints about similar problems that did not result in a serious injury or death. do you agree the public versions of early warning system data do not really tell the public anything specific or useful

about potential problems? >> mr. markey, the nhtsa databases and information we provide are some of the most transparent in government. in terms of the early warning system, as far as the obama administration is concerned and as far as i am concerned, the more transparency, the better. i would love to have a dialogue with you about the early warning reporting system in your thoughts on how we can improve transparency going forward. >> consumers to report safety complaints to nhtsa as well. these reports are made public. does it make sense that when a consumer reports a safety problem directly to nhtsa it goes into a publicly searchable database? when a consumer and not knowing they can complain to nhtsa

instead reports it to a car company, it becomes confidential business information without a requirement that the public know about it. should that information be made public as well because it is given to any cash to say -- nhtsa as a report? >> we will have to talk about how we can make our databases more transparent. >> do you think that information is something the public should have? >> information's not be hidden in my personal opinion. -- informations about the hidden in my personal opinion. there are other things involved. >> president obama directed the department transportation to implement the early warning system in a way that insured maximum public availability of information. that has not happened. my goal is to work with you in

order to accomplish that goal. we thank you for taking this job. we have enjoyed working with you over all the years, especially on the fuel economy situation in your work in the senate. although nhtsa can undertake a mandatory recall, doing so takes a great deal of time. it can require you to go to court to prove the existence of a safety defect. there are times when taking that long costs lives. you were the lead staffer in the senate two years ago when the power was given to inform the public of an imminent public safety hazard before the formal recall process was complete. with that kind of authority help nhtsa more effectively inform

the public of serious safety problems? will you work with us to develop such a provision? >> the imminent hazard authority is in several of our sister agencies. the federal rail agency has the authority. i look forward to working with you on more discussion of this. it has been successful in other areas of consumer protection. >> our country is very fortunate that you were willing to accept this. >> thank-yo you. that is very kind. >> the chair ask is the indulgence of the witness for a few more minutes. -- the chair asks the indulgence of the witness for a few more minutes. the chair recognizes himself for two minutes.

the budget for the safety programs has been stagnant for the past 10 years. from my perspective, this year's budget request is down a few million dollars from the year before. odi focuses enforcement on new cars. it has a budget of less than $10 million. there are 80 million vehicles. that adds up to about 10 cents per car. the budget for rulemaking has suffered as well. it has gotten to the point that congress has been led to a new mandate legislation for

rollovers and child safety. the agency is being starved. the impact of the starvation is clear. there is an increase of 66 new personnel. if you get more resources for your safety program, where would you focused those increased resources? >> the safety mission is not simply in oli or in the vehicle safety office. it is the behavioral side as well. the budget provides resources for us to accomplish our mission with new resources for those personnel. we will take a hard look at the 66 personnel and deploy them where we need to improve and

strengthen defect investigation and other places where we can further our safety mission in the most efficient way. in terms of resources overall, we've accomplished our mission with the resources we have had. the president has given us a budget. it gives us more resources to do more. we will use that for the safety mission. >> this congress has to prepare a budget. we have to go over the budget. would you have any objections if we gave you more of them the budget for 66 employees? >> the president's budget helps us accomplish our mission. if congress decides to give a sworn edition -- -- decides to

give us more resources, we will use them judiciously to improve safety. >> i do not know how much more money we have to give you. [laughter] thank you. >> we thank you very much. they keep for your patience. -- thank you for your patience. >> it has been an honor. >> today, senator inhofe discusses climate change

legislation at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> obama and his socialistic ideas, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> tonight, the founder and president of the clear both loouce policy institute. >> tonight, the british prime minister gordon brown announces that the government will detail its budget on march 24, setting the stage for national elections. the prime minister will take questions on funding for the military in iraq and afghanistan. >> the health care debate moves to the house budget committee on monday. we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern

on c-span-3. the budget meeting is part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. they want to have the bill approved under expedited procedures. the rules committee will meet on wednesday to work out a structure for the debate. the speaker of the house said she hopes to start the debate on thursday with votes possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on health care debate. you can read the legislation. you can see what the president and members of congress are saying. you can join in the conversation yourself on twitter. it can also find cost estimates for the bill and hundreds of hours of video from the floor debates, committee hearings, and other events.

>> this is a discussion on the use of the filibuster, a senate rule maneuver that blocks legislation unless 3/5 of senators vote to end it. the senator wants to change senate rules to make it harder to filibuster. the center for american progress action fund is the host for this event. this portion is about one hour.  [applause] e to the center. -- senator. [applause] [applause] >> it is my >> it is my pleasure to introduce the panel.

this is on the center for american progress website. he is a senior fellow at the center for american progress. he has been there since 2004. he was the chief of staff for rep obey. spent 31 years in the service of congress. he had other positions. writes about appropriations, budgets, the economy. in the context of governments, he has expressed himself in writing and speaking on filibusters and other reforms. to my immediate right is the senior share of governance studies at brookings. he has written a book that is

relevant to this with norm ornstein called "the broken branch." he has written almost a dozen other books. several are relevant to the functioning of congress. some think that redistricting has had an effect on the house of representatives and the nature of representation there. both will have short statements. there will be a response from senator udall and myself. we will then open it up to the audience for questions and comments. i know several of you are experts on this topic. i will call on a couple of you that i know our experts.

someone in the back is hiding who has the best book on procedures. walter, be prepared for questions. we will get to you later. let's go to scott lilly. >> i was only on the senate payroll for about four years. i read a book is a teenager that got me interested in politics and public service generally. in college, a red "u.s. senators and their world." i still think it is one of the great books on government. i do not come at this as an embittered house staffer. i have great regard. the senate should not be the house.

it should be the force for more measured consideration of the events and policies. i have been in situations more than a few times during my career in congress where i saw the senate make a valuable contribution by slowing down the pace we were moving on issues that have not been as carefully thought through as they should have been. having said that, i think there are some serious issues with respect to the way the senate works today. anybody that is governed by a set of rules has to review them as the workload on the institution changes, as the nature of the culture and problems facing the country change, as the type of individuals who are members of the institution change. i do not think that has happened

as frequently as it should. that is one of the reasons i think we should take the senator's advice carefully. the thing i think is overlooked in much of the current discussion in the senate is that while we may have strong views on issues like health care, and we may be very angry that the deliberations are being slowed, or we may think that conclusions the country has arrived at should be ratified by the legislative body. those are all important things. i feel those very strongly myself. i also think those are going to be quite difficult to change. what we do not do as carefully as i think we should is realize

the fact that the senate is broken in a standard, workload diagnosis. i want to go through three areas where we can see that. the first is the authorization process. a think it is on the arcane term -- i think it is an arcane terms. we create programs across the government by passing legislation that establishes the structure of the programs. it sets spending levels but does not actually provide spending for programs. this year, 50% of all spending outside the defense department was for programs no longer authorized. cbo identified 250

authorizations that have expired. money was appropriated for them even though there was no authorization. the leaders of the senate or put in a position where you had to terminate major portions of the department of justice or other critical activities or find them in the absence of authorization. the reason we do not have the authorization is the chairman of the authorizing committee is in the senate. there are 18 committees that work on establishing the structure of government programs. the chairman of those committees cannot get the fourth time from the leadership. the leadership does not have the floor time to give because so much time is consumed with pointless appropriations bills and various other business, including the length the quorum calls you see on c-span. not having authorizations is a

more profound problem than it might seem at first. first of all, every program in the government needs to be looked at with a fresh eye every two years. government agencies need to come before the house and senate and explain what they're doing. the need to give the authorizing committees an opportunity to probe and find out if this is a place where we can have savings, modernize, if there are programs that can be combined. there may be authorities that these people need that they do not have to make the programs work better. those questions are not being announced on a routine basis. . . the senate to go back to a system where it can adopt authorizations, it is difficult

to motivate them to move legislation they know. the second area, and i think this is an area that turns the whole notion that the filibuster is being used to give more measured deliberation is in the area of appropriations. this year, of the 12 appropriation bills, nine were actually considered in the senate. 3, including the biggest of all 3, including the biggest of all the domesti appropriation bills, the labor program, was not considered in the senate. when center reed decided that there simply was not the floor time to take up those bills, the committee reported bill was taken to conference with the house. if they actually voted on it.

it was then wrapped into a conference report. it was voted on by the senate at a point in the process where the demands were offered to change the funding. they simply had an up or down vote. as bad as that sounds, three of the 12 bills -- that is better than we have done most years for the last decade. on average, we have had five bills that never went to the senate floor but where in acted because there is no time to get there. i think that is probably necessary.

it is about an abuse of process. furthering this process means the bills but to come up cannot be considered in a timely way. the house passed four bills in june. the other eight in july. the senate passed two bills in july and were passing bills of the senate floor through september, october, november, and december. what that meant was the final bill was not enacted until late december. we were almost 25% of through the fiscal year. what that meant was one of the agencies had to go on a

restrictive budget because of time. that meant that agencies that have regulatory responsibilities have to cut back on travel or procedures to perform the functions. it meant that program officers had nine months to do 12-month work. that may sound like a pretty lousy record. it is better than we have demos years in the past. for several years, we have given agencies only six months to spend 12 months of money. that means they have to restrict their contacting process. they cannot go through the bidding contracts and do it in six months' time. you cannot take the awards and have them reviewed. it means they really have a place for fraud and abuse built into a -- resulting from the

legislative talent. the final area i think we have a huge problem is the halloween out of the senior executives in the government. right now, we have 228 into positions in the federal government or appointments that are pending. there are a number of those, i think there are 12 of those that have been pending more than 12 months. they cannot get a vote up or down. i think it would be much better for the it ministration and government if the ones with sears objections would be brought up and voted down to another appointee could move. we sit in a gridlock with a very important positions. in recent months, we had in

a number of people that worked. one was pending for over six months when her nomination came to the floor. we had a vacancy in the administrative administration do that is a key position in service to moving this administration's agenda. that should not be a partisan issue. she was held up for 10 months and confirmed with 96 positive votes. there is a great deal of this that really does not have -- with the controversial nature -- it has to do is senators using their ability to put a stick in the spokes in order to give parochial concessions and

related to that nominee. the poster child for this activity has been senator shelby in recent months who up until about three weeks ago had a hold on every single one of the administration appointees, hoping that he would somehow influence their decision over buying an air force tanker plane that will be made in his district. it is sort of funny and a sort of aggravating. in the end, you have literally hundreds of important decisions across the government that are un billet. in the career people that are working cannot get the information. you have a break in the link of communication. as a result, you have more waste

and fraud and abuse in the government. that is a cost that we pay for not the major issues before minored day-to-day functions of the senate. they are ways that do not make sense. i think it needs to change. i have two suggestions with respect to that event i do not think to any great damage to the nature of this country. one is to simply put the limitation on how long it takes to consider an appropriation bill. i generally think most of the bill should take more than two or three days. i would be willing to associate with that a guarantee that every

senator get off a one amendment and debate it for an hour. that would be far more intimate and protection of minority right then we had today, where we do not even take many of the bills to the senate floor. i think that is a very reasonable compromise. another thing that has to be done is that there is some limitation on how long trainees can be held up before a vote is taken. there are a lot of different ways to do it. i think some action has to be taken. >> i am getting depressed. i hope we have answers to some of these problems. >> of course. >> we talked but the regular process for appropriations and hold on confirmation. i lifted about will problems at the beginning.

when you come up with problems, i like the spirit of solutions, too. >> got it. home >> id becomes a grounded case for a new mom said that -- it becomes a chronic case for a

new senate -- one whose has been changed and not reelected to determine its own rules. i think that advances the argument very far. scott lilly has taken our eyes away from the drama and melodrama of outperform and these other major part of some ideological battles and pointed to the problematics and functioning of one of our legislative chambers that get too little attention but go to the root of problems today. let me just say that i am delighted with all the attention being given to this. there is a sense that all government is dysfunctional. in fact, once the pundits got a hold of it, i knew it had to be

wrong. beware of conventional wisdom on almost all of this. but the element that is true is that much of the problem of government today is associated with the senate. from less than 10% to more than 80%, that's a change. this is not just like the old days. it is a profound change. we have seen the filibuster, such that there is a basic acceptance that there is a 60 vote threshold for passing anything or doing anything in the senate. that is not written into the

rules. there is no democratic legislature i'm aware of that has a supermajority requirement for the routine actions of the body. there are exceptions as senator udall pointed out in the constitution. but the filibuster has partisan roots and it has everything to do with the changing character of the party system in recent decades. but we also have what is become a promiscuous use of polls. -- use of holes. we know all about the need because of increased business and the use of polls before the to track system, but -- the use of holds or objections to

unanimous consent agreements. some actually parked themselves on the floor of the senate and when they thought something nefarious was going through and no one knew what was and that's, they demanded some transparency and that was a very healthy thing. in any case, this has had consequences. four appropriation bills not getting past, for the demise of authorization, for the problems with nominations, with hundreds of house passed measures being queued up in the senate, the case for the filibuster is it turns out and lead to a reasonable bipartisan negotiations and that produces more moderate, more deliberative, and better legislation. yet the evidence for that is

sorely lacking in contemporary times. so what to do? you could abolish the senate. [laughter] how about a nebraska unicameral? it turns out it's hard to abolish the senate given its place in the constitution, even to change its representational base, so i will strike off the list. second, you could change the party system. the ideological polarized parties today make a filibuster more problematic than it has been in the past. this sort of parliamentary-like parties intersecting with a congressional set of rules creates particular problematics. if i knew how to change the party system, i would go ahead and do it. or if i would tell you how to do it, it's true that more lopsided majorities for one party or the other would produce more cross

party coalitions. but it is hard to do much about that. >> said the one thing tom made perfectly clear is that you cannot just go back to the old filibuster's. if you try to weigh them out and force actual filibuster's, the burden is on the majority, not the minority that is filibustering. it simply will not work. but shame gets you something and i think a more aggressive use,

an effort to discredit the filibuster, which is happening now, is useful in its own a sense, but also as a predicate toward moving toward more systematic change. fourth, use the existing alternatives to dilatory tactics. exhibit number one is reconciliation. republicans are crying foul, but any objection -- any objective, fair minded assessment, the budget and empowerment control rules, the senate rules, the history of reconciliation demonstrates that this particular use, which is a new twist, but much more modest than previous uses, is not an

act the whole health reform. versions have passed the house and senate, the latter with a 60 votes for cloture. then to approve under reconciliation, then a set of changes and amendments that would be germane and reconciliation rules. we have special trade authority that creates special fast-track procedures that is written into the law. bills have looked for requiring up or down votes on recommendations regarding medicare practices. it is perfectly legitimate. the senate has looked for these alternatives in the past than they could do so again.

the final opportunity is to change the rules. there, we need to talk about the substance of changes as well as the politics. you could carve out additional exceptions to and limited debate. extend reconciliate -- a reconciliation process to appropriations bills and have time limits on debate, time for considering these matters. you could set up fast-track procedures for handling nominations, you did it for executive nominations and judicial nominations. you might treat district court different from appellate circuit courts from the supreme court's, but there is nothing keeping the senate from setting up such

procedures. that is carving out exceptions. second is to limit time consuming environments with invoking cloture. you could set up a 44 the majority leader to have non- debatable motions, both to proceed and to consider the matter on the agenda. most leaders have the ability to bring measures to the floor,

still preserving the opportunity to filibuster the measure itself, but that alone would make a difference. you could do the same thing on a motion to proceed to conference. again, the amount of time you might do it. you could do other changes like a quicker ripening of the cloture motion and looking at the particular ways in which you could extend a filibuster on a bill to well over two weeks before it even goes to conference and you could get that down in certain ways. third, reduce the number of votes needed to invoke cloture. you could go from the present 60 to 3/5 of those present and voting. that puts a burden on those who would filibuster because right now, you don't need any votes against the cloture motion. all that matters is to you get

60. so present and voting would be a big change. you could have, as senator udall reported, a sliding scale. there are various things you could do with that. here is another radical proposal. you could adopt the previous question motion, included in the rules of the session and instruct the parliamentarians to say which other items in senate rules and precedents must be struck to be consistent with it. but that would quickly potentially turn the senate and house -- it's probably too radical a change. the final point is the procedure and politics of filibuster or four -- filibuster reform. is it required that you have to have two-thirds?

that's in the rules of the senate. nobody disputes that. but there is a contrary argument that no new legislative body can be bound by its predecessors. i think a majority could do it. a majority could pull off at the beginning of congress. but is there a majority in favor of doing much? it is partly partisan. the current minority will see it as an outrage and a way to weaken their power, but on the other hand, they are thinking ahead, democrats have many more seats up in 2012 and we might be back in the majority, that might be appealing and democrats may say we might be back in the minority and not want to do it. so i do not think there is a clear partisan case for

producing. finally, it is the individuals. what will individual senators give up? as senator udall made clear, this is the basis of some individual power in the institution and they are reluctant to do it. this is where we have a breakdown in the system. when the norms governing the use of this power by individuals give way to its promiscuous use, the body breaks down. i think the politics are really tough, but there are things that could be done and i think there is a constitutionally defensible routes to the senate acting at the beginning of a new session following an election.

>> many of the things we're talking about, if you look at the house of representatives, there are things that are broken over there too. the senate -- the attention right now is on the senate. we have the bigger issue as a country, when you look at our legislature, when you look at the congress -- are we capable of governing? we had this election and high expectations, a mandate for change, and here we have seen it all grind to a halt in congress. the senate playing a significant role in that. that worries me a lot.

all of us need to look, and i have said this before, to be willing to give up little bit for the good of all so we can move along and get things done. one of the areas that troubles me, and i think it has been mentioned is committee structure. it used to be -- and i'm going to trying to follow gm on the selection to get solutions -- here is the solution from history -- it used to be on committee structure that the reason committee's work so well -- you wonder when you have a big body -- howdy you get expertise? you go on one committee, your major committee, and you really learn things. you specialize. that is why you are giving -- you spend all your time in terms of studying the issues.

archibald cox came down in the 1950's and talked down sixers seven members of the house education committee labor law. you find a committee nowadays where they are studying issues like that, let me know what it is. i want to get on it. when you get six or seven senators spending three or four hours at a time studying an issue, learning and issue, focusing on a committee, that is when you start producing good legislation. when was the last time we did committee reform? 1975. that was the last time we had filibuster reform. 1975. the institution has become ossified. the one final thing that ties this all together is i remember in the house getting very

frustrated with the schedule and the white house gets the appropriations bills out -- it is a brutal process and very quick. why don't we get more time? what an old-time parliamentarian told me is said it changed the fund-raising. what he meant was these extensive numbers of hours that have been highlighted with the congressman had just resigned, where he went on television and said that five or seven hours a day -- it depends on how tough your races. but most people think we were sent here to do the job of the american people, spends time legislating and if they knew the numbers of hours we spend on the phone dialing for dollars or in a fund-raising meeting or whenever, compared to what we're doing on the other side, they would say the balance is sent

the wrong way. the solution is meaningful campaign finance reform. we need to try to get -- we are headed in the opposite direction. we are opening the floodgates now for corporations to put in money. we will try to take care of that. this is a huge issue and i'm sure there are others here. >> i look like to ask a couple of questions -- first of you and then the other panelists. the lack of stability -- the lack of stability in the senate has been there for years. it has not been there -- some committees for good. do members talk about the anger

of the american public, the decline of confidence and trust in congress linked to these problems like a filibuster and other things? do they worry about the lack of stability in congress? >> yes. senators talk about it and we talk about on informal basis. it is a regular part of the discussion. the part that is really broken in washington, i think, is if you go back 30 years, the oil that kept everything going was the common. it was having time to spend time with each other. i'm sure scott lilly can tell many stories about how the appropriations committee or other committees would spend time with each other. there are stories about saturday night -- congress in the '50s and '60s worked a full week, worked into the weekend. there would be a pot luck on saturday night and democrats and

republicans would show up with their families and have dinner together. that was the oil that kept things going. you knew each other. you are very reluctant to step onto the floor of the house of representatives and nail somebody personally if you had dinner with them tonight before and that of the spouse and knew the children. the frustration is getting to know individuals in such a way that you get a relationship where you have a bond that can trust each other and know you can move forward with things.

>> let me ask a question related to the committee system. our junior members concerned about the committee system? we have over 200 committees and subcommittees. some argue there are too many committee assignments and to many committees in the senate. is there an effort or a working group in the senate pushing this? the last time it was done was 1976. nobody has looked at it since then. the house have looked at it and at minimum success there. >> the real issue is if you get on a committee, it's a feather in your cap. with the numbers of committees, it so hard to spend the time and

get specialization. the senator that was appointed after joe biden left, who was the chief of staff here for 30 years, that is one of his passions. he and i talk about it. we are trying to talk about how to build up the fires a little bit to get something going. if you ask a question to senators or house members, are you serving on too many committees and have you become really specialized so that you have something special to offer to everyone else or contribute to better legislation? i think most of us would answer , there spread too thin. >> are you willing to give up some of your assignments? >> as some of you had said, if

you look at whole structure, appropriations come authorizations, committee structure, if all of us were willing as a group to give up as a group of little bit, we could have a much better working institution. i'm willing to do that. i came here to talk about the constitutional option. people have questions -- why are you trying to do it? the real core here -- the reason i chose january is i thought we would need at least a year to pull everybody together and have the discussion to get working groups going. senator durbin has a working group. we have a rules committee that german schumer is going to have. historical hearings on the

filibuster and the state of the filibuster. classes are working together and have working groups going and try to get together on a regular basis. there is a lot happening i think will bear fruit. >> if your constitutional option works, do you see an effort to suggest a committee be created to look at the system and other procedural options in the senate? >> my guess is a lot of that will be done in the rules committee. i am on the rules committee. much of the leadership of the senate is on the rules committee. i hope when we do these hearings on the filibuster that we look a little more broadly -- i want to

see what kind of reform we can do. i imagine it may get to the leadership saying we will have a working group on this. they're already informal working groups on almost everything we have talked about. some people feel the congressional budget process is really broken. it gets changed every year in terms of the procedures. we now have paid go as part of the appropriations process. are there serious problems with the process and so, what are they and what should we do? >> i often use the graph showing an increase in didn't -- increase and decrease of public debt as a percentage of gdp, which i think is a correct way to look at. at the end of world war two, we had public debt that was 109% of

gdp which was dangerously high. over a 30 years, they were able to bring that down to 26%, which is very reasonable. we're headed toward 65% right now. the interesting part of that is the lowest. we have been in terms of the public debt as a percentage of gdp was in 1974 when we passed the budget act. i think there is some connection and the budget act which was supposed to clarify budget choices actually compound of the budget choices and made it look like there were some process to deal with issues that really wasn't. you set up a legislative process which is engaged in planning what the real process is going to be like and it lends itself

to members being able to posture they favor one route which is the opposite of what they do when the appropriations bills go forward. it has undercut budgeting and i think needs some serious change. if no other change, limiting the amount of time congress spends on it, the budget allocations to the appropriations committee, you could spend 1.3 trillion dollars at that number could be arrived at by the leadership without eating up because of times -- weeks of time in both houses. >> you would do away with the budget? >> i do not think you can do away with it entirely, but you could restrict the amount time consumed doing it.

bring it down to establishing the one number in an expeditious manner. >> i heard that in 1974, congressman obey expressed simple -- expressed similar views. reworking for him in 1974? >> no. >> i think most budget process discussions are ways out of avoiding the real problems we confront. because we have such a difficult time dealing with them, we just get the process right. either within congress or say we have to go outside congress, be it a bipartisan commission to deal with the problems, i am skeptical that it is worth

investing a lot of energy and process changes. i think what our leaders ought to be doing is trying to educate the public. to confront the nature of the problems we have. and have had an immediate short- term need for big deficits. both created by financial stabilization and stimulus programs but also of day -- also as a consequence of the worst recession since the 1930's. it would be nice if we get people in congress to speak to that in a clear fashion. that in the medium and long term, we have huge imbalances that will require steps to be

taken to certainly slow the rate of health care cost increases. to create additional revenues and instead we patrol at the margins and having big fights over how much money we're going to save from earmark reform and talk about what they go should apply to. i think the problem now is one of party and ideology. that's the problem more generally. party and ideology trumping institutional responsibility and straight talk. i put all of my energies into the latter to try to overcome the former. >> i think the american public would be shocked to know most of our executive agencies do not have at the beginning of the

year a budget that they know they can spend. that's the reality of what has been described here. but the proposal of giving limited time on the floor for a limited amendments and for heaven's sake, get done, what we have right now is a situation where these appropriations bills do not get finished or are rolled into an omnibus. it usually takes place anywhere from three months to six months later. so you have, as has been pointed out here, executive agencies to do not have the ability to know what they're going to spend. talk about doing something about waste, fraud, and abuse -- you could do something about waste, fraud, and use if you in fact focus on just getting the budget every year, which is our major

responsibility. >> he is a national treasure when it comes to understanding the procedure about the roles and read the best book on the topic and as a senior analyst and scholar. for 27 years, -- >> and he gets 10% of the royalties. do you have a question? >usually not with you, but let's do it anyway. >> may be more of a comment or more question rolled into it --

in terms of the constitutional option, i was just wondering what senator byrd might think of it. i know he would probably be the current situation as of abuse, but he is on the record many times about how the senate is really a super majoritarian institutions and the house is a majoritarian institutions. so he would come by as income be reluctant to go along with any fundamental change, because any big changes could potentially make the senate more like the house, if the principle is established, and it is a legitimate one, as senator udall has pointed out, you can change the rules of the senate at the start of any congress, and perhaps the said it would

become more like a house for every new congress, as we all know, new rules are adopted in the house of representatives. how are they adopted? they are adopted by a majority vote of the party in charge. this might lead to a circumstance where even have constant changes in the rule book of the house. triggered by the majority party was upset with what the minority party is doing. more specifically, everything can be filibustered in the senate almost. there has been a consensus in the past about establishing cloture were limiting the amount of time for a motion to proceed. certainly getting to conference committee is just an enormous task these days. you just cannot do because of the threat of filibuster, given you have that agreement on three parts, insist on your mamet,

request, and authorized the presiding officer to named conferees. if you look at those, there's an innumerable number of places to filibuster on the motion to instruct. it's a huge issue. i'm not saying it's not to be done, but there is lots of room for improvement. even if you curtail the ability and extended debate, there are lots of other avenues. you can filibuster by offering a filibuster de size of a man at and telephone directory. i think when the manager's amendment was read, you have to do the clerk reading it for you that it took seven or eight hours. every word is important. these are a few off-the-cuff comments and i don't want to filibuster myself.

>> in the constitution, we designed the set so would not be like a house. that is so that two-thirds of the senators are always a fairly long ways from an election. at this particular point in time, i'm five years from an election. two-thirds of the senators are in my situation. when we talk about the set being a cooling force, when we talk about the senate slowing down things and being deliberative but still doing something, it is the structure of a third of elected two years, third elected to years, and a third elected to

years that builds in that principle. that's the first thing that i think is important. if you look at the house rules, the house, every time there is a partisan change, has dramatically changed the rules. it is usually when there is a reform movement, there's a change, but house rules are tweaked a little bit, but they are the same rules. there is not a pattern over there. the final thing i would say about your question about senator byrd, just on the constitutional principle of one legislature binding your success or legislature, he said we should not be ruled by the dead hand of the past. that's very appropriate, and in

light of what we're trying to do in the constitutional option. >> just a footnote -- one of my favorite quotes, when senator b yrd was majority leader trying to push change in the post cloture filibuster matter said "it is my belief that has been supported by my rulings of vice- president of both parties and votes in the senate, essentially upholding the right in power of a majority of the senate to change the rules of the senate at the beginning of a new congress." that in that being a threat and produced the change and then they remove any hint of president there but, he did state that. i think it is interesting to note there has not been the

radical changes in house rules with a change of party control. i have a feeling as long as you do not completely eliminate the possibility of some extended debate that there are enough structural features and incentives to provide continuity in the senate as well. >> let's go to another question from the audience. >> is it possible to get public financing of all senators and

congressman? >> that's what i was suggesting earlier. if you have a system -- dave obey and i worked on the house on a proposal i am considering in the senate -- he was such a student of the process and what he determine this, -- we had these discussions -- he said let's look at a system where you try to maximize the time being spent on legislation and minimize the time in fund- raising. so what you did is take out all of the private money, the corporate money, all that and that. -- and annette. -- and ban it. buckley verses of vallejo was i

believe wrongly decided. yet to take that had on and so, you pass a piece of legislation. the one last hope is to pass a structure where you take all the money out, have individuals contribute money to a clean campaign fund -- what if at the beginning of the year, for four months, you allow the sec to advertise and say you have all the -- you have the chance to get all the special interests out, contributed to a clean campaign fund. fill the fund up and distributed in general collections based on a formula. we would have much more competitive elections that returned to elections being the marketplace of ideas with citizens picking what they thought were the best ideas rather than whoever has the biggest check book. you all need to push for. the american people read bush for it. -- the american people need to

push for it. i believe that helps everything we're talking about up here. you won your legislators doing less fund-raising and more time on legislating. they will fulfil the wishes of the american people if you do that. >> do you believe the citizens united decision is helping the movement to have more reform? >> yes, i do. i think citizens united has crystallized the argument for everyone because for 100 years, we basically had no corporate money in the process. it grew since the big reforms in the 1970's, but we were limited. now, the floodgates are open and the expectation -- i was astounded at our state level --

the state races. people running in a small state like new mexico, for a statewide office, you spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars. people are now expecting the floodgates of corporate money to come in and billions of dollars to be spent in those races by a variety of organizations. as people learn and know about that, it will give an impetus to tackle campaign finance reform regarding that decision. we are on the strongest cutting constitutionally for disclosure and transparency. -- we are on the strongest splitting constitutionally for disclosure and transparency. you can say that the ceo has to be on television and disclose the donors, but if you want the big reform the gentleman asked about, you have to take on buckley vs. vallejo and if they declare it unconstitutional, you have to amend the constitution

to allow the regulation and legislation congress needs to in this area. senator dodd and ironic constitutional amendment right now that forces that issue. -- senator dodd and i are on a constitutional amendment right now that forces the issue. >> have we done a brilliant job? this panel has been so agreeable. it's time we had a little disagreement. i'm going to disagree with the center on this. i do not think banning all private money in elections and campaigns would be a good thing. i also do not think it is constitutionally possible. it would take a constitutional amendment and it would, in my view, seem very much to go against free speech guarantee of the first amendment. i also just think having

citizens put a little skin in the game is something useful. some market tests for candidates to raise money is a good thing. getting individuals -- my son was really excited last time and he makes very little money, but he made contributions on the internet to an unnamed presidential candidate. several times. there was a sense of the engagement and participation. there is nothing attractive for most citizens to give to a fund that could go to one of the politicians they must despise his ideological views beta test. they want to give to people they admire as individuals, as

members of parties, as espousing a public philosophy. but i am for public funding, but i think we ought to be thinking of multiple public matches for small donations that increase the incentives of members of congress who now carry small percentage from small donations to actually call the state and go after small donors. give them four or five to one matches, not handing them a grant that a qualified by getting a few names on a petition. that is too vulnerable to charges of welfare reform -- welfare for politicians. what the individual citizens that donors be empowered and let that contribution be magnified. change the incentives of politicians. you are never going to eliminate the role of wealthy people in politics.

if they are prepared to act independently, they can do a lot. i am all for the transparency disclosure response to citizens united, and i thought it was a lousy, awful decision. but in general, i think full public financing as an idea has come and gone in terms of pure constitutional political feasibility. we ought to get behind a plan to empower small donors through matching public funds. >> up next, a senate hearing on the s-35 joint strike program. then, on the "newsmakers" the center from oklahoma. then the discussion on the senate and the filibuster at

6:30. >> tonight on "prime minister's questions" the prime minister announces the government will detail its budget on march 24th, setting the stage for national elections. the prime minister takes questions on funding for the military in iraq and afghanistan. that's at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> the health-care debate its house budget committee on monday as committee members mark up health care legislation. we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 eastern on c- span3, c-span radio, and our web site, c-span.org. the meeting is part of the matter to put it to a vote on march 18th. democrats want to have the budget committee approved a bill under expedited reconciliation procedures. then the rules and city -- the

rules committee will work out the structure of the debate. house speaker hopes to start debate on thursday with both possible later in the week. stay tuned to seize that for the latest on health care debate and visit our health-care hub. you can read the legislation, see the president and members of congress are saying and join the conversation yourself on twitter. you can also find cost estimates for the bills and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate floor debates, committee hearings, markups, and other events. c-span's healthcare hub. .

>> witnesses included pentagon top officials for acquisitions and cost assessment. carl levin chairs the armed services committee. this is about two hours. >> good morning. the committee meets for two hearings. the first is to receive testimony from the u.s. northern command and the u.s. southern command. at the conclusion of that hearing we will take a brief break and start a second hearing with four senior defense department officials and a witness from the government accountability office to consider the joint strike fighter aircraft program.

i want to remind the department of defense that formal statements of witnesses before the committee are due 48 hours before the hearing. we make this requirement very clear in our formal communications with the department. it is important that the will be met. we understand that there are circumstances beyond the control of individual witnesses that are frequently the cause, so we are not using this hearing to target for single out this panel or any member of this panel. we have had this problem in a number of recent hearings and i would ask that our witnesses and representatives from the department of defense take this message back to the department. we welcome the commander of u.s. northern command and of the

north american aerospace defense command. as well as the commander of the u.s. southern command. the northern commander is nearing his completion of a tour of duty as commander and is planning to retire later this year. this could be his last appearance before this committee. therefore we give him special welcome and a special thank you for his long service. general frazier is but -- appearing before us for the first time. thank you, general, for your many years of dedicated service to the nation. again, we want to offer you our best wishes as you conclude your long an outstanding career. we would also ask both of you to convey our gratitude to the men and women who served in your

command and their families for their commitment, sacrifice, and care in their commission, and to the commands that they now serve and previously served. u.s. northern command was created following the terrorist attack of september 11, charged with two primary missions. the defense of the united states and providing defense support where the u.s. military is needed to respond to natural and man-made disasters. the northern command wears two hats, as the commander of norad they provide aerospace and maritime warnings for north america as indicated in our letter of invitation. we hope that the general will describe the synergies between these into related commands. in addition to canada, mexico is

also in the northern command responsibility, given the high level of drug-related violence in mexico. we hope to the general will update us on his view general frazier is the combat commander in charge of the ground-based defense system, defending our nation from long-range missile attacks. that system has been of considerable interest to this committee and we look forward to discussing it today. the attorney of the southern command area and the deputy commander of the joint task force in haiti have spent much of the last two months

responding to the devastating human tragedy in haiti and, more recently and to a lesser extent, in chile. the scope and scale of these tragedies remains difficult to imagine, but the stories that have emerged have captured our hearts, called our people to action, footing the chilean people in our prayers. we applaud the work of the sailors and marines who responded quickly and provided much-needed emergency relief to the people of haiti. beyond haiti and chile, the other challenges faced in our hemisphere are complex and interwoven. the drug trade in south and central america continues to foster violence and political instability. the region is not without its bad political actors as well.

hugo chavez continues to work to undermine u.s. interests in the region, doing everything possible to maintain his own power, aligning himself more closely with countries of concern, like iran. his activities, coupled with the money, corruption, and violence of the drug trade, our cause for great concern. aor does have one good news story. the colombian government continues to consolidate the gains of it planned columbia. following a constitutional court decision that prevented the president from a third term. we thank you, we look forward to your testimony.

>> other combatant commands have been robbed of the attention of the congress and the american people. the fact that we do not hear about you every day in the news is a credit your work. it means that americans are safe along the northern and southern approaches. thank you both for your long years of service and the service of all the courageous military personnel under your command. general remark -- reanuart, we thank you for your years of dedicated service to this nation. there's no doubt that norad plays a vital role in the defense of our homeland. whether it is dispatching jets to identify unidentified intrusions or providing support to civil authorities in the

aftermath of a chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological attack, the resources brought to the table are invaluable. since its creation you have experienced growing pains, into a new combat command, i am interested in hearing what steps are being taken, particularly those in the defense review. i also look forward to hearing how the command is improving coordination and reliable coordination between local, state, and federal authorities. representing the state of arizona, i am particularly concerned about how you coordinate with the department of homeland security and the governor of mexico to confront the goat -- growing surge of violence along the southern

border and a growing threat of the drug cartels to the existence of a government of mexico. these increases -- increasingly capable and lethal cartels threat and border states and the entire country. i believe that there is no more important mission and the protection of the homeland and i look forward to your testimony. general frazier, it has been a trial by fire for you. the senate confirmed you less than one year ago and you experienced two of the worst earthquakes in the region. i want to congratulate you and your team for the exceptional work you have done supporting international relief in haiti, providing the needed communications and airlift support to the chilean government as it rebuilds in the aftermath of its earthquake last month. we have a number of interests in central america, but none so important as helping a neighbor

in need. i am proud of the efforts of self, -- southcom and how critical they are to the lives of not only our wounded warriors, but also the innocent victims of natural calamity around the world. i'll forward to hearing about how you are coping with the unexpected cost of these efforts, as well as a status report on military relations in the region. by improving partner capacity we can help the region decrease gang violence, drug trafficking, and human trafficking, all of which threatens regional and global stability. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, senator mccain. let's start with general re nuart. >> chairman, senator, members of the committee, good morning.

as you are so kind to mention, this may be my last appearance before the media. -- before the committee. i would like to thank all the members of the committee for the support you give to our command and the members of the military. it is good to be back before you to talk about the developments we have had and to mention some things where i think that we can grow and improved. of course, we must thank the men and women that served each day as they protect our homeland. here and abroad. it is also important that we recognize the contributions of our senior in list of leaders and i am pleased to have with you -- with us here, chief us three, the first leader selected for command, which i would call a competitive selection.

we aare pleased to have him on the team. as you both mentioned, during the past month our commands have partnered across a broad variety of areas. first, the movement of drugs to support law enforcement -- the movement of drugs, supporting law enforcement to deter those efforts in the area. we are pleased to be a part of dog's team. as commander i have two principal missions. it is important to ensure there across a broad spectrum of missions, from their sovereignty to maritime defense, that we support law enforcement amongst our borders and federal agencies, both in natural and man-made disasters.

our two commands have created a synergy that is now inseparable. from morning to a conference management, it is a symbol of what these commands have grown to be. it is important to note that we are members of a combined national response in many of these areas. we do not do with a low, we should not be the lead, but are an integral and important partner. we have worked hard with our teammates in federal and state agencies. insuring that we create an integrated team for success. it is important to note that we have excellent relations with our international partners. certainly, mexico is in a difficult struggle, working hard on countering drug trafficking in the country, we

have worked very closely with their military and interagency partners to make sure that the lessons may have learned in other places around the world are shared so that we can create a strong capacity in their governmental agency that allows them to succeed. we will continue to work with them aggressively and i look forward to discussing that with you here today. our canadian teammates stand with us, shoulder by shoulder, on the battlefields of afghanistan. they partner with us in sovereignty, attempting to stop drug trafficking, we work closely to provide special support to them in their country as well. finally, i want to thank the committee for the support that you provided for the western hemisphere institute for security. an important element to our commands, it allows us to

establish relationships with senior military and civilian leaders have, allowing us to bridge into these tough topics later in the hearing. we feel it is critical to the ability to operate in the region. thank you for your support for the personal security of the individuals, allowing them to speak openly and maintain academic freedom. mission effectiveness and operational readiness are always of the best they can be. as i complete my service to the nation, this has been much more complex than i could ever have

imagined. challenges that we are meeting and successfully dealing with every day. thank you to my family. my wife is quietly in during all of the changes and challenges, from desert storm to being here in the homeland, i want to go on the record as saying thank-you to her and their two sons. i look forward to answering your questions today. >> 94 your testimony and for bringing the chief with you. general frazier? >> good morning, i am honored to have this opportunity to be before you here today. i am joined this morning by my wife, i want to echo what the

general said. the dedication of my wife has been an enhancement to route. i appreciate the continued support. it is my privilege to share this table with my good friend and mentor, the general. our appearance together represents the close coordination, alignment between our teams. thank you for your continued and strong support of the southern command and coast guard, as well as the civilian personnel that i am privileged to lead. i am personally seeing what these outstanding men and women are capable of doing in response to the earthquake that struck kati. the devastation was tremendous. estimates are the 220,000 people were killed, 300,000 injured, 1.2 million people displaced.

u.s. response was swift, coordinated, and aggressive. the exemplifying joint and interagency team work. fortunately, several assets were in the facility when the earthquake happened. as you mentioned, the deputy commander of the united states southern command was visiting when the earthquake happened. he remained in place of the joint task force, providing superb leadership. within 24 hours of the earthquake, the coast guard was off of the coast of port-au- prince and was on the ground, supporting relief efforts. air force elements began to survey the international airport. u.s. security elements conducted

the first aerial response to the area affected by the earthquake. members of the united states southern command began the initial assessments. the first urban search and rescue team, 72 members from fairfax county, va., arrived, and the air mobility command had been established. our amphibious ready groups embarked and were ordered to make the best possible speed to haiti. joint and interagency, federal and state response, all of these agencies were working to support the people and government of haiti before the first 24 hours of the earthquake. the size and scope of military response grew to a peak of 22,000 personnel, including air

combat teams, hospital ships, a second marine expedition, an engineer, planning, and communication with medical experts coordinating with the u.s. embassy and the united nations, as well as other international organizations to determine where military capabilities to be brought to bear. the united states joined forces command and every branch of our armed forces dramatically expanded air force capacity, opening the port to a vital flow of supplies. forces distributed 2.6 million liters of water, meals, and 149,000 pounds of medical supplies, performing 1025 searches and assisting the world food program in distributing 17,000 pounds a ball food. the combined forces increased

relief needs, and as they are met we're transitioning functions to cable partners and are conducting a capable drawdown of forces. these men and women have performed magnificently. they have been outstanding representatives of our military with their professionalism, focus, and compassion. they continue to do us all proud. i would not have been able to perform this mission with the level of success that we achieved without the support of unified commanders and the office of secretary of defense. u.s. northern command provided invaluable assistance and could not have accomplished so much so quickly without a person at their command to augment staff.

less than two months later, an earthquake hit chile. the u.s. southern command offered to assist in whatever matter was needed. within one day we distributed imagery of the affected areas. supporting them with transport aircraft, a mobile hospital, and support. u.s. embassy has coordinated with the government of chile to determine which additional support is needed. while the majority of resources to address challenges, there are others, posing principal security threats in the region. the region remains dynamic,

globalization of information, market resources, and financial transactions remain a force for change in the region. competing ideologies in the region are stressing human rights consent and increasing players throughout the region continue to broaden regional l looks. addressing the challenges of the region require a truly hold government approach. to that end our southern command works not only to strengthen success, but to build important cooperative relationships throughout the region, foreign, domestic, military, civilian, and private sectors. for the most part, allegiances remain strong. i would like to thank this

committee for your continued strong support in the hard work of my fellow board members on this committee. i can attest to the critical they play in operations. let me close by saying that the tragedy in haiti is a stark reminder of the challenges that we face. the culture of cooperation, openness, and transparency we have developed, relationships we have built in our engagements throughout the region, and the emphasis of the southern command on partnering have paid high returns on investment and operation unified responses. the largest disaster relief mission ever conducted in the reason. it is important to recognize the resilience staff college.

the relationship started a long time ago in bringing unified response is. thank you for your interest in our vital region and your support of the southern community, i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, general. welcome to your wife as well. general renualt will have her hubby back full time, she must feel lucky. one of the major objectives of the creation of the northern command was to create a dedicated commander to support civil authorities. the department of defense is standing up a southern unified cyber command. it appears that that command will provide direct support to civil authorities in cyberspace

in defense of the government and commercial networks. is there a role for northern command in cyber security? >> there is absolutely a role. i think we have developed a very strong relationship with u.s. strategic command and cyber command. we will continue to have a relationship with them. our role as a consumer of the cyber security, as it was designed to provide, we offer a unique circumstance in that many of our partnerships are outside of the so-called dot nil environment. with the commercial and private sector partners, like google and others, we are building a close relationship where we determine the requirements that we must meet to provide security.

>> i forgot to mention that we are doing a minute first rounds. -- a to minute -- eight minute first rounds. there is a new missile defense master test plan designed to collect the data necessary to provide concerts' within the operational effectiveness of our defense systems, including the ground-based course systems. do you agree that it is necessary to have obligations -- operations in the defense agency for the missile defense plan to provide a basis for complicating the reliability of the system over which it serves? >> mr. chairman, i support that and i believe it will give us good data to support the system, we have worked closely with the

missile defense system on this. >> last year you decided to cap deployment on the system in alaska and california at 30 operational ground-based interceptors to make significant improvements in reliability is to the committee in congress that was approved by the plan. do you agree with secretary gates, deploying 30 operations as reliable ground-based interceptors would provide reliable defense against the icbm threat from north korea? >> bid does provide us with that opportunity and i am confident in its abilities. we will be allowed to grow a broader system of capability against any potential growing iranian threats. >> as you just mentioned, the president announced a new missile defense plan for europe.

that plan includes a number of elements intended to enhance the defense of the united states against potential future long- range iranian missiles, as well as a forward deployed radar in southeastern europe. do you agree that this adaptive approach being planned will improve our capability to defend the homeland against potential future long-range missiles from iran? >> i absolutely agree. i think we will continue to see the testing and development of systems as they mature. >> on this subject there was a recent flight test at the end of

january where the system failed to achieve an intercept. can you tell us why it failed? >> mr. chairman, i am not a true expert to this. my understanding is that the integration between the radar and missile test intercept vehicle had a software glitch in their that prevented information from reaching the interceptor in the flight test. i know the general riley is working carefully to correct the software issues there and we look forward to the next test coming up in the not too distant future. >> we understand that there were a few issues there. could you submit that for the record what the second problem was? >> if i could? >> for the record, please. >> that would be fine. general frazier?

the colombian constitutional court last month ruled that the presidency would not be permitted to run for a third term. has there been a fallout from that? is there enough time to provide appropriate elections? all are things calm? are there any concerns? >> the election process has been going on while the supreme court was deliberating, so i think that there is adequate time, a number of candidates are actively running. it will be a fair and equitable election. >> general frazier, relative to cuba, as i understand it we have

almost no military contact with cuba. the only ongoing contact being these low-level, monthly fence talks, as they're called. at sea there are anti-drug efforts, both going through cuban waters. i am wondering, assuming that there is no prohibition in the law of that kind of contact with the cubans, is there any value in increased u.s. military contact with the cuban military? >> mr. chairman, as you mentioned there is a tactical level of interaction. the united states coast guard as a liaison in the u.s. interest

commission there in havana. our understanding, i will go back to check this, is that known relations are prohibited until the government of cuba a lex a democratically elected government and does not include fidel castro or his brother as a part of that element. so, that is our understanding, from an engagement list we look to engage every military organization. we continue to do that with all of our ability. if the legislative opportunity is presented first, we would welcome the opportunity. >> we welcome your testimony, but we do not read it that way.

general frazier, in terms of the situation in haiti, you mentioned that there are summary deployments going on and that will continue, but the some of the enablers will apparently leave some capabilities in haiti. can you describe that, briefly? >> we are still only in the discussion phase of that planning. is an evolving situation. the focus on the ground a shelter, sanitation, and security needs for the number of displaced people. that is the evolving situation right now. we're looking to support u.s. and international efforts with the right capabilities. >> let me ask both of you about this subject, something we will

be considering is the possible repeal of don't ask, don't tell. let me ask you your personal views, essentially. should we continue with that policy or should be repealed? >> mr. chairman, my personal view is probably very close to what you heard from general petraeus in his testimony. but believe it will all served in the course of our tenure with individuals who were gay or lesbian and not allowed to talk about it. i think of those individuals serve honorably and that maintaining standards of discipline are critical, but if you will, we should not hold those individuals hostage.

it is appropriate that we conduct a detailed study that we have been asked to conduct, then moving forward. >> general frazier? >> chairman, might use very much correspond with that general petraeus. it is very appropriate that we do a very deliberate understanding. >> they give very much. >> mr. chairman, obviously we have all served with people of that sexual orientation and they have served honorably, that is not a question.

but we must understand the implications of repeal before we make a decision. would that be an accurate reflection? >> it would be. >> i agree. >> so, a moratorium would be a defect will feel -- would be an appeal of the policy before we have under to the implications -- understood the implications for the men and women of the military. i understand your views and appreciate them. for congress to take action for a thorough review of the policy, not of whether to repeal the policy, this would be the best way to proceed? would you agree? >> to be clear, it is my view that we should have a moratorium there was confusion

in the process. >> unfortunately their efforts to impose a moratorium tantamount to appeal. describe for me terms about what americans can understand. i am asking you to make a chart, the possibility that the violence could spillover. this issue, americans have often not have the visibility in

the effect being had on public opinion. >> as you mentioned, this is the principal struggle for the governor of mexico. the president there has courageously put his military people in to take about where local enforcement officials have been corrupted and anticipated. . as you know, violence has been substantial. we were close to 7000 murders occurring in 2009. >> 7000 murders? >> 7000. drug-related murders were generally between two cartels, but it does spill over into the

population. is that true? >> and the no about the last statement. we have people that we have trained in the past and were corrupted. cartels are very aggressively taking them each on to build the distribution process and market share. so, that continues. we are working aggressively with mexican partners to build a capacity to deal with this.

when we talk about the level of threat to the government that might be effective. is it not true that mexican public opinion is beginning to turn in the wrong direction ella they have continued to support -- her in those efforts. there is a balance in that regard. with respect to the border area, you mentioned a problem of corruption. >> absolutely.

flex their influence on government to essentially the them alone. as you know, it can take time to build a credit -- credible leaders back out. >> there is more to build, including the success or failure here. we are spending for under million dollars operating with mexicans on this issue. >> for the record, half if i

could give you more detail and our cooperation, it would be a good news story. >> thank you. turning to cuba for a second, by last week or so a young man named orlando died on a hunger strike in cuba they have even been more brutal in their. you have a number of long is that true? >> yes. >> i will -- >> in our confirm,

i will have to get back to you. >> is there any cooperation on the part of the government in restraining drug trade? >> as we look at migration and the drug trade in the streets around cuba, we do have they have continued to buy him are quantify whether or not that has been i strongly suggest that you

read that, general de. finally, how do you assess the threat to cooperation between iran and this implies a disney and spain, as a any connections

between the four and a list. >> you have seen elements of a working relationship? >> sender.

>> thank you both for your service and leadership. let me add my personal thank- you to their kids general, i will begin with you. as the first chair of the homeless.

i have been very impressed and appreciative of it. i was on settled a bit when the recent report said that it would basically scrapped the second and third of those, i am

troubled by the loss of those in the system because of the tremendous as you depart this command, but i do feel of the singe. >> thank you, senator. >> this issue obviously went through a lot of discussion. we worked very hard to create those brigade side forces over the last few years. with the support community

warning that forces might not be as responsive as once deployed late into the region. secretaries made a decision to discuss this format. our role has been a certain amount of involvement, taking the contest in walled and turning it into an operational constructs that is effective. i think there's still work to do to make sure that not only trained and equipped forces are in the area, but they can meet

the expectations and assumptions essential to the discussions. we still have work to do on that. is it possible that it will be as effective? i think that it is. it depends on making a commitment to train, fund, and make these incredible. -- integrat-able. >> you phrased it in terms of my concerns, whether these forces will be able to quickly deploy with a range of skills to a site where we will need something as large as a brigade, or two or three, to protect the people in the stands of the region.

making it clear for the record, will the one sized force remain >> in fact, it will grow by about 700 individuals with those same lifesaving skills sets. it will be focused on active duty brigades, giving you the most rapid access. we will then have two smaller forces that will be predominantly the command and control logistics', joint reception, and immediate life- saving capabilities. they are really designed to receive general purpose forces in a large scale event. >> let me move on to the defense system course.

in the move to the adaptive phase system we're going to now, there was some question about the future of the ground-based interceptor. i know that there is supposed to be some testing going on. i wanted to ask you as you prepared to retire, the you believe that we should continue to develop and test the two stage ground-based interceptor? as a hedge against any possible iranian breakouts, for example? particularly with regard to homeland defense, if you have studied options for deploying a two stage ground based interceptor in the united states to give another layer of the fence. >> operational test programs

continue to include the two and three stage tests. we are fully supportive of that, as we have had discussions with the department and defense agencies. our support for the phased approach is strong and confident. we have received budgetary support to not foreclose capabilities. we support that continued testing. my information is that continues to stay on track. with respect to the active approach, i certainly think that the information so far looks very positive. very capable. so, we are supportive of that. we think that gives added thadeh to homeland defense.

>> good to hear. general frazier, let me ask you a similar question. we know that the regional commanders have the best use of the regions that they lead. mainly because of the comprehensiveness of their contact. there seem to be other parts of the world where there is an ongoing conflict or competition between the forces of freedom, generally speaking, forces of socialist economies, friends of the united states, and enemies of the united states. at this moment, where would you say the momentum is? who is winning? how are we doing in your area of

responsibility? >> with respect, we are doing well from a military standpoint. we have seen that very directly. there have only been a few incidences where relations have been reduced, such as venezuela and bolivia. i see a real competition within the region for various ideologies. coming from different directions. really, i see the view of the united states growing. there is a 71% approval rating in the u.s. and amongst the general populace, let america. i see a positive trend from our

relationship in the region. >> thank you for that. that appreciation in latin america might be higher than in america today. hopefully we can catch up. thank you. >> thank you, senator lieberman. senator inhofe? >> thank you for your comments. let me tell you what i will not ask. i will not ask you if we should close gitmo, but i would like to get something in the record. my personal feeling, having had a chance to really get into it, having studied it, the conditions of the people being good down there in that secure location, there are approximately 200 terrorists, the low hanging fruit is gone. about 20% of that low hanging

fruit have gone back to the fight according to reports. physically in the united states there should be no doubt to anyone in this room, the attack leading up to 9/11 was not the results of gitmo, and the repeated attempts to attack a board of the results of holding detainees. that it would not stop future terrorist attacks. they hate us and want to kill everyone in this room. americans across the country understand that. all these people coming up with great ideas of what we could do to bring terrorists to the united states for incarceration or trial, going through all

these elaborate details, how we will build everything, the easy answer is to leave it open. again, i will not ask that question. i will ask you, you have had the opportunity to go there, very briefly, in terms of your impression of the operation and treatment of detainees, do you have any comments? . .

i still believe that we should reconsider that. i would only ask this question. are you have all concerned that we will have -- that it will have to be the fm32b capability soon enough? >> the intelligence on when the iranians will build the capability has moved around a lot. we want to make sure that we're providing sufficient capability to defend our own country. with the current base systems,

we can meet that need. if we see a proliferation of capabilities from iran, we certainly need to expand the capability. >> that is good enough. since you will be bailing out of this and we talk about that, i certainly wish you lucky. it has been a great service. in the remainder of the time that i have, i would ask you this. now that you are going out and reflect back, you know how i feel better programs. some of these programs maybe should have been left where it was. that is my own personal opinion. but in terms of one size fits all, we're talking about the eight training-equip programs,

what is your thought on the taylor making of these between countries? it is a good program. we all agree with that. can it be better if we figure out a way to tailor-make it? >> i have spent 13 years in nato. i spent five and a half years in southwest asia and in the pacific as well. in every case, those combat commanders would tell you that the 1206, 1207, fms, all of those programs are critical to allow us to do just what doug fraser said. they have worked together. they have been to school together. we created training relationships together. we have to keep those training programs and support them and work through the department challenges between primarily

state and defense on making it easier to take advantage of. they're critical to a combatant commanders success. >> i have the idea that we made a mistake at one time on the imet program. we treat it as we are doing them a favor by bringing them here to train with their people. i became pretty convinced that we should have lifted the oracle requirement we had four -- the article requirement we had for letting them in. no matter what facility it is, they get the training of quality with their people and they never leave.

>> mike anderson spent 27 months in senegal in the peace corps -- my younger son spent 27 months in senegal in the peace corps. >> do you generally agree with their conversation and our opinions? >> yes, senator, i completely agree. >> thank you. >> senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your service. a disturbing phenomenon seems to be de sophistication and dominance -- to be the sophistication and dominance of the mexican drug cartel. they have sophisticated night vision devices, sophisticated

communication devices -- where these coming from? >> they are senior military and leadership allen their concern of what they called u.s. trafficking of weapons into mexico. there are weapons moving north to south into mexico. we partner very closely with our law enforcement friends to help provide information from the mexican military as they collected the forensics of these so we could in fact prosecute. there have been over 40 prosecutions in the last two years of what i call weapons dealers. we see an involvement in this country with respect to illicit weapons trade. we have seen that moved from other nations around the world as well. this is a hemispheric problem. we have talked about this. it is something that we need to continue to work >> do you think we're taking effective steps?

what seems to be ironic is that some of these reported incidents is that the drug cut -- the drug cartel seen to outgun the military and the police. that is unfortunate. >> yes, sir. we see 50 caliber weapons. we see rocket-propelled grenades. we see a variety of those things being used. that is increasingly a concern to the mexican military. they have been much more forthcoming with serial numbers and that sort of thing to allow our law enforcement to take action. >> do we have to do much more on our side of the border? >> yes, sir, i believe we do. our law enforcement partners are very eager to do that. >> on the other side, we are supplying both sides essentially

in this battle. under the department of state's merida initiation, we provide crafts. is that being used effectively? >> it is. the mexicans were very appreciative of our accelerating those objectives. we've delivered the first five of the bell helicopter's this december. we will -- helicopters this december. we will provide computer systems to help them provided border security so they can communicate better. they'll have night vision goggles. the mexicans are reaching out to us for the training associated with integrating these to be effective. we have made great progress in that regard. we need to continue that effort. merida should not be a one-year or two-year event. it should be a relationship over

time. >> is there a threat parts -- is there a threat for parts of mexico to be on governed areas where it can be more sophisticated for area terrorists to set up shop? >> [unintelligible] >> i do not want to suggest that the government of mexico is not competent at every level, but there is turmoil there. >> there is significant turmoil. local governments is significant in some places. both the attorney general and the senior military leaders and presidenhave enabled the presido push forces out there. >> thank you.

general fraser, your comment on the flow of weapons and other items not from the united states but from other areas in the hemisphere -- >> a lot of the flow is headed toward columbia now. it is also headed toward central america. a lot of it is originated from central america, weapons sold there in the 1980's. we also see a flow coming out of the united states in that direction also. >> thank you. let me switch back. the cprne, the highly explosives team that you put together and the management response force, can you give us an update on their deployment? >> we actually exercised one of those forces this year from a

standing start. we mobilized and to deploy them and put them into action in a very realistic scenario in indiana at the end of last year. comments from the urban search and rescue association was that it was as good as any they have seen. the fairfax unit that we're talking about, that line is as good as any as they have seen in the world as we continue to grow this concept that has come from the studio are -- from the qdr, we want to maintain that standard. >> the status of the national guard, they are our major partner. can you give us a general view? >> nouri quickly and will provide some more data. -- >> very quickly and i will provide some more data appeare.

the training quality is up. we are especially pleased with the e equipment related to these homeland support measures which is up to 100%. >> you have many roles, both air, sea, and land. can you comment on the southern command and the naval forces for the narcotics operations? >> the dod mission is to support the detection and monitoring of illicit goods, primarily through the maritime environment of the caribbean and the eastern pacific. we are working with an interagency groups out. we monitor those areas with the navy ships and coast guard ships and aircraft.

once those are detected, we had them all for intercept them to law enforcement organizations. >> we'll read briefly about the growing use of submersible vehicles and submarines to move drugs around. is that a continuing upward trend? >> actually, senator, it has decreased. there were 68 movements, primarily in the eastern pacific in 2008. last year, we saw 46. that is a decline. that is a one year sample size, but that is the most recent data and that is the first decline we have seen. >> thank you, sir. >> senator lemuel. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your opening comments. you discussed the connection between iran and venezuela. you and i have had several opportunities to speak about that.

that is a topic that i want to explore today. thank you both for your service. 39 years, that is incredible. thank you to both of your spouse's. we put our spouses through a lot. in speaking about the growing production of the influence of iran in the region, i recently had an opportunity to visit columbicolombia and to visit wih military leaders. there is this concern that senator mccain spoke about, the recent revelations that there was an assassination attempt on president repauribe. do you consider venezuela to be the biggest destabilizing factor

in the region in terms of our national security interests? >> i don't know if i would take it as far as the biggest a destabilizing factor. they are continuing on a pursuit of reducing u.s. influence in the region. they're working with their various countries and entities to try to enable that pierre >> is there a country in latin america -- to enable that. >> is there a country in latin america that is against their interest as much as venezuela? >> as we look at cuba, they are also in that same vein. >> we have seen some recent articles. there are cuban military officials working within the venezuelan government. the concern i have is backthat e

have this whole central american region and we have this drug trafficking change. if we shut down the semi- submersible, they take more flights. if we stop them at sea, which you just had a recent success with, general, then they come over land. i know that our ambassador in panama is concerned about the increased traffic in the isthmus there. what is your focus? i know there is coordination between the two of you. what is your focus and what is your plan to combat the snorkel trafficking? and what is your projection of the influence -- combat the narco-trafficking? and what is your projection of the influence of iran?

and what is the connection uc between those groups and the drug trafficking? >> the concern i have in the region is illicit trafficking. it has grown as an issue and is spreading throughout. brazil is now the second-largest cocaine user in the world. it is the criminal elements of that and the illicit traffic it which are my biggest concern. the national intelligence committee is taking an opportunity to look at illicit trafficking as a regional enterprise, not just what is affecting individual countries. we had the opportunity to understand that the enterprise as an enterprise and to try to push on all sides of the balloon rather than just on one part of that balloon to see if we can start squeezing that balloon effect down. those are the efforts that are ongoing.

that is a direct correlation with the u.s. northern command and the joint task force out that the joint task force notes. everybody is working on this in addition with law enforcement. -- the joint task force south and the joint task force north. everybody is working on this in addition with law enforcement. >> there have been increases in gang-related violence. we need to work on that. in addition, coronation from the supply through the demand is critical if -- coordination from the supply to the demand is critical if you will make a difference. the mexicans have been increasingly eager for that coordinated support. i think there is a real opportunity.

we're both committed to continue working on that. we have support from our friends. >> i appreciate that and i appreciate your good work. i know that the colombian military will be treating some folks from mexico on helicopter operations. you and i have discussed this in private. i want you to stay focused, it it you will, on iran's rejection of influence in the region. i am worried that those trafficking chains could be used for other purposes. we had an emerging threats subcommittee yesterday. to a person, everyone acknowledged that iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror. they make several stops in latin america, even its and other friendly nations down there. i am worried about it.

if you would please focus on its -- >> we are focused on it. >> we have been trying to pass this columbia free-trade agreement. it has implications -- this colombia free trade agreement. it has implications. >> i think it would be a very positive step forward. one of the thing that supports security in the region is the opportunity to have a stable economy and a vibrant economies. columbia has backed -- colombia hazmahas backedthat. >> i want to switch gears a little. you referred to a russian bear

flight in canadian airspace. can you comment on the activities of those russian airplanes? i know they were probing aerospace. you said that some fighters in response. can you talk about that a little bit? >> we have seen an increase in the last few years of russian long-range training flights approaching our sovereign airspace. in our norad role, we have been conducting surveillance and missions for 52 years. we have trained, well equipped to the police to monitor the air space. wycombe to identify any aircraft that is not on it -- we tried to identify any aircraft that is not identified. nothing is threatening yes.

there aviators are professionally. we want to make sure -- there aviators -- their aviators are acting professionally. the russians have neglected their bomber force for many years, probably for financial concerns. the influx of energy money has allowed them to focus on that. they have increased the levels to keep their private proficient. that is the bulk of what they're doing. -- to keep their pilots proficient. that is the bulk of what they are doing. >> there is a report that in the middle of the new president of chile inauguration there was a magnitude 2.7 earthquake.

-- 6.7 earthquake. it is not as bad as the original one. >> it is good to see you again. i have a couple questions first and then i am to have a couple of questions for the other. with some of the work that is going on on climate change and the arctic ice melting, you have three commands that manage the arctic. is there a discussion or is there an opinion that you have in regards to this? i leave it to the military to figure this out. you probably have to unify this at some point like we did with africom, a similar situation

with to commander three commands. is there a discussion on how to figure this out as we understand what opportunities and challenges there are? you just mention one of those. that is in the aleutian. something that is close to alaska, but it is thousands of miles away. can you give me some thoughts on that? >> you bet. i was a former vice commander of the pacific forces. he wore four hats. >> i know. >> i always felt that it was important for u.s. northern command and norad to help reduce the number of hats that we asked him to wear. we continue that effort. we will have some discussions this year with the chairman and the service chiefs to help streamline the process. certainly, there is concern that

we provide for an active defense capability for alaska. as you know, during world war ii, the aleutian chain were invaded. that is something that we do not want to repeat. the mission of the homeland defense falls under norad. we want to try to better streamline of that process. maybe we can take one have or two hats and get down to a manageable amount -- maybe we can take one hacket or two hatsd get down to a manageable amount. >> it is probably too worried vantage rather than thinking 10 years out. -- it is probably to our advantage rather than thinking 10 years out. >> we will see more navigable water in the arctic.

it is an area where we had not focused our international attention for a long time. before the last administration left, they published a paper indicating strategy for the arctic. i think that is a great start. we need to continue that effort. i think to partner with the arctic council nations on a common strategy for research and for development to settle disputes is a good idea. i know the senate will continue to consider this. the u.n. law of the sea treaty is something critical that gives us a seat at the table to be involved in these discussions. >> that was my next question. some are concerned with that, by the united states being a part

of the law of the sea, that will give up some of our sovereignty. do you believe that? but no, i do not. -- >> no, i do not. >> let me ask you about the missile defense systems in alaska. the decision was mutual discussions that got to an agreement of 30. >> yes, i think 30 is the right number. the additional missiles that will be constructed are not restricted from being used if we were to need them. >> correct. >> i think that would give us some capacity if that were required. >> i want to thank you for that. one thing you have done in the last four months or five months, maybe six months, is create that

flexibility depending on the situation, -- that flexibility. depending on the situation, you can plus up. in the 2010 budget, there are close to $40 million to continue to deal with -- close to $14 million to continue to deal with that. there is a need of $100 million to complete that. how do you think you'll be able to make sure that those resources are there to continue to take care of the field, one of which is in deplorable condition? >> let me provide you some more

detail for the record. we worked very closely with general rightlriley. he is sure that we can keep field two on track. but let me get back to you with more specifics on that. >> whenever he can do to keep that going on, -- what ever he can do to keep that going on, this is a huge opportunity. i know that we have huge flexibility. if you can get us that, that would be great. i would encourage him to move forward. >> yes, sir, will do. >> as more renewable energy is debated in alaska, one thing is wind turbines. are you dealing with that?

i know that it is very small, but their concerns that it may interfere with the mission and -- there are concerns that it may interfere with the mission and the air space. >> there is a challenge as we develop wind farms, but also with new building construction. that development has interfered with the send/receive capability of our readers. i sent a letter -- of our radars. i said a letter to secretary gates appeare. paul stockton will lead that effort.

we need to continue to make this process mature. we have had questions from senator webb and others on similar issues. we know that is a real concern and we continue to work that aggressively. >> that is correct. general fraser, i feel like i need to ask your question. i don't leave you there. you are a great addition to our alaska team. one of the things i want to rescue is -- i had a conversation about a special unit within your organization that deals with humanitarian components. we talked briefly about how it is appropriate for your command -- maybe not for others -- but have you found that component, that unit, of high value for your command in assisting you with some of the unique

situations you have in central america and in the southern command section? maybe you can expand a little bit. >> you are talking human rights? >> yes. >> we have a human rights office that has been in existence for quite a number of years. there is an initiative in which 34 countries from around the region have all signed up to very -- have all signed up. is a very active program. there has been significant progress. columbia has its focus on this -- colombia has a focus on this. guatemala is also working with this. >> the southern command is the only combatant command that has one of the is. it is a resource that is

available to any of the combatant commands. >> i want to thank you for our conversation, particularly during the earthquake and the work you have down there and all of the affiliated services that came to the call immediately. i have heard great descriptions of your capacity to stay at many long nights and sleep on whatever is available in order to keep the command working. i just want to thank you and the troops were doing such a great job under such a unique situation and how fast you mobilize. >> senator, it is a great team effort. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me just announced that, when we begin the second hearing, we will follow the same order of recognition that we have been falling for the first hearing. we will not start a new or changed order toward the recognition of senators.

>> general, let me thank you for your 39 years of extraordinary service. i assume that, now that you are retiring, you will be able to get to the american festival that we talked about before to celebrate your heritage. i look forward to being your personal guide during any of those festivals. i want to bring up an issue that is an increasing problem in my state. that is the problem of drug trafficking across the northern border. there has been a great deal of focus and a discussion this morning about the problem with the mexican drug cartels. i unfortunately -- and fortunately, the drug

trafficking we are seeing in the north is not as bad as the southern border. but that does not mean that it is not a problem. indeed, last december, remains federal judges met with me to discuss -- maine's judges met with me to discuss their growing concern. they told me that canada is now one of the world's top producers of methamphetamine and that this dangerous drug is increasingly being smuggled across the border in maine. i am understand that the violence associated with the mexican drug cartels demands that the majority of the resources be focused on that. but i am concerned about whether there is a sufficient focus on the smuggling of math and other dangerous drugs in -- of meth

and other dangerous drugs into the state of maine. i wonder if you see a transnational threat to our country. >> you hit on a very important element. we do tend to focus on drug trafficking self-to-north. as i talked -- self-to-north. -- south-to-north. as i talk to my canadian counterparts, they see the same things as well. we have our joint task force north. this year, we are increasing the number of small but effective

operations that we will conduct along the northern border in partnership with our federal law enforcement and a d.a. and others and the royal mounted police. let me get that back to you, specifically as it looks to maine. >> in your testimony, you indicated that you'd had taken steps to identify threats similar to those of major hassan at fort hood. have you initiative more training for finding islamic extremism within the ranks? >> there are a number of recommendations.

they're primarily pushed to the services because they are training-equipped. our role is to make sure that the facilities are provided the right kinds of information so that their local officials can focus their attention on specific events. to that degree, we have worked very closely with our friends in the federal bureau of investigation on information- sharing of a nature that would be important to our military facilities. we have increased that kind of activity over the last couple of years and have accelerated some of the programs after the major hassan case. our role is to see how the services view these. we are comfortable that the recommendations out of the secretaries investigation committee will make sense.

>> we are very much in the same position. the only other piece that i would put in is that those people who are assigned to our organization, especially the headquarters, then we do have a specific focus on supporting their needs. >> thank you. finally, i want to associate myself with the comments that senators leave it -- that senator lieberman made about the change that will take place of the cprne consequence response forces. i am concerned whether adequate resources will be invested so that we can respond effectively to a weapon of mass destruction. how would the new hrf would

cornet, plant, and exercise with the -- would train, plann, and exercise with the local fema. that kind of coordination is very important if we are going in a different direction. >> we have been asked to create the concept of operations that insures that kind of coordination is done. i think there will be a resources element to that. we have to focus on it very clearly because these homeland response forces are hosted under the command of a governor. on a day-to-day basis, we have to make sure that, across the

enterprise, they have to be talking. they also have to be connected to the federal agencies like fema. this is a work in progress. we owe the secretary a brief at the end of this month. >> thank you. >> senator collins, thank you. senator udall. >> thank you for taking the time to visit with me yesterday. i was struck by the old adage that a statesman is a dead politician. some say that we need more states msmen. we're looking for it to the benefit of your advice.

although, you do not look senior to me. you are fit. >> thank you, senator. >> i will lean on you for further insights and advice. would you talk about the national guard commission recommendations, specifically how you have increased the guardsmen at the headquarters? we have talked about how this is a great opportunity to enhance the role of the guard and increase how we deploy them. i want to tip my hat to you for how you have worked with them. >> we work with 50 full-time guardsmen at the headquarters. across my headquarters, a substantial percentage of the military -- of the active military have served in a position where they have been associated either with the

reserves are the guard and a substantial number of my civilians are former members of the national guard and reserve. in fact, the state of colorado has been particularly supportive as we have 25 colorado guardsmen who are part of the full time support. i just hired a new military assistance for norad. he will come from the colorado national guard. we have built a close relationship. i am very pleased with that. i think we need to continue to look for opportunities to bring in our guard or reserve component into active issues. we have positions that can be filled. we are working closely with the reserves and the national guard bureau to keep those as full as possible. we are proud with our relationship. we have built a closer relationship with the national guard bureau then we have had

before. >> kudos to you. i think that we share philosophy. as powerful and sophisticated as it is, it has a tendency to be isolated from society. the guardsmen and the reserve to provide that pipeline, if you will, and the connection between civilians and those who serve us so ably in the military. do you think the joint command educational to opportunity should be expanded? are those advanced degrees truly effective to bring back the level of expertise to the force? if so, could they be enhanced? >> in our traditional paradigms,

the services, each of them, direct the education programs for their individual people. as we have seen the growth of joint command, there is an opportunity for a joint combat commands to focus educational opportunities on skill sets that are unique to them. in our case, with homeland defense, led to carry, civil support, many of those skills do not traditional lie in our education programs. i do think there is an opportunity to look for opportunities to allow convicted commanders to target a number of unique education programs that will then benefit their commands. i think we need to work with a personal system to allow us to take advantage of that. -- a personnel system to allow us to take advantage of that.

>> i agree. i would probably add on another part to that, especially as we have been working through our experience in haiti. that is to also include an interagency part to that. it is understanding the other part of the art interagency, our counterparts there, that will have great benefits as we apply the whole of government approach in many of the situations that we face in the future. >> we talked yesterday about dhs and the mexican border situation. any sense, this stretch right at your legacy. talk about the two commands that you oversee in norad.

>> when these commands were formed, there was an opportunity there to create a transparent or a transition from the warning of threats that norad has traditionally provided to the real operational defense of homeland, whether it is a missile or maritime homeland defense, into the consequence management of a natural disaster or a man made event. they have become a truly interdependent. today, you cannot separate the functions of warning from the functions of the fed's actions from the functions of consequence action. the strength that it takes to operate in that spectrum is consistently tied it at every level. while there is a difference between the by national command, norad, and our operations there

and in the u.s. national authorities with northcom, to keep them connected at almost every level provides great synergy for the nation. in terms of the commander, i believe that it would be difficult not to have the same person in command of both of those headquarters because of that synergy. in the last three years, we have seen a real move to operationalize of that. -- operationalize that. >> thank you for that in said. thank you for your service. thank you to both of you for maintaining our hemisphere. an thank you to the canadians who have been such great partners.

you have maintained and enhanced the that relationship. as big -- have spoken with some of the canadian officers said they are sad to see you go. >> it is in my family but. >> that is right. thank you. -- it is in my family bulletin. >> that is right. thank you. >> as you wind down these 37 years -- i know it has been a long time since york commission in 1972 -- but -- since your commission in 1972 -- but what great service yet provided to our country and you are a model to our country through your service. first of all, personally, thank you for your friendship over the years. we appreciate you very much.

we're not going to let you retire yet, general fraser. speaking of part a ship with nations, currently, one of the best ways we have to build and sustain those partnerships is through the western hemisphere institute for cooperation. i was pleased to see both of you comment on that in both of your opening statements in your written statement. we're pleased to serve on the border when sewinsec. what are your thoughts regarding winsec? what is it provided the nations that choose to provide personnel? >> thank you for that question. it is a very important institution for us. it provides a lot of capability- building. it has a real focus on

democratic values, on human rights, and a course lotus focused on human rights. as you mentioned, it is really partnership building. it is not just partnership building with members of the united states military, but across all of the military's that are in those courses -- of the militaries that are in those courses. in haiti, u.s. officers had gone to school with a canadian counterpart in the brazilian counterpart and they understood one another right away. that really facilitated the operations. no matter where we go in a partnership-building capacity throughout the region were specifically in working together on crises, it makes a huge difference for us. >> the current defense

authorization bill contains names of student officers in winsec. what effect will this provision have on the foreign nations' willingness to send partners. >> i think it will have a negative impact. we have discussed with some of our partners. they would be concerned if those names were released. i am concerned for the u.s. military personnel and their families who support winsec. i do not support the release of names. >> thank you. as you conclude your third year as commander of norad and northcom, as we look forward,

what do you think the biggest challenges out there for these respective commands? >> senator, as we see in many of the services, recapitalization of our infrastructure is important to us. our sovereignty air fighter force is growing. we want to monitor the development and the feeling of new systems that will allow us to maintain the air sovereignty of our two nations. the radar sites are also aging. continuing to support the modernization is something that is important for the norad role. in northcom, i continue to work more closely with our border security partners, our interagency partners, and with mexico, especially in this area of countering illicit trade and traffic. i think some of the future challenges mentioned is making sure that this national consequence management force is

well organized, trained, equipped, and executable for the nation. we have to be ready at any moment. >> in november 2007, over 450 f- fifteens were granted over structural concerns. -- 450 f-15's were grounded over structural concerns. as the platforms continue to wage, that is part of the aging fleet that is the continue to age, that is part of the aging fleet that you alluded to -- as the platforms continue to age, that is part of the aging fleet that you alluded to. >> as you know, the air force is conducting a fighter force review that will target not only

the assignment of aircraft and where we assign resources. you'll be hearing about that in a few minutes. i do monitor that very closely. the baseline force that we have has to be maintained. i am comfortable so far that the department of the air force are committed to maintaining that. that is something that we monitor as we see adjustments in delivery rate or aging rate. >> uni have had an opportunity to visit -- you and i have had an opportunity to visit uniformity. what effect or impact will a slippage in the ioc on the f-35

have on northcom? >> that has proven to be a very excellent weapons system. we have used it in our air defense systems in alaska. we have found it to be a very capable system. i think the department is committed to continue its spiral development into the modern versions of the airplane that were planned. i am comfortable that it gives us the capability that is much needed in our air force. with the respect -- with respect to the at-35 timing, -- with respect to the f-35 timing, it would be of interest to me to make sure that we keep the quality of our f-15 feet to maintain that air defense. for right now, i do not feel that there is an unsettled level of risk. the two maxwell appeared -- that there is an unacceptable level

of risk. the two match well. >> thank you. >> we thank you both. we are appreciative of the service that you have always provided this nation. we thank your families for their great support. we wish the best to you on your upcoming retirement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're going to take a three- minute recess. >> up next, senator james in half on environment and federal spending and the health care debate. following that, there is a

discussion on the senate's use of the filibuster. >> obama and his socialistic ideas, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> michele least an, founder and president of the clare boothe luce policy institute. >> thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> thank you both for being with us. dibble axelrod made appearances this week. -- david axelrod made appearances this week. he said