and in air cover -- and maintenance, and in air cover, their ability to protect their own air space. right now, under current circumstances, as of the first of january, we will have 157 def defense military and civilians, along with several hundred contractors processing military sales. as i have indicated, i think that this government is very open to the continuing presence that would be larger, where we can help the iraqis for a period of time. i am not so concerned about the stability of the country. i am concerned about the ability to they have to address these issues in particular.

the fact is that we have a signed agreement from president bush in the initiative has to come from them. my hope is once they have sorted out who their new defense minister is going to be, we will be able to move forward with that this dialogue with the iraqis. frankly, i think it is a bit like the strategic agreement itself. our present is not popular in iraq. i think that the leaders understand the needs for this kind of help. no one wants to be the first one out there supporting it. so, we will continue the dialogue. but at the end of the day the initiative has to come from the iraqis. >> i take it that you are pleased on the decision from the house on the additional engine?

>> extra engine. >> you take it that you would support over here to do the same? >> absolutely. >> i share your optimism about success in afghanistan. and i also share your view that there is a long way to go. do you share the same optimism about pakistan? there have been some very serious disruptions, obviously, with these american citizens being held by an prison. the role of private contractors. the continued allegations of relationships between isi and the taliban. i am deeply concerned about the situation in pakistan. in the ability to sustain long- term success in afghanistan.

>> let me turn to the chairman. he spent much more time there that i have. i do worry about pakistan. it has huge economic problems. those problems were significantly aggravated by terrible flooding last year. >> destabilizing pakistan itself. >> i am worried that they could provoke a conflict between pakistan and india. >> in the sanctuary. >> there is still the sanctuary. the pakistani is have 140,000 troops on the border.

these things improve step-by- step. we do get to a better place over time. if you had asked me a few years ago if they would have drawn six divisions from the border and place them in the west, i would have said the that was impossible. if you had asked that we would have begun coordinating on both sides of the border, i would have said that that is very unlikely. and they are chipping away at the sanctuaries. it is a mixed picture and it is something that we need to keep working at. >> on the military side, senator mccain, i am probably more optimistic than i have been. on the political side, on the

economic side, from my perspective it looks worse than it has in a long time. the vector going in the wrong direction overall for the country. but we are very popular there. you have seen that highlighted in each crisis. we provided extraordinary support during the fund last year. our popularity has backed down in very small numbers. it is where a lot of terrorist organizations are, not just al qaeda. they are more combined in their efforts than they have ever been. i am as concerned as i have ever been. >> anything more on the wikileaks investigation? >> after our last hearing, i

went backpack -- i went back. i was told that i had to keep my hands off of it because of the criminal investigation. but i was able to narrow the area that i have asked the secretary of the army to investigate in terms of procedures and command climate. it has nothing to do with the accused individual. rather seeing what lapses there were where someone should be held accountable. >> thank you, mr. secretary. chairman, thank you for your testimony today. i believe that the president's budget for the department of defense is a budget that recognizes times of economic stress that we are going

through. particularly with regard to the national deficit and debt. and i appreciate, mr. secretary, your advocacy of the budget in your warning that we have to be careful about cutting too deeply into the defense budget. i have noticed a change in terminology around here that concerns me. as we discussed the various components and got discretionary spending, we distinguish between the fence and non- defense spending. defense spending had a more protected status. and i think it was for a good reason. i know that you and all of us on the committee believe this. and we have no greater responsibility in our national government than protecting our

security. it is the underpinning of our freedom and prosperity. so, we have to be very cautious about cutting below the level that we can continue to fulfil. i have noticed that the difference between defense and non-defense discretionary spending terminologies seems to be fading. it does not mean that everything that people want in the pentagon, that we will say yes to it. i know the two of you have been aggressive about the programs that have been set forward. in these difficult economic times with political stress on everyone here, there is a primary responsibility for national security.

frankly, without going any further, for those of us who are committed to doing everything that we can to give resources to men and women in uniform to protect security, we are compelled to look much more directly and act more boldly on the expanding part of the national deficit and debt. the entitlement programs. with that invocation, i will now proceed to say -- i just want to pick up on what the senator said earlier. the input that we got at the security conference was quite significant to me on afghanistan. first i thought there was a real change in opinion from our european colleagues. we are really making progress in afghanistan.

normally we have been concerned that they would leave the fight before we did. they said that they are committed to the 2014 exit date from afghanistan. we are worried that you in america were going to do this earlier. mindful of the fact that it will have on our european allies and the region. >> i had a defense ministers' meeting last december. it was quite extraordinary

because i do not think i had ever seen so many ministers so optimistic about how things were going in afghanistan. i did not encounter a single one who was pessimistic or felt that the effort was for naught, or that we were not headed in the right direction. there was a level of not just grudging support, but a general feeling of cautious optimism that we finally have all the parts right in this thing. civilian strategy, military strategy with the resources. when i took this job there were 12,000, 13,000 european partners in afghanistan. there are now 50,000. they have stepped up to the plate. we are carrying the bulk of the burden. but they are doing a lot as

well. by the same token, one of my missions in next month's defense ministers meeting is to make sure that whatever we do in july does not start a rush for the exits on the part of our allies. particularly those with the largest intentions there. there are a lot of countries making real contributions with fairly limited numbers of people. i think that the principal allies and those that are the principal contributors are probably ok. but i need to be able to reassure them that this is going to be conditions based and gradual. the other aspect of this is that -- the other point i will make is that it should not be

mathematical. if we take out 1% or 2% of our troops, that does not mean everyone gets 2%. for some of them, 2% when you only have 10 guys, you have a problem. so, i think that we need to make sure that their forces are taken out on a conditions based arrangement as well. and i think that this is the challenge for general petraeus. the way that he is thinking about it is that when we turn over security responsibility, three things will happen to the troops there. a few will state to provide a safety net. some of them will be invested in the neighboring district where security is not as good. some of them will be allowed to

come home. that is the approach he is taking. frankly, i have not seen from the defense minister at least signs of nervousness or a feeling that they would be compelled to make significant withdrawals themselves. >> what you found the the defense ministers meeting is exactly what we found in turn so what we found at the conference. i would say that you are right on target with your focus on the next meeting coming up. i will simply state that one of the people high up in our major foreign ministry, if we were to withdraw a small portion of the troops in july, taking it in

absolute mathematical numbers. only 1% for us, but let's say is 1000 -- >> the interesting thing about the europeans in afghanistan, most of them are in coalition governments. most of the republics are opposed to their participation. these governments have shown real political courage in being willing to commit to the support staff provided in absence of political support at home. >> i could not agree more. the other thing that i found heartening was our nato allies, especially following those meetings that you referred to, they have stepped back. this is the first time that nato

has gone to war. a failure of this kind, interestingly outside of the geographic area, it would have terrible consequences for the nato cut -- credibility. that this dangerous time of the world it is critically important to stability, as well as other places far from the u.s., europe, and afghanistan. we are at a point where the alliance is moving in a positive way. >> thank you, senator. >> i am glad to hear that, secretary gates. i am glad to know that more are coming to the table. senator hagen and i spent years even in afghanistan with some

time to get out to the training area. we talked about what would happen in the reduction and much of that was said to be based on the success of the training today. i was pleased, she was here a minute ago and is gone now, but at the military training center of the segregation on both sides of the mountain, we are used to seeing how we did it on this side. with potential discussions, i would like to know your opinion as to how we are coming with that training. it is ahead of where you thought it would be? or were you surprised as we work? of >> i would say that what the general has done in the past few years has been characterized as a miracle.

is not just the numbers. one year ago they took 35% of the recruits and afghan soldiers qualified of marksmanship to the 90's. they had a literacy program going for officers. even the junior enlisted, and it will make a huge, long term difference in afghanistan. i think that the quality of what they have been doing, the speed with which they have been doing, and the ability to accommodate a significant increase in the numbers being trained in getting quality training has just been quite extraordinary and has played a big part in the progress we have seen over the last year. >> the number that i saw the other day was 20,000 trainees in training right now.

literally in the hundreds. putting a soldier or a policeman in the field, sometimes we focus on the military side with an extraordinary jump in the police side. i would commend the general and his people for putting in the structure. you have seen it for yourself, it has been an exceptional effort over a short period of time. >> we had an opportunity to talk to those that were being trained to be trainers. they were excited and looking at careers. i was very shocked and very pleased. as you know from previous meetings, i always bring up 1206, 1208. programs that i had been enthusiastic about.

successful programs. i was pleased that the 1206 funding was increased to $500 million. the thing that i am confused about because i am not sure what it means, this funding -- when i first read about this, was this returning back to what we were trying to get away from? having more concentrated commanders in the field? what either of you like to share? >> this is the 450 million? this appropriation, should it be approved by the state department's money, with an opportunity to reprogram upwards of $350 million between us. there's no specificity that says how much they will reprogram at this point. what is really critical here is

that it gives us the ability to meet an emergence this year that heretofore we have just not been able to do. year after year we have seen this in country after country. it is actually very consistent in terms of strategic mechanisms being different. >> good. i am glad to hear that. other programs have been very successful. recently we hear more about china, russia, and a further advance. teams 5020, whenever that was over there, and these decisions we have made to go backwards with 124 f-35, was that made

before we realize that a worm perhaps further along in developing fifth generation fighters in other countries? >> i have characterized the senator in china, they may have flight-tested half of the year before. the truth is that it will be quite a while before they have been in numbers before the latest estimates on the chinese side. they might have 50 deployed. by 2025 they will have 325 f-

35's by the end of 2016 under the revised program, giving us over 505th generation aircraft by 2020. or fifth generation aircraft by 2020. there is still a huge disparity in terms of these aircraft. and, frankly, without getting into a too much in an open hearing, this is their first low observable aircraft. given the challenges we have had for the last 20 years, frankly they have a long road in front of them before this becomes a serious operational aircraft. >> i am glad to hear that. my time has expired and it might be more appropriate to respond for the record, at that time you

were talking about north korea and we heard about our intelligence estimate talking about the iranian capability in 2015. i would like to have an update on those estimates for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> specifically on the f-35, the sector's decision to override, those are stolen aircraft. >> marine versions? >> putting them in a better position to deliver the navy and air force versions sooner. those versions are doing pretty well in testing and development. i thought that it was a wise decision, giving the navy an opportunity to work on this airplane, the next few years.

i would say that the -- >> i would say that the first air force perry will go by and day. training in the navy variant in fiscal year 2012. >> thank you. >> senator nelson bell >> thank you, gentlemen, for your service to the country. for the past several years the need for a new strategic headquarters has been under consideration, a parent and identified as a requirement. requirements made towards addressing this vital need, existing facility shortcomings with personnel at risk, spratt, existing headquarters was built in that -- 1957 with little renovation.

these problems would be challenging if they continued to have electrical service and cooling water problems. these are untenable as some of the most important. national security missions, the retiring commander said it best. the u.s. headquarters with control mode for the u.s., we must make the appropriate investments. i am very pleased that this budget represents that. >> just one comment. the admiral and i were there a couple of weeks ago for the change of command. the building looks a lot like it did when i walked in as a lieutenant in 1967.

>> the electrical systems are probably the same as well, but thank you very much. concerns have been raised over continuing relationships in the middle east right now. the fiscal year 2012 budget presumes that the military, in terms of iraq, will depart in december as planned. we have had many discussions about whether it is important or appropriate to do that. and what kind of advice we -- will we continue to provide for iraqis. economizing in the department of defense, is there a plan to have them pick up more of the cost? based on the retention of personnel to provide devices and training required?

>> not at this point, senator. to tell you the truth, we have not really done much in a way of the budget. looking beyond the 31st of december, we are assuming that we will come to december 31 and that will be at. we will have to revisit that issue. i would think that we would have to, even with the price of oil where it is, they are devoting about 14% of their gdp to security. running about $15 billion in deficit this year. we should be so lucky. we have not gone down that road yet. >> if we are in a position to continue some relationship

there, would it be possible to look at in terms of the budget? driving it into the ditch, we do not want to do that. it has to be balanced for them and for ourselves as well. >> we will take that into account. . >> i appreciate that. >> in terms of assets, $4.8 billion on procuring frames for the budget. can you speak about the infrastructure and personnel cost-benefit as well as infrastructure costs for adding these additional assets? >> i would have to get back to you with a detailed response. as far as the infrastructure personnel costs, they are

incorporated into the budget and that is how the service brings it forward. i would also say, senator, it has become a part of not only what we're doing now, but we will be doing in the future. often we think about the future as out there by itself. there are many capabilities that we have developed rapidly that will be every bit as relevant in a few years. probably lead the pack. >> developing the future are around us, i would hope that as we do that we would find a way to do with efficiently and cost effectively. without being short on personnel simply because we might have fewer pilots doing things a different way. so, i hope that she will

consider that. also, secretary gates, in growing the forces and capacity of the afghan national security forces, we talked about numbers increasing. you mentioned sustainability. the range, looking at a higher range, can we establish what we have paid as a sustainable no. looking forward? that is obviously a sizable percent of the population. good to have people working, no doubt about it. but do we have an idea of what they can support and sustain in the future? >> the sustainability issue, at least for the next number of years, is more of what the u.s. can sustain.

because the afghan ability to sustain a military force would be a fraction of the size of what they already have. much less what they might increase to. which is why i think a bit more in terms of their forces and the size of their force more in terms of a surge, like ours. so, once we have defeated the taliban, or degraded them to a point but a smaller afghan force can keep control, almost a local -- like the afghan local police or smaller numbers of the army, they can manage to keep the taliban or others inside of the country. down to the point where they are not a threat to the stability of the government or the people of afghanistan. they cannot afford a force the

size that they already have. something that we would be willing to support for a few years. then it seems to me, particularly if there is a political solution to this war, as we think there needs to be, that they could get by with a significantly smaller force. we would have to help them even then. and if it is a smaller bill, we might be able to get other countries to help. >> hopefully this support would help with sustainability in the future. until we have secured the country, this could be difficult. >> japanese basically pay the salaries for the afghan police.

that is their contribution and not a small thing that they're doing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank you for being here today and thank both of you for your long and distinguished service to our country. i believe that our responsibility is to protect the american people. a deeply held belief on my part. making sure that we have everything we need to fight and win our wars. supporting our men and women is a solemn responsibility. drawing down in iraq, i think it would be a mistake to drastically cut the size of

military readiness. that said, we realize the to appreciate that it is based on the comments from admiral mullen. facing a fiscal crisis in this country, we face great challenges in balancing the need to protect our country and make sure that we serve and provide for our troops with the need to cut back in all areas. i would like to commend the secretary and as a new member of this committee i want you to look forward -- know that we look forward to bringing those reforms to fruition and looking for additional cost savings. i have a question based on having the appearance of the secretary the other day for his nomination. that is that he testified that 25% of the detainee's being

released from guantanamo going back into theater and engaging in hostilities again. wanting to ask the secretary whether that is an accurate figure and how that is informing our decisions by at guantanamo. >> that is the right figure based on information i have. i would say that we have been very selective in terms of returning people. discovered over time, we are not particularly good at predicting which were attorney will be a recidivist. some of those that we have considered the most dangerous, potentially going back into the

fight, they have not. some are evaluated as not much of a danger or a risk. and even then i would say that the national defense authorization act of 2011 imposes additional restrictions on who we can release. the congress put me in the uncomfortable position of having to certify people that get returned. that they are no longer a danger. i will tell you, that raises the bar very high. >> one of the concerns that i think that this raises as well, without being too capture high- value targets in areas where we are not currently a engaged in direct conflict, putting those

individuals in on the attempt to close guantanamo? >> the honest answer to the question is that we do not know. if we capture them outside of the areas where we are at war and are not covered by the existing authorizations, one possibility is for such a person to be put in the custody of their home government. the other is that we bring them to the united states. after all, we have brought a variety of terrorists here and put them on trial. but it will be a challenge. >> would that cause you to make a different recommendation to the president on closing guantanamo, given the challenges it represents? quite frankly we are in the

position, best i can tell, being very low. prospects are brought opposition for doing that here in the congress. >> we are not using it to add additional detainees as might be appropriate for holding? >> not at this point. >> i wanted to rescue about the equipment for combat with in the budget. i am concerned about the look -- lower funding levels for combat units returning from deployment. september 11, 2010, the national guard before the largest number since world war ii.

they will be returning in the second half of this year. i know that restoring readiness levels takes time. historically at the end of the food chain in terms of getting you equipment, this can impact readiness and responsiveness to state emergencies. with this in mind, how confident are you that the budget service for reset will allow all units to address the needs going forward? of >> one of the things that has happened over the past four years, the equipment on hand for the national guard was historical yet 70%.

but a national basis it was 77%. what has changed now, compared to the past, is the guard with a much higher quality equipment. how fast we can do this, coming back from conflict, it is a lot of money. there is reset money in there. one of the things that we will have to do, if we get a continuing resolution, we will have to shut down recapitalization of humvee at

the depots. all of these things are tied together. until a year ago we thought we would need reset money for a couple of girls -- couple of years. we think that that is probably a longer period of time. longer than two years. the problem is that the reset comes from contingency operations budgets. finding the dollars for reset will be a big challenge for us. >> i know that my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. officer gates, admiral mullen, secretary failed, i want to thank you for your service. i appreciate the excellent job you have done leading the military. i want to thank the great men and women in the armed forces for their service. i have applauded the steps taken to care for service members. i believe that taking care of

those defending the nation is their responsibility and not a choice. accounting for families as well. i am interested in hearing your thoughts on the progress the department is making in helping families as a whole as they work through the challenges of pst and other stress inducing situations for families. >> thank you, senator. i know that you have focused on these issues. i think that we are in a better position than from a few years ago. increasingly, and i will speak specifically to families first,

earlier on there was a great deal of focus on some houses. in terms of the stress they have undergone, what i have seen over the last couple of years is an increasing awareness and understanding of the need to address the whole thing. as they have been stressed. if you are in a high rotation unit and you were 10 years old when he started, mostly your mom and dad were on deployment. going off to college, basically you have not seen your dad. there are issues associated with that we will have to deal with in the long run. a 15-year-old, their whole life has been at war. something a lot of us has not --

have not been through. an extraordinary amount of effort has been placed in terms of prioritizing inside the service to get at the major issues. and it is not just the mental stress. we are short health-care providers, although we are up dramatically from where we were in 2001. we have got short on the country. another committee that i know near and dear to your harper, working together with communities throughout the country. the initiative that the first lady has undertaken, announcing with the president about one month ago, an extraordinarily

important issue, wellness and education, as well as child care, of signed up by the secretaries from every department. it is a huge step forward in terms of giving visibility. >> one of the significant changes that we have made, virtually most of these family programs and those that were deployed with challenges that they faced, they were in the supplementals and local funding. over the last few years we have

moved virtually all of that money into the base budget so that long after the war funding ends. this year i think we have $8.3 billion in the budget for these programs. that is about a $200 million increase over fiscal year 2011. >> i know that you're concerned goes back in terms of meeting more resources than they had before. >> i believe that electronic medical record system would be very beneficial to former military families. as well as the health care providers.

>> can you provide an update on where the department is on records? >> we will give you an answer and i will tell you, we have made a lot of progress. but it is not fast enough as far as the secretary and i are concerned. he and i met, adjusted to a bus, about two weeks ago to try to accelerate this effort. he and i will meet again with our staff in the middle of april or march to assess where we are and what needs to be done to move this forward and get it done. we will have a follow-up meeting at the end of april.

unfortunately i have found with these huge bureaucracies, the veterans affairs or the department of defense, things like this that are big projects do not move fast without high- level attention. the secretary and i are both committed to making fast progress, fast as possible on this. >> thank you very much, senator. >> secretary gates, admiral mullen, i very much appreciate the fact that you offered your testimony with highlights to the damaging effects of a yearlong cr on the department. senator bill nelson and i recently wrote to our leaders

suggesting depth we should be looking at the appropriations. i made a similar suggestion last fall that they did not take. i said it was inconceivable that we had spent the last 10 days on reauthorization. paling in comparison to the urgency of acting on the defense appropriations bill. i hope that our senate leaders heard you loud and clear tonight and that we will return next week to make that our first order of business. certainly the impact you have outlined is a disaster. there is no need for us to

debate a bill like this when we should do a higher priority bill. one of your greatest success stories has been growth and development of afghan national security forces. i understand that that is going well generally. i understand how imperative it is that we build up those forces so that we can eventually leave afghanistan, shortchanging the

vetting of recruits. killed by afghan border police officers, a private military officers. afghan personnel having attacked our military personnel or coalition partners six times. what are we doing to be sure the tragic incidents like this cannot occur. >> certainly each one is a

tragedy. when i go back to the overall strategy and have focused on the quality of the move. the quality of the infrastructure and substantial training programs that were virtually nonexistent before. the secretary and i talked earlier about the improvement in literacy. we are now focused on the need to train by and specific skill sets. moving quickly to make sure that as best we can there is nothing like that in security forces occurring. i would assure you that there is a tremendous amount of focus with respect to the leadership.

tragically, these things do occur on occasion. i would not sit here and tell you that we would be 100% successful with respect to that. every one of these, thoroughly, to which you refer, i went through this with general campbell. what happened? what was the background? there was not a lot there in terms of the background that led him to take that action. is certainly integrated back into what we're doing. it is a challenge. >> secretary gates, i applaud you for holding accountable both military and civilian personnel.

senator lieberman and i met with one of the victims of the fort hood massacre. he was accompanied by friends and family members, as well as other family members. from what i posed to you today, when will the supervisors that filed such misleading officer evaluation reports regarding a major hassan be held accountable?

these evaluation reports ignored his increasingly erratic behavior, poor performance as a physician. we know from our investigation that one of his commanding officers told the people at fort hood -- you are getting our worst. and yet when you read the officer performance evaluation, they are glowing by and large. this attack occurred 15 months ago. what the victims and their family members are asking us is -- when will these individuals be held accountable? >> at my request, the secretary of the army has undertaken an investigation to address this specifically. the latest information that i have is that he is nearing

decisions on this. i think that you do not have a precise time line, but in the near future he will be reaching some conclusions and taking actions deemed appropriate. >> thank you. my time has expired. i am going to submit some questions for the record. admiral, i want to mention to you that i am concerned about the increase in suicides among the national guard. i recently had the honor of welcoming back the company of maine national guard men and women. it seems to me that we are doing a better job in helping the active-duty force, which has those resources more readily available, but i am really concerned that we are providing that same kind of support for the reserve guard.

>> i have said this many times, we would be nowhere close to where we are in these wars without their extraordinary performance. they deserve the attention that everyone else has gotten. on the suicide issue it is a huge concern to all of us. in particular the surge over the last year. so, there is a great deal of effort to try to first of all understand it and then address it with and human services as well. >> thank you. i think that the senator speaks for all of us on the issue of suicide. >> senator reid? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of others on your extraordinary service you have given to the nation and the difficult judgments you have had to make. thank you for what you have

done. we continue to wish you well as you continue to serve. admiral, i know that in october he will finish your tour. i hope the to add that commendation. let me emphasize what you have all emphasized. it is critical to fund the defense budget going forward. there is another aspect which is very important which is the world that state department will play in iraq and afghanistan. i assume you would stress to this emergency the need to fund those types of state department programs in iraq and afghanistan

because otherwise will have accomplished, and more specifically what young men, women, and the military forces have accomplished could be severely compromised and the concern that many of us have is that you are able to summon an almost reflexive response by the american people we talk about men and women in uniform. this could be labeled as criticizing foreign aid. i think it would be helpful if you would comment on the need for that as well. >> for the entire time i have been in this job, i have been an advocate for more money for the state department. this goes back to my days in the cia when we but have case officers collecting information

that any good political officer in the foreign service could get, but there were not enough. it has been a concern of mine all along and i would say that it is a critically urgent concern because of the state department does not get what they've request for the transition in iraq that we will be in the soup. we have spent close to $800 or $900 billion and more than 4000 lives. here we are at the end game and reminds me of the final scene in "charlie wilson's war." we spend billions to drive the soviets out of afghanistan and could not get $1 million to build schools in afghanistan in the 1989-1990.

the same thing will happen in iraq. if we cannot have a transition to the police training function and they do not have a function in various places in iraq, the investments we have made to try to get them to where they are is at risk in my view. the chairman mentioned the need for a state department funding in his opening statement, and you would find, i think, extraordinary support across the entire defense department for their budget. more importantly, the real worry that all that we have gained is potentially at risk if we do not have the kind of state department presents and activities in iraq. here is the other piece of the problem. it goes to the continuing resolution. the state department cannot spend the money to get ready

right now. this is getting toward the end of the agrarian there are facilities to be built. there are people to be hired. they cannot do any of that. we are going to run out of time in terms of getting this accomplished. i have the passion in this reflects just how strongly we feel about this. this is really, really important. >> this is a global issue. this is not a lot of money invested in places around the world that prevent conflicts. the military does this and we have to do this in the state department otherwise we're going back for a lot more casualties. clark's for the first time in fiscal 2012, they will request

funding in the overseas contingency fund. it will be important for them to isolate the money for this cooperation. >> you mentioned a "charlie wilson's war." we learned a very expensive lesson about not spending $1 million in 9/11. particularly with afghanistan, we are at a point where we might have to relearn that lesson because the threat that is being organized against united states and their allies are still emanating from the border regions of afghanistan and pakistan. is that a fair judgment, mr. secretary? >> absolutely. it is referred to as the epicenter of world terrorism. well out qaeda has metastasized and has branches in yemen, north

africa, and elsewhere, the reality is that border area is still the heart of the problem. >> as the chairman mentioned, we were there recently. we are building an increasingly incredible force. it is one that the government in afghanistan cannot afford indefinitely. this is not just the two or three year agreement. this is a multi-year commitment to support the forces in the field. we have to start now and build that in. is that another point on that you would agree? >> the international community and afghanistan cannot afford 375,000 forces ansf forces

indefinitely. we have to think of this as a search for the afghans and it with a political settlement and the degrading of the taliban, perhaps the size of the ansf can come down. just as an example, the fiscal year 2012 budget as 12 $20 billion to support the ansf for one fiscal year. we cannot sustain that for many years. a lot depends on being successful by 2014 in getting the transition to the afghans and even for have to support for a little while after that. if we have most of our troops out of their, it will still be a lot less money for the american taxpayers. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> when you go to your nato meeting, i hope you will also see what support we may get for

the continuing force of the afghan army from some of our nato allies. in that regard, it would be very helpful. senator gramm? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> a chance to reconsider the ban, secretary gates? >> no, sir. i cannot thank you for which you have done. -- thank you enough. when it comes to iraq and afghanistan, the policies you have created, the policies the president has supported have been very sound. we're about to reap the benefits of operations that have been tough, difficult, sometimes mismanaged, but that is the nation of war. i just to build on what senator reed said. i would agree to put in writing to me what you said about this

account. let's give a real-world example. what did it mean in terms of the egyptian crisis to have a good dialogue with the egyptian military? >> it was huge. would the benefits of 30 years of investment of the interaction we have had with them in our schools, the values that have rubbed off over time with them and the ability to sustain those contacts and then see them act in such a responsible way. >> i think that is a real world of example of 30 years of investment paying off. i do share my colleague's retire -- desire to reduce spending. the $5 million flowing in on the civilian side with the overseas contingency operations account,

you are saying that it should basically be seen as emergency spending and not account for the baseline? >> aloi this should be tied to the military, but that is a five-year program at $1.5 billion per year. it is not military which is what we were talking about earlier. sustaining that will be critical in the long term. >> we are making a surge on the civilian side. the civilian military partnership is essential. there are funds going to pakistan, iraq, and afghanistan on the civilian side that i think will be just as important as any brigade. i would like to treat those as a national-security asset and i would do everything i can on the republican side in the senate to make sure that we can protect those funds. here is what awaits the american people. we talk about fiscal austerity

at home. with the percentage of gdp spending when you count all appropriations? >> two facts. first, the base budget alone is 3.7% of gdp. if you take all of the war spending for fiscal year 2011 plus the big budget -- base budget is about 4.9%. there is another fact worth noting. as a percentage federal outlay with the exception of the late comes in the early 2000's 18.9%, it is the lowest level of percentage of outlays since world war ii. >> the secretary of defense has just told us that we're on the very low and at a time when i think the threats to our nation are growing exponentially.

as we pulled down in iraq, it is your believe that the iraqi government would ask for troops to be left behind to perform the functions you survive that it would be in our security interests to say yes stocks >> yes. -- to say yes? >> yes. >> my concern is that if we do not have a sufficient military footprint in the state department, they will have to build their own security apparatus which will be in excess of $5 billion. do you think all things being equal that it would be better for the military to be able to continue to provide security? >> noon of the helicopters in the private security contractors that the states will have to hire to perform that role will not have some of the

"enablers" that we have. >> we need to know this soon. do they buy helicopters? is it wise to hire a private contractor army to replace the american military if the iraqis will allow them to perform that function? the sooner we know the answer to that question, the more likely we are to be successful because i have grave concerns about building a state department army. that is my two cents' worth. detainee's. admiral mollen, our operators are all over the world. the drug from terrorism is not just confined to iraq and afghanistan. -- the threat from terrorism is not confined. what would happen if we were able to capture a high level operative in any country outside of iraq or afghanistan, say

somalia or yemen. what would we do with that detainee? >> we do not have an answer to that question. >> that is a big deal to me. we are in a war and capturing people as part of intelligence gathering and in the central part of this war. do you agree? >> yes. >> it is better to capture someone then it is to kill them in most respects. it is hard to capture them if you do not have a jail to put them in. on the other side, they did, to stop renditions. we need an american jail. the alternative is to kill them or go to renditions. i hope, mr. chairman, that sometime this year, both parties can never break through on this issue to help our men and women fighting this issue. it is a tough spot to but the special operators in for the cia. and our cia does not interrogate terrorist suspects

any longer. but these are things we need to talk about and get a decision. on paper, every ncr should read the third grade level. they're going about fixing that. we need to know that after eight years of involvement that 90% of the afghan army could not shoot to native standards. after all of these years, we are just now getting it right. we have been in the afghanistan with the right formulation for 18 months. is that a fair statement? >> yes.

it is a difficult statement to have because the started 10 years ago. >> when 2014 comes, i am optimistic that we can transition. i have been discussing about what an enduring relationship would look like. it is my belief that a political, economic, and military alliance would be incredibly beneficial and could be a gamechanger in the region to both of you. what do you believe the effect of an enduring relationship would be for the region as a whole if the afghans requested

of us to have joint air bases pasted 2015? would that be wise to consider? >> absolutely. to go to admiral mullen's comment, there is a question in the region whether we will stick around. it is all over the area. they -- security agreements that provided for a continuing relationship and joint facilities for training beyond 2014 would be very much in our interests. it would serve as a barrier to iranian influence, a

reconstitution from the taliban and others from pakistan. it would have a stabilizing effect not just in afghanistan but in their region. >> could you get by with a somewhat smaller army in that situation? >> absolutely. >> thank you, senator gramm. senator hagan is next. we have a vote in the senate scheduled for 12:10 and we will try to work around that grow -- vote. i will turn the gavel over to senator udall because i have to leave for a few minutes as well. we will try to go right through that the best that we can. senator hagan?

>> i will cut my own question short as i have to trot -- chris side of the senate floor at noon. i also want to say to altria the individuals, thank you for your service in your testimony -- say to all three of the individuals, thank you. i agree with senators reed and graham and concern about the funding for the state department and the foreign aid. i did want to talk about the health of the special operations forces. in the your prepared remarks, your knowledge the continued stress from nine years of constant conflict. last week, the commander of the u.s. special operations command said that difficult and repeated deployment force special operations personnel are causing

some fraying. given the demand for the special operation forces in centcom and other areas of the world, how does the department intend to address their readiness issues identified by admiral mullen and sec. gates? >> the force has expanded then by 30,000 to 50,000. their art and satiable requirements for forces and the vast majority are in the centcom. they're making investments for the future so that we do not have to go to war in the other parts of the world.

his statement about freeing around the edges is right. they have been on a significant amount of deployments. in iraq and afghanistan, they will typically be the last forces out. they're working to increase dwell time. as we did that, quite frankly, general petraeus asks for more. we are on a knife's edge with respect to this. they are extraordinary in their performance and execution. there are pushed very, very hard for me readiness standpoint. i think we will be fine in terms

of giving them the time and then to be able to disperse them to other parts of the world which we have not been able to do with the kinds of numbers and requests because they have been so tied to centcom. we will be able to meet that, but it will be a while until we get on the downside of both of this conflict. >> with the increase of the higher level of activity, another thing that we try to do is move a lot of the special forces money into the base budget said that once these wars and, we are able to sustain the larger special forces that we have and properly equipped them. >> the international security environment, particularly in cyberspace, continues to evolve. cyber threats to our electric

grid, military network, critical infrastructure, and more pose concerns to our national security. what is the department's strategy to recruit, train coming and retain seven specialists? what is the way forward to centralize the military and the cyber command and to synchronize the defense that works? >> amid a lot of progress in this area. and it was an important step. i directed the service secretaries about one year ago to consider training and make that one of their highest priorities and to make sure that all of the spaces we have in our schools were teaching cyber skills and be felt that a priority level. i think they made a lot of headway. we have a lot of money in this

area. this budget has a lot of money for research. this last summer, secretary of napolitano and i signed a memorandum of understanding where we can move in a direction to do better to protect .gov and .com. there is a continuing movement of people who did not want to make use of nsa because of civil liberties and privacy concerns. when secretary not balaton know and i did arrived at an agreement -- what's secretary in the paula todd know and i did was arrive at an agreement so

that they can exploit and task nsa to begin to get coverage in the .com and .gov worlds. we still have a long way to go. >> admiral, anything to add? >> it is a huge concern, growing threat. >> i think it is a positive thing that the schools were filled. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hagan. >> i do not know what all this conversation is about about saying great things because you are leaving. you are both going to be around for a while longer to make some very critical decisions whether

it is voluntary in your case, secretary gates, for your time is up, admiral and do you both provide a very valuable service to our country and with this last short term, and i'm not even counting the years and years of both of you have given, thank you very much for that service. whether we agreed or disagreed, you have always responded to me in the very professional way and i am very appreciative of that relationship. what senator gramm said about the detention and interrogation issue, we have a real problem that needs to be addressed in the short term. i am sure you have probably seen the way in which director panetta responded to a question i asked about if we did to capture any one. if just highlights the fact that we do not have a plan and really

have to figure something out. and looks like this is not long term, so we look forward to working with you on that. i continue to have come a secretary gates, an issue that really bothers me with respect to where we are now in the further we get into a them f-35, the more concerned i am. just to go back a little bit, the chiefs of staff for the air force testified that the military requirement was 220 more than the d.o.t. was willing to purchase. there is a concerted effort to strip funding and ultimately, can have taken a lot of credit for this in your budget that the

f-22 has been terminated and there is a large savings out there. there was an argument that the f-35 would be more affordable than the f-22. on july 16th, 2009, at a speech in chicago, you stated that the f-35 would be less than half the total cost of the f-22. since that time, the 35 had cost increases and the dod has recently restructured the program again delaying deliveries and began driving up the costs. last month, your own cost assessment program evaluation office estimated that the unit cost of a joint strike fighter, averaged over variants, has doubled since the program began to approximately $116 million in fiscal year $2,010. things may even get worse.

the price for the last half-20 to purchase was $130 million. regarding the threats to the u.s. base in the future and our ability to maintain errors -- air supremacy, you downplayed the threat in the chicago speech. you said, "china is not going to have any new aircraft by 2020. >> i heard what you said with respect to senator m. hoff, but the fact is that china flew the first and fifth generation fighter, the j-20 which they should reach i.o.c. well before 2020. russia flew their fifth generation fighter, which again your own intelligence experts predict will have an i.o.c. day well before 2020. one year ago in this very room

when the d.o.t. was in the process of notifying congress of an f-35 reach, you had just had the program manager and i asked if he were going to revisit the issue of additional half-way to production. you responded, "no, sir, because the ioc's based on information and is given in the preparation for this hearing for the arrival of the training squadron at excellent all remain on track. -- at eglin dollar remain on track." these are all test airplanes. a few months after you made that statement, the ioc date slipped from 2013, 2016, and the date for the navy versions that from 2014 to two dozen 16. the marine corps version has gone from projected piracy of

2012 -- projected ioc from 2000 calls to not even having a date. in light of all of these developments, i hope you can understand why i am extremely concerned as they go into this budget about where we're headed. in light of the stated military requirement, i need to rescue one more time. mr. secretary, if the department considering the purchase of any additional f-22's? >> we are not. what's the dod is spending billions of dollars to buy hundreds more fourth generation fighters, the ss-18's. -- f-18's/ generics plain white understand -- might make sense to invest in 4th generation in aircraft

rather than buying additional f- 22's which can fly anytime in any air space? >> the new program manager for the of 35, probably the best acquisition person have in uniform, has completed a comprehensive technical baseline review. he took several months to do this and i think we have a greater understanding and cranial rarity in terms of the progress on the aft -- f-35. both variants have made substantial progress. it flew twice as many tests as had been originally planned. it is training aircraft going to eglin.

it will both be for the air force and navy. we are investing money in the upgrades to the f-22. there are hundreds of millions of dollars in the fiscal year 2012 budget to upgrade. i would say that these are the first global aircraft and we have been at this for 20 years. run into -- they are likely early to run into the same programs -- with our stealth program. our tactical air situation will be in a good place.

the can upgrade some of the 400 f-16's and they're upgrading the most recent ones. combining of these recent programs we have in modernizing taxpayer -- modernizing attacked air, i think we are in reasonably good shape. the last procurement that has been negotiated with lockheed martin actually has resulted in a fairly substantial decrease in the price of the f-35 for that purchase. we have to continue that trend. >> there is no question that your increasing the risk. i have that we did not get down the road and realize that it was too far a very trimeris standpoint. i have a question i would like to ask for the record.

admiral, as you know, we are struggling with the deficit and long-term debt reduction. i have forwarded you, as have a number of us, that the number one security interest as the long-term debt that we face. would you mind sending us a written statement on that record? i can tell you that your opinion resonates around the world with respect to that issue. i am thankful that you have stood forward and made that comment. i would just like to have that for the record. >> eyes -- i tried to stay out of trouble in doing that. it focuses on doing what, i would believe, a shrinking national security budget.

we are now involved in the kenya airways to save money in doing things more effectively. we could have a dramatic effect on the size of our budget which will have a dramatic effect on our structure. that is the danger that is their given the national security requirements which seem to be growing and not getting smaller. >> thank you for this help on this very important challenge relating to our long-term debt. there are many senators who are eager to work with you on this important position. senator blumenthal blacks -- senator blum called? >> i during the chairman and ranking member believe thinking

you for your extraordinary -- i joined the chairman and ranking member in thinking about that view for your continued commitment. these were reiterated as recently as yesterday in florida. i assume that will continue. in particular, i would like to focus on one aspect of your testimony relating to the injuries on the part of the young men and women returning with dramatic brain injuries that are new in their magnitude and number. i would ask you, perhaps, to describe what is being done in

terms of the treatment of and the service, veterans coming in what could be done to and lest the growing number to provide resources? >> there is the stigma issue of even raising your hand and asking for help. in december, i was with the command sergeant major for the first. he relayed it to me an extraordinary statistic which basically had those who work in concuss of events -- concuss sieve defense returning to duty at around 80%. if you are in a concussive event, you get pulledo ut the -- pulled out of the fight. we treat them on the battle

field as fast as possible. because they are not getting sent home, they are willing to raise their hand. we have a stigma with ptsd, but we have made progress. i have been struck that the harder ones are the more mild. the most serious become very obvious, but it is the milde ones where you do not see symptoms or admit to them. it is the super transferring out of the military and around the country. if i were to use the comparison, if you look at walter reed, balboa, the amputees and where

we are, argue we are leading the world's respect to that. that is not the case with traumatic brain injuries. there is a lot of newness that surprises me. we cannot know a lot about how these injuries affect the brain. we tried to reach out not just inside the military but experts direct the country who are continuing in ways. there is a brain center at ucla which has contributed significantly. to get the best minds that we can throw the country to help us work. through this, i am struck that we are in the nascent stages of this in some ways. >> is there a specific command or a structure either within the

pentagon or the va that is coordinating this effort? >> there is dicing the point of contact. there is a significant effort inside the pentagon and a bit taken steps to try and work with the va and understand the capabilities out in the country. for those who've transferred back home, there is an awful lot we have done to make those connections. we are all work. together. we are just not there yet. i'm sure you're familiar with reports about the dangers of the combination of different pharmaceutical drugs in the treatment of posttraumatic stress and other phenomenons. i was wondering if you or secretary gates could describe the efforts being made to address those dangers.

>> to have gone through a time where there have been to many scripts and we are over medicated, not just in the battlefield but also in the va. we have put in place and much more aggressive, multi faceted treatment regime which expands beyond drugs to yoga, acupuncture, and other forms that have proven positive to support those who have been through this combat. there is the effort to back off of over medicating. it is a concern we have. >> there are 2 additional problems. one is service members

prescriptions. the other is the frequency that military members will go outside of the system and get prescriptions and we do not have any visibility into that in terms of how much medication they are taking or how those drugs all interact with each other. we still have a ways to go. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. [inaudible]

can you hear? is that better? ok. i cannot touch it. i'm new here, you know? let no? -- what to do you know? and when to add my concerns about the joint strike fighter and what is happening in with that program. i appreciate your efforts to get the programs back on track. i certainly hope that is correct and that it will be effective with the efforts to redress that. i also to commend the department with your decision to cancel the medium extended their defense

-- air defense program. i am still getting the acronym is down. i think it is important that we cannot afford to make the critical investments only next two decades. i hope congress will support your decision and push for the continued patriot modernization. admiral, during the house meeting yesterday it touched on something that you just referred a little bit just now. that is about research about what we need to know about brain injuries in. you talk about sustained report for r&d in the military budget. q talk about whether you feel like the budget has been

submitted adequately addresses that to paris for the future -- to prepare us for the future? would have been the most cost- effective offers the the military has used to leverage are in the budget? -- to leverage our anti in the budget? >> you are a leader of the bureaucracy and there are things that you really want to get it done that you have to focus on them personally. this was an area that two or three years ago he made a priority to ensure that we were growing in r & d. many of the programs we have talked about has are in the money, but it is becoming program money and not true are indeed. -- has been r & d money and is

not true r & d money anymore. it is important in terms of being ready. i think that will increase and we have to continue to get that right. you mentioned most effective. i watched darpa over many years work and they reach to get at some of the most difficult problems. we need to sustain that investment as well. the s & t or r & d to get a brain research, and as i

understand that is in pretty good shape. >> in this budget, there is $1.1 billion for dbi and pts research. >> thank you. in new hampshire we have a significant defense injured -- industry that has been enduring cutting edge research. the national guard and reserves, as you have said, have played a huge role in allowing us to be effective in iraq and afghanistan. in new hampshire, we have seen the largest deployment of our guard since world war ii. i appreciated everyone's express concern about the well-

being and for our men and women and their families. i know you talked about the full cycle deployment program that we have which is a model to help families as they're preparing for deployment and when they return as well as the member being deployed. this has been supported directly by earmarks return not likely to continue. are you looking at models like this as you think about developing ways to be most effective in supporting guard and reserve that are deploying? are there ways that as the direct spending in is that we can continue to support these kinds of programs that have been

so effective? >> do you have spoken to it, i am immediately reminded of the need to build resilience in our people and families literally from the first day they come in. we have come to understand that. we have made some significant progress in still have a long way to go. we build more in the arm members than we have in our families. i would need to get back to you with a more specific answer because i want to know where the new hampshire program is because we try to canvass the field than the get the best programs that are out there. we want others to grab them. in particular, i would be happy to do that and get back to you. as i speak, i do not know where the race sourcing side of it is

with respect to the program in new hampshire. >> i appreciate your getting back to me. my time has expired. >> thank you. >> thank you as always for being here. secretary, and the president has an awful lot of hard decisions to make and one of the hardest is how he will replace you. let me start with a topic that is very difficult, i think, for you what to get your arms around which is the incredibly serious allegations that have been made about sexual assault with in the military. i am not assuming that the allegations were in a lawsuit recently filed for true, but if you take them as a doctoral them have a real serious problem. a woman in our military was

raped by more than one member of the military and the video shared around the unit of the rate that had occurred -- the rape that occurred and the chaplin tells them to come to churhc more. rape kits are only kept for 1 year. i cannot think of a police department that would only hold onto that for 1 year. we have to look at this problem in a systemic way. are we gathering the evidence quickly? are experts available for prosecution? if that person does not end up

in the prison, then we have failed. i know that you all feel as strongly about this as i do, but i would like you to address this and ask you i should talk to to make sure that we make some on this important changes that are needed. >> it is a problem. it is a serious problem. i have zero tolerance for any kind of a serious assault as do the leaders of all of the services. i have worked with admiral mollen -- mullen and secretaries to make sure we're doing all we can to respond to sexual assaults. i have had meetings with the senior leadership of the department focusing in four areas -- reducing the stigma

with reporting, ensuring sufficient commander training, and sharing investigator training and resource in, and insuring trial counsel. we have made some progress. we have hired dozens more investigators, field instructors, prosecutors come in the lab examiners. we spent a list $2 million over the past two years to train our prosecutors better. the defendant goes to someone who specialized in this kind of allegation or crime. they tend to be generalists so we do not do very well in the courts are we have spend this money to try and make your prosecutors more effective. more victims are stepping forward and have had an increase in the number of court-

martialing. we have gone from 30% of the alleged violators of up to 52% now. we are headed in the right direction. we have expanded the sexual assault response coordinator tenfold from about 300 to 3000. we now have an advocate at every base and installation around the world including in iraq and afghanistan. i heard some suggestions and comments yesterday in the house hearing that i take very seriously and would like to pursue. one of them is insuring the confidentiality of the relationship between the victim advocate and the victim. providing a military lawyer for victims. commanders have the authority to

move someone out of a unit. i am worried by katz of the press that it has not happened. -- and i am worried by the accounts of the press that it has not happened. legislation would create this as a right for someone who has been a victim said that they can get out of a unit where the person who attacked them is in the same unit. i think there are some ideas that i heard in that hearing is to say that are definitely worth pursuing. we do take it seriously. i have taken this seriously because sexual assault as a problem on university campuses. texas a&m, just like any other big public university, has a problem with this. one suggestion that i had made was to get in touch with some of the universities that have the best prevention programs to see

if we can learn something from these universities. we have a broad program to try and tackle this, but there's no question that there's more to do. i invite the admiral to comment. >> i testified when i was the vice chief of the navy on this subject. there's a lot of work that needed to be done. it was very obvious for all of these services and night testified with my three by service chiefs -- vice chiefs. i agree with the secretary said that we have made progress. it is not enough. it has to be answered, i think on the skills side as well as the leadership side. i still hear too many anecdotal stories including in theater. with my wife, we visited the va

hospitals and females talked about having coming to the mayor -- having come into the military, previously a salted, looking for a safe haven, and finds out it is not. there is an intensity that is not expected. as you know, this is a vastly under recorded defense. it is the statistics that we do not have that we have to get after as well. what we have made progress, there is still a lot to do. >> i guarantee it is more under reported in the military ban on a university campus are the civilian population at large. i would make one suggestion having spent many, many, many hours and days prosecuting sexual assault cases as a young prosecutor that i relied heavily on people who had specialized and the prosecuting those currents right training.

are relied heavily on the back and advocacy information we had. in any major city, you will have a large group with expertise. they will volunteer their time to have training and mentor people that you need to have this expertise rhetoric is people gathering rape kits, having an advocate at the facility, did come -- victim advocacy. i have mentioned that i would be happy to assist him getting in touch with the expertise that exists out there. they are not prosecutors and sexual assault prosecutors because they make big money. they are true believers in edifices one where you could get a lot of retraining and get you

have to the point where the civilian population has gone over the last 20 or 30 years. i know i am at a time. i have to questions. one is continuing the problem we have auditing the pentagon -- i cannot see how we can continue to give you what to ask for if we cannot see the measurable progress in terms of auditing the pentagon. i will have a series of questions about the financial management system that is in place. the last thing is pointing out for the record and questions to for their record is that the gdp for aniston is not enough for the military we are -- for afghanistan is that enough for the military we're building. it is $12 billion a year and their gdp is not even that high.

once we are gone, i think we want -- we will be on the hope to pay for this military for a long time. it would be cheaper for our folks to be there. but we need to begin to talk about the responsibility for paying for this military down the line because clearly afghanistan cannot afford the army we are building. >> the contact person you are asking for is dr. cliff stanley, the under secretary for personnel. >> before senator mccaskill leaves, we would both agree that you could take one of those difficult decisions off the desk if you would realist for a year or two more. [laughter] but we will leave that to you as it probably should be. we thank you for your leadership and your courageous decisions that you continue to make and telling the senate of the united states exactly as you see it.

i wanted to follow-up on what senator mccaskill said about the gdp in afghanistan. you know the the 2011 national defence act requires the president, through the offices of the pentagon and the state's department to provide an economic strategy for afghanistan. could you speak to where we are with that process and how i important you think such a strategy would be, the overall success? specifically, we have the task force for business and stability operations. what for their role would to see for the particular task force? >> i will take the second part of your question first. this task force is one of those things that creates incredible antibodies in the bureaucracy because it does not sit in place. both in the department of the defense and in the department of state and, i think, i think it

is an honest answer to say that, without, in effect, the protection of the secretary of defense, this operation would not or could not be sustained. my belief is that paul brinkley and his team had made a huge contribution, both in iraq and in afghanistan. it was called to the team to afghanistan private-sector geode-scientists and others and were able to do the research shows the extraordinary mineral wealth and afghanistan, if only there were the security to exploit it. i think that made a real contribution. i hope they will continue to do that. i think it is fair to say that they face a lot of bureaucratic resistance in doing that. we talked earlier about the cost of the afghan security forces.

that is why i believe that we essentially need to look at the size of their force as a surge as well. once they have a political settlement inside afghanistan and the taliban is degraded in terms of their capabilities, the needed for the afghans to have a smaller military than they have now because we cannot sustain $12.8 billion a year for very long. economic strategy for afghanistan and the task force really goes hand in hand. i think there's a significant effort at the embassy to try to entice the private-sector, individuals and foreign investors to invest in afghanistan. but where i have to admit that the economics treasury for the

country stands, i am not certain. -- the economic certainty for the country stand, i am not certain. >> what paul berklee and his team have done has truly been extraordinary in both -- what paul brinkley and his team have done has truly been extraordinary in both countries. how to sustain that is an open question and i think we need to do that. that becomes the heart of the longer-term investment there. not just nationally, but internationally. >> i, too, would like to add my compliments to mr. brinkley. i have heard how many stories about how effective he is. i hope that he and a sense that many of us here on the hill know of the accomplishments he has made. abouts about the rigid >> the conditions under which they have -- >> about the conditions

under which they have worked, there have been injured. >> can i move to the question about the proper uprising in the middle east? we are seeing it in algeria, bahrain, yemen, and elsewhere, people coming on the streets for a variety of reasons. do you have an idea of how those leaders have an ability to control their military services? >> i think it's downs -- at the gate depends from country-to- country. we talk about the discipline and the professionalism of the egyptian military and the restraint that they exercised under some fairly difficult circumstances. in tunisia, the military also

stood aside and, basically, did not defend ben ali. in these countries, the circumstances are going to be different. the one thing that these armies seemed to have in common, certainly in egypt and tunisia, is a sense that they are a national institution. even the somebody may have been in power for a long time, they see themselves as having a special relationship with their people. i know, in my conversations with mr. 10 tally -- with minister tentally, we talk about the relationship the army has with the egyptian people and that they would protect the people because they were the people. they delivered in an exemplary fashion. just to defend our intelligence

of some little bit, i think they have done a pretty good job of describing the rising temperature and a number of these countries and the economic and social pressures that were building in a number of these countries, particularly related to the youth bowles, the 15- year-old to the 19-year-old. the petty corruption and the nepotism that makes it difficult for ordinary people as well. ben ali was quite surprised by what happened in tunisia. he did not expect, in two weeks, to be pushed out of power. i think that president mubarak was in the same situation. in the u.s., there has been a lot of toing-and-froing about

how we been handling this. but we have publicly and privately encouraged these regimes for years to take up political and economic reform because these pressures will building. at any to move on with it and there is an urgency to this. events move very quickly. we were talking a plum point that, if mubarak had given his first speech when he declined to run for office again in september, when he changed the government, and when he promised constitutional reform, if he had given that speech three weeks before, he probably would still be the president of egypt. being able to latch onto the speed with which these events are moving and to have people who have seen a relatively perceived static situation in their countries can appreciate that it is not static and these pressures are building and they need to get out from under it. that is what we have been trying to do.

>> our ribeyes and encouragement may hold more weight in this region and other -- our encouragement may hold more weight in this region and others in the world. i have to wonder what british intelligence services were generating in 1776. i think there are the sticking points that you talk about that cannot be predicted. thank you again for your service. >> thank you very much, senator udall. i have one additional point and then we will close. i know that you folks are running late on your schedule. i want to ask about the size of the afghan army. i want to give the statistics about comparing the iraq army and the afghan army. i know the situations are different, but i still want to give you the statistics. iraq has fewer people than in afghanistan. the afghan population is about

30 million, iraq about 27 million. but, in iraq, you have 665,000 iraqi security forces. in afghanistan, you have 378,000. that would be the new target if it was accepted. so it would still be half the size of the iraqi security force with more people to secure. first of all, probably based on that and some other things, i would not agree that the proposal for the increase would be more than they would need even if, over time, there would be a lesser need for security. hopefully, there will be less journey. obviously, if there is, you can

reduce it. but i would not plan on there being a need for less than 378,000. secondly, when you describe a surge of force, i would hope that you believed it should be looked at the 370,000 and not the current level so that it would be the additional 70,000 that would be viewed as the surge and not the car global, -- and not the current level. >> mr. chairman, the budget that we submit would accommodate the additional growth. >> that is reassuring. finally, i talia agree for both amy for an objective and honest view -- i would agree for both an objective and honest view of

the costs. when you meet with your colleagues, drive home the fact that there will be an ongoing need, whether it is 305,000 or 378,000. there really needs to be a sharing of burden among our nato allies. we cannot carry alone. it has been kind of spotty in terms of net of support. on the trainer's side, it is not nearly what we hoped for. you have properly given us some good grades for those who have come through. a lot of our nato allies have been some of them have taken greater losses proportionally than we have and we should recognize that. i would hope that you would reinforce the they will need a significant military and security force. that is the ticket to success as well as to an exit or to a

significantly reduced number of foreign troops, which, in turn, is part of success and they should come through financially with some ongoing expected support for the afghan security forces. that would be my summary. >> one quick comment. i have been working nato pretty hard since 2004. i have never seen a more together than they have become of the last couple of years in this mission. your comment earlier about out of area or maybe it was senator lieberman. i do think that success here bodes well for the future. secondly, we talked a lot about nato. there are 49 countries total providing forces. there are a lot of non-native contributing forces as well and they are focused on sustaining neck for a period of time.

they are some in very small numbers. i understand that. but we appreciate the contributions as well. >> you are absolutely right. a number of those non-nato countries have made contributions also weigh as a proportion to their population, way out of proportion to their financial ability, and i think we should recognize that. their losses have also been out of proportion as well. we want to thank all of you for coming. again, we're grateful for your service. we hope to see a lot more of you, secretary gates and admiral mullen. we stand adjourned.

host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this will thirsted of the military. >> you are destroying our country by continuing a war in afghanistan but cannot be won and that the american people do not support. >> the welfare state of the military. >> i think the secretary of defense gates is not telling the truth when he talked about how much money we are spending on the military. it is 56% of discretionary funds. we spend more on the military

then the rest of the world combined. >> pentagon spending is 56% of our budget. >> stop funding wars. it calls for -- close military bases overseas. >> the net -- the american dream is under attack. we are fighting back and we will get it back. >> today, on c-span through to the white house, herman cain, columnist, radio talk-show host, and former chairman and ceo of godfather's pizza is now a potential 2012 republican presidential candidate. watches appearance from the lincoln day dinner in plymouth,

new hampshire. just over a year from now, the state will host its first in the nation primary. >> donald rumsfeld was built the youngest and the oldest person to serve as u.s. defense secretary. >> if you have proximity to its president, you automatically have the obligation to tell them the truth and what you really believe because people who do not have proximity and only going to see him occasionally simply do not want to do it. >> tonight, he will discuss his philosophy of presidential staff leadership, the process of reading his memoir, and addressing the critical and positive reviews. >> early saturday morning, the house of representatives finish work on the continuing resolution to fund government operations for fiscal year 2011. the republican majority approved provisions to strip federal

money from president obama's health care overhaul and from planned parenthood. the resolution would authorize funding for federal agencies over the second half of the budget year that ends september 30. current funding runs out march 4 and a temporary spending bill will be needed to avoid a government shutdown. the senate must approve before it gets to the president's desk. here is a portion of the floor debate on health care-related amendments. this is just over an hour. the chair: who seeks time? mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, number 266. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 266 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentlelady reserves a point of order. pursuant to the order of the

house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. amendment 266 is the amendment that has had a lot of discussion around this chamber and around this country and what it does is it recognizes the results of this c.r.s. report, mr. chairman. this report dated just last thursday, february 10, 2011. it took a long time to put all the numbers together in an official document that identified the money that are automatically appropriated in obamacare. and digging that out there are dozens of locations that go on in perpetuity that total in this report is $105.5 billion. and here we are in this c.r.s. -- or excuse me this continuing resolution, the c.r.s. report says $105.5 billion, i've been

working on that for some months, finally we came with a total. if we're not able to, if we're not able to shut off all of the funding that is automatically appropriated in the obamacare legislation, both components of it, the reconciliation package and the bill itself, then forever this money goes forward and the administration aggressively uses to implement obamacare. so at that point i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady. ms. delauro: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes, claiming the time in opposition. ms. delauro: -- the chair: does the gentlewoman continue to reserve your point of order? ms. delauro: yes, i do, yes. let me just very briefly, let me yield myself about 30 seconds.

the chair: you're recognized for 30 seconds. ms. delauro: this amendment will add to the deficit next year, next year, $3.5 billion and over the next several years $5.6 billion. it will not create a job and once again would put the american people back in the hands of the insurance companies without the ability to be able to get the kind of health insurance that they require to deal with any illness that may befall them. with that, let me yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas. is recognized for one minute.

mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker, members, and i thank my colleague from connecticut for yielding to me. let me first say that i've read the bill, i was on the subcommittee and the full committee and served on the health subcommittee for many years and i had many people ask me that. and believe me, when you spend hours and hours literally in testimony and amending the bill, you have the chance to read it. and i would hope my republican colleagues and all of us would use the same thing, our appropriators, i would hope they would read the appropriations bill if they're accusing us on the energy and commerce committee. what this amendment would do would take away the funding that the department of labor and health and human services would be able to enforce that insurance can't drop someone for coverage when they become sick. they would take away that funding. seniors would be saving money, they couldn't enforce it, saving money for seniors for prescription drugs. young adults under 26, up to age 26, are getting back insurance

for their parents. that would stop the department of labor and health and human service from enforcing that law. small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. this would stop it. defunding health care would end these benefits and putting insurance companies back in charge. the whole goal of the health care bill, whether you call it obamacare, i'm kind of concerned, i wanted it to be call the gene green care bill. but that's what this bill is about and this amendment. it will defund the great things that's in the health care law. let's go back and talk about the things we all agree that need to be changed. but if you take away the money, we'll lose this for all our folks in our districts. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i'd be very pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. baca: thank you, mr. speaker, and i --

mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from iowa. the effort on the part of steve king is to defund obamacare. this chamber already passed a bill to repeal obamacare, which the american people have asked, this is now an effort to defund obamacare. because as we have seen from the congressional research service, the ingenious nature of the obamacare bill was to already put the funding in place so that if the majority lost the gavel, which they did, the new majority would be unable to defund this bill. speaker pelosi said it well last year when she said, we had to pass the bill to know what's in it. we only found out recently that literally tens of billions of dollars have already been appropriated to fund obamacare. it was put in, quote, mandatory spending, spending where this chamber would not have access to be able to defund the bill. if we are unable to defund the bill now, make no mistake, mr. speaker, this chamber and the

american people will do everything they can to make sure they put into place a new president, a new senate and a house that will have the requisite courage to finally defund the government takeover of health care and i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. i fail to see how republican efforts to eliminate all funds for health reform will create jobs or help our fragile economy recover. instead defunding health reform would leave behind thousands of whom i represent in wisconsin, thousands of wisconsin families who have already begun to experience the benefits of

health care reform. should the republican efforts succeed, tens of thousands of young adults in wisconsin would stand to lose their insurance coverage through their parents. once again children would be refused insurance, discriminated against, because of pre-existing conditions. and nearly 50,000 wisconsin seniors would face higher prescription drug costs. what's more, the efforts to defund the health care reform law come on top of extreme cuts to community health care centers and family planning clinics. while i agree with my republican colleagues that we must reduce the deficit and bring the budget into balance, we must be smart about it and this amendment is not smart about it. this unwise bill jeopardizes our nation's health, our nation's recovery and our nation's future and is particularly troublesome to me this week because it falls on top of efforts by wisconsin's governor to cut health,

education and public safety services and to take away the rights of public servants to provide them. mr. chairman, today i stand in solidarity with my fellow wisconsinites as i fight for a better future for all wisconsinites and all americans. i urge my colleagues to oppose republican efforts to defund the health care reform law and to oppose the underlying bill. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would be pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for a minute. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, thank you, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i stand in full support of the king amendment. i was at the well just a few minutes ago in support of the rehberg amendment. but what this amendment does is eliminates, stop the funding, the $100 billion worth of funding that was automatically

put in this bill. to prevent, if we took over the majority, this house, mr. chairman, as we have done, try to stop us from stopping the worst bill that's ever been passed in the history of the congress. and we have to do this. this is a pledge to the american people. we can do it. we can start over, we can make this bill right, we can enact health care reform that truly does bring down the cost for patients. so they can get access, they have more control and that we don't destroy the medical profession in the process of continuing this wrongheaded, boneheaded obamacare bill. so i want to stand strongly with my colleague from iowa in supporting this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate

that. my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about listening to the american public. i've been back home in my district meeting with providers, people in the insurance industry, hospitals, nurses, and they are dealing with this plan moving forward. they're excited about the opportunities to take advantage of it. the protections that are under way in the law right now are popular with the public because they're important to the public. my friends talk about listening to the american citizens, the associated press pointed out in a poll last month that the overwhelm magazine jort oppose the notion of trying to defund health care and in fact in that same poll 43% thought the protections should be expanded. we are in a situation now where we can make a profound difference in improving the quality of health care in this country while we reduce deficits, putting stand in the gears, arguing, trying to create confusion is not moving us

forward. work with our hospitals, work with our doctors, work with our citizens, make this work for america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, how much time does each side have remaining, please? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 1 1/4 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from connecticut has 30 seconds remaining. mr. king: in that case i would then reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: do i have the right to close, mr. chairman? the chair: yes. the gentlewoman from connecticut has the right to close in opposition to the amendment. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentlewoman from connecticut -- are you reserving? ms. delauro: yes, i'm reserving. the chair: all right. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment, amendment number 266, someone put the moniker on it, the silver bullet amendment. and as much as we have all

worked here to try to find the right way to shut off all the funding, to freeze in place the implementation and enforcement of obamacare, many of us have worked in a number of different ways. this is the one that the amendment that goes back and looks at the pattern that was set, that i understood, back in 1974, when there was a c.r. before the house of representatives that shut off all funding that would go to the vietnam war for offensive or defensive operations in the air over the land of, the seas adjacent to or the countries adjacent to it. that language covers everything and it stopped bullets on the doc from going the hands of the people themselves. the foundation is here in multiple places in the history of this congress. this is the language that shuts off the funding of obamacare until such time as h.r. 2 becomes law, that's the repeal legislation that becomes law. this is h.r. 1, it's completely appropriate that h.r. 2 and h.r.

1 are married together and that we shut off the funding for the implementation of obamacare, all of it, the entire $105.5 billion that were slipped into this report that we just got back last february 10. mr. chairman, i urge the adoption of this amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. he yields back his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. what we need to be doing is to focus on jobs, to grow the economy, and to reduce the deficit. this amendment does none of the above. essentially what it does, it takes us back to -- into the hands of insurance companies when they had free reign to raise rates, to reject claims and deny coverage to families and businesses who would have no recourse. it protects their c.e.o. bonuses and their corporate profits. we need to be about the business of creating jobs, this amendment

does nothing to do that, it increases the deficit. it should be absolutely clear to everyone here and everywhere else what this amendment does. mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on the appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21 and the rule states in pertinent part and i quote, an amendment to the general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing laws. waives existing law and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut has stated a point of order against the amendment. is there anyone who wishes to be heard on the point of order? . the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a point of order that has been raised on my amendment that i referred to as the silver bullet amendment, i think does not consider a duty that we have

here in the house of representatives and that is, we stand here and take an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. each one of us, i bring in my bible to do that, i take it very, very seriously when we take an oath to uphold the constitution. we don't take an oath to uphold a rule but we take an oath to uphold the constitution. as i look into this constitution, and read through it, article 1, section 5 reads in pertinent part, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. because each house can determine the rule of its proceedings here in this constitution, you have in your hands the gavel, mr. chairman, and the power and the authority to determine those rules and least to make a strong recommendation to this body. i would urge that we understand that two federal courts have found this bill, obamacare, to be unconstitutional and it is

immoral and unjust and irresponsible to waive any opportunity to shut off the billions of dollars that are automatically appropriated in a deceptive fashion and continue for the implementation of obamacare because we might think somehow that a rule which trumps the very constitution itself. i yield back. the chair: is there any other member who wishes to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. weiner: i agree with the gentleman. his amendment is clearly in order. but i know this because if this were legislating on this bill that would mean that they can legislate. they control the house and the senate and president, they were unable to legislate. we are here for six weeks they were unable to legislate. it's impossible to believe he's legislating in this bill. the point of order, if i may speak to it, the point of order suggests the gentleman is legislating on an appropriation bill. i have watched those guys.

they are incapable. there is no way this is legislating. i believe the point of order should be struck down. it's impossible to operate. they haven't legislated. they had eight years in the majority they didn't legislate. how could it possibly be, mr. chairman, the point of order is correct? the gentlelady from connecticut is rarely incorrect, if you think they are legislating, impossible. almost metaphysicalically impossible for the gentleman to be legislating. he doesn't know how. how could we possibly have the legislating in this bill? i think the gentleman is absolutely correct. let us have this debate because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly in hell, maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for. the republican majority will start legislating. please praise god, maybe this is the moment. i think the gentleman is correct. he is not legislating in this bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply don't know how. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule and has been entertained. on the point of order there is

no other member who wishes to speak to the point of order? the chair finds that the amendment proposes to supersede exiting law as such it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. who seeks recognition? mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 267. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 267, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. king of iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment number 267 is an

amendment that is narrowed in its scope in anticipation of the point of order that was raised by the gentlelady from connecticut and can't help but reflect must it must have been like in this body before the invention of television. by my amendment number 267 says this, iner pertinent part, funds made available by this act, no funds made available by this act may be used to carry out the provisions of obamacare. so what this does is, for the appropriations that go on outside of the scope of this continuing resolution, we have lost that point of order. but this amendment goes to those funds that are appropriated within it down the exact same path as the rehberg amendment, except it goes to the outside of the particular department of human services as the narrower scope of the rehberg amendment. this goes broader than just h.h.s., but it does go directly to shutting off all funds within

this c.r. that would be used to enforce or implement obamacare. i made my arguments, mr. chairman, on that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. poll after poll shows that americans oppose repealing health care. 62% of americans oppose these efforts. why? because they figured out that the nonsense coming from republicans over the last several years about this being socialized medicine or government takeover is just that, it's nonsense. what they figured out is that this is helping millions of americans all around this country. millions of americans let a little 8-year-old boy named kyle

who was encouraged to walk into my office yesterday and tell me about his battle with hemophilia . had a has to put out $10,000, his family does, $10,000 a month to pay for his medication. and repeal of this legislation means bankruptcy for his family and for him a lifetime of worrying as to whether he has a job that covers his illness or whether he has the medication to stay alive. that's why 62% of americans oppose what the republicans are trying to do on this floor and for anyone that votes for this, they have to have an opportunity to them and they have to answer to little kyle. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would be pleased to yield a minute and a half to the doctor from louisiana, mr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana frequented for how much time, sir? mr. king: 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from iowa. mr. chairman, one thing is lost in this debate is this fact.

and that is there is a difference between coverage and access to care. i have been a physician for 35 years. i can tell you that today through obamacare we have 5% coverage but we have 100% access to care. anyone who wishes can report to any emergency room in this country and receive care. they may receive a bill, but if they pay that bill or not, they can still return for care. now, let's move to canada anti-u.k. where they have -- and the u.k. where they have supposedly 100% of coverage. they oftentimes wait a year, maybe two years for a c.t. scan or m.r.i. scan. and then once they get the results back, they may wait another year to get surgery. it's not unusual to be told, hey, we could have helped you had we made the diagnosis in time. it's perfectly acceptable in these countries to have a death

rate from lack of treatment. look at the death rates from cancer, prostate, breast cancer. in our country versus others. a horrific difference. why? because we diagnose it much earlier, we treat it much more aggressively. but if we go forward with this obamacare, then what we will have is budgets coming up against the decision on what type of care our citizens can receive. we'll be taking it out of insurance companies, but, yes, we'll also be putting it into the hands of the government w that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. owens. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. owens: thank you, mr. speaker, i come before you today after spending 25 years in the health care industry representing my local hospitals. i can tell you that this bill was supported by them because it

creates care in our communities and it creates jobs in our communities. if we are going to focus on how to improve care and reduce costs, the bill is replete with opportunity. we can support accountable care organizations, we can support medical home pilots. we can support community health centers, we can support electronic medical records, we can support telemedicine. and support the for medicare and medicaid innovation. that's how we'll improve care, reduce costs, and deliver benefit to our constituents. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, be pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. earlier we heard the former speaker come to the floor just

moments ago and said she has now read the bill. of course we heard her famously say before that, we had to pass the legislation in order for her to find out what was in the bill. i can tell you someone who has read the bill and that is -- i overwhelm have a minute. thank you. we can tell you who has read the bill and that is the courts of this greatp country. the most recent federal court said they have read it and they found the bill is unconstitutional. for this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of citizenship, this is the first time in the history of this country that the price of freedom, this is the first time in the history of the country that the price of being an american is that you have to buy a particular product that some unknown, faceless bureaucrat in washington ordains you have to buy. the strong hand of the big brother is reaching out and telling us you have to do this and you have to do that as the price of freedom and price of

liberty. yes, to answer your question, yes, we will legislate, yes, we will address being had health care, yes, we will address the american people's interest in this area. i commend the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: the courts are split two, two. with that let me yield a minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to king amendment number 267. it has been said that we are the sum total of our experiences, mr. chairman, and that is certainly true. my experience consists of growing up in a low-income minority community whose history dates back more than 150 years to slavery. i represent that district, the first district of north carolina, the fourth poorest district in the country. my constituents, mr. chairman, overwhelmingly support the

affordable care act. why? my constituents know that they -- their insurance costs are soaring. exceeding more than 18% per year in increased costs. for those constituents who don't have insurance, they know that they will be able to qualify for medicaid if their income is less than 133% of the federal poverty line. my rural hospitals, mr. chairman, know that when patients walk into their emergency rooms the hospitals will be paid for their care and they will not continue to face bankruptcy. mr. chairman, this is shall -- this assault on the affordable care act is unnecessary. i ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: may i inquire to the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from connecticut has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

iowa reserves. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: republicans seem to be pretending that emergency room care is free. every insured american is paying an extra $1,100 this year, for those who are uninsured. we want to begin to address that problem. get them in earlier. get them treatment. less expensive. don't pass the costs on to other americans. personal responsibility. we outlawed the worst abuses of the insurance industry, canceling your policy when you get sick, even though you have been paying the premium. preventing people from getting health care because of a pre-existing condition. i heard from a dad whose young son with birth defects is finally getting covered for those issues because of this law. and then the students i met at lang community college, 21, 22,

23 years old, getting an education, wanting to get in the work force, they thanked me for their health insurance. they need that health insurance. the republicans said they were going to repeal and replace. it would have been pretty darn silent on the replace side. maybe because it upsets their patrons in the insurance industry. who are soy generous at campaign time. . the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-pired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i take issue with the gentleman that declared this to be nonsense. this is not nonsense. this is very, very serious business. this is the largest taking of american liberty in the history of this country. the shenanigans that went on to put this bill in place. you could not have sent this bill out on the floor of the

111th congress and had it pass if it were packed up in one big stack. we listened to dr. burgess about all the things that took place to represent this bill in one place oar another, including the promise of an executive order designed to trump the very congress itself. here we are with the first opportunity to put the brakes on obamacare, yes we replaced the appeal, h r. 2. this is r.r. 1, it's here because it's more important to the speaker than h reform 2. that means we must shut off this support of opaw macare. this money that goes on in perpetuity, sending the malignant tumor down, it's metastasizing as we speak this amendment is the amendment that shuts off all the funding within the c.r. it must be passed by this congress to keep faith with the

american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the yom from connecticut. ms. delauro: let me inquire with the chair, is it one and a quarter that remains? the chair: you have one and a quarter minute. ms. delauro: i yield the plns mauve time to the gentleman y washington state. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a quarter. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we've been here now the better part of two months and we've seen a political theater go on and on and on. each day we bring out something that seems like it might have some usefulness, but it turns out it's just more political theater. we read the constitution in here. that took us a day. then we spent nine hours arguing about a bill that we knew wasn't going anywhere. then we brought up the health care bill. then we keep doing this.

meanwhile, the american people are saying there's no threat. i wouldn't say dr. fist was a good friend of mine but he was the majority leader in the senate, a republican, a doctor who said don't repeal this law, fix it. there have been no hearings in the two months about how you would fix the bill, yet the american people, the problems that my colleagues come out here talking about, one after another, are multiplied by the millions in this cupry, they know there's a problem, they don't want to repeal it. the numbers for repeal have been dropping as the people have seen more and more provisions of this law come into effect. they want you to fix it, not political theater. it doesn't help them in the emergency room or the doctor's office. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman's time has ex-pired. the time has expired. >> i move too to the strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: thank you. i'd like to yield time to mr. an druids of new jersey. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: if i could get the attention of the gentleman, the author of the amendment, mr. chairman, i want to yield to him for an answer to a question. the gentleman, my friend from iowa. the chair: technically, the gentlewoman from connecticut has to ask. mr. andrews: i ask her at the appropriate time to yield for an answer. let's say we have a person on medicare who has $100 a week drug costs and they hit the doughnut hole in august of the year. the way the law works right now they will get help to continue to pay for their prescription drugs in the form of either a rebate in the future or cash --

a cash rebate in the past or a discount in the future. i wonder if the gentleman could explain to us, what will happen to that recipient when they hit the doughnut hole if his amendment becomes law. i ask the gentlelady to yield to him for the -- for an answer. ms. delauro: i yield to the gentleman. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and i thank the gentleman for the question. many people in the lowest income are not affected by the doughnut hole. i also recall -- mr. -- ms. delauro: reclaiming my time. i think we're going to try to answer the gentleman's question. mr. andrews: the question was, what about someone in the doughnut hole, what happens under your amendment? i ask the gentlelady to yield. ms. delauro: i yield to the gentleman. mr. king: i think it's a bit unclear. we don't know how the secretary of health and human services.

will respond. ms. delauro: reclaiming my time. mr. an truse: it's not unclear at all. what would happen under the gentleman's amendment is the prescription drug price of the senior would go up dramatically and they'd have to pay the spire cost of that prescription until they hit the, i think, the $5,100 limit. the effect of this, this is substantive legislation. it will raise prescription drug costs for america's neediest seniors. i thank the gentlelady for the time. ms. delauro: i would like to yield time to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: i thank the yealt from connecticut and mr. speaker, when you take a look at what is happening here, the effort to repeal, to kill, to stop the affordable health care act is an assault on the american public. it's an assault on the american public. and it would turn back to the insurance industry their

opportunity to deny benefits, to deny coverage. it's hard to understand how in this period of time when we should be talking about building jobs that our colleagues would put before us legislation that would in fact destroy over 800,000 jobs and destroy the opportunity for millions upon millions of americans to have health care that they could afford and put small -- and for small businesses to be able to provide health care to their employees and receive a reduction in the cost of that health care. it is hard to understand why they would be doing this when we need jobs, when we need health care, and when you look across the broad impact of h.r. 1, it is an assault on the working men and women of the poor in this country. when you take a look at the tax proposals put forward by the republicans, it is to benefit the high and the mighty and

thewelly. to the detriment of the working men and women, the poor of this country. this is flat out class warfare against the working men and women of this country. it's plain and simple. remove health care. you remove their ability to get health care. you remove their ability to be healthy and work. you remove the clinics, you remove their opportunity to get health care. you cut back on medicare and medicaid, you remove their ability to have health care. it is an assault on the working men and women, the elderly and the poor in this nation. that's what it adds up to. i yield back my time. ms. delauro: how much time remain os they have five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady has 50 seconds remaining. ms. delauro: i would be happy to yield. mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words.

the chair: you may have the last 50 seconds. mr. dicks: i was in almost all the meetings in our caws can. this bill was read provision by provision, sentence by sentence and the -- the clerk, the staffers who wrote these provisions under the direction of our chairman at that time. this was carefully considered. any idea from the gentleman from new jersey that it wasn't is just an outrageous statement on his part and he ought to be ashamed of himself. the chair: the gentlelady has 15 seconds. ms. delauro: i would just say that once again, what we're doing here, this amendment does mirror the prior amendment where we had a discussion. we keep saying it over and over again, your inability to come here as you promised to create jobs for the american people, to lower the deficit for them,

and to turn the economy around has failed in this effort. the chair: all time having expired, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. delauro: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from yie rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 268, offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: the gentleman from iowa, mr. king and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognized the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i yield myself 30 seconds. >> i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from

new york reserves a point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: the amendment number 268 goes to the end of the bill and says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay the vail of any officer of employee of any government agency with respect to carrying out the provisions of obamacare. it is that simple. it's one way to slow down the implementation an enforcement of opaw macare until such time as we see that day that the full repeal is signed by hopefully the next president of the united states unless the one we have today has a reconsideration. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who claims time in opposition. ms. delauro: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the chair: the gentlewoman from california. -- from california is recognized for one minute.

ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment and the underlying bill goes in precisely the wrong direction. we should be standing here talking about trentening the historic reform that we passed last year. we should not be tearing it apart. because we all know that repeal will leave millions out in the cold. it will strip them of access to affordable health care and it will call -- cause small businesses the incentives and the tax breaks that they would get. it all goes in the wrong direction. the majority claims to believe in cutting government spending above all else. but the c.b.o. has concluded that their bill over a 10-year period would add up to 2021

would add $230 billion to the national debt. now, if you're really serious about reducing our debt -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. woolsey p.c. have robust public office, that would save $68 billion. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. chairman kingston: we keep hearing from the democrats, we're here and we're not doing a jobs bill. why are we doing this now? it's because you gays did not pass a budget. we are on fy-2011 because you did not take care of your business. we are trying to finish up what you guys should have done by october 1 of last year. this does create jobs because small businesses do not want government-mandated health

care. and the folks back home don't want bureaucrats coming in between the doctor-patient relationship which is what obamacare does. we know the nanny state wants full control from cadele -- cradle to grave but folks back home don't want it. that's what november was about. we're trying to finish up the unfinished business of the pelosi house from last year so we can move forward on fy-2012 for the coming year and we'll continue to have this debate. we are trying to protect the doctor-patient relationship, not create a doctor-bureaucrat-patient relationship which obamacare does. thank you and i yealed back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: i thank the gentlelady. when you consider how rhetoric

doesn't square up with reality in this institution, the gentleman from iowa said this is the greatest threat to personal liberty in history. we've got young people here today and i guess he thinks that plessy vs. ferguson and dred scott and lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus didn't represent a threat to personal liberty. president bush said the best way to get health care for people outside the mainstream was simple. go to an emergency room. . that is not health care. that treats the issue in front of the individual. it denies preventive care. it doesn't offer assistance to women in need of additional health care. this proposal that we passed was modest and it was market driven. it kept the private sector alive and it put in place basic protections for the american consumer. i wish that we could have a separate vote on the individual proposals that we included in that bill. and i guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about death panels. we would be talking about the

idea of extending health care benefits to all members of the american family, including the 51 million who find themselves outside of the mainstream. just think of it today. this is more of a threat to liberty than plessy vs. ferguson and dred scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would be pleased to yield one minute to the judge and congressman from east texas, mr. louie gohmert. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we heard the minority leader pelosi saying earlier that we were here as republicans siding with the insurance companies. revisionist history is great but if you go back and look at who was supporting the obamacare efforts, you had the insurance companies lined up all out there supportive. you had the big pharmaceutical companies all out there

supportive. you saw the american hospital association out there supportive. you saw the a.m.a. out there supportive. you saw aarp, they were seen out there encouraging all the obamacare stuff. naturally they are going -- they stand to gain with united health more than anybody, they are the biggest sellers of medigap insurance. if you really want to look at history, who was it that was not supportive? folks, we heard from them in november. it was the american people. that's why we are here. we are with small business, they'll create the jobs. we are with the american people. that's why we are doing this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. if the gentlelady will suspend for one moment.

the chair would note that the point of order by the gentleman from new york continues to be reserved throughout. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wilson: good afternoon, madam chair. somewhere in america today a family is losing their home because they can't afford the health care premiums for a diabetic dad and hypertensive mom. somewhere in america tonight a child will die because they have been denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. somewhere in america tomorrow a family will go bankrupt because they took care of a cancer stricken family member. black, white, hispanic, urban, rural, republican, democrat, independent, tea party, it doesn't matter. at some time in our life we will all get sick. we need health care, but you know what? we have members of congress are very fortunate. we all get health care. we get the very best. what about jennifer and lisa and james and grandma and grandpa and the johnsons and baby joshua? we represent them, too. they get what they deserve --

they deserve what we get. my constituents sent me to washington to preserve the affordable health care legislation. they are proud of the product that the 11th congress and nancy pelosi and president obama produced. long live affordable health care legislation. on behalf of the people of this nation who depend on our leadership, i call upon you to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: madam chair, i would be pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mrs. bachmann: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the gentleman from iowa for offering this important amendment. the liberal talking point and the debate thus far has gone something like this, we can't defund obamacare today because we have to focus on job creation. now, that's very interesting coming from the liberals in this chamber who spent literally trillions of dollars out of the public treasury only to see two

million jobs lost in the private sector because of their failed policies on job creation. obamacare will likely create the largest government bureaucracy in the history of our country. filled with even more government jobs than any other agency. there's one thing that obamacare will likely do very, very well and it's this. it will create the largest bureaucracy of government workers in the history of the nation. it isn't that we will necessarily get more doctors. it isn't that obamacare will necessarily give us more nurses or truly more health care. what we will get from obamacare, according to the congressional budget office, is increased costs in health care with a huge bureaucracy all designed for the purpose likely of saying no to people when they need to have access to health care. what a bargain, madam speaker. pay more, get less.

that's the reason why i believe the rasmussen poll came out last week and said this 58% of the american people are begging this congress to repeal obamacare. repeal we will and defund we must. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: may i inquire as to the balance of the time? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has one minute remaining. the gentlelady from connecticut has two minutes. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much to my dear friend. this is a siege on the lives of innocent americans.

it is a siege by undocumented claims of unconstitutionality, when justice scalia said the relevant inquiry is simply within the means are chosen, reasonably adapted to the attainment of legitimate end under the commerce clause, it is. this bill is constitutional. what this gentleman wants to do is to literally shut down community health clinics who are now under the affordable care act. he wants to make sure that children are not getting immunized. he wants to make sure h.i.v. patients are not getting their medicine. he wants to make sure seniors who can come to these clinics are not able to access them, families are getting no coverage. this is what the end result of this very, very dangerous amendment, a-- addition we have to respond to someone who got up and said this is the worst bill that's ever been passed. what about the slave laws? what about the fugitive slave laws. how dare anyone suggest this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all americans. this amendment should be denied and they should listen to

senator frist who said this bill is a good bill. there are republicans who believe we should provide health care for america. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: madam chair, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, madam chair. i recall back at the beginning of the obama administration when president obama said that we are in an economic calamity, economic mess and we couldn't fix our economic problems unless we first fixed health care. and so his solution for spending too much money was to spend a lot more money, $2.6 trillion on health care. so if we couldn't first fix the economy unless we first fix health care, let me take that philosophy and turn it this way. we can't fix health care unless we first repeal obamacare. that's where this country is today. we can't put the replacement in place, we can't put the fixes in place until we pull this thing out by the roots.

the only way we can do it here today is to shut off the funding. the repeal is over there in the senate. the house voted it in a strong way to repeal obamacare. h.r. 1 is the unfunding obamacare. it's the vehicle to do it. this amendment is one of the vehicles that contributes to that cause. i again thank denny rehberg and the people that did this work and those people that worked on this cause. i urge adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from account k ms. delauro: -- the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: the american people want us to focus our time and attention on creating jobs. they want us to turn the economy around. they want us to reduce the deficit. the total of the two bills that -- two amendments that have come before this body would increase the deficit. increase it. the first one by $5.5 billion over the next several years.

and this one at about $5.3 billion over the next five years. that's not what you told them you were going to do. you told them you were going to create jobs. and roll back the deficit. what you are doing here is putting the american people in the hands of the insurance companies again. to make their decisions about health care. and you will not -- we have health care in this body. millions in this nation do not. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill which doesn't create jobs, doesn't turn the economy around, and add to the deficit. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. does the gentleman from new york continue to insist on his point of order? mr. weanor: yes i do. -- mr. weiner: yes, i do. i make a point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not in order because it results in a

net reduction of revenues to the treasury in violation of the rules of the house, in violation of the rules stimulated in this bill. and i explain in the following way as the gentleman surely knows if his amendment is successful, the checks that are going to small businesses today to the tax breaks they are getting, to provide health care to their workers, and the fact that there are no burdens on those small businesses, means that they are going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they'll be able to hire, reduction in the amount of jobs, reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the government, and increased burden on government services. in fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing the checks to give back to citizens, they can't do it. anyone taking that check, bringing it to them, can't do it. anyone cashing that check would be in violation of the law. this amendment says that anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. that provides net reduction in the amount of economic activity

and job creation in >> today, on c-span's "newsmakers." >> donald rumsfeld was both the youngest and oldest person to serve as u.s. defense secretary. >> you automatically have an obligation to tell people the truth. people without proximity can only go in and see him occasionally. they simply do not want to do it. >> tonight he will discuss the philosophy of his leadership, his memoir, and discuss the reviews of his book.

that is on a "q&a." >> according to a government accountability report on wednesday, the government has reduced waste, fraud, and abuse over last two years in high risk programs. the report also highlights 30 areas in the report that are at risk of failure. the government oversight reform committee held a hearing on the report in help -- heard from the consul general. this is one hour 40 minutes. >> today's hearing concerns one of the most basic responsibilities of the oversight committee. eliminating fraud from the federal government. yesterday's release of the gao list renews our focus on this

priority and we look forward to hearing from the united states controller. not only about the positive results and developments, but the continuing struggle that represents 83% of executive branch spending. there is no celebration are good news possible when we have a $1.60 trillion deficit. but every dollar saved through the elimination of waste, fraud, abuse of any sort, should be applauded, encouraged, and as they say in las vegas, double down on. it is my intention to work closely with these groups in the days and weeks to come to make sure that the house and the senate do everything possible to have the good news that we hear about today and the challenge to remain ahead be in fact our

highest priority. with deference to all of the other members that are returning, i would ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative days to put their opening statements in the record. without objection the chair would now like to swear in the first panel. let me go to that part. it is probably easier to not rise. i will just make sure that i say it correctly. all right, my staff is swearing that we need to rise. i thought i saw it seated yesterday, so i thought that it could be done. that is better. thank you.

please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all members of the panel answered yes. please be seated. well, you might feel like the first panel, but by talking points say that i am recognizing the second panel because of the senator. it is my pleasure to introduce the hon. comptroller of the united states. ms debrah hines, vice- president partner of ibm public sector. vincent flakes, public policy

director of health transformation. dr. darubi, the senior research fellow at the george mason university center. welcome. general, comptroller general, you have done this many times. for anyone who has not, your entire written statement will be placed in the record. the goal of the opening statement is not to read it in its totality, but use those five minutes to enhance and augment. we will not stop you exactly a five minutes. but once it is read please find a way to wrap up your oral statements. with that we recognize the comptroller general for five minutes. >> good morning, general. good morning to all of you. i would like to commend you, mr. chairman, for holding this in committee.

it is a good opportunity to go over the risk list and give the administration a road map, as well, as to what areas they should be working diligently on. the 30 areas that we have on the high risk list represent tremendous opportunities to save billions of dollars. if actions are taken appropriately to improve performance for the benefit of the american people, they represent tremendous opportunities. we will be happy to talk about any of the areas. these are complex programs that are highly susceptible to billions of dollars in improper payments. when there were no measures of

improper payments, thanks to legislative and administrative initiatives, we do have estimates on improper payments. but the work is still beginning. there is a long way to go to bring these under control and really provide the type of accountability, depending on how successful agencies are. this committee sponsored the act. as you know, it introduces much more rigor into the statistical nature of the estimate. lowering the threshold to make sure that more things are reported appropriately. it requires corrective action and identification of the causes of improper payments, rigorous reporting, accountability to be fixed, and it will require recovery of those moneys where it is possible to make it.

this legislation has a lot of potential. it is already in your plans and over -- overside plans to make sure we follow up on who is implementing this legislation. some areas, like medicare party this has tremendous potential and we would be happy to work with you. the second has to do with unused federal property. over 45,000 federal buildings that are being under-utilized.

clearly, there is a need to move forward, eliminating this cost. along with proper leasing opportunities. as the senator mentioned, congress passed a weapons system reform act in 2009 that included a lot of important reforms. in terms of reporting on the areas, our review of those portfolios for weapons systems have shown billions of dollars in cost growth over longer periods of time.

it is costing more than was expected and it is delaying implementation. better prioritized portfolios for more diligent practices and technology levels before the investments are made, making sure that there is proper oversight and control over that whole process. as the senator mentioned, there are a wide range of other business practices. whether they are in logistics' support, contract management, or other areas for improvement and streamlining of government costs. the bottom line is that the chairman saw tremendous opportunities out there for correcting these high risk properties that were identified. i am pleased to report that we have had a series of meetings

with the agencies on the high risk list to talk about more specific actions. congressional oversight is important. the only areas that have been taken off the list are the ones where congress has been conducting oversight. in security clearance areas, from one that went on the list to coming off the list, it is a major factor with top-level agency commitment on the part of the administration. i can assure you that it will be a top priority gao to do what we can to try to help, be specific, maintain independence, not taking anything off the list until it is deserved. our goal is to provide as much

specificity as we can on getting these problems fixed. we cannot afford to have any of these continuing. >> thank you very much. camer?m, your name is >> yes. >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here today to discuss how the ibm corporation believes that we can improve costs and efficiency through the application of beneficial practices. ibm the public sector department leader for ibm north america. i oversee all of the activities on the federal, state, and local level. prior to that i worked at the office of management budget. in that role i've performed by

economic and policy analysis in the review programs which cost the federal government. recently we offered a report entitled strategies to cut costs and improve performance. the purpose was to advance the ongoing national dialogue about our process. technology in april, making a material difference in the federal program. these initiatives include consolidation of information on infrastructure, streamlining government supply chains, reducing energy asperse, share services for activities, applied business analytics to reduce proper payments, reducing field operations, and reducing electronic self service as well as monetizing government access.

we estimate that aggressive implementation can generate $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. rather than to program reductions are tax increases, federal agencies and federal governments spend a great deal of energy disbursing funds. collecting fees from businesses and individuals through a wide variety of programs. generating large volumes of transactions. as a consequence they are vulnerable and as a consequence there are intentional efforts to defraud. the big news for government at all levels is that these types of programs lend themselves to predictable analytics. a collection of techniques when applied to a large number transactions being processed,

indicating fraud, abuse, and even bad management. several agencies providing knowledge to date, like the irs and department of health and human services, believe that investment in these techniques over the lessons learned in private sector settings can improve the performance of these efforts and yield significant savings. let me describe one example of how these tools are generating real results. the state of new york hired ibm after the department estimated it was losing $1 billion in tax refunds. it predicted model was built to score the request of the likelihood that it was valid. those deemed questionable were rejected out right.

over the last six years the state has denied $1.2 billion in improper refunds, taking into account successful appeals. we have similar with local governments that would be glad to share. it is important to note that many federal agencies are focused on these issues. omb should be applauded for working with state agencies and others to find a way to reduce improper payments, and red -- producing access and barriers. more can be done in should be done. >> thank you. >> thank you. chairman, congressman, members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing.

i am the federal policy director for health transformation. eliminating abuse and fraud in the health-care system is key. the center has worked extensively on these issues and with many members to find solutions to this dilemma. monday, president obama released his budget for the upcoming year. the president made note that the gross federal debt would exceed $16 trillion this year. equal to the size of the entire economy. this is not sustainable. a recent study found that between $600,000,000,000.1184911069 dollars are wasted with up to $75 billion of that being pure fraud. fraudulent and wasteful spending should be eliminated to reduce the debt. there is broad bipartisan

consensus that this fraud and abuse must be addressed and can make a significant dent in the nation's spending. the largest and most high- profile burden is placed on the system. crooks have figured out how to game the system and the must be stopped. in orange county can serve doctor last year was charged with fraudulent $1 million for medications that were never provided. health care fraud in connection with the medicare scheme in which, when it was falsely claiming to have administered hiv infection treatments. callus examples exist around the country and must be eliminated. doing so can save the government and the taxpayers over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

unfortunately, many of these crimes go undetected. medicare and medicaid and their improper payment rate exceed 10%. compare that to the less than one-tenth of 1% existing in the credit-card industry. with its nearly 1 billion credit cards in circulation. the primary reason for the success is the technology that pre-screened payments before they go out the door. there are three concrete solutions that can be taken immediately to begin to solve this fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in with these programs. identifying, monitoring, and ultimately preventing that abuse. heading off fraud and errors on the front and to save private and public payers' significant

amount of money on the back end. there's no reason this cannot be utilized at the federal level as well. data sharing across jurisdictions and apartments, including depository information for resources expended on cross referencing purposes. real time data tracking can identify irregularities at a moment's notice. third, we must institute a transparent model by and the claims administration, as well as encouraging implementation schemes to reduce waste and fraud in the system. much can be taken, as my written testimony explorers. not only do we need to aggressively attack the roots of fraud and abuse, but we also want to solve the reasons for unnecessary services. one of the reasons this fear of

potential legal action. predatory litigators cause people to practice defensive medicine. ordering far more procedures than necessary. a poll of physicians was recently released where one- quarter of all physicians said $600 billion per year were unnecessary and delivered solely to reduce liability. hr 5 includes reports while strengthening this relationship. a critical excess expansion for care. but fundamental changes in how government uses technology and screens providers to involve wall enforcement, we can save

trillions and fundamentally transform the system into one that delivers more for americans. thank you. >> thank you. doctor? >> distinguished members of the committee, but thank you for the opportunity to testify today. in a senior research fellow at george mason, where iced it -- study tax and budget issues. problems worthy of congressional attention. however, the $125 billion tails and comparison to the ways that exists by the economic damage created by perverse incentives. it first occurs when the federal government spends money by

having the government run businesses like amtrak and air- traffic control systems. is not just an efficient, it also hinders economic growth and costs taxpayers money while providing low quality service to customers. second, this also occurs when the federal government spends money on functions in the view of the state. president reagan wrote that federalism is rooted in the knowledge to the best assurance of elimination of the site and scope of the national government. sadly, congress has ignored this advice and is spending $500 billion in grants to states that has no practical reason to be involved in, like healthy marriage promotion. is inefficient and creates an unacceptable lack of accountability.

the waste also occurs when lawmakers are running state, local, and private affairs. they have less time to focus on critical national issues. the largest and most recent example occurred under the american recovery and reinvestment act. much of the money in the bill was spent at a higher than 8.8% unemployment right -- unemployment rate but the administration said we would face. evidence like this confirms what many scholars predicted all along. government spending cannot jump- start an economy. as a result, many having clout -- concluded that the stimulus package was a waste. the practical reality is that

the stimulus spending did not deliver on the product that was made and the unemployment remained high. what would stimulate economic growth is investment. private investment. the governments on -- government spending labeled as investment. capital is sitting on the sideline because risktakers are acting out of fear of the future. economists in the business community agrees that this has made a bad situation worse. the prospect of future debt and deficits raises the threat of government drowning at capital markets. as a result, u.s. companies do not build new plants.

you are the representative of the american taxpayers. you want the economy to grow. we must realize that the federal government cannot be the solution to every problem. there are things only the federal government can do. it does waste capital and taxpayer money. it also means that he must put all spending on the table. congress needs to make sure that no area is untouchable. not entitlement. not defense spending. all parts of the budget must be on the table for review. finally, you need to put in place right that serious and unavoidable budget restrictions to tie the hands of congress and

restore discipline. but such reform, the american people will start up confidence in their future again. the country will be on the road to recovery and prosperity. thank you for your attention and i look forward to your questions. >> i want to thank you all for being close to five minutes. i recognize myself for five minutes. each gave a different perspective. it will be hard to go to all in five minutes. mr. franks, your numbers were interesting. you went through defensive medicine as a major part. the committee will be dealing with it. the billions of dollars in outright payments for procedures that did not occur in four

entities that were not what they claim to be, has your organization studied what would cost the federal government equally for avoiding all of that, or part of that? where is the sweet spot? is $1 billion in a system to attack that waste yielding more? let certainly. money on the front end will yield results on the back end. it curbs the idea of stopping suppliers in checking bangs before they go out the door. you will see drops in the amount of fraudulent payments that exist. putting in $1 billion will give you a much higher yield. those numbers are not insignificant and they will be

incredibly influential. there is this fought out there that if you apply to be in medicare or medicaid supplier, you are automatically granted that. and that is simply not the case. there will be more savings. >> you are familiar with the recovery database management. my understanding is that they found 80 million by and one example only of what would have been bowl losses where other doctor identification had been stolen. can you comment on how we get from you and other watchdog organizations how we can fund

organizations similar to what the chairman speaks of >> i would say that i agree completely. an upfront investment targeting areas the juno with high rates of with appropriate investments being made. we have made recommendations along those lines and we are looking at prepayment controls. those are a big step. one of my real questions is what i pickup. in terms of payments made for medicare and cases provided for entities that were not what they

said they were, how do we attack that -- and i am specifically vanee.g at the work of detaine for less than $2 million he headed off its camps that was in a coma analysis. with the help of the gao, how do we get the ability for this committee to make a case to congress and 10 times that was spent to save 10 times that. >> i understand what your saying. i think that we will try to use

this system in the health-care area on an experimental basis to try to come up with proposals for the kind of capability up front with relationships between different entities and screening being done. we have to come up with a proposal if you were able to score it, would you believe that the private sector might be interested in costing nothing to the government, the many times upset and in my time -- >> what did he say? >> is a lot -- up, approached.

think you, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, let me go back to something that senator mccaskill was talking about. you will recall that she said, basically, do not cut off your nose to spite your face. are you satisfied with the funding that you had to do your job? basically, -- >> basically, i

have requested, given the fiscal situation in the country, that funding be kept flag. i would be satisfied if it was kept at that level. >> during your testimony you talk about the agency's but you were able to take off a list and use of something very interesting. that they came under the most scrutiny. there was sustain congressional attention. >> mr. chairman, what i think is so crucial, when we stayed on top of that we got it done. saving millions of dollars in a short period of time because it was a sustained effort. federal contract and has expanded over the last 10 years into over $500 million.

according to your report, gao has concluded the high risk list since 1992 with weapons systems and supply chain management being on the list even longer, since 1990. is anyone able to quantify how much of that budget over these past 20 years has been lost to waste, fraud, and abuse? >> i am aware of an estimate of that nature. >> one of the things that made me realize, and i said this to the coast guard folks, i believe that we were caught up in a culture of mediocrity. and when i saw a statement by secretary gates, it made me wonder about the defense department being caught up in a culture of mediocrity when it comes to these kinds of issues.

the secretary said -- i cannot get a number on how many contractors' work for the office of secretary of defense. are you surprised by that statement? >> i am not. >> is that sad? >> there is plenty of room for improvement on the defense department business areas. that is one of the few and largest apartments that have been able to get a financial audit in for an unqualified opinion. they are in need for major reforms and better data. >> i'm going to go back. talking to my staff, you have been a great advertiser for ibm. i am wondering, following but

incorporate those kinds of things and i want to the stock before it happens. stop mismanagement before it happens. i think he has done that. is there any way that we can do these things that the underwriters have talked about since the beginning bellow but would it take to do that? and there was a lot of emphasis on getting with well targeted investments tailored to the program. >> going back to dod, we had a situation where private contractors being hired to

oversee and that definitely increases the risk. >> part of the problem is that contract and from dod means advocation for the work force is flat and provide an effective oversight over that area with an application of good business practices in a good business case in the beginning. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> the gentleman from texas? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first question is -- if

you're writing a check for $1,000,000,000.60, it should have been $1,000,000,000.69. >> the amounts that we had mentioned -- >> that is the cost of government, the result for not having enough documentation with medically not necessary services we have an abysmal

record in this scene is that there should be already something developed out there by private insurance carriers that do pretty much the same thing >> there is a solution that insists in north carolina -- and

i want to let you know that we have recently issued doing. give service and an 11th and looking off of the shelf for solutions rather than do something that tends to be much more expensive. >> does the gentleman yield and could you comment on that " all of -- answer that for the all of

us? >> with concerns with federal agencies and that we will see you in 2000 beat him three weeks, expanding into the political infrastructure connection. the incidence reporting a was glad to see that the provisions commission of the 24 recommendations have yielded the only for ladies into moments,

please go back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> [unintelligible] ky. i apologize. >> i know that everything east of california is kentucky. getting you added into the high- risk list, that is the revenue from oil and gas. according to your report, that is one of the largest non-tax income sources for the

government in 2009. just a couple of days ago you wrote in "the new york times." you wrote that in fiscal year 2006-2007, much of the data appeared erroneous. oil and gas companies>> i am no. we did update that work in 2009. there were inaccuracies in the system. we look at efforts recently to verify the production numbers of oil and gas production and found problems with that. the other point i would add is that the assessment system has not been look at in the last 25 years. we have made recommendations there. when the federal government is compared to other countries, it

is relatively low in terms of what it was charging. interior has a study underway and will produce it this year. >> the have an estimate on how much this may have cost the taxpayers? >> not offhand. >> in your examination of the data from 2007, which company underpaid or underreported the most? >> i am not sure. i will provide that for the record. >> if you will provide a list of the companies that have underreported, i would appreciate that. i want to ask you a question. he made a comment about the amount of medical services provided for defensive medicine. you mentioned the number 25%. >> yes, that is correct. >> where did that number come from? >> it came from a study from

jackson health care. >> there are studies that showed that number is considerably lower than that. we can all agree that there are a lot of services that are provided that are unjustified. there are numbers that are considerably lower than that, aren't there? >> yes. the interesting thing about that study is that it was done in private. it was anonymous so that the physicians felt compelled to answer under anonymity. we like to think that number is the most accurate number. >> i have had dr. stand up in a roomful of people -- doctors stand up in a room full of people and admit they practice defensive medicine, which is admitting fraud. >would the fee for service deal with the issue of medically

unnecessary procedures? would that reduce the number? >> it certainly would. providers would feel the need to move toward a different system. there is an idea of as you increase the incentives for outcomes for assistance, the costs go down and the care goes up and physicians will not feel the need to extract with defensive medicine. >> on the issue of payments going out the door --stopping the payments before they go out the door? one of the complaints i hear is that they wait a long time for their money. it is their characterization of dealing with low profit margins. the weight of 90 days 00 --

wait of 90 days is already pressuring them. >> we are at the point now where there is leveraging technology to do predicting analytic so that you could get at real-time predictors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mis. de rugy, the president was talking about capital city on the sidelines and businesses starting to invest it. it leads to the premise that the only way to get out of this situation is for the government to borrow more money and spend more money. can you expand on that? i am and automobile dealer and i

am have been encouraged to build another building. while the money is sitting on the sidelines, please give me an idea of this philosophy that the government has to keep borrowing and borrowing money. can you expand on your comments? you are hitting right where we need to hear this information. >> thank you. it is a great question. i would like to remind people that the federal government has already borrowed a lot of money and pretended to invest in our economy to jump-start it. it has not worked. the money on the sideline is a direct product of all of the money spent by the federal government. entrepreneurs understand that spending today or borrowing today means taxes tomorrow. also, there were a lot of new regulations coming in.

it introduced a lot of uncertainty. that is what the money on the sidelines is. why am i going to invest money today, hire people when i do not know what is going to happen? i do not know if i will have customers. the uncertainty is the key to everything. the more the government creates uncertainty, the more uncertainty we will have and the less we will recover. >> is $814 billion stimulus bill which describe, are there any part of that that you thought were worthwhile? >> there was a part about unemployment benefits. as a society that is wealthy, we can afford to help people who are in need to some extent. the literature was clear. this is not going to work.

while the government invests money, the money has to come from somewhere. there are no magical forms of federal funds. it does not have the return on the investment the administration claimed it was going to have. >> the whole drive was to spend this money. it we did not spend it, we with the unemployment rise above 8%. it is almost at 10%. let me ask you. at some point, people knew this was not working. where could we have said, wait a minute. this is crazy? there was this mad rush to spend a lot of money. we continue to see it is not working. we are saying, just spend more, borrow more, spend more. at some point, it is going to break for us. it is going to break. >> i agree with you.

i would argue that it was a bad idea to do it in the first place. it did not work in the 1930's. it did not work in the '70s -- 1970's. it is the spending that took place in the last 10 years and the last 30 years. it is a lot of spending. if it worked, we would not be in this mess in the first place. we need to change that -- change paths. it comes in the form of the federal government putting its finger in the private sector where it should not be to prop up companies that are failing. it is the drag on the economy that is making the companies fail. when the federal government gives money to the states when it should not, this creates waste. we need to start thinking directly about what wasting

government spending means. >> when you add the federal government, the state and local government, and we start to talk about how we are spending money, it is at the top. thank you for being here. i yield back my time. >> thank you. are you ready? recognize the gentleman from cleveland, ohio. >> over the past few days, members of this house have voted on amendments to the cr which would eliminate programs that provide critical assistance to the most vulnerable americans, some that already had preliminary funding for research on some pressing economic issues. to my knowledge, none of these existing programs appear on the gao's list of programs with high

risk of waste and abuse. the dod contacting rank prominently in the report as programs that remain susceptible to fraud and abuse. the report states there are significant ongoing problems. the department of defense has an inability to provide audits of programs. in fiscal year 2009, the dod obligated billions of dollars for contacting for goods and services. the contracts lacked well defined requirements and an adequate number of oversight personnel. i have a copy of a letter sent in november of last year by individuals who represent 300 years of experience in military operations. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

consent that a copy of the letter be entered into the record. this letter was sent to the national committee on fiscal responsibility and reform. they want to create a model for deficit-reduction. >dod does not know if it has paid contractors once, twice, or not at all. it does not know how many contractors it has. the pentagon has failed to comply with the chief financial officers who tried to solve this problem by requiring agencies to have annual audits on expenditures. mr. dodaro, ken kahn is be sure budget request from the pentagon reflect -- can congress be sure

budget requests from the pentagon reflect actual costs? let's talk about everything except the army corps of engineers. >> they have not been able to pass the audit. there is -- it is not clear that there has been accurate auditing. it would be important to have that information and adequate assurance that the costs were there. >> if we do not have accurate tracking of dod payments to contractors, is it even possible to know is dod budget request is being lost to waste, fraud, or other abuse? >> there would be a degree of uncertainty that you would not necessarily want to have in making those kinds of judgments.

basically, the allocations that are made are tracked through budgetary systems that are not audited ebay. the department is starting to audit the budget numbers that are allocated against the cost. that is a good step and a step in the right direction. it should provide the type of assurance you are looking for. >> when i first came to congress, i was told the department of defense had over a 1100 accounting systems and they had over $1 trillion in the accounts they cannot track or reconcile. i am hopeful that those who have the responsibility for oversight on the auditing parts will pay attention to that and i hope you take that message back. >> i will do that. one of the main reasons we cannot provide an opinion on the

consolidated and at the statements of the u.s. government is because of the department of defense's pervasive management procedures. we have been trying to work with them. they have some short-term priorities to access accountability issues. they have a long way to go. >> i am hopeful this committee has inspired its oversight responsibilities related to the department of defense's spending. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i certainly would. >> when i was in the army, they wanted to find out how many rail cars they had. they did an audit and found 25% of the missing. they did a walk down and found out how many had been repainted over the years to company names. they did not have to explain to the army or the military that they were missing. would behell to -- there would

be hell to pay that they were lost from a company. this is a long-term problem. i want to work with you. >> i did not imply a favorite of privatisation of the army. [laughter] >> we recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. last year, when congress was raising the debt ceiling, the gao office look at duplication of activities of the federal government that might be cost- saving. that report is forthcoming? >> yes. >> can you give us a sneak peek of what we might see? >> we identified 14 different areas of overlap or duplication for consideration by the

congress. they cut several hundred programs and virtually all federal departments and agencies. as an added bonus, we are including in the report another 50 class savings and opportunities for the congress to consider. also revenue enhancements where there are ability to tackle what is now an estimated tax gap -- taxes that are not collected in the sum of $290 billion. >> can you tell us about the duplication at this point? >> we will discuss in the report some limitations as congressman davis finished just talked about. the baseline is -- we will discuss in the report some limitations as representative kucinich just talked about. >> in your report on a

strengthening the foundation for efficiency and effectiveness, one of your recommendations is to restructure the postal service to the chief financial viability. how? >> i have to change their business model. we have outlined options for the postal service to consider and for the congress as well. >> in that business model, you have what it is 50 million households being preached every day by the u.s. postal service. 80% of their cost is for compensation and benefits. are you suggesting we look at both sides of the equation, not only the revenue side, but the expense side? >> everything needs to be on the cable -- on the table to restructure. other countries have dealt with this problem to change personnel structures. i think all things need to be considered.

>> i have to ask you this question about the postal service because of your background. as a consultant with ibm, you have an understanding of marketing channels. you have an understanding of public relations. would you have any recommendations for the u.s. postal service about how they could be more cost efficient and more technologically advanced? >> we have a team working with the postal service today. i would be happy to get back with you with some of the recommendations they have offered. >> that would be great. rugy, i am 8 firm believe that we need to be a competitor and -- a firm believer that we need to be a competitor and a regulator of

the market. are you familiar with project labor agreements where any government contract that is the negotiated has to be done with a union wage? in most situations, we have seen a situation wherenon-unit - contract- non-union contractors do not get the jobs. you are seeing unions went out when it would be better to go with the lowest bidder. have you seen anything like that? >> no, i have not. >> it is something that is crowding out the market and would be something to investigate. >> back to mr. dodaro, you talk about the access -- the excess of real property we have. do you have any suggestions about the leasing of those to

enhance the revenue side of the budget? not facility by facility -- >> we pushed to come up with a plan. there are rules in the budget process that complicated the decision. we recommend those be dealt with. we think it is management's responsibility to decide that. >> thank you. i see that my time is up. >> thank you. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank members of the panel for your testimony today. this committee has conducted a lot of oversight about the contingency contract in iraq and afghanistan, including the use of private security contractors. last year when i was chairing the subcommittee on national security and foreign policy, we record -- we uncovered evidence of a trucking contractor that

was getting billions of dollars for protection. you'll contracts were going to countries -- going to companies that the federal government knew nothing about. do you think we need to have improvement of the federal contract laws to meet the challenges of operating in the contingency conflicts? >> there are lessons learned that need to be applied in law and practice. there are a lot of lessons learned about this type of responsibility in the theater without appropriate training and support. that needs to be done adequately. yes, i agree with you. there are probably lessons learned. we can provide all the thoughts on that worry you. >> absolutely. i would appreciate that. on the private security contractors, there has been a persistent problem about how they manage in afghanistan and

iraq. cencom got a task force together to find out how many private security contractors they employed in afghanistan. the number was tens of thousands. the state department is about to take on responsibilities from the department of defense. they are hiring additional private security contractors. how much confidence should we do atd -position- as dod -- as dod transitions to the state department, they are going to be able to handle that? >> i would be happy to provide a briefing to you. >> how far along are you on the report? >> early on. >> it is an immediate situation. i hope we will be able to move that will work. we have hearings on that regularly throughout. we are too far along.

the department of defense has talked about it. they know there is a problem, but they are not there yet. your work will be helpful on that. another problem is that we do not have enough people to oversee those contractors. that has been a serious problem usaid, the state department, and other places. the wartime contractors association found out that we were hiring private contractors to oversee other private contractors. how do you assess the department of defense's prior s&pinsourcing = = the department of defense's role in doing that role? >> we have encouraged and

recommended systematic assessment of that. that is the only way you can deal with the issue over time. >> we have some serious issues. do you have any ideas about how they can wrap -- can ramp that up so that contractors can be brought back. do you think this analysis will wide its way out before you get some effective recourse jim -- wind its way out before you get some effective recourse? >> i do not think there is going to be a magic solution, particularly when you get into environments when your contingency operations and planning -- you need to have something more robust as a foundation. you need to allow some flexibility and you need proper oversight. that where i think things break

down. >> we had an out of the blue program with the coast guard. lots of ships were made. they were delivering different components. we had a contractor analyzing the job and managing the job and overseeing the job. when the dog got messed up, we almost hired the same people to -come- when the -- when the job got messed up, we almost hired the same people to come in and fix it. >> you need continuity to oversee it in the best interests of the government and taxpayers. >> i agree with you. it is a serious issue for us. thank you. >> the gentleman from mrs. -- gentleman, michigan for five minutes. >> banking to the panel for being here. it has been enlightening, at

least the portion i have been in. mr. dodaro, you state that excess or underuse bill -- under used buildings costs a lot of money to operate. what has prevented the federal government from doing something that makes so much sense such as selling the property? you stated you would not pick the properties, but what has kept us from doing that? >> there are certain barriers omb we recommend a o thated tht focus on. there are some legal requirements that are in place. none of these are insurmountable. we need to aggressively identify them. they are different for each property. they need to be dealt with on a

more concerted, aggressive basis. >> what is the hesitancy toward this aggressive action from your perspective? >> to be honest, i am not sure. it takes hard work and effort to go forward on these initiatives. we have been pushing for plans to be developed to be able to do that. we are getting better data on what the situation is like. but implementing a lot of these things appears to be more difficult. i am not quite sure what the reason is. >> any concern about any improprieties in stakeholder issues that go beyond simply dragging feet or arguments that we do not have the resources or the time or energy? is there anything that would go beyond that to something else? >> there is nothing.

i will go back and checked to make sure my answer is correct. if there are any things of that nature, i will provide them to you. in some cases, there are some historic preservation issues that need to be dealt with with some of these buildings and other legal concerns. i will provide a list to you of some of the barriers. if there are any improprieties, we will certainly let you know. >> thank you. dr. rugy, i am attempted to ask, how would you expand on your state already? but i will not. i appreciate what you have to say. in your written submission, you identified three areas of federal spending that should be addressed. one functions that should be reserved for the states. one, federal spending that

should be reserved for the private sector. and three, things that the federal government should not be purchasing in the first place. it is apparent you strongly believe in the 10th amendment reserving powers of the states not enumerated to the federal government carried >> i . >> i do. >> the us congress need to do something more explicit? if so, what is it? >> i am not a lawyer. i am an economist. i will go to the mine. i think restructuring the money that goes to the states it by cutting it off or turning a lot of it into a block grant instead of matching grants would be a

good way to do it. it would allow states to have time to think about how they are going to be providing this service. one of the problems with the matching system a toppled the fact that it encourages overspending is -- is that it encourages overspending. that would be the first step. cut a lot of this money off or turn the rest into progress.

maybe a lot of these functions they are providing right now should be turned over to the private sector. >> thank you. >> we recognize the gentlelady from the district of columbia for five minutes. >> i would like to ask you a question that affects members of this committee and certainly the public. it has to do with large contractors whose abuses or poor performance is so severe that they are brought before this committee or there are headlines. i want to describe the response of federal agencies in the

awarding them contracts again. for example, if you did the functional equivalence of what some of these contractors have done as an employee, you would be out the door. nobody would hire you again. let me give you a couple of examples. kbr is doing work in iraq for the department of defense. it is so faulty on the maintenance of electrical equipment that deaths resulted, including dozens of deaths of american soldiers. then we award them a $2.80 billion contract to provide additional support services for our troops in iraq. blackwater and private security. that has been a headline.

they still have major -- the state department, after the headlines, awarded them contracts for protective services in afghanistan. these people were seen as having themselves -- were accused of committing crimes during their work. does dod, in the case of blackwater, give contracts to certain companies because of the difficulty of start-ups? is it with all? it is a competitive process. why in the world, if a contractor has expose the agency to such embarrassment and infant

-- and intimate, with the agency wants to give them a contract again? there must be a reason for doing so. >> typically, when we find there is a lack of competition, there are reasons for expediency. they need to have people who have the proper background and security clearances and that type of thing. there are limited numbers of companies who can provide that service. what we focus on is making sure there is no competition in the -- there is more competition in the process. there needs to be adequate consideration of past contractors in the process. there are safeguards built into the process that need to be put into place and followed adequately through the process. i will work has shown that it is

not properly checked before some of the awards are made. >> if waste our failure to maintain the system in iraq occurs, somehow the government continues -- >> you need to have provisions to protect the government from performance. what we did find -- and this is being addressed -- may times there are incentive awards and fees. contractors are being paid incentive fees and are not meeting the standards of performance. i will go back and i will

provide to you and this committee be standard provisions in there. >> i love incentives. there is a system of awards and penalties, carrots and sticks, have always been a source of work. >> we are doing studies on the practices. we will share it with the committee as the work is completed. we will share the regulations that will protect the government. >> i thank the gentlelady. we recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> it is impossible for me to explain to the folks i work for the pervasiveness and longevity of waste, fraud, and it is.

i commend you for gathering to seek solutions. i want to start with it what i find most compelling, which would need criminal consequences. do you have an estimate on negligence, gross now it -- gross negligence, or criminal negligence? waste, fraud, and abuse. where does it fall on that paradigm? not all at once. >> on the medicare and medicaid side, what happens with the prosecution of fraudulent claims does not occur until it meets a certain threshold of money. >> who is a threshold is that? who sets the threshold? >> tms determines what claims they can go after. >> if my numbers are correct,

there are almost 50 different investigative agencies that are seeking waste, fraud, and it is just within health care. that alone is an example of waste, fraud, and abuse. 50 different agencies? >> the irony is that there is waste going on between all of those organizations. there is a lack of data sharing going on between them. medicare part a and part d -- you are missing data sharing between those two so that you can identify the crooks. some of these people might be claiming to be legitimate suppliers for medicare part a when they were already identified as a potential fraudulent empire --fraudulent

supplier in part d. >> it is impossible to explain to anyone outside this that: how you can have that. in response to my colleague from the district of columbia, it is like carrots and sticks. tell me what the stakes are. what are the consequences to ameliorate what has been a two decade long problem. how many declamations by u.s. attorneys' offices? >> we can provide that information for the record. there are reports that the inspector general put out that showed matters referred, how many have been investigated, prosecution's. we can provide that information to you. the thresholds are typically set by the justice department as to

how much monetary money has to be stolen before they feel it would be efficient and productive to go through the judicial system in that process. those figures are available and we will provide them to you. >> thank you. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. on the question of prosecution, is the biggest problem the lack of prosecution from your studies or is it the lack of catching these individuals before the money is taking? which leads to more long-term abuse, the fact that people can keep stealing again and again in various ways would be that that we do not prosecute them at a low enough level? >> we have not studied that issue directly, mr. chairman. i think part of the issue is

that you can continue to abuse the system with low potential without getting caught. intuitively, that what i think from that standpoint. >> 1 follow up question from an earlier one. would it be impossible for the government to contract directly with everyone? at some point, the government has to rely on general contractors to do jobs. it is inevitable that you will have a contractor hiring other contractors. >> as land as it is in a typical subcontractor mode, i think that is fine. when big government contracts out its prime responsibility to oversee the contractors, then you have a problem. but we recognize the gentle lady

from california. >> thank you. i am pleased with this hearing. if we spent the rest of this year dealing with the issues raised here and got some results, we would have done our jobs. i am have much frustration with the that bad we uncover problems and nothing happens. congratulations on your official appointment. you have a high risk list. there are agencies that stay on this list year after year with no penalties, no result, no changes. i think that is inexcusable. if you need to have more authority to force these agencies to do what you recommend, we should introduce legislation to make sure that happens. we look foolish. the american people look at it as if we are totally in that is

when we cannot deliver once we have uncovered a problem. let me move to an article in "the new york times." the oil and gas contracts for drilling on federal land are supposed to be paid. there are substantial funds that could be generated. it appears it is on your high risk list because the oil and gas companies are not paying their proper share. my question is, how long have they been under reporting? why do we allow them to underreport? why are the tax -- taxpayers getting the proper payments because the drilling is

going on on federal lands? >> i could go back and provide a listing of the under reporting. there are a couple of issues. one, there is too much reliance on self reported data. it needs to be checked. second, we found problems with the verification process that the interior department is supposed to use to make sure the figures are correct. >> excuse me. are you telling me that the oil and gas companies are self reporting and we are supposed to trust them? >> the are supposed to be checked. >> by whom? >> by the interior problem. >> rare they? >> there are some problems that need to be addressed. that is why we are highlighting this as a problem area. the basic system to assess what the cost would be has not been

revisited for 25 years. the federal government -- what it charges compared to other countries and some states is extremely low. >> mr. chairman, i would recommend we have a hearing specifically on this issue. the taxpayers deserve to get fair market value for the leases they provide to anyone, be they the next door neighbor or an oil and gas company. we should be getting justifiably what is ours. we are the stewards of the taxpayer money. i would like to move quickly to the alaska native corporations. i do not know if you have look into it. if you have not, i would request to the committee that you do so. there was a report released in january that was astonishing to

me. anytime you allow the sole source contract, mr. of is going to take place. in this case, a contract or to what is $60 million was offered to a subsidiary of the -- a contract of $260 million was offered to a subsidiary of the alaska company. the last contract with the government was for $73,000 and it was for a janitorial services. there has been $29 billion provide amc over the last decade. most of the money does not go to the natives. most of it goes to the non- natives. it is an abuse of the program and i think we should look into that. >> we are currently looking at

it. we would be happy to share. but that is my problem. you issue reports and nothing happens. there is another story written because we have not done anything about it. i want the part of the committee that actually delivers on results not just have a bunch of hearings to show we are saving the american taxpayers' money. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the chairman had to go to the floor. there are several amendments he is dealing with. i am will step in as the chair. i am up in the order, so it is a good time. i yield myself five minutes. i want to thank each of you for your testimony and your work on these important issues. as the gentle lady just said, we could spend the rest of the session on what you shared with us and still not get anything done. chairman issa has made it a

priority -- how the federal government is handling the people's money. dr. dodaro, i believe this is your first time testament -- testifying in front of this committee. congratulations on your confirmation and you're 30 years of service at gao. you bring great leadership to the agency with that experience. i am going to start with you. i wanted to thank you for your stability at our subcommittee hearing dealing with the consolidated nature of the reports. we moved back to march 9. i look over to your testimony then. i also look forward to your cative federalicito

programs. we look forward to working with you and your staff because when we think of the efficiency and duplication of effort -- it is not inefficient use of the taxpayer's funds. is there anything you want to give us a primer on what should we wait until march 1? >> we were charged with doing an annual report. this will be our first annual report on this. it will summarize the work we have done and the new work we started since the requirement was put in place. we focused on discretionary spending programs in this first area, civilian and defense. i think it is important for defense to be on the table as well. you will see a number of issues on that. we will focus on mandatory

spending and tax expenditures. we have this on a three year cycle to cover the entire federal government. the first report will identify the 34 different areas in every major mission an agency in the federal government. you will find plenty of opportunities. you will also find there are some limitations on the ability to give definitive answers to the questions about how much money you actually say if you consolidate this. the limitations on information that is collected -- we are adding to that another 50 items of cost-saving opportunities above duplication and revenue enhancements where additional revenue could be brought into the federal government. right now, it is an estimated $290 billion tax gap.

we are looking forward to on bailing the report and providing -- procreantunveiling the -- unveiling the reports and providing support for congress. >> that is going to be an ongoing dialogue in the congress. it will give us additional information as we try to be more inefficient with the taxpayer funds even in the immediate term. when you look at discretionary, you need to look at everything, including the department of defense and the duplication of efforts. i assume it is a duplication of programs and not just if we have one or two engines on a plane. >> that is correct. >> i am going to run out of time.

one thing i would add on the oil and gas royalty -- i apologize if you already answered this. we see $9 billion in to a dozen nine from these royalties. if they are off by 10%, that is $900 million. is there an estimate on what you think might be lost because of the lack of material witnesses in their structure? >> we do not have an estimate at this time. >> one final quick comment. we look forward to getting into the financial management at the department of defense. when you look at discretion of spending, there is no bigger entity band defense. we know they are the best in the world at defending us and winning wars. i know from my previous chairmanship of the subcommittee, the data management leaves a lot to be

desired. we look forward to working with you. >> i do as well. i look forward to the upcoming hearings on the financial audits and working with you in a subcommittee chair capacity. >> i yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you for being here. it has been a long morning with us. dr. de rugy, in your previous answer and your testimony, you talked about it flypaper effect and the fact that the federal transfers and white -- and matching grants increases spending. over the long term, the increased taxation. this is particularly interesting in light of the stimulus, with $100.50 -- with what the $50

billion -- is the federal government implicit in the federal government woes by these operations. ? >> there is a report that documents this problem. the system goes on. one of the things that people always bemoan is that if we cut federal spending going to the states, the states will have a big hole. there is a sense that the federal government has big pockets. for every dollar the federal government spends, it has to tax people. also, it has to borrow money. the more the federal government does, it pushes the federal

government toward more irresponsible behavior and more debt. >> in my subcommittee and on this committee, we have had discussions aboutmun the muni and state bond issue and the lack of real transparency there. >> there is another issue. the federal government has been implicit in getting money from investors who think it is a good idea to bankrupt cities. the federal government subsidized lending money to bankrupt cities. that is complicity. >> in terms of this, do you think the state and municipal financial position is worse than currently non?

>> yes, i it is. if you take it positioned on devaluing the state pensions, you come up with $3 trillion. the state problems are much worse than we think. >> here is a separate question. in terms of our ability -- or your ability to see the long range and funded -- unfunded liabilities of federal and state areas, is it knowable our

citizens? >> it is easier to look for data at the federal level. it is extremely complicated to look at data at the state level and the municipal level. there are a lot of accounting standards in the federal government that do not apply to the private sector. it would be a good thing to make this date that transparent and to value it at its actual present value so we can see the true size of the liability. >> the private-sector has to value things differently than governments values things based on accounting standards. you see some flaw on government accounting standards.

>> it all points in one direction, making the size of the liabilities and what taxpayers will ultimately have they willd the bbill have smaller. >> this will give you a better ability to understand the true nature of the liability. >> what you are going to have to pay in the future and what you need to put down right now actually realistic rates of return is set up an optimistic 8% rate of return. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> to follow on that, you are talking about a cool method method ofn -- cruel

having the federal government shall these liabilities. it is not focused on the federal debt, which is a fraction of that whole cost. >> what we do not talk much about is the incremental debt, which is supposed to be the already funded part of the money we pay to see news. this money is gone. theree areiou's -- th are iou's in this program. >> we thank you for your testimony today.