proceed with a lot of care. it would be irresponsible for the government of the united states to embrace policies today that would raise the cost of mortgages at significantly and add to the very substantial burdens of the current housing system. of course, in terms of the ultimate, we don't want to go too far in either direction. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back to senator moran's concerns about the fiscal situation. the you think the congress and the president can put off beyond the next election, some major approach to get us on a different long term fiscal path without the risk of serious negative consequences in the

meantime? >> it will be better for the country, the congress, and the administration to come together sooner. you give more people time to adjust. better than a minute now if you can to do a sample and -- sensibly. >> the critical steps that we are taking, zero or five years, reductions we're proposing for 2012, almost 1/3% reduction relative to 2010, that would bring this brigade -- domestic discretionary spending to los

level since president eisenhower. we need to move along -- beyond domestic discretionary spending. we proposed a budget that puts is beyond that course. >> that raises my next question. i fundamentally disagree with that. when will the president or the administration lead on changing our fiscal course? i truly believe what has been announced so far has gone completely hand in terms of the markets which are ultimately -- in terms of the markets. >> i do not agree with that. what the president proposed in his budget is a series of detailed changes to our resources and our commitments to reduce our deficits from 10% of gdp to around 3% of gdp, which

is at the level which you stop our debt burden growing as a level of our economy. that is necessary for this sustainability. -- for fiscal sustainability. we see that as a first death and a down payment. if congress were to legislate constraints on itself, consistent with that path, it would be enormously helpful to sustaining the confidence that we're going to live within our means. ultimately, that is what drives the long-term deficit. we have to find a way to get from 10% of gdp, unsustainable, to least primary balance and a

three-five year period, so that we can stop the overall debt burden from growing as a share of the economy. under the constitution, the president proposes but that congress has to legislate in that context. i think if you listen carefully to what is happening across the congress today, there is a lot of interest across the aisle, democrats and republicans, to try to come together in a bipartisan framework to lock in long-term reforms. >> i agree with the last payment. and i encourage everyone including the administration to latch on to that and lead on that. my second main topic is about risk retention. there are proposals to exempt gse loans from risk retention. do either you support that? >> actually i do not think that there are discussions about exemptions.

the key question is, if we are setting standards without risk retention, that should cover the market brought light. how do we ensure whether it is gses or any other kind of financial institution holding adequate capital? everything we set about the reform of the gses suggest that we are in favor of assuring that the gse agencies are holding adequate capital against their commitments. that is what you will save not only when a reporter gets released but also in the further discussions about the future of the gse's. >> our overall objective, and it needs to be our shared objectives, it is to have the private markets, banks and investors, bear more of the risk

not less of the rest. absolutely we want to make sure as we design the draft regulations that we are meeting the stated objective. we do not want to work against that basic objective. we expect to have a draft out reasonably soon. there will be a chance to comment on that so we can adjust if necessary. >> under the framework you are describing come up with the gse loans in terms of downpayments comer risk recension -- under the framework you're describing, with the gse loans in terms of down payment, risk retention, -- >> our overall objective should be to make sure that we create a system where private investors and private banks and private individuals are holding more the risks in housing finance, not less relative to the government agencies in this context. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i think you fourth -- that they can both work testifying on this challenge. i want to focus on option to read and get a sense of some of the pieces -- option 3 and get a sense of the piece is and what your thinking. a piece of the guarantee fund feed being pulled off for the catastrophic guarantee fund, with that portion going to the catastrophic guarantee, would that be adjustable in an fdic style that could be changed from year to year as the size of the fund grew and the risk being higher or lower? >> senator, that is something that could be designed in the details. one of the principles we have as we let out these actions, --

options, was to provide the opportunity to respond to market conditions as you enter a financial crisis particularly, there is a need to insure that that pricing can be adjusted whether it is to grow those reserves more rapidly or to ensure that there is adequate capital available, adequate liquidity during that crisis. some form of flexibility would be important. >> my impression is that this catastrophic guarantee fund would be the last resort after private guarantee companies. with that kick in after the stockholders have lost their value? would kick in after the bondholders have lost the value of their investment? >> one of the primary areas we focus on in the report is to ensure that we are creating a system where there is real private capital at risk ahead of

any guarantee. systemhere to be that and to ensure that equity would be at risk and therefore would be wiped out, if you will, 04 there would be access to a guarantee. >> bondholders as well stop? >> obviously the protection would be for the bondholders on security, but those are bondholders, it goes to capitol, that would be at risk. >> one of the concerns about fannie and freddie is that it became so large and so significant, would there be a limit on the size of these private mortgage guarantee companies? >> the most important thing to do is to make sure that you regulate them for capital. and that they are required to be

subject to a set of comprehensive oversight supervision and capital requirements to do that. the only way to limit the real risk to the system ultimately and the rest to the taxpayer beyond requiring them to hold enough capital to bid -- is that if the government is exposed to any risk, that there is a lot of head of the government. >> as well, independent of the size of the individual institution, a fundamental premise of option 3 was that the footprint overall they guarantee be limited, as secretary geithner referred to it, and nationalization option, or continuing the current was where we are where over 90% of all mortgages are guaranteed. is not just the individual size of the institution but the

overall size of any guarantee being limited to ensure the primary risk in the market is borne by the private sector. >> one of the things we talked about under the volker rule structure -- it was actually outside that structure -- but the companies that are private investment banks, as they became larger and more systemically significant, they could raise the capital requirements to recognize the problem of a single house going around. would there be an upper limit on the size of the companies, or to encourage smaller companies? >> perhaps i could start on that. it is very important generally to look across the system and recognize a level of concentration are consolidation that would be against our broad

interest in this contest. we want to create a set of incentives in this system where we preserve the very strong role played day today by regional banks and small community banks. when foreign thing is to make sure we do not alter the balance in a way that would work against the objective of being diversified in our current banking system. in terms of capital requirements, i am very supportive and welcome very much legislation on this, that for the largest institutions in the country to create the greatest potential risk in the context of stress, be held to higher capital standards than other banks. that at the -- that is the approach that we have brought to these around the world. not just holding enough capital but have been returned to the government has there, but for large institutions whose mistakes could cause a broader damage, you want to make sure

that they're held to higher standards. >> finally, the government would set standards for mortgages that could be guaranteed by the private guarantee companies. would that be different than the qrm standards? >> i hope not. you want to have a simple, uniform, tougher, more conservative set of standards for these things. you want to try to improve the outcome, you have one framework for differentiating. >> just to echo the point, one of the clear problems that led us into this crisis in the first place was a patchwork of various standards or lack of standards that apply across different types of mortgages. one of the important elements of the qrm is that it would

hopefully level that playing field rather than continuing the patchwork we saw before. >> thank you. >> center kirk. >> thank you, mr. chairman. picking up on everyone else's thoughts and the increased risk routine by the private sector, one of the key problems for the american people the best understand it the way i think about it is the movie "it's a wonderful life." they expected to be repaid. becoming just a loan origination house, they may never expected. payton said they skim the percentage and offloaded -- expected to be repaid, so they skim the percentage and offloaded. they never expected to be repaid and therefore quality was not retained.

what about a rule, if we look at other than atone which require energy other than option -- other than option one? if the government found that out of 100 loans, you have to reown, said the garbage you passed on to the government needs to be recaptured by the loan, there for sinking the bank that originated this terrible paper. it you have it exactly right. that may be one way to do that. you have to do two things. or maybe many more than two things. you want to make sure that you get that the people originate be supposed to some form of risk in that judgment, but you also require that they hold capital against risk. as you set in our system, we

have people not just originated in, but they have legal liability but that didn't have the protection in that context, and there was no recourse against them. >> and this can expect doh will we just talked about what senator merkel lead. they would be at risk not just for worst mortgages but all 100 mortgages in the pool to the extent of the capital of their holding as well as the equity, whatever assets were held at that institution. i think we fundamentally agree with the nature of your comment. >> a totally separate subject because it is a hot issue. we see japanese equities falling 17%, a chinese equities 1.4%, hong kong 2.9%, and australia

2.1%. the assistance -- a systemic risk forming here? -- do you see a systemic risk forming here? another problem may be asia is strong and therefore actually that assumption is incorrect, creating a systemic risk. i would guess that you could give me better than u.s. tensions and other holdings are probably three% held in asian equities. question now falling fairly rapidly, can you describe if you see a systemic risk in the fall of these inequities? >> i would focus more on the basic humanitarian reconstruction challenge and containing the risk and prepare -- repairing the damage caused by the catastrophe there. it is something that japan with assistance from the world committee can achieve.

it is important to recognize that we come into this challenge in the world economy in a much stronger position that we have been. you see much more confidence, i think testified here and around the world, and the resilience in the process of expansion we see under way. we want to sustain that. and they should be our focus and attention. >> i am concerned because we see toshiba and toyota stopping production. illus like we have a systemic shortage of power in japan that will cripple large publicly traded companies in being able to maintain production. >> again, there are a lot of things to be concerned about in the world. it is important that we watch this carefully. very hard to judge at this stage what will be the magnitude of

the short-term cost of production output there. our focus will be on trying to help them make sure they can help meet the humanitarian challenge in the reconstruction challenge. i think it can be reasonably confident they will be able to do that. >> senator bennet. >> thank you for being here today. i want to go back to the very beginning, the ranking member is a conversation with you, which i am all for. one of the things the worries me in reading the three options and all the discussions being had is that even though we will not make an explicit guarantee, even though we will do everything that we will try to do to mitigate the private actors from believing that the government will show up and rescue to mortgages, there is a nagging concern that they will always believe that we will be, because of the sheer scale of housing and the importance of it

to our economy. i wonder if you could talk more about whether you see that as a risk, and what it is we could do to try to mitigate it -- that moral hazard? >> you are right to highlight it. is not beyond our capacity to make a substantial improvement in mitigating the risk. under the options we propose, in each of them, any guarantee the government provided would be explicit, carefully qualified, covering in the loss to the taxpayer. even if we achieve that chemo will we still be left as an alternate entity that banks operate with the hope and expectation the government would step in in the future as we have in the past? that is an important concern. the only way credibly we know to reduce that risk is to make sure

we deliver the reforms that were put in place in legislation last year. but those reforms do is require banks to hold much more capitals, any entity that operates as a bank, hold much more capital against losses, that the government cannot step in to save them from their mistakes. the only thing the government can do is to step in to demint -- dismember them safely to minimize damage to innocents. so the not just banks but homeowners have more equity in their homes, we could make a system less vulnerable to crisis and thus vulnerable to the moral hazard risk that pervades all systems. >> let me go back to the premise of your question, which is important as well, part of this

debate is to look at other countries around this world that have different housing finance systems and to say, they do not have mechanisms to protect against crisis in the same way that we do. but if you look closely at those systems, there are in almost every case a recognition as you said that in the midst of a major financial crisis, the impacts on housing, on a whole range of -- labor militancy -- mobility, for example. there is a system whether explicit or not they would step in whether banking guarantees or some other form, and a broad recognition that there needs to be a system that exists. we tried to report to be very explicit about that. and to lay out options in each case, whether fha alone with

,ome other form of backstoppe recognizing that we will need to step in. and when they stepped in, the crisis would of been much deeper on the housing front, but i think that secretary geithner has laid out designing that in the most clear, transparent way possible, putting private capital at risk and in front of it as much as possible so that we minimize the chances always there of this pricing the guarantee, or of having moral hazard and other tax at a minimum. >> and he did talk about the differences with what we saw with fannie and freddie, but in the interest of time, it is a forum for people to focus map. i will skip that because i do not want to get in trouble with the chairman. i'll ask you another question.

they were allowed to behave like government-backed stops, managing large stock portfolios with the risk falling largely on taxpayers. if we create something like that third option, should fannie and freddie be allowed to maintain investment portfolios? or with certain restrictions? >> there is no question that any portfolio activity should be dramatically different from what was there before. there are some minimal functions, for example, if you're talking about multifamily housing in rural communities or underserved communities where there might be some need to accumulate funds for some period of time prior to securitization, there are some relatively small activities that we might consider. but fundamentally, the scale of

the portfolio of a lack of restrictions were fundamental problems. and importantly, ensuring that any guarantee provided did not backstop those portfolios to, i think they are critical pieces of what we are promoting fundamentally different from what was true that freddie mae and -- get fannie mae and freddie mac. >> thank you for your testimony. we have a second round, very brief questions. secretary donovan, the administration cautioned against a hasty transition from fannie mae and freddie mac in the current economy, but also recommends increasing the enterprise guarantee fees. last week we heard from the group that this discourages potential home buyers.

some industry groups argued that these fees may drive borrowers to fha-insured loans. they increasingly reaching our we've pulling mortgages away from the public market? -- are we pulling mortgages away from the public market with these these? -- these fees? >> there will be some increased cost for mortgages. if you look back at the system that we have had, there is no question that we underpriced risk and took on risks at the interest rates we provided, that we were not prepared for. that is one recognition we have to make in the system g h f -- going forward. we also within fha take prudent

steps to ensure that we are not expanding risk through fha and increasing our portfolio beyond its current footprint. our recent announcement of a 25 basis point increase in our premiums will help to do that. i think it says the stage for private capital to begin to return. i think we are taking steps, recognizing that through fha. guarantees are wonder% guarantees. we take that risk -- 100% guarantees. we take that risk seriously and we need to look at that through fannie mae and freddie mac, looking at options like risks sharing or other legislative changes through fhfa photo of the sure fha is better prepared in the future to step then in this kind of role.

>> would this be more likely than one of the options than the others? >> i do think that if fha is the sole guarantor with va and usda plan a smaller role, but that they are the sole guarantor is particularly in the wake of a crisis, then there is certainly a risk that we take on a much larger footprint in the market then would happen under options two or three. that is something that we consider, and the work clabber delete with the committee to ensure that fha is prepared -- and to work collaborative leave with the committee to ensure that fha is prepared to take on a larger footprint in a crisis as we've done in this one.

there are many issues. systems, around procurement, ensuring we have the ability to operate effectively and efficiency as we stepped up in a crisis, does the things that ought to be an essential part of what we're looking at as we consider reform to the gse's. >> senator shelby. >> secretary donovan, quoting your words, the administration is fully committed to exploring other measures to make sure that secondary market participants are providing capital to all communities. then secretary geithner said, government-supported incentives for housing to distort the markets. on the one in use in the administration is fully committed to exploring government and sentenced to distort the market. what are some of the ways that the administration is considering meeting the

seemingly contradictory goals? are you supporting quotas are an expansion of the cra? how'd you achieve some of these goals without politicizing lending decisions? >> i think that we've talked about the risks of the politicization of any of these issues. >> and there are big risks there. >> no question. going back to something you said earlier in the hearing that transparency can be at powerful tool to ensure markets are working effectively. one of the things we have seen is that as we have provided transparency in the primary market through mechanisms like the disclosure act, we have

seen that transparency be a powerful force to ensure that where you have homeowners that can be successful homeowners, they have the ability to take on loans, that credit is provided in those communities. there is a lot that we can do with transparency as well as making sure that we do not have a an unlevel playing field between primary market and secondary market actors. >> secretary g-8, your joint report states that the obama administration's reform plan is designed to target the government rivals support while affordable housing and more effective manner. numerous studies including those conducted by the congressional budget office and the federal reserve have concluded that the federal government's implicit guarantee of fannie and freddie securities yielded a small

benefit to borrowers. most of the benefit went to fannie and freddie shareholders and executives. do you agree with the results of those studies? >> i do. >> as the value of government guarantees for mortgage-backed securities been overstated by some, and probably me here? >> in the context of fannie and freddie, and the support that the government provides, you are right to say that most of the benefits of those guarantees did not go to the purported beneficiaries. that would be something you would want to make sure you avoided in the future if you are going to preserve any role for guarantees. and there are ways to do that, senator. they are not beyond our capacity to get right. >> i hope we can. if your socializing the risk and

privatizing the profits to shareholders, we have a bad situation. >> exactly, and we would not recreating a system in which private shareholders were able to benefit from a guaranteed designed to help make sure that homeowners have more affordable housing. and that an economy like ours can survive risk factors. >> is the issue -- is it your desire to not replicate another fannie mae and freddie mac? >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks again to secretary geithner and secretary donovan for being here today. it is set the essential to have an affordable housing market for american families.

i look forward to continuing these discussions as we further explore the options presented today. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> ishmeal reed is on "in debt think you his written over 25 books, including "airing dirty

laundry," and "barack obama and jim crow media." this is sunday april 3 on c- span2. like previous programs at our website where you can also find the entire weekend schedule. "washingtonow's journal," we will look it u.s. preparedness for natural or man- made disasters. we will talk to loretta sanchez and then republican congressman steve king on the current budget debate and a temporary spending measure passed by the house. later, sharon squassoni will give an update on the nuclear plants of japan. each morning at 7 eastern. later in the morning on c-span3, nuclear safety will be among the

topics that energy secretary steven chu will testify about. he is joined by the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission. watch coverage of that hearing at 9:30 a.m. here on c-span3. >> in the 21st century, it is not enough to leave no child behind. we need to help every child to get ahead. we need to get every child on a path academic excellence. >> president obama has called on congress to overhaul the no child left behind education law. follow it from the start in the bush administration, its opponents and detractors, and where it stands today, on line at the c-span at library. search, watch, clip, and share -- is washington your way. >> that top commander in afghanistan general david petreaus told the house that

they're making progress. that hearing as later today. earlier, they approved a temporary spending measure. the senate is expected to approve the measure later this week. so far, senate democrats and house republicans have not agreed on how to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. here is a part of today's house debate. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lennell slative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.j.res. 248 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to support h. -- h.j.res. 48, the fiscal year 2011 further continuing appropriations resolution.

this temporary c.r. will allow us to avoid a government shutdown that could otherwise occur on march 18. . while cutting spending by $6 bill to control our nation's staggering deficits and to facilitate the continued recovery of our nation's economy. we have made it clear -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair is finding it difficult to hear with conversations that are still going on in the back of the chamber. on all sides. the gentleman from kentucky deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. rogers: we have made it clear that a government shut down is not an option. period. we will not allow this to happen on our watch.

this bill funds the government for an additional three weeks until april 8, maintaining the critical support the government provides to the american people and allowing for the necessary time to complete negotiateations on a final long-term agreement for the remainder of this year. while funding the essential government agencies and programs, this c.r. makes $6 bill in spending cuts. trimming $2 billion for every week to continue our efforts to rein in spending and putting a debt in our massive and unsustainable deficit. together with the $4 billion that we cut two weeks ago, mr. speaker, along with the $6 bill we cut in this bill, we will have cut $10 billion from current year spending. that makes it the largest rescission in american history.

and so it is working. h.j.res. 48 reduces or terminates a total of 25 programs for a savings of $3.5 billion. these cuts include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations. it also eliminates earmark accounts within agriculture, commerce, justice, science, financial services, general government, interior subcommittee jurisdictions. saving the american taxpayers $2.6 billion in earmark spending, which the president and both houses of congress have agreed they do not support. these cuts are the tough but necessary legwork required to help balance our budgets and halt the dangerous downward

spiral of skyrocketing deficits. while short-term funding measures such as this is not the preferable way to fund the government, at this point it's vital. the budget for fiscal 2011, which was punted to us by the previous congress, is long, long overdue. i agree with many of my colleagues that we must get down to business and come to final agreement as quickly as possible. our economy must not be threatened by perpetual government shut down which create uncertainty and a loss of confidence for job creators across the country. this continuing resolution provides us with an appropriate length of time for negotiateations, makes good -- negotiateations -- negotiations, makes good on our promises to provide certainty and stability, and allows essential federal programs to

continue while these negotiations continue. i'm hopeful, mr. speaker, that this continuing resolution can be passed swiftly so we can turn our attention to the realities of our debt and deficit crisis and begin to put the nation on the right path for the next fiscal year. 2012. our constituents have asked us to whip our spending into shape , to provide solutions that help our economy grow and to help our citizens get jobs. this c.r. addresses their expectations responsibly over the short term, and is just one of the set of bills that we intend to produce over the next year that will continue to put the nation's budget back into balance and help our economy continue on the road to recovery. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. speaker. today the house is considering the fifth continuing resolution for f.y. 2011 to keep the federal government running. here we are in the middling of march considering yet another short-term bill that is supposed to buy us time to negotiate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. i hope that profits to be true. we need -- proves to be true. we need to bring this to a conclusion. the extension reduces spending in f.y. 2011 by $45 billion below the president's request. it has another $6 billion in common ground spending reductions. in total the measure cuts $51 billion below the president's request. the idea behind the three-week extension is to provide an opportunity for the house, senate, and white house to settle all outstanding issues on fiscal year 2011

appropriations. i remain hopeful the negotiations will succeed and we will be able to give our agency some amount of certainty for what little remains of fiscal year 2011. today in the "new york times" there was a long article showing what kind of disruption occurs in federal agencies, including defense and social security and others, head start, for example, because we haven't gotten these bills enacted. but i must remind my colleagues that if the c.r. extended for the remainder of the year, we would be cutting spending at historic $51 billion below the president's request. i am worried that cutting deeper will threaten a fragile economic recovery. most economists see cuts in h.r. 1 as a drag on the economic growth leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. as federal chairman bernanke projects, moody's mark zandi estimates 400,000 jobs lost for the remainder of this year and

700,000 more next year if h.r. 1 is enacted. goldman sachs thinks it would be as high as 2.4 million jobs lost. in yesterday's abc news/"washington post," the american people -- poll, the american people believe that the republican proposal cuts in h.r. 61, will hurt the economic recovery. i am relieved that chairman rogers craft add bill that relies on previously identified reductions, a significant portion of which will hold earmarks. while i know my colleagues will not agree with and may not be able to support some of the specific program cuts included in this package, i appreciate that there was a genuine attempt to engage the senate and white house before they were chosen. most importantly, i'm tremendously relieved the chairman has stayed away from the controversial riders in this stopgap measure. he knows as i do that these riders would almost guarantee a

veto by the administration which would almost guarantee a government shut down. an appropriation bill is not the place to decide enormously complex and controversial policy issues. i'm not pleased to be here today with yet another short-term bill. i sincerely hope that we will use this three-week period of time judicially -- judiciously so the next time we consider a bill for 2011 it will be the last and for the remaining six months of this year. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, a new member of our committee, mr. diaz-balart, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you very much, mr. chairman. there's a couple of things that are not debatable. i think the the american people understand and everybody understands that we are on an unsustainable path. we are on an unsustainable path as far as unemployment. the unemployment numbers are

still frighteningly high. we are on an unsustainable path as far as borrowing and spending. so, frankly, we have a couple options here. we can continue that unsustainable path which is borrowing more and spending more, or we could change the way we are doing and try to get our fiscal act and fiscal house in order. i commend the chairman, chairman rogers, for bringing forward a c.r., an extension, that does just that. that brings some sanity to this process. that reduces the amount of spending, that does so responsibly after reviewing programs and reviewing funding and reviewing what the federal government is doing. that's exactly what we have in front of us today. yes, we wish that we could have not just an extension, but we could go through the entire year. the reason by the way that we have been talking about this

right now is because they failed to pass it so we are forced to do so. but we already passed a c.r. for the remaining part of the year. but unfortunately the senate has not been able or has not been willing to do their part. so we are forced once again to do an extension. this is a real extension that reduces cost, that reduces expenses, that does so responsibly, and takes us off this unsustainable path. this does so by borrowing less, by spending less, and, yes, it will have the effect, mr. speaker, of getting our fiscal house in order and once again allow this country to start creating jobs in a real way not just piecemeal way. i urge our colleagues to support this responsible c.r. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from california, barbara lee, a

member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. and to say today that once again i rise to oppose this continuing resolution. once again the majority is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. for a third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary spending bill total -- totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion in earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. once again this c.r. does nothing to promote jobs. the majority pledge to develop jobs when they regained control of the house, but they continue to renege on their promise. it's important to emphasize that the promised cuts will hit communities that can least

afford these hits. the loss of 185 million in state and local law enforcement assistance provided by byrne grants will further squeeze police budgets. with these cuts communities will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions. at the same time, when drug use and drug trafficking is on the rise, this c.r. includes cuts to cops to combat the spread of meth use and distribution. rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly c.r.'s. these cuts will further harm highly vulnerable communities that greatly rely on cops, policing services, and technology grants. also my constituents regularly call my office asking what source of funding is going to replace earmarks? that historically have supported jobs, small businesses, schools,

nonprofits. also i continue to press the administration witnesses on budget -- in budget justification hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what alternative resources will replace them? thank you. i hope we vote no on this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the transportation, h.u.d. subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa investigated for two minutes -- is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding time. i do rise in support of this joint resolution. it's not because i want to, but because it's necessary to support it today. it's necessary because we are stuck in a situation that results from the previous majority's lack of completing

its work last year. i think we need to step back and just look at the situation that we are handed this year. for the first time since the budget act of 1974, mr. speaker, the house failed to pass a budget last year. the house also failed, except for two occasions, to pass appropriations bills. the senate did nothing. so what we are left with today is this mess that we are in. with no fiscal year 2011 budget, no appropriation bills passed last year. nothing done. so we are given this mess today to clean up. what we need is a little more time, but in the meantime we are going to cut spending, $6 billion of cuts, $2 billion a week for the three weeks that this bill will be in place. . it's not enough. we've got to look at the

overall problem we have in this country, $14.3 trillion of tet, an annual one-year deficit of $1.65 trillion. now while this just scratches the surface, we've got to address long term the spending here in washington, d.c. we've got to look at not just the discretionary side, which this bill does, but look at all the entitlements. we're only addressing about 15% of the whole budget in this bill. we've go to make sure we look at the -- we've got to make sure we look at the other 85%, which is mandatory, other spending out there that cause this explosion of debt that we have. what this is is a very good first step of going forward to really get a handle on the spending and also, mr. speaker, i would ask that the white house finally get involved and show some leadership as far as trying to get our fiscal house in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, the ranking member on the interior and related agencies, appropriations and e.p.a. and also a former chairman of that committee. mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: i thank the distinguished member from washington and thank him for his leadership. but he knows as well as do, i trust, all of the members, that this is no way to run a government. lurching back and forth like a drunken sailor, the agencies not knowing when or whether they're going to get their money. actually, i should take that back. the navy would never conduct operations like this. and the distinguished chairman from kentucky well knows that this is not the way we want to be doing business.

but yet, here we are. with another c.r. we just had a hearing this week with the forest service. as the members know, they hire hundreds, sometimes thousands of temporary seasonal workers to fight fires in our nation's forests. they can't do that, they don't know how much money they're going to have. and the folks that they would hire seasonally, as a result, can't take those jobs, don't know what they're going to do. it disrupts people's lives. hundreds of thousands of people's lives, millions of people's lives indirectly. this is no way to run a government. why are we going it? because we can't agree on h.r. 1. and we shouldn't agree on h.r. 1 as passed by the house.

so many riders that should have gone through legislative committees that did in fact when they were put in the bill after careful consideration and we gave them 10 minutes of debate and then -- in the wee hours of the morning and stripped that language from the authorizing legislation. that's no way to run a government. and beyond those riders there's thousands of programs that are being cut willy nilly. one such program, for example, national oceanic and atmospheric administration. they provided the early warning to people on the west coast when they knew about the sunesune. -- about the tsunami. yet we are told by noaa that the 28% cut in this bill for noaa would dismantle our early warning system. to save a few million dollars. that's just wrong. you know, there was just an

article, people are beginning to realize other things that are cut in this program to save a few dollars. $285 million is not a few dollars but consider what happens when you cut $285 million out of the program integrity section of the internal revenue service. they collect $10 from every $1 we spent. and so you cut out $285 million and it costs you about $3 billion. in revenue that should be collected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is issued an additional minute. mr. moran: the only point i started by suggesting and i'm sure it's not in contention, this is no way to run a government. we have a responseability -- responsibility on the probabilities committee to fund these agencies, to determine our priorities, to reflect the

interest and the will of the american people. this process does not do that. the bill h.r. 12 does not do that. -- h.r. 1 does not do that. the american people deserve better. they deserve careful consideration. we need to cut, but we need to cut responsibly. this bill will pass but this should be the last c.r. let's get a full year appropriations bill passed as soon as possible. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i'd be happy to yield. mr. dicks: there was an article in "the washington post" about how house g.o.p. spending cuts would add to more spending later. i yield myself an additional minute. one thing i'm most concerned about is the women and infant care program, w.i.c., where you provide nutrition to an

expectant mother who is probably on medicaid and help her baby to be born in a more healthy way. we find out that hospitals in this cupry provide $26 billion of health care for these same babies who are born premature. pay me now or pay me later. in this case, it would be a lot more. the i.r.s. is another example. noaa weather satellite is another example in thed my tholve tsunami and earthquake, we need to be making reasonable judgments and i hope we can make reasonable judgments. i happen to be the ranking on defense. we can cut money out of defense, we can do more in that area. i just think we've got to be careful and when this final package comes together, we've got to cut out the ones that would be revenue raisers. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky.

mr. rogers: i yield myself one minute. the gentleman from virginia says the public deserves that we pass appropriations bills. and i could not agree with him more. his majority last year failed to pass a single bill. out of the 12 we were supposed to pass. that's why we're here. we're trying to clean up the mess that the gentleman from virginia's party left us when we took office in january. and so that's why we're here. yes, it's a terrible way to do business. and this should be the last c.r. extension that we pass before we have an agreement with the other body and the white house on the rest of this year. however, mr. speaker, again, the gentleman's party and the senate refuses to pass a bill and lay something on the table. we are going to the conference

table to negotiate and we're sitting there by ourselves. the other body will not come forward with a proposition. until that time, i don't know what we do. now i yield three minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. aderholt: thank you, chairman rogers, for yielding. the bill before us today is another necessary step in addressing the national imperative of reducing our debt while keeping the government operating. essential functions like homeland security are sustained under this bill an sustained in that a fiscally responsible way. within the more than $6 billion of spend regular duckses contained in this bill is a rescission of $107 million to customs and border protection a rescission of unobligated balances requested by the administration for f.y. 2011,

supported by the minority, passed by this body as part of h.r. 1 and included in the senate appropriations committee recently reported bill. but this bill also sends a very clear signal to the white house and to the senate. as a speaker and chairman rogers -- as the speaker and chairman rogers have stated, no one wants a government shutdown. the only people talking about the shutdown of the government are those avoiding the tough decisions and seeking to shift blame from their own failure to act. instead of excuses, the american people want results. less spending an a leaner, more effective government. that's exactly what this temporary stopgap bill delivers. i couldn't agree more with what the chairman just stated a couple of minutes ago. congress didn't get its work done and the senate has yet to provide a viable alternative to the house-passed h.r. 1. a bill that stands as the only year-long spending measure for

f.y. 2011 passed by either congress -- chamber of congress. so complaints about a short-term stopgap bill like this ring hollow when the house-passed solution has been on the negotiating table for almost a month. the president proposed spending level for f.y. 2011 is no long aeroviable option, a fact acknowledged not only by the administration itself but by both parties and both chameboferse congress system of the time to get to work and fill our duty to the american people is long overdue. congress needs to deliver what the american people have so resoundingly demanded. i can only hope the administration and the senate also acknowledge the reality of our nation's fiscal cries aand -- crisis and demonstrate resolve to cut spending and come to the table with a viable budget for the remainder of this year. the american people demand noless. i thank the gentleman, the

chairman of the appropriations committee for yielding and i yield back the balance -- i would be happy to yield to the chairman. >> it was stated a moment ago -- mr. rogers: it was stated that this c.r. cuts noaa and tsunami predictions money but that's not so. the only thing that cuts money from noaa is the earmarks, and yes, we cut earmarks but they had nothing to do with tsunami warnings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i was referring to h.r. 1, not this c.r. the gentleman from kentucky is absolutely correct. mr. rogers: h.r. 1 doesn't cut tsunami warning moneys. mr. dicks: there's some things in there that i think no one thinks would have an effect on their weather forecast -- that i think noaa thinks would have an effect on their weather forecast.

mr. rogers: they're wrong. mr. dicks: i want to yield two minutes to the delegate from the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: look, the majority has chosen to run the government, the federal government from c.r. to c.r., but the majority has no right to inflict this operational outrage on the local funds of a local jurisdiction, the district of columbia. it may want -- the majority may want to incur for the federal government the operational difficulties, after all the the district of columbia delivers services to federal officials including the president, federal buildings, foreign embassies and the like. but does the majority really want to risk the -- to put the

district and its operations at risk or to place what wall street almost surely will do, a risk premium on the district due to the fact that we are being put from c.r. to c.r.? this is a fragile economy for every big city, the d.c. local budget was approved a year ago in the city and last summer, by the appropriations committee. yet the district of columbia is being held hostage to a federal fight, although the district of columbia can do nothing to free itself from this federal fight. i have tried to get the district on successive c.r.'s so we could spend our own money all year. there is no disapproval of that here, i wager that very few members even know that the district would close down if the federal government closed down, would be perplexed by it,

would have no objection to our spending our own local money all year long, we raise and manage $8 billion, we have a right to spend our local funds without being dragged into a federal fight. you can't run a big city from c.r. to c.r. i ask you to find a way between now and three weeks to free d.c. to run its own city for the rest of the federal year. let my people go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: the responsible cuts of $2 billion per week, it should be noted that there's broad, bipartisan agreement to

nearly all the cuts contained in this legislation. basely, everything in this legislation was also contained in h.r. 1. we should note too that if this legislation is enacted this registration legislation would represent the largest spending cut on discretionary programs in history when you combine this with what was cut two weeks ago, the $4 billion. if enacted this will represent the largest spending cut on discretionary spending cut should we enact this legislation. i know some people think that this bill doesn't go far enough, but it certainly does represent a very big step forward. the cuts that are contained in here, we're eliminating $2.6 billion in earmark funding from agriculture, c.j.s., financial services, the interior, the cuts include rescissions, reductions and program terminations and i think we all understand, too, that if we pass this, this will prevent a government shutdown and we need to fleavepbt while these

negotiations can continue. . this represents responsible cuts, broad bipartisan agreement. i say let's cut some spending and let's cut it now. and let's cut it today. take yes or an answer. don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. this is the right thing to do. and the american people will appreciate it. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished democratic quhip, mr. hoyer -- whip, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not sure whether i rise for or against this. very frankly, because i think this process is not the process that we ought to be pursuing. i think in that context i speak for the chairman and for the ranking member and for most members in this body. but i want -- i was going to wait a while then i heard mr. dent of pennsylvania speak and

i want to reiterate this point that he made because i made it last week in my colloquy with the majority leader. i made the point that we are about to make the largest single reduction in discretionary spending that we have made. the gentleman said in history, i was more modest and said in the 30 years i have been here. in any event this is not an insubstantial cut. the problem those of us have on this side of the aisle is, it is not enough for a large number of your folks. then they have said so. and the heritage foundation has said so and the family research council has said so and some of your members have said so. now, the fact of the matter is this is a lousy way to run a railroad. we are trying to run the largest enterprise in the world

in two-week segments. it is costly to the private sector. it is extraordinarily inefficient for the public sector, and it is demoralizing for the private sector who deals with the government and for the public employees we have asked to perform the service that is we have set forth as policy. and so i say at this juncture, this ought to be the last of this type. we need to reach agreement. now, i say to my friend from pennsylvania, because it is the largest cut, i think we have come a long way. you said you wanted to cut $100 billion. now you're not cutting the $41 billion that we cut. you were using the 2011 baseline. that's how you got your $100 billion. $41 billion we have all agreed is gone. we are going to freeze at 2010 and go below that. but we have cut $41 billion and

we agree on that. now, you use the 2011, that wasn't our figure first, you used it in september. we used it in december. so my view is, we have agreed on $41 billion. you don't say that, you say we are between zero and 60. i understand your rationale, it's your figure, your baseline you used in september in your pledge to america. if we have gone 41 and we are going to go another 10 or 15, what i ask of you is in light of the fact, as mr. dent points out, we have already done the deepest cut under republicans, under democrats, under any of us. it is time to hear from you what is your alternative to make a deal? now, compromise is a prettier word, but we need to come to agreement. if we are going to serve our country and those who serve our

country, then we need to come to agreement because they elected all of us. none of us has any greater superiority. we are all the same. and we need to come to agreement. i don't have much time but i'll be glad to yield to you. can you take time -- mr. rogers: would the gentleman talk to his colleagues over in the other body and tell them to pass something we can negotiate on? mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, 435 of us have tried to talk to the people in the other body. but i will tell you under the constitution of the united states, we have the responsibility of initiating bills. read the constitution. read the constitution. we sent h.r. 1 over there as my good friend, the former speaker of idaho, says to me, and they didn't pass it. it's not their responsibility to initiate. that didn't go any place. may i have one additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from washington controls the time. mr. dicks: 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i will say to you, we can wring our hands and say the senate is not doing its job. we are not in the senate. we are here. let us come to agreement. and we know the agreement is going to be someplace in between where you are and where we are. we know that. but what we don't know is what you can pass. what you don't know is what you can pass. you don't know what your caucus will do. i understand that. you're deeply divided in my opinion. and we need to know because it's not just us here that are adversely affected. let us come to agreement. let us stop this process of funding government in very short cycles. it is not good for our country. it's not good for the people who work for this country. it's not good for the people who are doing work around the world. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, can you

tell the chairman and myself what our time remaining is? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 12 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 16 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: of which i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for three minutes. mr. simpson: i thank the speaker. i can tell the gentleman that just spoke, the minority whip, good friend of mine, what we can pass in this house and what our conference will agree to, and that's the $61 million in cuts or $100 million overall we have already agreed to and already passed. we can pass that in this house. now, i have heard that this is no way to run a railroad. my good friend from virginia said this is no way to run a government. i have heard this is operational outrage. i will tell you the outrage here is that we are having to

do this because the majority, the former majority, when they had the majority in the house, the majority in the senate, and the white house, failed to pass an appropriation bill. they left the american people and this country with this pile of wrap. they should not complain about how we try to clean this up. mr. speaker, by the end of this week the appropriations subcommittee which i am privileged to chair, the interior and environment subcommittee, will have had 12 budget oversight hearings over the past three weeks. that's 12 hearings addressing the fiscal 2012 budget. that we will soon be writing. it's worth noting we are now 5 1/2 months into the fiscal year 2011 and we still don't have a budget to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year. the c.r. we are considering today keeps the government operating for another three weeks, and you're right, we need to solve this within the next three weeks. the problem is, you cannot negotiate with a body across the rotunda that fails to act.

we can't be the only ones at the table. we have to have something to negotiate with. we don't have that. this c.r. saves taxpayers $6 billion including $650 million in spending cuts from the interior subcommittee accounts that republicans, democrats, and the administration agree are reasonable and supportable on a bipartisan basis. the overall savings achieved through this c.r. at the rate of $2 billion per week is three-week equivalent to the $100 billion of cuts achieved in the long-term c.r. passed by the house republicans several weeks ago. in the interior budget alone we got earmarks, we got the national park service preserve america program, eliminated it, and other programs, save america's treasures and the national park service, programs that the administration did not request funding for in their 2012 budget. so these are things that are agreed on by both republicans and democrats. now that the senate has voted down two versions of the

year-long c.r., the republican version known as h.r. 1 that cut spending by $100 billion and the democratic version that cut substantially less, it's time for both sides to come together on a funding bill for the rest of this year. the truth is that we really need to get the fiscal year 2011 budget written, passed, and signed into law so we can turn our attention to next year's budget. in the midst of the back and forth debate on spending, it's important to remember that these funding bills don't write themselves. our appropriations committee staff have been working day and night, seven days a week, for months now writing one c.r. after another even as they prepare for hearings and studied budget proposals for next year. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. to keep the government opened while both parties work to identify an acceptable level of spending cuts for the rest of the year. we can and should cut more from the spending budget. i encourage my colleagues to support this c.r. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from hawaii, ms. hirono, who is

going to correct the record on the noaa issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all the cuts to noaa and our weather services are contained in h.r. 1 and we have not reached agreement on h.r. 1 which is why we are doing yet another c.r. and believe me those kinds of cuts to noaa and our weather service will have an impact on our ability to implement early warning systems. some of you may not know that hawaii has already suffered millions and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami, and, yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the japanese people are facing, but nonetheless thank goodness our early warning systems were in place. now, as to this c.r. i rise in opposition to this c.r. which continues the republican strategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs that support jobs and our families.

i want to focus on just one program being cut out of many by the way that affect real people and real ways, that is particularly troubling to me in this c.r. this is the elimination of all funding for the watershed and flood prevention operations program, popularly known as pl-566. this 30 million program means a lot to small rural communities nationwide. for hawaii the decline of sugar and pineapple industries has forced us to transition from large-scale plantation agriculture to small-scale farming. pl-5 6 has been the only federal program that has really worked to deal with our agriculture water issues. and it is a single most important federal agriculture program for hawaii. hawaii is the most food import dependent state in the entire country. so agriculture self-sufficiency is a priority for us which is one reason why continued funding for pl-566 project is

so critical. in addition, pl-566 provides flood prevention for small communities the army corps does not serve. they include the ditch water shed project, to rehabilitate a 26-mile long irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small farmers in the hawaii island. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. dicks: i yield another 30 seconds. ms. hirono: a project providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on maui. and a project -- so these long-term projects help to build our local economy and create jobs. stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible, un safe, it makes no economic sense at all. most of these projects are well on their way. we need to continue funding these programs to support our communities, support jobs, and this program has long held

bipartisan support. in fact last year i signed a joint letter led by ag committee chair lucas urging funding for this program. mr. dicks: in going back and looking, noaa operations research and facilities in h.r. 1 is cut by $454.3 billion. one of the officials there said what would happen in the continuing resolution there will be a dismantling of our nation's early warning system, the president of the national weather certificate viss, said in a telephone interview. it will result in a roughly 30% cut in the budget of the national weather service. the current plans call for the weather service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. .

mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to mr. crenshaw of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this continuing resolution. two reasons. number one, it keeps us on the path to put the brakes on this runaway spending that's gone around this place too long. it continues us to get the place where we start a culture of savings instead of this culture of spending. the second reason to vote for this, of course is to make sure we don't shut down the government. to give us a little more time to try to final negotiate the spending levels for next year. somebody asked the question, is this the best way to fund the government? of course it's not. no way. it would have been a whole lot better if last year under the

democratic leadership in this house we had a budget before this house that would pass. but that didn't happen. it would have been better last year during the session if the democratic leadership had gone through regular order, we'd passed the appropriations bill and then the government would be funded for 2011. but they didn't do that. and it would have been a whole lot better after this house got together, made some tough choices, set some priorities, made difficult decisions, passed spending bill that cut $100 billion out of this year's spending. sent it down to the senate. it would have been better if they'd taken that up and pass it -- passed it, or at least done something. but they didn't do that. so here we are. we find ourselves another c.r., three more weeks. but let me tell you, these are difficult times. and in difficult times, leaders

have to lead. we've got to sit down together and establish the priorities we have for spending. we've got to make tough choices. that's what every american family does. that's what every american business does. if we're going to get this economy moving again, we need to settle this once and for all. i hope we pass this continuing resolution, that this will indeed be the last time we do this. three weeks, sit down, have that other body sit down and negotiate with us, it takes two to tango as they say. we sent the whole ball of wax down there, they didn't like it, now we're sending a little bit at a time but we're honoring the pledge to cut $100 billion. if you cut $2 billion every week, that's $100 billion. this is $6 billion more on top of the $4 billion we cut. that's no way to set they will year, but let's settle it once and for all, let's pass this, move ahead and get this thing

done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from hi, ms. kaptur, a senior member of the appropriations committee and i think the longest serving woman in the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this continuing resolution. it cuts money for jobs for people and cuts social services to our senior citizens when gas prices are going up and food prices are going up. jobs that clean up our bruin field site, it cuts public broadcasting the only decent broadcasting with the trash that's on the air today, and cuts the save america's

treasures program. so people say, where are you going to get the money? let me tell you where the money is and what's not on the table in trying to plans the federal budget. how about the profits of the wall street big sticks, morgan stanley, citigroup, they took last year $51 billion in profits. $51 billion at the expense of the american people in this great recession we're endure, they're mape as clams. their top executives took $26 million, not counting their stock options. we didn't touch a penny of their bonuses, can't do that. they're paying at an 11% tax rate when businesses in my district have to pay a 35%. what's fair about that? we could have $13 billion, $14 billion if they just paid at the same rate, just for last year and oil prices, the

american people are being gouged across this country, exxon made $9 billion in the third quarter of last year, guess how much they paid in taxes? a big goose egg. zero. zero. and british petroleum, $5 billion in one quarter. how much did they pay? where's that on the table? so we say to the american people, you can't balance a trillion-dollar deficit on 14% of the budget. what you're doing, you're hurting the american people. let's take it from those who have much and give nothing. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to a hard working member of our committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i rise to urge the adoption of h.j.r.

48, the continuing appropriations for this fiscal year. it seems to me we've got three questions we ought to address in the course of this debate. first an elemently, why are we here? second, what does the bill do? and third, what are the consequences with the bill isn't passed. weir here for the simple reason that the last congress that my good friends on the other side ran never passed a budget, never passed a single appropriations bill. we're here because the democratic majority failed to do its work. we're also here because the current democratic majority in the other body has so far failed to do its work. i remind my colleagues, we actually passed legislation, sent it over. ial remind my colleagues that the one proposal in front of the senate that got the most votes us the republican h r. 1. -- h.r. 1. but nevertheless they failed to give us something to negotiate against. it's their obligation in the senate at some point to have a common negotiating position. i don't know how we can sit

down and negotiate otherwise. we're here because of a democratic failure in the last congress and this one. second, what does this bill do? it's common sense, it cuts and reduces 25 programs, saving $35.5 billion. most of those programs -- $3.5 billion. most of those programs the president agreed isn't necessary. it buys time but it also keeps the government running and keeps us on course to reduce spending at $2 billion a week, something my colleagues and i are committed. finally, what happens if he we don't pass this bill? there are some that want to spen more, some that want to spend less. the first thing that happens is we shut down the government, something all of us know is not a wise thing to tchosme sec thing that happens is we probably create financial panic in the country and harm a fradgic economy.

and finally, the last thing that happens and i think actually the most important, is we raise fundamental doubts amongst the american people as to whether or not this institution and we as elected officials have the capacity to actually address and solve our problems. so i think we need to pass this bill, we need to give our friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the senate, another three weeks to see if they can possibly come up with a negotiating position. i'm confident once those negotiations begin that our speaker will keep the government running, will bargain in good faith but will cut spending as we're committed to do. with that, i yield back my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i want to take a moment to congratulate two longtime staff members who are leaving us after years of

service. beverly served on the -- serves as clerk on the homeland subcommittee and another subcommittee before becoming the first woman staff leader. he was part of the creation of the 9/11 commission and the department of homeland security and during hurricane katrina. she helped craft the recovery and reinvestment act, the recovery act that saved tens of thousands of american jobs and kept this country from slipping into another great depression. we thank bev for agreeing to stay on with us and help with the committee's transition ancon garage late her on her many years of service in the executive branch as well as for us. she will be miss bud we wish her well in her new endeavors. i want to extend my deep appreciation to chris who served on the interior

appropriations subcommittee since 1995. most recently as minority clerk. chris began his career with the u.s. forest service before coming to the committee as a detailee. he found himself in the middle of some of the most contentious environmental policyties putes but also remained a consummate professional. while i chaired the interior subcommittee, i relied heavily on his solid judgment and wise counsel. i wish him the best as he leaves the committee an thank him for his service. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield? mr. dicks: i yield to the chairman. mr. rogers: let me join on behalf of us on this side in thanking those two wonderful individuals for dedicated public service. they have worked hard on behalf of the public and they deserve our utmost thanks which i offer at this time. thanks for yielding. mr. dicks: thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i echo the comments of my good friend mr. dicks. chris is a one of the most professional and widely respected individuals on the appropriations committee staff. his dry wit and friendly disposition will be greatly missed and his institutional knowledge of forest service issues will be impossible to replace. we appreciate your dedication and commitment over your many years of public service and wish you the best in your future endeavors. mr. ticks: thank you. how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. dicks: does the gentleman have further speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: the gentleman from kentucky has 7 1/2 -- may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: i urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution as unpleasant as it is. our democrat colleagues, our republican colleagues, we agree, we don't like being in the situation we're in. but we're in this situation nevertheless. our colleagues remember that for the first time since 1974 we didn't pass a budget last year. we didn't pass a single appropriations bill as the chairman of the committee has noted. we don't like being in this situation. but we're in this situation. and yet, i think there's a real disconnect between washington and the american people. i was listening to the television news this sunday when senate kyl put the budget debate in perspective. while rarely do house members quote senators, i think it's worth it. we talk about trillions and billions and millions but if

you were had a $10,000 budget, $10,000 budget which most americans can more easily identify with. and 40% of that is actually borrowed money. what we're talking about with h.r. 1, the basis upon which this c.r. is going forward, we'd be shaving off $28 from a $10,000 budget. mr. speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the reason that congress has continued to draw such unpopular respect with the american people is that there is a disconnect. last year, we had a $223 billion deficit, the largest in history. we're talking about shaving $6 billion until we can get a resolution between the house and the senate and encourage the white house to join the mix. i thank the chairman for allowing me to speak out and encourage our colleagues to support this c.r. 13r0eu7 the gentleman from

washington. mr. dicks: i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the leader of the democratic party in the house, nancy pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his hard work to help keep the government open. while many of us will not agree on the legislation before us today, we know it is necessary for us to pr seed. so i don't -- to proceed. i don't rise to oppose or support the legislation but instead to comment on the situation we're in. we're debating a short-term bill to keep the government open on a week-by-week basis. this is not any way to run a government or a business. it certainly is not the way as the military generals have told us to protect the national security of our country on a week-to-week basis. democrats will work with republicans on legislation that

will create jobs that will strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit. when all three of these scores, this -- on all three of these scores, this republican spending bill fails. democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this congress. we won't go into the history right now but it's well known that president clinton took us out of a period of deficit into his last five budgets being in surplus or in balance. . president bush turned that around when he became president and we have to dig ourselves out of the deficit he took us into. last year we passed a $41 billion cut. we did so with one republican vote. $41 billion. democrats in the lead on fiscal soundness. on the subject of jobs, it's been 11 weeks, the 11th week of

the republican majority in the congress and we have not seen one bill that will create jobs. in fact the only bill coming from the republicans, the only legislation that has come to the floor to create jobs would be the democratic initiative, one, to build america bonds, to build the infrastructure of america to keep it ahead of the game in terms of innovation. build america bonds. republicans overwhelmingly rejected that. the other bill was a bill to keep our jobs from going overseas by rewarding businesses that sent jobs overseas. democrats said no to that idea. republicans said no to our legislation. zero jobs bills in 11 weeks. quite different from the record of president obama coming into office two years ago with a democratic congress. president obama was a job creator from day one. one week an one day after the president's inaugural address

calling for swift, bold action now to create jobs, the house of representatives passed the recovery bill which was then passed by the senate and signed into law in a matter of weeks. that legislation created or saved 3.6 million jobs. this is important in terms of the deficit because it produced jobs, produced revenue into the treasury that helped reduce the deficit. tax cuts for the wealthy has been the job creators that the republicans had put forth in the bush administration incident, do not create jobs, and increase the deficit. so we are at a place where we again, 11 weeks, the republican -- not by my measure, just look to some of the fed chairman ben bernanke said the republican spending bill would cost not a trivial amount of jobs. mark zandi, a republican economist, said the republican spending bill would destroy 700,000 jobs.

goldman sachs said the republican spending bill would reduce economic groith by 1.5% to 2%. 320 economists sent a letter calling republican cuts a threat to our economy, long-term economic competitiveness and strength -- and the strength of our current economic recovery. they all agree to one extent or another that the republican agenda is taking us in the wrong direction. that agenda is manifested in the continuing resolution, h.r. 1. anti-budget approach they are taking. in fact, in addition to not creating jobs, the republican initiative is making matters worse. many of us have come to the floor to talk about budgets year in and year out. we all say that our national budget should be a statement of our national values. what is important to our country should be reflected in the allocation of our resources.

we want to have that debate on values rather than just on cuts. we all agree we have to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, duplication, obsolescence, and the rest. the g.a.o. has given as you blueprint for that. we all agree we must reduce the deficit of the fiscal commission has given us a road map for that. we can agree or disagree with some of it, but the fact is it gifts us--gives us a blueprint for how to go forward and we should take heed of that. that blueprint says we should not be making cuts right now that will be harmful to our recovery. and yet that's exactly what the republican initiatives do. this statement of val ue, we have this debate, it's not a debate about are we going to cut six million or three million seniors off meals on wheels. it's about who we are as a country. how do we protect the american people both in our national security and our neighborhoods? how we educate our children to

keep -- to make them happy but also to keep us competitive as innovators, internationally. how we maintain healthy america, not just about their health care but about their good healthier, the safety of the food that they eat. it's about the creation of jobs. i believe we have an obligation as a government to be job creators which give people the means to find their own happiness but also bring revenue into the treasury if we are just speaking pragmatically and not in terms of value. i don't believe it's just about the dollars. it's about the values that we have to have this debate. unfortunately the bills that we are being presented with, h.r. 1, are like a balloon, sweeze it, pops out there, it -- squeeze it here, pops out

there, it doesn't change anything for the better. it makes matters worse. so again as we consider our budgetary decisions as a discussion as a statement of the national values, we have to remember that the greatness of our country depends on the strengthening of our middle class and that we have to do that by creating jobs and we certainly must reduce the deficit. now we are waiting at the negotiating table for the republicans to show that they are willing to work together. we have cut the $41 billion with one republican vote. that they are willing to work together to reach an agreement that is a statement of our values. i think we can do that. many of us have worked together on the appropriations committee over the years. i urge our republican colleagues to join us in our efforts to create jobs, to strengthen middle class, and to reduce the deficit and to do so in the interest of the american people. that's why i think this vote today, people will vote however

they view their own statement about it. but the big vote that is coming up is the vote on the continuing resolution on the long-term basis to keep government opened and functioning for people, again, in a way that is a statement of values for our great country. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, hardworking member, mr. womack from the state of arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from kentucky for your leadership on the appropriations committee and for yielding me time here this morning. yes, it's true. i came here on january 5. just a few weeks ago i put my hand up and took the oath of office. as i did i'm reminded of the

fact that at that precise time in my life, i was taking the oath of office, already three months into the fiscal year. i show me what business, what governmental jurisdiction, anywhere in america, is effectively and efficiently managed when you are operating without a budget already three months into the budget year? look, i was a mayor of a very dynamic city in northwest arkansas. we never did that. we couldn't survive by passing our budget sometime during the course of the ongoing year. so our conference and in particular is leading by example. we are providing a leadership example for the spending cuts that so many people around america have said over and over again that we have to achieve. look, america gets it. we are a trillion and a half dollars in deficit in this f.y. and we are 14-plus trillion

dollars in debt. we have to do something about spending. and, look, it's all about the ends game. and this is where this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle can come to agreement. that we know that the end game is about the creation of jobs. the ideological difference about how we get there, i think, is what divides us. but i'm a firm believer, any businessman will tell you, any mayor, any county judge, any governmental official will tell you that your balance sheet drives a lot of things. i think fundamental to that balance sheet is how much you are in debt. because how much you are in debt in business is tied to your assets. in government it's tied to your capacity to tax. and right now one of the fundamental problems about growing jobs in this economy is the uncertainty that hangs over the job creators in america. unnecessary and overburdensome regulation -- would the gentleman yield another 30 seconds? possibly. let me finish by saying i urge

support of h.j.r. 48 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: how many speakers does the gentleman have? two? why don't you go ahead with your speaker then you finish. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of this temporary continuing resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same. as we debate this measure, let's remember why we are here. let's remember that on november 2 the people of virginia's fifth district and people across this country sent a message to washington, a message to republicans and to

democrats, the message was urgent, it was clear, and it was loud. the message sent was that now is the time to stop the government spending, stop the government borrowing, and stop the raid on our children's future. so what have we found since we got here? we find that our president and the last congress despite enjoying great majorities in each chamber completely and totally failed six months ago to live up to its most fundamental responsibility to adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011. because of their failure to lead, the american people still six months later do not have a budget. after the house worked in the early morning hours nearly a month ago and sent h.r. 1 down the hall to the opposite chamber, what has the senate done? they left town. they failed to adopt any proposal to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. what has thep president done? while continuing to fail to lead on 20911 budget, he's now

propose add budget for fiscal year 2012 thatnot increase spending -- that does not decrease spending but nearly doubles funding in the next 10 years. the senate and white house have not heard the message from the people in the last election and are continuing to fail to lead. now is the time for this congress to listen. now is the time for this congress to act. i believe that the majority in this house is listening and this temporary continuing resolution gets us one step closer to fulfilling the purpose given us by the american people. cut government spending and reduce government borrowing for the sake of future generations. simply put, by voting in favor of this measure today we are putting a $6 billion deposit on the account for our children and grandchildren who for far too long have been forgotten here in washington. i thank the gentleman -- the chairman. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. dicks: madam speaker, i rise to review the bidding here. we are down to the end of this debate on this continuing resolution. and i hope and as i note chairman rogers hopes, that this will be the last continuing resolution and that working together we can come together on a solution to the f.y. 2011 budget. now, i i heard repeatedly, repeatedly, and i even mentioned this in my last statement, and the next thing i knew it was on cantor's website, but back in 2007 the distinguished gentleman from kentucky will remember, that when we took over power and won the election in 2006, most of

the -- nine or 10 of the appropriation bills are not enacted and the democrats had to pass a bill in february enacting all of these things. so maybe we learned that lesson from you all over there. i hope you'll remember it because you seem to -- like this has never happened before. well, that's not one -- that's number one. number two, the american people in a "washington post" abc poll yesterday over the weekend said that they are worried that the cuts in h.r. 1 will hurt the economy. it was narrow. it was 45-41, but 71% of the people said the problem was that your side isn't engaging. and that they blame the republicans for not getting this deal. why would they think that? i think the reason for it is when -- the first rogers

amendment proposal came out, that was kind of a reasonable approach, but that was rejected and then they doubled the amount of these cuts, and the cuts became very severe and very questionable. . there was a story in "the washington post" today that lays out if you cut food inspectors, you're going to pay for it. if you cut w.i.c. funding, you're going to pay for it, billions for these children. i point these things out, cutting head start, this was perceived by the american people as too extreme. that's why you can't get anybody -- the senate rejected h.r. 1, the president rejected h.r. 1. we need to have reasonable people sit down and work out a compromise and not let the government be shut down. and i believe that this should be the last c.r. and that we

all should agree here today that this is going to be the last c.r. and we are committed to getting this resolved and that's what the american people also said in this abc/"washington post" poll, not that i follow the polls much, but they said they wanted us to come to an agreement. so again, i am pledged to our chairman that we're not going to let this happen again. that this year we will pass all 12 appropriation bills by august and we've done that before and that will -- it will end this process that started back in 2007 and which got continued in 2011, it's not the way to do the government's business so let's make a pledge today that we're going to, that have c.r., that we're going to work together to solve this problem and move on to f.y. 201. i yield back the -- f.y. 2012.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield the balance of our time, the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the chair and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i listened with great interest to the distinguished minority leader and her remarks. i never cast my ballot for her to become speaker of the house but as an american we celebrated the historic accomplishment that she became the first woman to preside over this congress. one thing that will not be said or written is that the -- is that she provided -- presided over a house that was fiscally responsible.

they passed a bill that bankrupted the nation, they passed a stimulus bill that created no jobs that may bankrupt the nation. they passed a health care bill that took over 1/6 of the nation's economy, did not bend the cost curve and if not checked will in fact bankrupt the nation. the distinguished minority leader's speech reminds mauve the adage, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. we hear, we have to cut, we have to cut, but not these cuts, not that cut, not my program, the time is now, the time is serious, we have laid an offer upon the table and we wait with great expectations. now i know what those people in st. peter's square must feel like when they wait for the white smoke to come out of the top of the dome for the lech of a pope. we would like for those on the other side of this capitol to

give us a proposal to work with us. but it's not happening, we need to pass the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 167, the joint resolution is considered read and the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution? >> i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualified. the gentleman -- the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the gentleman from pennsylvania moves to recommit

the motion with the following amendment, page 20 line 2, strike the final period and preceding quotation, page 20, line 2, insert the following, none of the funds used in this fact may be used to implement a system that cuts benefits or privatizes social security. section 2, line 6, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to eliminate medicare funds for seniors or eliminating funds to purchase health care in the private secor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minute in support of the motion. as i listen to the the binet the current c.r., i have some reasons for alarm mr. critz: i thank the best way

to start it off is to at least start to let you know a little bit about myself, for most of my life, i worked in the private sector, worked all my life and paid into social security. the folks that i live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on social security and what it provides for actually generations at this point. as i have been sitting here listening to this current c.r. which i'm opposed to, i think that we're all, all 435 of us are sent here to lead. unfortunately, what we've heard time and time again is finger pointing, it's your fault, it's our fault, it's their fault, instead of us sitting down and talking to one another and figuring out where we can compromise and how we can come to a final solution to what our problems are. and it's really very disheartening.

i can understand the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, whose side are we on? are we on their side? are we on a particular party's side? i think it's very unfortunate because at the end of the day we have strong opinions on what the best way forward is in this country and unfortunately, it's about compromise. because even though we all have strong opinions, we all have differing opinions. if we don't work it out, we're not going to get anywhere. so as i stand in opposition to this c.r., it's something that is disheartening. i'm on the armed services committee and have been hearing from industry time and time again about how difficult it is for them in the long-term. so as we talk about cutting, we're going to cut $2 billion a week for the next three weeks. by doing these short-term c.r.'s, we're costing our country money. no one talks about that, what the impact is going to be from

this temporary solution. and the republicans have talked about, well the democrats didn't complete their work last year. that's true. but now the republicans are in charge. you're in charge, you were given a charge to lead this country and here we are going around again doing a two-week, a three-week, this isn't leading. this is playing games. it's time to stand up and do the right thing for this country. my m.t.r., motion to recommit, involves social security. because the debate that's been happening has been trying to frame social security as a problem and the reason for the deficits that this country is experiencing. i brought a chart with me and i want to read to you the net increase in assets in the social security trust fund for the last six years. in 2005, the social security trust fund increased $172 billion. in 2006, it increased by $189.5

billion. these are increases. this means the money that comes into social security, via your taxes and interest, is more than than what's going out paying in benefits. when people talk about social security is causing our deficit problem, we have to address entitlement programs, they're not giving you the whole picture. they're trying to tell you that, well, down the road we may have an issue. well no, right now in 2007, the social security trust fund increased $190 ppt 4 billion. in 2008 it increased $180 billion. the trust fund is going up, it has $2.6 trillion in it right now. so the people receiving social security now shouldn't be worried about what it's doing to the deficit because that increase in the trust fund is actually money that's coming in to the government in excess of

what social security is spending. but i brought up a chart here because i want to show people that when you start talking about social security, now if you look at the 12th district of pennsylvania, i have a very -- i have an elderly population. i'm one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens, a lot of people on social security. if you look at this chart, 77% of people say leave social security alone. don't touch the retirement age, don't touch the benefits, they say come to a solution, figure out a way to move forward. and there are compromises that can be had to help solve the social security issue. because we do have an issue long-term. baby boomers are retiring,less people are paying in. so there are issues we have to address. but don't buy into the crisis legislation that if we don't do something immediately, that social security is going to be in trouble. you're hearing all kinds of scenarios. the one that scares me most,

ladies and gentlemen, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. critz: thank you and i urge support of this amendment. it does not cre commit the bill, it's an amendment and -- recommit the bill, it's an amendment and would just be added to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. >> i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: this provision doesn't do anything. nothing in the c.r. would cut sths or medicare benefits, nor would it privatize social security. we are totally committed in this bill to saving social security. so this -- let me be honest. this is a procedural motion that simply is a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand. but i don't think we'll be fooled by that the debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. it should be about doing our

job. we are here this afternoon to provide the necessary resources to keep the government's doors hope while wellock in important budget savings totaling $6 billion. that's $2 billion in spending reductions or savings to the taxpayer, $2 billion a week. the path this body set with passage of h.r. 1 a couple of weeks ago. i'd also like to remind my colleagues that with the passage of this c.r. today, we will have cut over $10 billion in the span of two weeks. that sets a record. that's never been done before in this body. the closest was 1995 at $9 billion. this is more than double the $.7 billion that senator reid and the senate democrats proposed in their c.r. last week to fund the government for the remaining six months. we do in two weeks what they

would take six months to do. the american people sent us here with a clear message. last november. they want us to end the partisan bickering and get our work done. instead of picking political fights, they want us united in cutting the budget. this motion moves us further away from that goal, it would send us backwards, not forwards. it's a smoke screen a procedural motion, let's get on >> the senate is expected to approve it later this week. expires on friday. when the house returns, they will debate ending april

foreclosure program. the gavel back on 10:00 eastern. >> general david petraeus was sent capitol hill to testify for the burstein since taking over. timothy geithner -- the organization of american historians on houston beginning saturday morning at 8:00 eastern. remembering the tragedy of the

fire 100 years later. the debt of one and the people they've slept on the terrorist attacks of september 11. for the complete weekend schedule, good to c- span.org/history. >> with federal spending expiring, the house and senate are working on another short- term funding measure to last their april 8. was the debate in their entirety at the congressional chronicle with complete time lines and transcripts of every house and senate session. >> the commander of u.s. and allied forces in afghanistan testified about the fight against the caliban. the general also talked about the obama administration's a

drawdown of u.s. troops starting this summer. they are chaired by the michigan democrat.

good morning, everybody. before we begin our hearing, we

first, i would ask the committee to consider it the nominations of michael picker. first, i would ask the committee to consider the nominations of michael vickers to be under secretary of defense for intelligence and joey rooney. there is a motion? >> so moved. >> second? all in favorer say aye? motion carries. i would ask the committee to consider a list of 252 pending mimt nominations, included in th list is the nomination of general martin dempsey to be chief of staff of the u.s. army. all nominations or the nominations have been before the committee again the required length of time. motion to favor the report? is there a second? all in favor say aye? opposed nay. moon carries.

>> today the committee receives testimony from under secretary of defense for michelle florinoy and david petraeus international security assistance force. thank you both for your years of service to the nation and sacrifices made by both you and your families. we also -- excuse me. we cannot express enough our gratitude and admiration for the men and women in uniform deployed in afghanistan and elsewhere. they are doing a phenomenal job. morale is high. our proops are truly awe-inspiring. please pass along our heart-felt thanks to them. it's now been little over a year since president obama's speech for the strategy in afghanistan. 30,000 u.s. troops to help reverse the taliban's momentum and seize the initiative and the

tting of a date 18 months from then or july 2011, for when u.s. troops would begin to come home. the setting of that july date also laid down a marker for when the government of afghanistan would assume more and more responsibility for that country's security. during his visit to afghanistan last week, secretary gates dermined that we, "would be well positioned for transitioning increasing security responsibility to afghanistan and beginning to draw down some u.s. force necessary july of this year. "12346789 president karzai is expected to announce next week the first phase of provinces and districts throughout afghanistan that will transition to an afghan lead for providing security to e afghan people. we have heard two messages in recent months relative to the july 2011 date, when u.s. troop

numbers in afghanistan will begin to be reduced. message number one. secretary gates before this committee recently said the july date was needed as a way of telling the afghan leadership, "to take ownership of the war and as a way to grab the attention of the afghan leadership and bring a sense of urgency to them." message number two. secretary gates speaking at the nato defense minister's meeting last week said, "there's too much talk about leaving and not enough talk about getting the job done right." now, some may dismiss those messages as inconsistent or that secretary gates is speaking to two different audiences, but i disagree. secretary gates well knows that with modern global instantaneous

communications, the world is the audience for every utterians. the unifying threat in the two messages is that both are needed for success of the mission. success requires afghan buy-in, afghans taking the lead and afghan ownership of the mission, all of which in turn depend upon their confidence in our continuing support. both messages and the thread that unifies them are part and parcel, i believe, of general petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy, which is so instrumental in turning the tide in afghanistan. the success of the mission depends on afghan security forces holding the ground, which they are helping to clear of taliban. and that, to use general maddis' words is what undeuts the

enemy's narrative when they say we're there to occupy afghanistan. the growth and size of apability of afghan security forces and control of territory by those forces is robbing the taliban of their propaganda target and bringing us closer to the success of the mission. that's why i have pushed so hard to grow the size of the afghan security forces and to keep metrics on how many afghan units areartnered with us and being mentored by us. and how often afghan units are in the lead in joint operation. that's why a number of us are pushing so hard, including with the president himself for approval of the pending proposal of up to 70,000 additional afghan troops and poce. a nato training command in afghanistan has done an extraordinary job, not only building the numbers of the afghan security forces, but

improving their quality as well, focusing on marksmanship, training, leadership and literacy. this success in recruiting and training afghan troops reflects the desire of the afghan people to provide for their own security. that success is why taliban suicide bombers attack recruiting centers. young men signing up represent the taliban's worst nightmare. during our visit to afgnistan in january, senator jack reed, senator tester and i saw how the afghan pple ve growing confidence in the ability of afghan and coalition forces to provide security, in former taliban strong holholdsmund and afghan provinces. as the afghan people see their

own forces, providing ongoing protection after the taliban are cleared out, afghan confidence in the army and police grows. the number of tips from locals increased significantly in con district, enabling afghan and coalition forces to find and clear a much greater percentage of improvised explosive devices the increasing support of the afghan people across hellmond and kandahar allowed partner ecial operations forces and afghan commandos to target large numbers of insurgent leaders the last few months, but the vast majority being captured without a shot being fired. the growing support of the afghan people for their security forces will make the transition to an afghan security lead more achievable short term and sustainable over time. certainly challenges lie ahead.

general petraeus said there will be a taliban spring offensive and secretary gates warned this spring's fighting season will be the acid test in his words, as the taliban tries to take back the terrain it has lost and engage necessary a campaign of assassination and intimidation. afghan leaders need to bring a sense of ugency toem proving governance, delivering services, fighting corruption and other practices that prey upon the afghan people. if they are to earn the support of the people for the afghan government. additional steps must be taken to end the safe havens that insurgents use in pistan which impact on afghanistan security. general petraeus, at the meeting in brussels last week, and i hope he will address the outcomes from that meeting, including whether any further commitments boo i our nato partners were forth coming to address the continuing shortfall in trainers of afghan troops.

also of interest would be the status of any discussions on a longer-term relationship between the united states, nato and afghanistan beyond 2014. again, our thanks to our witnesses for their work on behalf of our nation and for their devotion to the men and women who defend us. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for their service to our nation. i want to say a special note of thanks to general petraeus. the truest test of a commander is whether he is worthy of the sacrifice made by those he leads, whether the young men and women who we call upon day in and day out to risk their lives for us feel that their cmander offershe same degree of devotion as they do. we are fortunate that general petraeus is such a commander. it's congress' highest priority to be just as worthy as the

sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces and to provide them with everything they need to succeed in their mission of defendg our nation. so let me take this opportunity to say again that we urgently need to pass a full year appropriations bill on defense for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 as the secretary of defense has repeatedly called for. it is irresponsible to continue funding our fellow americans fighting two wars through piece meal continuing resolutions that do not meet their full needs. perhaps the greatest need of all right now is winning the war in afghanistan, which is the subject of this hearing. the cost of our commitment to this conflict remains substantial, especially the precious lives we have lost. according to one new poll reported on in today's "the washington post," a majority of americans no longer support the war.

the next several months will therefore be decisive as winter turns topring, the traditional fighting season in afghanistan. nato forces will surely face a renewed taliban offensive to this spring to retake the territory and momentum they have lost on thebattlefield. those losses have been considerable. u.s. nato and afghan special forces dealt a crushing blow to the mid-level leadership of the taliban and its al qaeda allies. afghan and coalition surge forces are recapturing momentum in key terrain areas such as kandahar and hellmund. afghan security forces are improving in quality faster than planned. afghan local police initiative is empowering communities across the country to provide their own security from the bottom up, but kabul does so from the top down. the cumulative effect is that we

are turning around the war in afghanistan, but as general petraeus sayand will emphasize this progress remains fragile and reversible. the sustainability of our gains will be tested during the fighting season ahead. we should all be very clear before the fact that violence will go up in the months ahead and we will surely encounter setbacks in some places. we need to be exceedingly cautious about withdrawal of u.s. forces this july as the president has called for. we should be mindful that perhaps the wisest course of action in july may be to reinvest troops from more secure to less secure parts of afghanistan where additional forces could have decisive impact. we should not rush the failure and cultivate strategic patience this patience will be all the more essential as we wrestle with two other key challenges,

ich are military operations are necessary, but not sufficient to meet. american taxpayers want to know resources are not being wasted, stolen or misused by afghan officials. we must not allow this legitimate and critical demand to feed a sense of fatalism about our objectives. some are alarmed that the afghan government is at times a weak partner, but th's the norm in any counterinsurgency. after all, if our local partners provided good governance, already there would not be an insurgency in the first place. the goal is to create conditions that enable local partners to provide better, more effective and justice for their people. we a not trying to make

afghanistan like us but afghanistan used to be prior to the prior three decades of civil war when the country enjoyed half a century of relative peace and rising standards of ving. a second key challenge stems fr pakistan. the global instability of the country, the insurgent safe havens that remain there, the ties to terrorists that still exist among elements that exist and seeming deceleration of our relationship amid the continuing reing of davis. we sought every means to compel pakistan to reorient its strategic calculus short of cutting off u.s. assistance, which we did once before to no positive effect. to be sure, pakistan deserves praise forome steps it has

taken to fightl eda and taliban groups on the pakistani side of the border. what we must ireasingly recognize is perhaps the most effective way to end pakistan ft. for teorist groups is to succeed in afghanistan. ultimately, it is only when an afghan government and security force is capable of neutralizing the terrorist groups backed by some in pakistan that those pakistani leaders could come to see a strategy of hedging their bets in this conflict will only leave them less secure and more isolated. we have made a great deal of progress in afghanistan since the last hearing of this committee on the subject just over a half year ago. whereas the momentum then was with the insurgency, our forces now blunted it in many places and reversed it in key areas of the fight. it is now possible to envision a process of transition to afghan

responsibility for security based on conditions on the ground, with 2014 being a reachable target date. for that transition to be truly reversible and for it to lead to dr. anna marie during strategic partnership between the united states and begafghanistan, our country and especially this congress must remain committed to this fight and those americans waging it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very ch, senator mcclain. secretary flournoy. >> thank you very much for inviting us here today to update you on our efforts in afghanistan. nearly ten years ago, al qaeda operatives carried out terrorist attacks that killed thousands of americans and citizens from other countries. as we all know, these attacks emanated from a safe haven in taliban-controlled afghanistan.

in response to the september 11th attacks, the united states supported by vital international partners entered afghanistan by force in order to remove the taliban regime and prevent further attacks by al qaeda and its associates. our mission was just. it was fully supported by fully international community and initially was quite successful. in the years that followed, however, we lost focus on afghanistan. while our attention was turned away, al qaeda, the taliban and associated extremt groups reconstituted safe havens between afghanistan and pakistan. as a result of this inattention, we risked the return of a taliban-led afghanistan that would likely once again provide a safe haven for terrorists who could plan and execute attacks against the united states. when president obama took office, he immediately undertook a thorough review of our strategy in ahanistan and pakistan, and reaffirmed our

core goal, to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al qaeda to prevent its return to afghanistan. in the course of that review, we found that the situation in afghanistan was even worse than we had thought, and that the taliban had seized the momentum on the ground. in response, over the course of 2009, 2010, the president committed tens of thousands of additional u.s. forces to reverse that omentum. last december, we conducted a follow on review of the strategy's's implementation we reaffirmed the core goal and the sttegy's key elements. a military campaign to degrade the taliban-led insurgency, a civilian campaign, and increased effort designed to bring favorable and durable outcome to the conflict. over the last year, we have made

significant progress. with the troop surge, the u.s. and our isaf partners have over 150,00troops in afghanistan, putting relentless pressure on the insurgents, and securing more and more of the afghan population. that surge has been matched by a surge in numbers, quality, and capability of the afghan national security forces or ansf. during the past year, ansf has increased by more than 70,000 personnel and we have been able to improve their quality by developing afghan noncommission officers and trainers, expanding the training curriculum, adding literacy programs, increasing retention rates, and partnering afghan units with isaf forces in the field. as general petraeus will describe in detail, u.s. and ifas forcesighting side by side with increasingly capable afghan units through the country

have rescued the initiative from the insurgents, even in kandahar province. we turned up the pressure on al qaeda and affiliates in the border regions of afghanistan, significantly degrading, though not yet defeating their plan to conduct operations. one contributor to the positive momentum is the afghan local police initiative. a village focused security program that is already significantly disrupted insurgent activity, denied insurgent influence in key areas and generated serious concern among the taliban leadship. at the same time, we have ramped up civilian efforts to improve afghan governance and development. thanks to the civilian surge, there are more than 1100 civilian experts from nine different u.s. agencies helping to build afghan governance and economic capacity, work that is

absolutely vital to the ultimate success of our overall mission in afghanistan. nevertheless, the significant gains we have made in the last year are still reversible. there is tough fighting ahead, and major challenges remain. most notably, we must continue our efforts with pakistan to eliminate terrorist and insurgent safe havens. we seek to build an effective partnership that advances both u.s. and pakistani interests, including the denial of safe haven to all violent extremist organizations. to do so, we must demonstrate to our pakistani partners that we will remain a strong supporter of the security and prosperity, both now and in the years to come, even as we ask them to do even more to defeat terrorism. in addition, we must work with the afghan government to tackle corruption, especially predatory corruption that erodes public trust and fuels the insurgency,

and we must help create conditions necessary to enable political settlement among the afghan people. this includes reconciling those insurgents that are willing to renounce al qaeda, forsake violence an ad here to the afghan constitution. this july, we will begin a responsible conditions based draw down of our surge forces in afghanistan. we will also begin the process of transitioning provinces to afghan leads for security. and by the end of 2014, we expect that after gans will be in the lead for security nationwide. this transition is a process, not an event. the process will unfold village by village, district by district, province by province. the determination of when the transition will occur and where it will occur is going to be based on bottom of assessments of local conditions. this process is beginning now, and we expect president karzai to announce the first round of

districts and provinces for transition on march 21st. as this transition process gets under way, and as afghan national security force capabilities continue to develop, we are and our isaf partners will send out forces as conditions allow, and gradually shift to more and more of a mentoring role with ansf. some of the forces moved out of a given area will be reinvested in other geographic aas, or in the training efforts in order to further advance the transition process. the objective here is to ensure that the transition is irreversible. we have no intention of declaring premature transitions only to have to come back and finish the job later. we would much rather stick to a gradual approach, making sure that an area is truly ready for transition before sending out the isaf forces there. this is the surest path to lasting success. but let me be clear, the

transition that will take place between now and december, 2014, in no way signals our abandonment of afghanistan. president obama and president karzai have agreed that the united states and afghanistan will have an enduring partnership beyond 2014, and we are currently working wh them on the details of that partnership. finally, i would like to acknowledge the very real costs of this war. many of y have expressed concern about these costs, espeally in light of our battle field casualties and our fiscal pressures here a home. but the afghan, pakistan border lands have served as a crews bell for the most catastrophic terrorist actions of the past decades. the outcome we seek is the defeat of al qaeda and denial of the region as a sanctuary for terrorists. this objective is the reason why our brave men and women in

service have sacrificed so very much. we are determined to bring this war to successful conclusion, for the sake of our own security, but also for the sake of the security of the people of afghanistan, pakistan and the region who have suffered so much, and have so much to gain from a secure and lasting peace. members of this committee, i want to thank you for providing us with this opportunity today. i also look forwardo your continued and invaluable support for the policies and programs that are critical to our success in afghanistan and in pakistan. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, secretary flournoy. general petraeus. >> mr. chairman, senator mccain, it is a privilege to be here with undersecretary flournoy to report on the situation in afghanistan. before i proceed, however, i would like to offer my sincere con doleances to the people of japan, as they work to recover from one of the worst natural

disasters in their history. for many years now, japan has been a stall wart partner in afghanistan, an important contributor to the mission there. now our tughts and our prayers are with our long-time allies and with all those in japan effected by the earthquake and tsunami. >> i can say i believe every person on the committee and every american as well. thank you for doing that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> as a bottom line up front, it is isaf's assessment that the momentum achieved by the taliban since 2005 has been arrested inch of the country and reversed in a number of important areas. however, while the security progress achieved over the past year is sigficant, it is also tragedy i will and reversible. moreover, it is clear that much difficult work lies ahead with our afghan partners to solidify

and pand our gains in the face of the expected taliban spring offensive. nonetheless, the hard fought achievements in 2010 and early 2011 have enabled the joint afghan nato transition board to recoend initiation thispring of transition to afghan lead in several provinces. the achievements of the past year are also very important as i prepare to provide options and a recommendation to president obama for commencement of the draw down of the u.s. surge forces in july. of note as well, the progress achieved has put us on the right as smith to accomplish the objective agreed upon atlas summer's list bin summit. the achievements of 2010 and early 2011 have been enabled by a determined effort to get the

inputs right in afghanistan. with strong support of the united states and the 47 other troop-contributing countries isaf has focused enormous attention and resources in the past two years on building the organization's needed to conduct a comprehensive, civil military counter insurgency campaign. on developing in close coordination with afghan partners the recognize wis it concepts and plans and developing the forces and funding needed. indeed, more than 87,000 additional nato isaf troopers and 1,000 additional civilians have been added to the effort in afghanistan since the beginning of 2009. in afghanistan, security forces have grown by over 122,000 in that time as well. getting the inputs right has enabled our foces, together with afghan forces, to conduct

the comprehensive campaign necessary to achieve our goals in ghanistan. our core objective is, of course, ensuring that afghanistan does not once again beme a sanctuary for al qaeda. achieving that objective requires that we help afghanistan develop sufficient capabilities to secure and govern itself. and that effort requires execution of the comprehensive civil, military effort on which we are now embarked. over the past year in particular, isaf elements together with international partners have increased all the activities of our come prehence i have campaign substantially. we have, for example, stepped up the temple of precise, intelligence driven operations to capture or kill insurgent leaders. in a tpical 90 day period, precision operations by special units and afghan partners alone

kill or capture some 360 targeted insurgent leaders. moreover, they are coordinated with the senior afghan ministries, and virtually all include highly trained afghan soldiers or police with some afghan elements now in the lead on these operations. we have also expanded considerably joint isaf afghan operations to clea the taliban from important long held safe havens, and then to hold and build in them. isaf and afghan troopers have, for example, cleared such critical areas as the distric west of kandaha city that were the birthplace of the taliban vement, as well as important districts of helmand province, areas of the security bubble and locations in the north where the taliban increased presence in recent years. one result of such operations

has been a four-fold increase in recent months in the number of weapons and explosive cashes turned in and found. another the gradual development of local governance in local revival of the growing security bubbles. marge a, one time hub of the drug industry held election for community council march 1st, during which 75% of registered voters cast a ballot. and as a result of improvements in the security situation there, markets that once sold weapons, explosives, illegal narcotics, feature over 1500 shops selling food, clothes,nd household goods. we have positioned more fces as well to in ter dikt the flow of fighters and explosives from surgent places in pakistan, and we will do further work with afghan partners to establish as much of a defense in depth as is

possible to disrupt in filtration of taliban and hakani members. meanwhile, we are coordinating more closely than ever with the pakistani army to conduct isaf operations that will provide the anvil on the afghan side of the line in which pakistani taliban elements can be driven in the border areas. with your support, we have also devoted substantial additional resources to development of afghan security forces. this effort is, of course, another very important component of our comprehensive approach. it is arguably the most critical element in our effort to help afghan develop the capability to secure itself. we have seen significant progress in this arena in the past year, and we have had to contend with innumerable challenges. our afghan partners are the first to note that the qualit of some elements is still

uneven. the training mission is, in fact, a hugeundertaking, and there is nothing easy about it. however, the past year alone has seen afghan forces grow by over one-third, adding some 70,000 soldiers and police. notably, tse forces have grown in quality, not just in quantity. investments in leader development, literacy, marks manship and institutions have yielded significant dividends. in the hard fighting west of kandahar in late 2010, afghan forces comprised some 60% of the overall forc and they fought with skill and courage. president karzai's afghan local police initiative has been also important to the overall campaign. it is in essence a community watch with ak-47s, under the local district chief of police, with nominees represented by a

council, vented by in tell service and trained by and partners with afghan police and u.s. special forces elements. the initiative does more than just allow the arming of local forces and conduct of limited defensive missions. through the y each unit is established, this program mobilizes communities in self defense against those who would undermine security in their areas. for that reason, the growth of these elements is of particular concern to the taliban, whose ability to intimidate the population is lited considerably by it. there are currently 70 districts identified for alp elements with each district's authorization averaging some 300 alp members. 27 of the district alp elements have been validated for full operations, while the other 43 are in various stages of being established. this program has emerged as so important that i have put a coentional u.s. infantry

battalion under operational controof our special operations command in afghanistan to augment our special forces and increase our ability to support the program's expansion. we have increased as well our efforts to enable the afghan government's work, and that of international community civilis to improve governance, economic development and prision of basic services. these are essential elements of the effort to shift delivery of basic services from provincial reconstruction teams and international organizations to afghan governmental elements, thereby addressing president karzai's understandable concerns about parallel institutions, and we have provided assistance for new afghan government-led initiatives and reintegration, supporting recently established afghan high peace council and provincial peace and reintegration councils. we recognize that we and our afghan partners cannot just kill or capture our way out of the

insurgency i afghanistan. in fa, some 700 former taliban have now officially reintegrated with afghan authorities in recent months, and some 2,000 more are in various stages of reintegration process. all of these efforts are part of our economy hence i've proech, and we worked hard to coordinate with international organizations and diplomatic missions in afghanistan as well as with our afghan partners. we have also sought to ensure that we minimize loss of innocent civilian life in the course of our operations, even as we also ensure protection of our forces in our afghan partners. of note, a recently released un study observed civilian

casualties decreased by over 20% in 2010, even as our total forces increased by over 100,000, and significant offensive operations were launched. our progress in this area notwithsnding, however, in view of several tragic incidents in recent weeks, i ordered review of our tactical direct i have on use of force by all levels of chain of comman and with air crews of attack helicopters. i also reemphasized instructions on reducing damage to infrastructure and property to an absolute minimum. counter insurgents cannot succeed if they harm the people they are striving to protect. as i noted at the outset, the joint nato afghan inched oh call or transition board represented to karzai's commencement of transition in select provinces in the next few months. president karzai will announce

these locations in a speech next week. in keeping with the principles adopted by the north atlantic council to guide transition, the shifting of responsibility from isaf to afghan forces will be conducted as a pace determined by conditions on the ground, with assessments provid from the bottom up so that those at operational command level in afghanistan can plan the resulting battlefield geometry adjustments with our afghan partners. according to nato principles, we will see the forces thinning out, not just handing off, with reinvestment of some of the forces freed up by transition in contiguous areas or in training missions where more work is needed. similar processes are also taking place as we commence transition of certain training and institutional functions from isaf trainers to their afghan counterparts. as we embark on the process of transition, we should keep in

mind the imperative of ensuring the transition actions we take will be irreversible. as ambassadors of several isaf countries emphasized at one recent nato meeting, we'll get one shot at transition, and we need to get it right as a number of isaf national leaders have noted in recent months, especially since lisben, we need to focus not just on the year ahead, but increasingly on the goal agreed at lisben of having afghan forces in the lead in afghanistan by end of 2014. indeed, we need to ensure we take a sufficiently long view to ensure our actions in the months ahead enable long-term achievement in the years ahead. we have refined our campaign plan to do just that. and we are also now beginning to look beyond 2014 as undersecretary flournoy noted,

as the united states in afghanistan and nato discuss strategic partnerships. all of this is enormously reassuring to our afghan partners and of considerable concern to the taliban. with respect to the taliban, appreciation that there will be an enduring commitment of some form by the international community to afghanistan is important to the insurgents's recognition that reconciliation, rather than continued fighting, should be their goal. before concluding, there are four addional issues i would like to highlight to the committee. first, i am concerned that levels of funding for our state department and usaid partners will not sufficiently enable them to build on the hard-fought security achievements of our men and women in uniform. inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission. i offer that assessment, noting

that we have just completed a joint civil military campaign plan between u.s. forces in afghanistan and the u.s. embassy in kabul, which emphasizes the critical integration of civilian and mitary efforts in endeavorsuch as that in afghanistan. second, i want to express my deep appreciation for your support of vital capabilities for our troopers. the funding you have provided has, for example, enabled the rapid deployment of a substantial increase in the intelligence, srveillance and reconnaissance assets supporting our forces. to take one example, we have increased the number of varus types of persistent surveillance systems, towers with optics, from 114 this past august to 184 at the prest, with plans for continued increases throughout this year. your support has also enabled rapid procurement and deployment

of the all terrain vehicle version of the mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles, with 6700 fielded since i took command some eight and a half months ago. and your support has continued to provide our commanders with another critical element of our strategy, the commander's emergency response program funding that has once again proven absolutely invaluable as a way of capitalizing rapidly on hard-won gains on the ground. indeed, funding the establishment of the afghan infrastructure fd and the specific authorization for the reintegration program have been instrumental in enabling key components of our overall effort. third, i should at this point also highlight critical work of the world bank and the asian development bank. these institutions are the largest donors to afghanistan after the united states, and they have been critical to the

success of important projects such as the ring road and use beck afghan railroad. we need these institutions and further u.s. support for them will ensure they are able to continue to contribute as significantly as they have in the past. fourth, i want to thank you for substantial funding for the development of the afghan national security forces. the continued growth of afghan forces in quantity, quality and capability is needless to say essential to the process of transition of security tasks from isaf forces to afghan forces, and the resours you have provided for this component of our effort have been the critical enabler of it. in closing, the past eight months have seemed important, but hard fought progress in afghanistan. key insurgent safe havens have been taken from the taliban. numerous insurgent leaders

killed or captured, and hundreds of reconcilable mid level leaders and fighters have been reintegrated into afghan society. meanwhile, afghan forces have grown in number and capability. local security solutions have been instituted and security improvements in key areas like kabul, kandahar, helmand provinces enabled progress in the areas of governance and development. none of this has been easy. the progress achieved has entaed hard fighting and considerable sacrifice. there have been tough losses along the way, and there have been set backs as well as successes. indeed, the experience has been akin to that of a roller coaster ride. the trajectory hasenerally been upwards since last summer, but there certainly have been significant bumps and difficult reverses at various points.

nonetheless, although the insurgents are already striving to regain lost momentum and lost safe havens as we enter the spring fighting season, we believe that we will be able to build on the momentum achieved in 2010, though that clearly will entail additional tough fighting. as many of you have noted in the past, our objectives in afghanistan and in the region are of vital importance, and we must do all we can to achieve those objectives. those of us on the ground believe that the strategy on which we are now embarked ovides the best approach for doing just that, noting as dialogue with president karzai has reminded us at various junctures that we must constantly refine our activits in response to changes in the circumstances on the ground. needless to say, we will continue to make such adjustments in close consultation with afghan and international counterparts as the situation evolves.

finally, i want to thank each of you for your continued support for our country's men and women in afghanistan and their families. as i have noted to you before, nothing means more to them than knowing that what they are doing is important and knowing that their sacrifices are appreciated by their leaders and their fellow citizens back home. each of you has sought to convey that sense to them and we are very gratel to you for doing so. thank you very much. >> tnk you very much, general, thank you both for your testimony please leave if you're going to make any comments in public like that. just please leave. general, let me start by asking you about the july, 2011 date

which you have made reference to in your statement as a date about which you recommend to president obama commencement of the draw down of some of our forces. have you decided on the level of reductions that you're going to be recommending yet? >> i have not, mr. chairman. >> do you continue to support the beginning of reductions of u.s. forces from afghanistan in july? >> i do, mr. chairman, and i will provide options to the chain of command and the president to do that. >> and why do you support the beginning of reductions this july? >> if i could come back perhaps to yr opening statement, mr. chairman, i think it is logical to talk both about getting the job done as secretary gates did with his nato counterparts and beginning transition and responsible to use president obama's term