company. the american market ink peanut association received largesse worth over 3.89 million. these aren't small family farmers that i think all of us would like to support. in this day and age it is embarrassing to be giving away taxpayer you money in one year to a private, for-profit company when i think we should be doing is concentrating on the support for america's farmers and ranchers. we have the opportunity with this amendment to take a step in this direction. i would strongly urge that my colleagues join with me in adopting this amendment establishing a $125,000 overall limit -- excuse me -- and be

able to start saving billions of dollars and sing national a that we are serious about reforming and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would have far reaching and devastating effects for america's farmers. i'm not sure the gentleman is aware of the full extent of this amendment. this amendment throws the noninsured crop disaster program into an arbitrary payment limit scheme. this program, which farmers pay a fee to obtain crop insurance coverage, protects them from catastrophic events like flooding and tornados. if this amendment passes, farmers who have been flooded out are quite literally up a

creek without a paddle. they won't get the coverage they've signed up for, even though they paid in. mr. lucas: this amendment would also effect the permanent disaster program. producers were required to purchase crop insurance to be eligible for that program. this amendment would be a bait and switch. they fulfilled their end of the bargain. but we're pulling the rug out from under them now. there's a time and a place to debate the appropriate level of support for farmers. i welcome that debate as a part of the 2012 farm bill process. which will in effect begin next week. the agriculture committee will be auditing farm programs for effectiveness and efficiency and then will input from across the country on the best way to support our farmers and ranchers while making good use of taxpayer dollars. discussing farm programs in the context of a farm bill will represent honest, transparent policymaking. this amendment prevents that discussion from taking place by altering the terms of the contracts with farmers once

they've already been signed. protecting farmers during catastrophic weather events is the least we can do to maintain a stable food supply in our country. my colleagues in the midwest have seen firsthand the devastation that comes with flooding. my colleagues in the southwest know how droughts can turn healthy farms into desolation. for that reason alone i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. but i also urge you to oppose it because policy changes like this should be conducted within the broader context of all farm bill policy. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i rise to oppose the amendment and strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment, i want to associate

myself with the remarks of chairman lucas and in the 2008 farm bill, we spent a lot of time working through this payment limitation issue, there were a lot of different ideas and a lot of different discussions and it was not easy, we made significant reforms in this payment limitation area and as the chairman indicated, you know, we came to a resolution and people are relying on that. we've got a five-year farm bill and people make decisions not from year to year, they make them on the long-term and it's just not fair to come in and change things, you know, in the middle of the stream. mr. peterson: one of the other things we did is we applied the farm -- the payment limitations to all of the programs and as i understand this amendment, it only applies to the commodity

title. so we're once again going -- again going to create a different set of payment limitations for one part of the farm program compared to another. i don't know exactly what the purpose of this is, because the farm programs are not designed to be a welfare program or to pick winners and losers and decide how big a farm's going to be and all that sort of stuff. the purpose of these farm programs is to support production agriculture so we can feed this country and frankly feed the world. and you read all these stories coming from all over the world that we're worried that we're going to have enough food to feed the increase in population and all that stuff, you know, if you go down this track you're going to go down a policy that's going to make it very difficult for us to feed the world. so this is ideology run amok, you know, some people have problems with the way we've

designed this safety net and i think we can do a better job. but, you know, this is just the wrong thing to do, this is too complicated an issue to settle here on the floor in a few minutes of debate and it's just not fair to the people that have made the long-term decisions and invested a lot of money based on expecting that this farm bill was going to be in this form until september 30 of 2012. so i encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from oregon and with all due respect to the ranking member, i think the effort to limit these subsidies is both fiscally responsible, more in keeping with the kind of market economics that so many of us in this chamber believe are the right way to go and will help the health of the american

people. something that will have a dramatic impact on the rising health care costs in this country. mr. chairman, the amendment would limit the total title 1 payments to farm entities to less than $125,000 a year. it doesn't eliminate them, it simply limits themment under current law, market loan payments, loan deficiency payments and commodity certificates are not capped and entities can receive unlimited title 1 dollars. mr. chairman, four hours ago in this chamber, we debated amendments that would eliminate and gut the w.i.c. program, w.i.c. women, infants and children. this is a program that seeks to provide basic foodstuffs to poor children, to poor families. there were amendments that would eliminate the food for peace program whereby we send food, in those bags we've all seen, a gift from the people of the united states of america, to people who are starving around this planet, a gift from the

people of the united states of america, at a moment when we can use friends. and we said, we're going to gut them. we're going to reduce them. why would you do that? you would only do that if you face the kind of budget constraints that we face today. a brutal necessity to find savings. here we have nearly $1 billion, an opportunity to save nearly $1 billion in subsidies to large producers. mr. himes: these are not small farmers, as my colleague from oregon said, the top 10% of subsidy recipients receive almost 3/4 of these funds. this is not the small farmer, these are big con demrom rats. these -- conglomerates. these subsidies are bailouts. we hear a lot about bailouts in this chame before he and nobody thinks bailouts are a good thing. these are slow motion year in and year out bailouts of an industry. many of my colleagues support both the goals of fiscal

responsibility and the idea that markets are efficient. here not only are we taking taxpayer dollars and sending them to a slow motion perpetual bailout, but we're doing it in such a way that creates cheap corn sugars and other things that go into the fast food that create -- that exacerbate the obesity problem in this country. this is a bad idea. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment for both fiscal health and sheer market grounds. and with that i'd like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate your kind words and your thoughtful analysis. the approach that we are taking here is to put an overall limit of $125,000 in addition to what we're talking about. this would have only affected about 6,500 entities in 2009. it's an appropriate step forward.

i hear some of my colleagues concerned about changing the rules for a few thousand people who are getting huge amounts of subsidies. you know, this bill will change the rules for tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers who would otherwise get environmental protections, payments for environmental programs. in fact, some of the existing contracts would be be a rogatted -- abrogated. there's going to be lots of changes going on. i hope that we start now beginning the process of agriculture reform and making clear that we want to start by putting some overall limitation during a time of record high farm prices, there's never a good time to do it, i think the time to do it is now, i look forward to a spirited debate on farm bill reform, i hope at some

point we're able to actually do some meaningful reform, as acknowledged by even the propobets from the committee, that we've -- proponents from the committee, that we've got lots of problems with the existing bill, we could do a better job, it's complicated. well, this isn't complicated. this is straightforward and direct and i urge an aye vote in support of the amendment and i yield back the time to my colleague who allowed me to speak. mr. himes: thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, once again we've come to a point where i need to defend the work of the ag committee, the authorizing committee, the one who knows, the committee who knows the most about this process. mr. conaway: the $125,000 limit is arbitrary, has no clue what it might have an impact on the farmers and ranchers in the districts that i represent.

it's a drive-by shooting of a foreign policy that frankly make noes sense whatsoever, if you're really going to seriously protect the production of agriculture in this country. on the one hand we hear our colleagues on the other side rant about imported foods and they want to then turn around and make sure that the american farmer and producer does not have the safety net that we promised them in 2008. now, i understand my colleagues don't like that safety net. they had ample opportunity when they were in the majority in 2008 to affect the farm bill. if they don't like the process they need to take that up with speaker pelosi and them. the process going forward that i anticipate happening next year is that we will begin as the chairman has said to audit these farm bill programs over the next several months, we will then craft a new farm bill that will be introduced in the committee, debated through subcommittees, then the full committee and the then we'll bring it to the floor and it will be exposed to all of these arguments in an

appropriate man that are should take place. not in the appropriations process. i know my colleagues from the other side of the aisle did not vote for the budget that we passed here in april, that budget clearly said the appropriations process in 2012 would not be used to affect the farm bill, that the farm bill would be written by the ag committee, the authorizing committee in 2012. my colleagues' arguments are unpersuasive and i do believe this is an ill-advised amendment to go at a safety net that by every description is complicated, is difficult to understand, but it has worked to protect production of agriculture from the risks that they take year in and year out to provide the safest, most abundant and cheapest food and fiber source that any developed country in the world. i urge my colleagues to vote against the blumenauer amendment, it's wrong policy, wrong time and the wrong place. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> again, i think that this is an amendment that is ill-conceived. i think it will do great harm and i think that it's not timely. i agree with the gentleman that the authorizing committee has great expertise and we have taken a lot of time to vet this program. mr. bishop: and i think that for us to come tonight and do it is very ill-advised. 19 years ago when i came to this body, i was on the authorizing committee, on the agriculture committee. and the chairman of the committee at that time was a gentleman by the name of delagarza. he was fond of telling us that -- one of his life experiences and that was his submarine story. he said that all of his life, from the time he was a little boy, even though he grew up in the rural areas in texas, on the farm, that he wanted to ride in the submarine. he always was just enamored with

submarines. finally after he came to congress and after he became a chairman of a committee, he had the opportunity to go out on one of our nuclear submarines and of course as the guest he was allowed to take the wheel and to sub merge -- submerge the submarine, to get it up, to play with the parascope and he was just really, really amazed at how impressive that nuclear submarine was. . it was an slept machine and he said how long would you guess? and he said he thought for a while and he said, well, maybe a

year and the captain chuckled and said, mr. chairman, we can stay under water for as long as we have food for the crews. we, in this country, will be able to defend ourselves and have a strong country as long as we have food. and right now, we are headed to getting import d food for the majority of our people. if we continue with the route we are going, if we impose these limbtations and limit the ability of our farmers to compete on a level playing field with our global competitors, all of our food will be coming from south america, china. we cannot stay strong and we cannot be healthy and get safe food if we don't allow our farmers to have the capacity to

earn a living and to produce the higher quality anywhere in the strilized world. we have to defeat this amendments and we have to study the way to reform these programs and to get cost effectiveness. but this bill is not the place to do it. but we have to take the farm bill in 2012 with the authorizing committee and all others having the opportunity to take our time and to thoughtfully craft a new foreign policy. with that, i urge the dweast of my -- defeat this amendment. >> i rise in support of my colleague's amendment.

this isn't a new concept. a new discussion on title i. the time to start doing this is now. we can pretend there aren't policies changes being made, with you -- but there are. there is a letter expressing their concern about the land and water conservation programs and the impact. are the ability of stewards. huge demands foror programs which will be dramatically affected. the huge funding impacts, women and infant children programs. they are going to feel the

affects of the affects we are making. than for my colleagues to claim we can't mess with title 1 program funding and wait for the next farm bill. i ask my colleagues, mohair subsidies is that the best? i would submit, the reason it was picked on, it wasn't an argued politically connected entity so it was ease which easy to go after them. they do distort the marketplace and trade policy and as i highlighted earlier this evening. and long past time to make these revisions in in light of the huge deficits. when 80% get nothing under title

1 subsidies, not a dime, that leaves a small group of entities that are receiving the bulk. they are the big five grain-producing, and they are the ones who are receiving the bulk and upped the farm bill, there are multiple programs they can be eligible for. the new program, many of us were arguing in the last farm bill whether it was necessary to go forward with direct payments that bear no relationship to current market prices and today we are facing world's record commodity prices and not only do we continue them but we increase the direct payments and allowing direct payments and none of that

is being discussed in this bill. so my original, i'm not sure 125 is the right level, but the concept is not new but a step in the right decks and trying to bring sanity which we shouldn't be delaying to the next farm bill. we know it's tough to get it through let alone a presidential year, it could be years from now with any potential change. so i commend my colleague for offering this amendment and continuing the discussion and urge my colleague to support it and i'm sure the senate will have ideas on things they recommend but this is appropriate and not new. and to claim we shouldn't touch title i and aadvice rating the farm bill in what we are doing is disingeneral youous.

mr. blumenauer: my friend from georgia talked about importing food from overseas. well, you know, the food that people in my state raise and i met with a blump of them last week again, the fruit and vegetables, they get zip. we are cutting back on the research funding for them. we are cutting back on marketing and helping nem comply with the environmental requirements because they are good stewards for the land and harding for them to do the work of producing food for america and lavish subsidies. we are 90%. if you care about protecting the food supply we redirect it and

save $650 million and put it where it will do more good. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: sfrike the number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lummis: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota. meertpeert i wanted to -- mr. peterson: it was discussed what we are trying to do what we are trying to do is the top 20 recipients and i got a copy of it, four of the top 0 resipens are those that did work. the one is 4.8 you million and work that was done on w.r.p.

contracts. six of the top 20 are title firms that did work on conservation w.r.p. crarkts that are not affected. that's a problem. you have all these statistics around and claiming that these big guys are getting all this money, but these aren't farmers, but law firms. maybe we should have limitations on law firms, that might be a good thing and maybe we should let let these guys spread it around a little bit and make it fair. i yield back. mrs. lummis: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise.

the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: i just -- this discussion just bugs me. i represent more productive agriculture in my district than anyone in this room, $4 billion in one county and i represent a bunch of counties and what we grow is specialty crops. and we are talking about earlier, 58% of all the lettuce. we grow 58% of wine gapes and leading counties in scraw berry -- strawberry production. and our motto is we are the salad bowl capital of the world, sellery and lettuce and they don't get a dime of support. if they have the market false,

they eat it. disaster comes in, they eat it. so the reason these amendments are brought up by mr. kind, and mr. blumenauer is frankly, you know what, the farm bill doesn't address this issue. it really doesn't. it's too tough. too many vested interests in this town. but you have a whole bunch of agriculture out there and it is in commodity supports. and that'sal the stuff you eat all the time. and you can't have a bunch of people who are on welfare and a bunch of people who are consuming all the rifpks and what surprises me the other side of the seal trying to solve problems, this isn't a market

approach, this is a subsidy and taxpayer subsidy and going to wealthy people. and so, i'm rising, thrks this amendment i'm hoping gets defeated and i beg with the leaders and ive great respect for the leader. he is a c.p.a. and knows these things. and i just i think the handwriting is on the wall if the conservatives would take this on as an issue that america has to address, with may get progress. if you don't, you are abandonning what is needed in america and that apple, that peer, that banana, that strawberry, the list goes on,

the fruits and vegetables, they don't get any of these payments. let's not have a bifurcated where maff of it depends on taxpayer payments and the other half on market forces. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the agreement is nod agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 8, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 11.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill, insert the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the department of agriculture to make payments upped section 2 1 of the claims resolution kt 201 relating to the final settle thement of claims from and black farmers or section 14012 by the food conservation and energy act, public law. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: this amendment eminates from claims that were filed subsequent to a press

conference held by dan glickman in 1985 who said the ud smp da. they were 3,000 black farmers who filed claims. the 3,000 estimate bake 22,and accord idge to the census, 18,000 black farmers. according to the testimony before the judiciary committee, 18,000 black farmers. 18 black farmers became 22,551 claims. that was pigford one. they settled all of the claims that were there. others didn't get filed. but it always was a number greater than the actual number

of black farmers and can't have more black farmers than they actually are. and this congress didn't act on it between the house and the senate until late last fall. president obama introduced legislation as a junior senior from illinois in 1989 and 2007 and was instrumental in pushing this through that appropriated $1 moin 15 billion. we have no not -- we still have 94,000 claims and report after report of fraudulent claims and marketing this as perpetration of a fraud across this country and my amendment shuts off the funding to administer or to fund the balance of these funds that

this congress must investigate. and the largest republic sip yet was the largest claim, $14 million for her claim. vilsack hired her and later he hired her and then she sued. all of these things are information that we need to find out. this congress cannot be paying out another 1.1.5 billion, going after bad claims. and we have reports and videotape, one is a class council who is on videotape and says he has 3,000 clients who has filed claims. a class council who is included in this second agreement by which the way the court has not finally approved.

mr. chairman, this shuts off the funding to pay off these claims and administer these claims and gives this congress an opportunity to look in to what has been done to the taxpayer. i urge adoption of my amendment and it has been in the news over the last year or so and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the dets -- desk. the chair: another amendment is pending. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: the opportunities for members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. and i respect my colleague from

iowa for his right to offer an amendment. but it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from iowa who serves with me on the judiciary committee would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers, native american farmers and others impacted have experienced over several decades. to raise the name of cheryly sherrod whose eloquent story -- shirley sherrod whose eloquent story and painful story of the loss of her father in the segregated south, who was murdered and the family had to survive after his tragic murder because of his color, to my knowledge a farmer, a man of the earth, i sit on the judiciary committee for a number of years and this legislation preceded through the judiciary committee.

i joined the gentleman in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. i want to stand alongside of a transparent system but this was a lawsuit. many of the litigants died before they even got to the settlement. this is the american way. a battle in the courts, a settlement. had it not been for the goodwill of members of this body on both sides of the aisle, members of the congressional black caucus who joined with members of the democratic caucus, republicans, past presidents who were concerned and interested in the devastation, tragedy of the segregated south and a

segregated department who treated black farmers in a different way from others. individuals who went bankrupt, who lost farms because they could not get the same access to agricultural loans that others could. and in the wisdom of the court system and the wisdom of this body and the wisdom of a settlement, relief was brought, not before many had died and their heirs trembling, limited, scattered, few were able to come together and to receive the funding. i'm sorry mr. king was not at the signing of that final settlement and to see those historic families, patriots who expressed nothing but love for this country, what a tragedy to come and interfere with an existing settlement.

i don't even know how he can put this amendment up on the floor. it's late, we're losing our voices here, but i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the agricultural department and the surrounding entities that are dealing with the distribution of these funds be transparent and without fraud. but it would be absurd for any member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. and farming is part of the american fabric and if there's any body of people who understands farms, it is the

ex-slaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the south. i ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment and i rise respectfully to oppose it. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postpone -- postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of agriculture, the food and drug administration, the commodity futures trading commission or any other federal agency receiving funds under this act to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles or any executive fleet or for any agency's fleet inventory accept in accordance with presidential memorandum. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. on may 24, president obama issued a memorandum of -- on federal fleet performance which requires that all new light duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel by december 31, 2015. my amendment simply echoes the presidential memorandum by

prohibiting funds in the agriculture appropriations bill from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, accept in accord with the president's memorandum. two weeks ago i introduced a similar amendment to the department of homeland security appropriations bill that was accepted by both parties and passed by voice vote unanimously. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we sent $600 per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing costs but america doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil for transportation fuel. ality alternative technologies exist today that would implement broadly would allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government operates the largest fleet of light duty vehicles in america. according to g.s.a. there were over 660,000 vehicles in the federal fleet with almost 38,000 belonging to the department of agriculture. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our

federal fleet will encourage development of domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste, hydrogen and renewable electricity. expanding the role of these energy sources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government control, oil companies and will increase our nation's domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world's oil markets. so i ask that we all support my amendment, the chairman -- the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, and i co-chaired the oil and national security caucus. and we do it because we believe that america cannot be totally free unless we're energy independent and while we still have to rely on hostile foreign nations to get our fuel and to get our fuel supplies. so on a similar note, i've worked with my colleagues, mr. shimkus, mr. bartlett and mr. israel and for many years with

mr. kingston to introduce the bipartisan open fuel standard, h.r. 1687, it's similar to what i'm doing now. i just wanted to briefly mention that our bill, not this amendment, but our bill would require 50% of new automobiles in 2014, 80% in 2016 and 95% in 2017 to be warranted to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels. it would cost $100 or less per car to manufacture cars that would be flex fuel cars. compliance possibilities include the full array of existing technologies including flex fuel, national -- natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric drive. so i encourage my colleagues to support the engel amendment and the open fuel standard as we work toward breaking our dependence on foreign oil. i thank our chairman kingston for his courtesies and i urge

bipartisan support of my amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee informs me that he will accept the amendment and call for a voice vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for ru-486 for any

purpose. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that comes -- it's really -- there's an iowa focus on this that affects the whole country. but we have had a practice that began experimentally in iowa by planned parenthood of issuing telemed abortions by distributing ru-486, the abortion bill, what's also known as methoprestone. setting up a television monitor and circumventing the requirement in iowa that they be seen by a doctor, a doctor says remotely on the other side of the skype screen, so to speak, and interviews the potential mother who, if once she answers the questions that the doctor asks and they record it under film that they've protected themselves perhaps from liability, he collects the mouse on the one end and it opens the draw underneath the screen and

out rolls the abortion pill, ru-486. i am very concerned about the robo distribution of abortion pills in iowa or anywhere else. some of us signed a letter, 70 of us, to kathleen sebelius and asked if they had distributed grants to telemedicine to any of the abortion providers including planned parenthood. their response came back in the affirmative that they had issued several grants to planned this amendment does, it provides that none of the funds made available in this $15 million line item in this appropriations bill shall be used for the purpose of purchasing, prescribing, or otherwise

administering. so i would just urge the boyd to pay attention to what this means to the country and no one in america should be compelled to pay for abortions. if they are doing that, skype abortions are aborrow ant and are irresponsible and deaths have come, 612 hopizations, this is a dangerous drug to distribute it, i'm opposed to it for a lot of reasons but practical minds that might disagree should understand that this government should not be paying for it. and the line item should not be used to provide for these abortions. i would yield to the aborgs.

mr. farr: does the bill have anything to do what you are talking about? mr. king: there is a line item in the bill that provides $15 million and to go grants for telemedicine. mr. farr: that's not in the amendment. mr. king: it says none of of the fuvends may be used for r.u.-46 may be used for any purpose. and i addressed this language to the broader bill. and because there are funds available, that's why i'm concerned this application that i'm used has gone according to sebelius goon toe these grants. thn it wouldn't have an effect. mr. chairman, i i urge the

adoption of my amendment. mr. farr: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition. because fall of all, telemedicine is not legal or wise and what the gentleman is going to talk about is illegal drug in the united states. it has been a legitimate drug in the united states after it met all the f.d.a. process in 1996 and has been available since 2000 in this country and i remember ghates this committee about the condition. it is available in a all 50 states, in washington, d.c.,, in guam and puerto rico. it is a prescription drug which is not available to the public

through pharmacies but it is to licensed qualified physicians. a woman must go to a doctor's office. whatever controversy that surrounded ru-6 was settled yoors ago a and this is to stir up the controversy over the reproductive rights of women. and i would urge us all to oppose this amendment. and doesn't have anything to do with uuda funds. the chair: the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the proceedings offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: i offer an amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke. mr. clarke: i move to diss pence with the reading. lume lime i object. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section,

public b, public law, under the heading for assistance for affling, $77 million shall be merged with funds under the heading agricultural marketing services. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition. mrs. lummis: i reserving a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved. the gentleman from is recognized for five minutes. ms. clarke: i ask unanimous consent to re-- mr. clarke: i ask unanimous consent to reserve and we can provide nutrition foods and pressure fruits and vegetables to those who liven around this

country that the gentlelady from mislee described as food deserts. this government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to build agricultural businesses to help support farmers to help to start new businesses to address new desert issues. that money isn't spent here, but spent in the afghanistan desert. as a matter of fact, this government spent over $700 million in agricultural aid in afghanistan. what i propose is to redirect 1% of that msh of money that's going to afghanistan right now, send it back to the united states so people here can eat

nutritional food and have access. i would like to say one thing, the argument on why we are spending that kind of money to support farm iris in afghanistan is because we don't want farmers to sell opium to fund a safe haven for frirts. we understand there are people around the world that want to attack this country like they did many years ago. but because bin laden is now dead, it's time to reacease our mission in afghanistan. we don't have to spend $100 billion in afghanistan. we have to help the american people. if we took 1%, we would be able to nund the program proposed by the gentlewoman from texas. i've got young folks in the city of detroit right now that would

likely not reort to selling drugs. we need that money going to afghanistan and we need it here in the united states so we can help our farmers here and support farmers' l' markets and provided nutritional foods. and that's why i wanted to raise this point. i understand the rules of this house may not allow me tonight to redirect that money from afghanistan back here to this budget. we could use a share of that money to help retire our deficit and debt at the same time. i would like to work with you on that. but you know what we should do? we should change the rules of the house, to reduce the

overspng and create jobs and create health care costs and help the american people during this economic recision. i would would like to work with you and change the rules of the house so we can do this. and i understand at this late date this is not the tame to act. but woy like to pledge an agreement to work with the majority and save the american people money and provide better nutrition and address the food issues, fund the initiatives proposed by ms. jackson lee and help end this economic recession and return us to us to prosperity. with that, i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdraw, without objection. mrs. lummis: i i apologize for

interrupting the gentleman from michigan. the chair: i have for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? cleck the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. gar mr. garrett: this is a protect by ensuring a swaps market. i offer support that would prevent jub unintin -- unintended consequences and finalize data reporting rules before swaff transactions. with this change, they would be able to collect the data it needs to determine the reasonable standards for block trade levels and real-time

reporting requirements without disrupting the marketplace. fine lidsing any data for setting real tame tame frimes prior to having necessary data would be arbitrary and encourage litigation and would have the unintended consenquenses, their ability to protect investors as well as economic growth sm this amendment would require swap data reporting rules to be finalized and be in place before the criteria rules. numerous participants have been sent to us warning of the dangers so get olympic trades. let's give you one of those letters from the american benefits council.

they and their members provide benefits and the committee whose members include more than 100 of the countries' largest pension funds and $1 trillion and give you one quote. we have concerns about the sequencing of proposed real-time reporting rules in relation to swap market relation. they should obtain market information and propped rules based on the data, which necessarily serve the inteppeded purposes. by instituting a commonsense approach, we are giving them the ability to collect that data of the swap transaction to determine the trades, levels they have to set, and to do so in a way that will not impair

the marketing of the marketplace. and i yield back. peertfeert i rise to oppose the amendment. mr. petri: >> mr. peterson: this section deals with public reporting of swap data and what people to understand, they are not the people that are using this market. it's the banks. what this is really about and end easier debate that has been going on, is that the public disclosure of this information will lower the spreads of the wall street banks that do these swaps. that is the bottom line of this

whole deal. and you know, if the market participants knew more, you know like what we do in the trading, the margins are going to come down and the banks are going to shrink. some people said once this is implemented going to reduce the profits of the wall strute banks and don't like it. some would earg that we need more data collection and that is what you are arguing and for some swaps that is the case and we would agree with that. . they can go forward with this public reporting, we have the information, there's no reason to delay it. you know, in other cases where we don't have the information, it probably is appropriate to delay it. but the cftc has the discretion

to do this and it's right in the law. it's on page 328 of the conference report and if we put him there the criteria to allow them to move ahead with the swaps where we have the data and to delay it where we don't have the data. but what you're trying to do is you're going to delay the whole thing, you know, and all it's going to do is ensure that these profits and these big bonuses that they're paying on wall street can go on longer than they need to. so, you know, i don't know any reason why we need to do this. if you read this, you know, they have all the discretion, all of the problems that people brought up with the block trades and these other things that people were concerned about are in there and the last thing it says, they have to take into account whether the public disclosingure will materially reduce market liquidity.

-- disclosure will materially reduce market liquidity and they're doing that. i believe -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. peterson: fine. i'll yield. mr. garrett: so the gentleman agrees that there is only partial information at this point in time out there. mr. peterson: on some things. mr. garrett: on some things. on other things the gentleman would agree that there's no information out there at all, on certain -- mr. peterson: i wouldn't say there isn't any information. some of these are so thinly traded that you're never going to be able to have realtime reporting. we understand that. and there's not going to be a requirement on those. but there's no reason to stop the realtime reporting on -- where we have the information and where that information will make these prices better for the people that use it. this is the same issue with the end users. they're going to get a better deal if we allow this disclosure. which is why they're fighting --

why they're fighting us is beyond me unless they're in can hoots with the wall street banks. i'm not sure. do people think that the folks on wall street aren't making enough money, is that what this is about? i don't know. mr. garrett: i would appreciate if the gentleman would not make the allegation that we make these application here because anyone is in cahoots with wall street. mr. peterson: you're the people that are against this. they were against it when they did it. and so i just -- i just don't buy that the pension funds are the ones that are concerned about this because the things that they're concerned about are covered in the law. and they're being taken into account by chairman againstler and the people at the cftc as they develop these rules. mr. garrett: if the gentleman would yield. i know i read through it quickly because i was asked to move things quickly at the end of the evening but one of the documents that i read was one of the comment letters, was not from the wall street banks but was from the american benefits

council, those very same pension of benefits companies speaking about this. they are the ones who are raising it. so it is those end users. those are the participants, those people are representing beneficiaries, they are the ones who are asking for this delay. it's not the wall street banks that i'm making reference to here. mr. peterson: they have thousands of -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. peterson: i haven't read them all. mr. garrett: we can supply you -- mr. peterson: i have end users coming into my office -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. peterson: i can't figure it out. all i'm saying is this is an unnecessary amendment. it's in the statute, these things are covered, you know, it makes no sense to delay the entire situation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. peterson: you have maybe a few things that are of concern. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> i want to -- what chairman peterson's talking about is this is an ag bill that's to help agriculture. mr. farr: producers of agriculture. what this amendment does is hurt them. it supports the banks by delaying transparency so it's going to cost the end user more money. the end user is all the customers of what this bill is all about. the gentleman really wants to help the banks, maybe his amendment ought to be in the financial services bill. but this is going to hurt our people. that we in this committee worked for all the time. and i don't think that's a very good amendment. and if mr. peterson would like some more time, i'd be glad to yield him. then i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it. and the amendment -- ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 ever rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much. i hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of emphasizing the importance of urban gardening. my amendment would prohibit any funds, any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the food and nutrition act of 2008.

47 million american families live in poverty that restrict their access to healthy food. the food and nutrition act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country. 17 million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop in a country so full of resources it is unconscionable that millions of children do not have enough to eat. we cannot consider proposals that will contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security such as the food nutrition act of 2008. in my home state of texas where i represent the 18th congressional district, 17.4% of all households struggle with food security. community food project competitive grants are a vital aspect of the food and nutrition act and must be preserved. community food project grants have helped thousands of people in low income communities combat food insecurity by developing community food projects that encourage healthy habits and self-sufficiency. these grants increase the

self-reliance of low income communities that have historically encountered difficulties in providing food. programs funded by community food project grants have been successful in cities and towns and in fact more than 550,000 harris county residents relied on the supplemental nutrition access program to buy food. one of the important aspects of this is the urban garden. the people's guarden school pilot program will run gardens at high poverty schoolsers teaching students about health and nutrition and increasing access to healthy food are invaluable benefits of schools where more than 50% of the student body exemplifies -- qualifies for free or reduced cost lunches. i rise to encourage the support of this particular part of the bill so that we can continue to support urban gardening. and i want to salute veggie pals, a gardening program that does just that. it signs patches of land wherever it might be and it makes sure that we provide

healthy food. this amendment would ensure that nothing in this legislation, nothing in this appropriation would prohibit the growth and continued expansion of this very important concept of urban gardening. there are a number of americans who suffer from poverty and hunger is unacceptable. reducing or redirecting funding to increase food security and nutrition simply is not an option. join me in recognizing the value of urban gardens and thank you to the veggie pals gardening program that has educated house many thousands of children and emphasize the value of good and healthy food. this program, veggie pals, urban gardening, educating people about nutrition, meal preparation, physical activities, cookbooks, olympics and others promotes healthy behavior. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of indiana. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement the departmental regulation of the department of agriculture entitle policy statement on climate change adaptation, departmental regulation 1070-001, june 3, 2011. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr.

chairman. this amendment prevents any taxpayer funds from being used to implement the department of agricultures a's -- new rule and regulation titled policy statement on climate change adaptation. mr. chairman, we've had this debate on cap and trade in the last congress. in fact, there was a bipartisan coalition of members that voted and ultimately defeated the cap and trade proposal by president obama, brought in the last congress. and yet here we now have a new regulation that was just issued by the department of agriculture less than two weeks ago to implement in essence a backdoor attempt to put a cap and trade program in place in the department of agriculture. and if you look at some of the details laid out in this policy statement, this is a regulation that was just i.mented by the department of agriculture -- implemented by the department of agriculture, it gives new powers to the department to go into areas where right now we as a congress have said we don't want the administration to be going. in fact, if you look at what

agencies like the e.p.a. are doing in trying to implement other forms of cap and trade, global warming, carbon emission-type programs, we've been rolling those agencies back, we've been having hearings that have shown how this is not only bad policy but this will kill jobs in america. and so if you look at some of the provisions in this, the policy establishes a usda-wide directive to integrate climate change adaptation planning into usda programs, policies and operations. mr. chairman, it further goes on, it actually gives new powers to the agencies of every single office, every single office shall identify for usda's office of the general council, areas where legal analysis is needed to carry out actions identified under this department regulation. what does that mean? if you just look at what these types of policies and regulations are being used to do at e.p.a., what it does is it gives the authority for usda lawyers to go and issue findings that can then be used against

our farmers. findings that will cost our farmers jobs. increase the price of food. and don't just look at what this policy does, look at what's happening in some of the other agencies where they're already trying to carry this out and congress has been trying to roll them back. so at a time when we're broke, we're spending 42 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed money, this new regulation creates and references all of these new offices. the climate change program office. it says they have to develop a usda climate change adapation that -- adaption plan, it references the usda's global change task force. if you looked after they released this new regulation, they issued $7.4 million to implement a bunch of new grants that are being used to do things like study carbon credits. well, again, that was all brought up in cap and trade and rejected by congress and yet here they come with a de facto backdoor attempt at another cap and trade type of program. we've got to stop this attack on

our job creators. we've got to stop, in this case, the attack that's being proposed on our farmers. they actually are now spending millions of dollars, the usda is, to study how farmers can go grow crops in 2050 based on what they think the climate will be under these new regulations. look, our local weather man can't tell us what the weather's going to be this saturday. within a 50% margin of error. and yet the department's spending millions of dollars to tell us what the climate's going to be in 39 years to determine how our farmers should be growing crops. this is ludicrous, we reject it here in congress, we shouldn't be allowing these kinds of regulations to be implemented and hopefully this amendment will get adopted and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the derk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: clerk amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i want to indicate to my friends on the other side of the aisle, i can't understand why you would open owes an amendment that cost no funds and overemphasizes the important tabs tans of gardening. there is the lack of

collaboration and understanding of amendments that would help all of us. you didn't understand the amendment and rather than ask what the amendment meant, you voted no. but i rise today to emphasize the importance tans of making sure that we implement the judgment that has already been discuss that had helps the unfortunate farmers that experience proven discrimination at the department of agriculture. and to credit members on both sides of the aisle for recognizing it and recognizing the importance of notting fringing upon a judicial decision, that can help a number of farmers in all categories that were acknowledged by many members of this body.

i thank a number of my colleagues who worked on a number of years and worgd on it with sincerity and they recognized it is important for us to continue to produce food, but we need to ensure that all farmers, small farmers and minority have the opportunity to engage in their trade. the agricultural appropriations are made available as necessary through this process and as well, to work with cooperatetives, supporting small, disadvantaged producers. the amendment would make the funds and provided in section 3 10 a priority. again, this particular amendment, requires no money and just indicates we should follow

throw on the provision. however, this funding is violateal to support the farmers who worked tirelessly to make sure other families have food to eat. and it is also important that this this significant group of american farmers not be overlooked or marginalized and we support their continued existence. they have a long history and it is important to do so. at a senior member of the judiciary committee, we enshured in a farmers would not be short changed. this amendment sooks to reinforce that. i would make the point that i would hope that we would have the opportunity to find the necessary collaboration to settle claims of discrimination

from those farmers who have not yet come under the particular recent settlement. the president requested $40 million for the claims. it is unfortunate that those resources were not able to be included. 600 claims will need to be set lt. the estimated funding needed to settle is based on the costs under civil rights cases most notably the paid for lawsuits. this request was of $20 million and not in this bill and does not address this this is not in this bill. i hope we will have the opportunity to understand the issue. the more farmers that has made america great is the better way

to go. i hope my colleagues will sort this amendment. to simply reinforce the importance of creating equal access to resources so we can produce the food. i showed the picture of a health question child and military family. all americans need access to food and extinguish the concept of food insecurity and do that by producing food for america. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be post poped. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the the gentlewoman from offer an amendment? ms. hirono: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: preventative measures for the water shed prevention act, including research, engineering operations, methods of cultivation and rehabilitation of existing structures and changes in use of land, is appropriated in the

amount otherwise provided by this act for agricultural programs, buildings and facilities is reduced by $ million to remain available until expended. ms. hirono: i rise to speak? support of my amendment to restore $3 million for the watershed and flood protection program. funding for this program was eliminated and no funding is provided in this bill. my amendment provides $3 million for this program, 10% of the three $3 million. i'm taking funding to offset the cost of my amendment. under my amendment, the natural resources conserves service would make the determination on where to direct the funds. the watershed and flood control program provides for cooperation between the federal government,

states and localities to present convenient floodwater and sediment damage. this is a vital program to further the development, utilizeation and disposal of water. and watershe improvements under this program are cost shared between the federal government and local governments. that is a good thing. the program is being zeroed out despite the fact that we have an unfunded commitment of $1 billion for 277 cost-shared projects coose 39 states. american samoa. these projects would help to reduce flood damage and 320 communities and improve water

quality in 13 streams. the national reach of this program is across the numbers i have cited. i have a list of the states, the 0 states, 41 states and pacific islands that have been helped by this program including iowa, kansas, missouri, new mexico, oklahoma, tennessee, the list goes on. states a the local governments have worked together with this program and put up their observe funds. i don't think it is fair to leave these local governments to hold the bag. even shutting down projects and can't leave them halfway down. how can we walk away from these projects before realizing the economic and environmental benefits they were designed to

deliver? i urge my colleagues to support this program. it affects 40 states plus pacific islands. i ask unanimous consent to include a list of unfunded commitments to fund these in states. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the the gentlewoman from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment agreement is not agreed to. proceedings offered by the gentlewoman from from hawaii will be post poped. mr. kingston: i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. the committee rise es -- rises. . the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under hrgs h.r. 2112 has reported me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the ki has had under consideration under h.r. 2112 and has no

resolution. mr. kingston: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns that it meet at 9 a.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kingston: mr. speaker. i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to's journ. sthafere. those opposed, no. the m

inside, returning house and senate members with contact information including twitter dresses, district maps, and committee assignments and information on the white house. supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org. >> president obama has requested $553 billion for the defense department in fiscal year 2012. $20 billion more than this

year's budget. robert gates and joint chiefs chairman admiral michael mullen testified about the budget and military operations around the world. senator inouye cheers. this is one hour 40 minutes.

i would like to welcome brigades and admiral mike mullen -- robert gates and admiral mike mullen. it is my privilege to welcome you back to the last testimony before this committee and to

thank you for your many years of admirable and dedicated service to our nation. you entered your positions during the tumultuous period when we were losing ground in iraq and afghanistan, and you agreed to take on two of the most of the cult jobs in the country and your leadership not only -- difficult jobs in the country and leadership maintain the capacity, capability, and public appreciation for the u.s. military. you have served tirelessly and you have served admirably. this committee and this country are thankful to both of you. i understand secretary gates has to leave by 2:30 p.m. today.

we will have time for testimony and questions. i will submit my statement for the record and i will now turn to the vice chairman for opening remarks. >> mr. chairman, it is our pleasure to join you in welcoming these distinguished witnesses to our committee. they have demonstrated through their service, the skill, knowledge, and dedication they have to keeping our country safe and to help protect the security interests of our nation around the world. that is a big job. that is a huge challenge and in my view, they have provided distinguished leadership for which our nation is very grateful. it is a pleasure to welcome you to the committee. >> mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks for the kind words. one correction is 12:30 p.m.

it is in a good cause. i am meeting with the director of omb on the fiscal year 2012 budget. wish me luck. as chairman, -- i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the request for 2012. as noted, my last budget testimony before this or any other congressional committee ever at this time, i mean it. the budget requested for the bertran of defense being presented includes a budget request of $553 billion and in overseas contingency operations at -- request of $27.80 billion. my statement includes more details i would like to take this opportunity to address several issues i know have been the subject of debate and concern in recent weeks and

months. first, the plant's future reductions in the size of the ground forces, secondly proposed reforms and savings to the tricare program for working age retirees and the budget strategy choice is requiring them to meet the savings targets laid out by president obama. nearly 4.5 years ago, one of my first acts as defense secretary was to increase the permanent strength of our ground forces. the army by 65,000 for a total of 547,000 and the marine corps by 27,000 to 202,000. at the time the increase was needed to relieve the severe stress on the force from the iraq war as the surge was getting under way. the support -- to support the leader troops, i authorized a temporary further increase in the army of 22,000, an increase planned to end in fiscal year 2013. the objective was to reduce

stress on the force, limit and end the practice of stop-loss and to increase troops home station will time. this has worked and i will tell you that those stop-losses in the army is over. there are no stop losses. according to our our agreement with the iraqi government, the overall deployment demands are decreasing. that is where we believe that beginning in 2015, the u.s. can with minimal risk began reducing army active duty in strength by 27,000 and in the marine corps between 15,000 and 20,000. this assumes the number will be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the president's en neda's strategy. if our assumptions are incorrect, there is plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change.

these reductions are supported by leadership but i believe no further reductions should be considered without an honest and your assessment of the risks involved to include the missions we may need to share in the future. let me turn to another issue relating to the personal costs. the proposed reforms to the tricare program. as you know, sharply rising health-care costs are consuming an ever larger share of this department's budget. growing from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.50 billion in this request. among other reforms, this budget includes modest increases to try care enrollment fees, leader indexed with the national health expenditures for working age retirees. most of whom are employed while receiving pensions. all six members of the joint chiefs of staff have strongly endorsed these and other cost- saving tricare reforms in a letter to the congress. let me be clear. the current tricare arrangement,

one in which fees have not increased for 15 years, is simply unsustainable. and if allowed to continue, the department of defense risks the fates of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were crippled by personal cost and in particular their retiree benefit packages. the house approved most of our proposed changes in its version of the authorization bill. i strongly urge the senate to endorse our proposals. which brings me to the third and last point. the budget choices ahead. last spring we lost a comprehensive effort to reduce the overhead expenditures. the goal was and is to sustain the u.s. military's size and strength of a long term by reinvesting efficiency savings and force structures and other key combat capabilities. the results of these efforts, frankly, were mixed. nearly $100 billion were found in efficiency savings.

efforts to trim overhead costs outside the military services were not a successful. i believe they're more savings to be found by calling more overhead and better accounting for and better managing the funds and people we have. one thing is clear. the efficiency effort the department has undertaken will not come close to meeting the $400 billion in savings laid out by the president. to realize the projected savings target will require real cuts, giving the escalating costs of some money parts of the defense budget and as a result, a real choices. here i would leave you with the word of caution. we must not repeat the mistakes of the past where budget targets were met mostly by taking a percentage off the top of everything. the simplest and most politically expedient approach in the pentagon and outside of it. that kind of salami slicing

approach preserves overhead and maintains force structure on paper but results in a hollowing out of the force by lack of proper training, maintenance, equipment, and manpower and that is what happened in the 1970's. a disastrous time for the military and to a lesser extent in the late 1990's. that is why i lost a comprehensive review to be completed by the end of this summer to insure that future spending decisions are focused on priorities, strategies, and risks. and are not simply a math and accounting exercise. this process must be about identify options for the president and for you, the congress to ensure that the nation consciously acknowledges and accepts additional risks in exchange for reduced investment in the military. above all, if we are to avoid a hollowing of fact, this process must addressed force structure with the goal to preserve the

u.s. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities even if fiscal pressure requires reductions in that force's size. i have said i would rather have a smaller, superbly capable military than a larger, less capable one. we need to be honest with the president, with you, and the american people and with ourselves about what the consequences are. a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and able to do fewer things. as we embark on this debate about the future size and composition of the american military, it would be well to remember that we still live in a very dangerous and often unstable world. a military must remain strong and agile enough to face the diversified range of threats from nonstick actors attempting to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated missiles to the more traditional threats of other states of building up

their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our traditional strategies. today, i ask for support for a leaner, more efficient pentagon and continued, sustainable, robust investments in our troops and feature capabilities. our troops have done more than their part. now it is time for us in washington to two hours. in conclusion, i want to think this committee for all you have done to support our troops as well as their families. from my earliest days as secretary of defense, i have made a point of reminding officers from midshipmen to governments that under the constitution, we raise armies and provides for the navy and air force. members have been strong supporters of our military and need honesty and candor. i have return for my 12th and

last visit to afghanistan as secretary of defense. the progress we have made their since president obama announced his the strategy has been impressive. the sacrifices our troops are willing to endure to protect this country is nothing short of amazing. all they ask in return is the country support them in their efforts in success. it has been the greatest privilege to lead this great military for the past 4.5 years. every day, i have considered it my responsibility to get our troops everything they need to be successful in their mission and to come home safely. in my visits to the combat theaters, military hospitals, and in bases and posts around the world and at home, i continue to be amazed by their decency to let their resilience, and their courage. through the support of congress and our nation, these young men and women will prevail in the current conflicts and be prepared to confront the threats that they, their children, and their nation will face in the

future. thank you. >> thank you very much. i will call upon the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen. >> thank you. i am honored to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 defense budget. as the secretary laid out, this budget combines with the efficiencies effort -- providing for the well-being of and troops of our families, fully fund current operations in afghanistan and iraq and helps balance the global risk through streamlined organizations, smarter acquisitions, and prudent to modernization. the army will cancel procurement of the launch system. but it will continue production of the joint life tactical vehicle and spearheaded the development of a family of armored vehicles. the navy will give up its second fleet headquarters, reduce its

manpower shortage, and increase its use of multi-year procurement for ships and aircraft, allowing it to continue development of the next generation of ballistic submarines, purchase new f eighteens and combat ships and the marines will cancel the expeditionary fighting vehicle. they will reinvest the savings to sustain and modernize the amphibious assault vehicle and the light armored vehicle even as they advanced the concept of the operations and restore their expeditionary skills. the airports will be able to continue development with the next generation of tanker, a new bomber, and modernize its aging fleet of f-15 fighters. well finding savings aboard the $33 billion to reorganization costs of the reorganization and consolidation and reduced facilities requirements. none of this will come on the backs of our troops.

we're asking for more than $84 billion for readiness and training. nearly $5 billion for increased abilities. these funds and as we are requesting to build a partnership capacity in places like afghanistan and pakistan, iraq, and yemen, all speak to the emphasis we are placing on getting our troops and their partners in the field everything they need to do the difficult jobs we have asked of them. we must also give them and their families everything they need to cope with the stress and strain of almost 10 years at war. that is why i am so pleased with the funds devoted in this proposal almost three-quarters as much as the $200 billion budgeted for operations and maintenance to personnel, housing, and health-care issues. as you may know, the chiefs and give a letter to congress

expressing our support for the military health care program changes included in the budget. we looked for equity across health care programs with beneficiaries and health-care delivery providers having the same benefits and a " lun payment systems. regardless of where they live or work. that in turn led us to propose increases in tricare enrollment fees for working age retirees. these increases are modest and manageable and leave fees below -- the out of pocket costs set in 1995 when the fees were established. we hope you will see fit to pass it. it is clearly eating us alive. please know that we will continue our investment to include research, diagnosis, and treatment of traumatic brain injury and metal health issues and new battlefield technologies. we understand the changes to

health care benefits will cause concern among people we serve and the communities from which receive care, but we also understand and hold sacred our obligation to care completely for those who have borne the brunt of these wars as well as those who -- for whom they were never ends. just as the grandchildren of world war ii veterans comprehend -- struggle to comprehend the horror of those men concealed, so too will our grandchildren will have to come to the groups of the wounds from this war unless we get it right. the investments we are making it will pay off in that regard but it will take time and patience and money. three things we cert -- rarely seem to possess. that brings me back to this budget request. with limited resources and two wars in progress, three if you count our support to neda

operations in libya, we should be prudent in defining our priorities, turned -- controlling costs, and slicking our thirst for more and better systems. we should be clear about what we can and cannot do just as we should be clear about what we expect from our interagency and international partners. our global commitments have not struck. if anything, they continue to grow. if -- the world this lot -- is a lot less predictable. you need look no further than the middle east and north africa to see the truth in that. i returned from egypt and a week before i was in pakistan with secretary clinton as we tried to find ways to move forward our relationship with that nation in the wake of osama bin laden's killing. the challenge in egypt and pakistan are distinct, to be sure, but at each stop and just about every country i visit, i have been struck by the degree

to which civilian and military leaders desire to keep our partnerships strong. this desire is not rooted in the fear of revolts or recrimination but rather, a shared understanding of external threats to their security and hours, which still plagued the region. therefore, changes to this relationships ought to be considered only with an abundance of caution and a thorough appreciation for the long view rather than the flush of public passion and urgency to save a dollar. the support we provide many of these militaries has helped them become the cable, professional forces they are and in that regard, has been of inestimable value. of equal or greater value is increased preparations for the state department and our quest for something called the global security contingency fund, a three-year pooled fund between the pentagon and the state department that will be used to

build partnerships capacity, prevent conflict, and prepare for emerging threats. the request is modest, an initial $50 million preparation, along with a request for authority to reprogram $450 million if needed. what it will buy as is an agile and cost-effective way to better respond to unforeseen needs and take advantage of emerging opportunities for partners to secure their own territories and regions. we must get more efficient, absolutely, but we must more -- be more pragmatic about the world we live in. we can no longer afford bloated programs or unnecessary organizations without sacrificing fighting power. we can no longer afford to put off investments in future capabilities or relationships that preserve the power across the spectrum of conflict. as you know, the president announced his from work for addressing our long term fiscal challenges, setting a goal of reducing defense spending by

$400 billion. this will be hard work and will require difficult choices about matching strategy to resources. those choices will be painful, even on natural for the services, for the department, and for the congress. but they are absolutely necessary. the president also directed that before making specific decisions, the department of defense will assess their impact by conducting a fundamental review of america's military missions, capabilities, and roles in a changing world. secretary gates and i have begun this review and will work with the service chiefs to ensure we can meet our national security priorities even in the face of fiscal pressure. our review is based on strategy and risks, not simply budgetary math, and our goal will be to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, nor at the end of this endeavor, find ourselves with a hollow force. a force that retains an organizational structure but lacks the people, training, and

equipment necessary to perform the tasks we expect from it. in my view, this proposed budget gives us a good start. it builds on the balance we started to achieve last year and represents the best of both fiscal responsibility and sound national security. i would be remiss if i did not close by praising the incredible efforts of our troops overseas and their families as they finish one war in iraq and began to turn corners in afghanistan, and help save innocent lives in libya. i know you share my pride in them and if you will keep them foremost in mind as you consider the elements of this proposal. i would like to thank you for your longstanding support of our military, of our families. you have set a standard in many ways that those of us who are fortunate enough to at -- interact with you appreciate and i know our troops and families

appreciate as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. i am pleased to note the extraordinary attendance of members of the committee. however, as a result, i will have to limit the q and 8 to four minutes. -- q&a to four minutes. you have made a couple of statements on how to achieve the $400 billion reduction over the next 12 years. instead of putting the modernization programs, you would prefer to see additional organizational reductions in addition to changes in military pay, retirement, and health care system. do you wish to elaborate more on these ideas and any other areas that you might see reduced? >> the four areas that we're looking at in terms of how we

would come up with $400 billion in reductions are first, as i indicated in my remarks, looking for additional efficiencies and changes in bureaucratic expenditures and the way we go about our business. and the way we do business on a day-to-day basis. we think there is still more money to be extracted out of overhead, but also in negotiating contracts on acquisitions and so on. the first category is more cuts in overhead. the second category is looking for marginal missions and marginal capabilities that can be eliminated. this would be in situation s where two surgeons have comparable capabilities and we

can get by -- two services have comparable capabilities and we can get by. the third category is where -- the hardest and the one that admiral mullen and i talked about in our remarks and that is the comprehensive review to look at what are the options that are available in terms of making reductions in force structure and what is the impact of that on the capabilities of our forces and our ability to carry out our strategies. and how to readjust our strategies and how do we evaluate added risk by reduced investment in defense. one example is this, to give you the flavor of what we're talking about, for many years, we have had a strategy of being able to conflictsairly major league - simultaneously. if you are willing to accept the

risk that will not happen, that would not take place at the same time, but might be sequential if you have to take on two others, then, that has real impact for force structure. in terms of assessing risk between 2007 and 2009, we have two major regional conflicts going on simultaneously, so this is not far-fetched in terms of risk. the fourth category are the issues that are politically challenging and that have been very difficult for us and for the congress to take on. working age retiree health care and i want to make clear none of us are talking about any impact on health care for the active force. this is about working age retirees.

compensation and particularly i would say in that respect retirement. and whether the time has come to look at retirement. we have two challenges on the retirement side. one is 70 percent -- 70% to 80% does not stay long enough to retire but they leave with nothing. if you surf five years or 10 years or a dozen -- served five years or 10 years, you walk out with nothing. the second is we get a lieutenant colonel or sergeant first class with 20 years of service, they are at their prime, and we make it financially silly for them not to retire at 20 years. how do you incentivize them to give us another five years of service? i do not pretend to have the answers to these questions, but they are issues the i think we need to address in terms of what is good for the force but in areas where we could save some

money so those four areas are the areas that we're looking at in terms of how we can find this $400 billion. >> thank you very much. >> could i just make two brief comments? first of all, not unlike the government itself, where inside our budgets, a little less than a, a little more than half is discretionary, and so, while we look at reductions in the future and where we would take the funds, there are obligations that we have that we just fundamentally have to fund as we transition to whatever this new budget environment is going to be for us, and then secondly, if we do not come to grips with some of the most difficult issues, it is as clear as anything to me that the only answer is we are going to get a lot smaller, with a chance we

can go -- we will give-ups structure to sustain these benefits to do all of these things, and that, i think, is very dangerous in the world we are living in to meet the growing national security requirements that i see. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, mr. secretary. let me ask, in view of the situation in libya, are we learning something about the ability of our allies who volunteered to try to take up the slack in situations where we are not moving forward and trying to dominate and run a military operation? what are we learning from their capabilities or inadequacies that give you the most concerned? -- the most concerned? -- concern?

>> where they have not been doing this, by default, the responsibility falls the united states, so i think there is a genuine worry that our allies have looked to us to pick up the slack as they cut their defense budgets, and the message that i had for them in europe last week was because of our financial problems, and frankly, growing members of congress, for whom the cold war they will be unwilling to pick up 75% of the nato alliance. i think this is a serious problem.

it has been a problem for some years, but i think our own financial difficulties and what we're going to face in looking to the american budget, this will bring it to center stage in a way it really has not in the past. >> on the same subject, umpire what effect does this have on our ability to do this and other regions of the world, for example, areas where we have been involved in actual combat operations, vietnam era in and what that is in terms of the expense and training of our forces? can you give us an assessment of the direct impact on the u.s. navy in your budget requests? >> i share the concerns and reviews with respect to the dramatically decreased investment in our nato partners

hi, or by our nato partners. they certainly do not have the depth, the resources in some cases to do what our political be sure -- what their political leadership has directed them to do. while they also did this, they did it in incredibly quick fashion. we have not had an air operation like this in a long time, and from my perspective, they have executed that well. something went wrong. we are watching very carefully. the other thing is for countries that did their own strategic review, they found themselves getting rid of capabilities that

now that they are in a combat environment, they are giving second thought to that. combat has a way of bringing that kind of reality to them. we and others have to be very careful about what kind of capabilities we decide to either get rid of or trim back. we have got tremendous relationships with the japanese, the korean military, as we have had with our australian friends, as well as growing relationships with asean countries, so i am actually pretty comfortable with where we are right now. we have got overseas bourses, as you know, both marines and navy in fairly significant number is in that part of the world, and that makes a difference in terms of stability. this goes back to what i said.

if we get into this structure, in terms of the defense review and have to reduce our structure, in the long run, i think this will start to undermine stability in a place like that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, last year, you transfer money to the department of energy to pay for a nuclear program, because as i understand, you are concerned about the neglect that had befallen us. how concerned are you that the house is considering appropriations legislation, that we would cut the program by almost 10% from what the president suggested, and what

are the implications to failing to fund the modernization program? >> i am very concerned. if i recall, the actions taken by the house cut about $1 billion from this modernization program. this modernization program was very carefully worked out between ourselves and the department of energy, and, frankly, where we came out on that also played, i think, a fairly significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the new agreement, so the risks are to our own program in being able to extend the life of our weapons systems, to modernize them, not in the sense of capability but in the terms

of security and reliability, and this requires new construction. we have a lot of buildings at los alamos that date from the manhattan project, so this modernization project is, in my view, both from a security and a political standpoint really important. >> mr. secretary, in my short time, missile defense. i understand that the defense science board has compiled a report on what we call the early intercept a missile defense, and the conclusion as that the plans to which she's an early capability is part of the adaptive approach, that it is simply not credible. this is disturbing to some of us, since the promise to develop an early interest that capability was a central justification, as i understood it.

to cancer zero -- cancel the third to boost the defense program. now, it looks like the nation might be left with an inadequate defense in europe and no boost phase intercept capability. to reexamine the adaptive approach in light of the defense science board, and should the department be looking at ways to use funding to improve the system? involving it, what are your thoughts on that? the adaptive approached? and to strengthen the ground- based interceptor program. for deployment and for test purposes. it makes investments in upgrades for long-range radar in

greenland and the u.s. and canada. we also have money for developmental work in terms of other kinds of interception of ballistic missiles. that i believe that the difference between the ground- based system and the money we are investing in that, plus the money that we are investing in the face adaptive approach, first of all, the latter will give us a defense capabilities several years earlier than would have been the case with europe, and let's be blunt. the third site in europe was not going to happen because the czech government would not approve the radar, because if it was going to happen at all, it would have taken years maugre, and we still would not have the required agreements with the poles. between all of that with the

additional work and a half dollars billion we have added puts us into a pretty good system. >> very quickly, while i am not close to it in this job, i've been around this for the last 15 years, and the whole issue of boost phase intercept was a difficult challenge, and someone has broken through, and my view was i thought we were throwing good money after bad. i have not seen this report. i will take a look at it. the only thing i can say is the path through the standard missile is the most well- developed robust, reliable path over time with respect to

developing missile defense, and we are still almost one decade away, and i have confidence that we will continue to pursue that. it is an incredibly well tested system. it is a pass. >> but it could exist, could it not? it could exist. >> yes, sir, i believe we can get there, based on my time frame. >> thank you. >> as chairman, i want to join the others to think you for the extraordinary service that you have shown the country in very challenging times. admiral mullen and i appreciate the personal relationship with your trip to vermont when you join my son and myself up there to meet with our troops and their deploying. secretary gates. i will say your publicly that i

have enjoyed our relationship, and i would have to say that there is one issue that i would agree on, the war in afghanistan. like most americans, certainly most from vermont, and increasing members of congress, i think we have to have an accelerated withdrawal of troops from that country. i supported going into afghanistan for the purpose of getting osama bin laden. with the subcommittee and all of us, we have been strongly supportive of that. i did not support the invasion of iraq, which distracted us from this goal. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. we will be paying this for years to come. it is an extraordinary thing to continue to borrow the money. at the same time, we give a tax cut to anybody who makes as much as a member of congress. we will let our children and

grandchildren pay for these two wars. i do not think we can continue to sacrifice so many lives and spend this money. i think we have to identify achievable goals in afghanistan. i think we have to reduce our military footprint there, and then and, there were five people that were arrested on suspicion they help to the united states in tracking osama bin laden. they arrested people that helped us. we can overlook this, if of their government or any better, but we have president karzai, who cannot seem to make up his mind if he is on our side or that of the taliban. the tax dollars, privatize medicare. a safety net, all of the money we would have to make our industries more competitive.

i have visited there. they are performing an extraordinarily well. how long do we support the government's that lie to us? when do we say enough is enough? secretary gates, we will start with you. >> well, first of all, i would say, based on the 27 years in the cia and 4.5 years in this job, most governments lie to each other. that is the way business gets done. >> do we also rests the people who help us when they say we are allies? >> sometimes. and sometimes they sent people to spy on us, and they are a close ally. that is the real world that we deal with. but i would tell you this. first of all, this is not a war without end. the lisbon summit has made clear that the transfer to afghan security responsibility

and leadership will be complete later than the end of 2014 it, and troops will be coming down during that period. the costs of these wars is coming down dramatically. the cost of these wars will drop between $40 billion and probably by tens of millions of dollars more later. i think the prospects of having a more stable afghanistan in terms of a country that can defend itself, and we are not talking about a vermont democracy here, but a country that can defend itself. >> neither am i, mr. secretary, and you know that. >> we are not in the business of nation-building. what we're trying to do was build these forces to the point where they have the ability to defend that country, so the taliban and al qaeda can not reconstitute themselves in that country, and i think we are making considerable headway, so

i think people are frustrated. the country has been at war for 10 years. i know people are tired, but people also have to think in terms of stability and income potential of reconstitution. what is the consequences of failure? the u.n. i have talked about this many times. we are in the mets -- we are in the midst of something. in is my idea that if we do it again, we will be back in a much more difficult situation, so seeking and to the degree is

that these two countries can evolve is, i think, a goal that we must continue to pursue, or the danger associated with the country that has got a nuclear arsenal, that lives next to a country that they view as an existential threat, it is just a matter of time before we are back. so i do not push back on the challenge associated with it. some of the criticism is more than warranted. very frankly, with the it is a conscious decision. that we have to make. if we walk away from it, it is my view that it will be much more dangerous place one decade from now, and we will be back. >> thank you very much. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can speak for the people of indiana, who are grateful for

your lifetime of service, not all your commitment to public service but your execution brenly in your job. you have been a model for us, and i thank you, -- your execution brilliantly in your job. i guess to reaffirm that, secretary gates, your statement about if not the greatest threat to our security is a runaway debt, $1 trillion of a deficit on an annual basis, and that effect is not addressed, even the difficulty and the scale back ability to respond to challenges around the world, that will not go away that are potentially reduced, that is nothing in comparison to the strains and stresses that would be placed on our ability to do that in the future if we cannot get a hold of this runaway debt.

this ever shrinking part of the pie that goes to defense spending is going to keep shrinking. i appreciate your speaking out on that basis. a question i have goes to possibly where we can get some savings. i know about the house appropriations subcommittee passed out a bill which includes research on a number of health issues, $223 million of cancer research, $125 million for traumatic brain injury, orthopaedic research, 15 for health research. i am just wondering. are their savings? that is a long way from $400 billion, but it is a good chunk of money.

naphtha other savings possible, where there is to put it research paid for by government or conducted by the industry, which addresses the very same issues, in the past, defense has kind of been a good to place for health research that come in many cases, is duplicated elsewhere. our state is the leader in the world in orthopaedic research. all of the leading technology and so forth comes up of the private sector for that. i do not know exactly what the military does in addition to that, but i guess the question is, are there places like that where we can get -- i know it is the holy grail not to touch anything to do with the health of service members. i am not saying that. i am saying there may be some duplications. >> i think many of these things are worth looking into in detail, and i cannot speak to the cancer piece of it, but i will say this. i think that we have funded some

of the leading research being done with a traumatic brain injury, and probably also on prosthetics, almost certainly on posttraumatic stress. congress has given us quite a bit of money in those areas in particular, and i would argue in terms of the practical applications of those things, those funds i think, there would be a strong bias to keeping those in the defense budget, because we have a very direct interest in making sure that there is progress, and particularly, in those three areas, because those are the areas where our service members are suffering the most in these wars. >> quickly, is a hollowed out nato worse than no nato?

the reality that nato -- we are going to have to do it all anyway? >> i would say that a nato that has reduced capabilities is still better than no nato at all, and understand one point, the chairman's comments, admiral mullen, they have stepped up in afghanistan, but that means the costs of participation in afghanistan has brought further pressure on those european countries, so it has contributed to their overall narrowing of military capability, but partly, it is because of the contributions they made in afghanistan. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator? >> mr. chairman, secretary gates, admiral mullen.

it like all of my colleagues, thank you for your service. an enormous turnout of members and this is a tribute to the high regard. we want to thank you for the incredible job you have done keeping americans safe, nor many trips of washington to listen to the troops and to talk to our allies, and for me, one of the special things always, always, would be the way you responded unflinchingly with the walter reed scandal note, and the way you took ownership, the way there was accountability and responsibility and corrective action, and i just want to thank you for that.

watching with the troops, things like the army-navy day, where you mingle with them, and the wounded warriors. the way they thought they could approach you and talk to you, and you have my regards for that. i think that is what a real inspirational leader is, but i have to tell you, your pharaoh trips and speeches you have given have been eyebrow raising, jaw dropping, and for me a must do list. from the eisenhower library speech, in which you call for reform, to the most recent one at nato. you have done more of some of these than the air force, but let me get to my question. i would like to really follow-up on the questions raised about

nature note, and maybe this will have to be done with your successor. what is nato? what are required to require proof what action should nato undertake? when they ask for a coalition of the willing, we're going to need a coalition of the capable. are we ever going to do that again? big policy questions to be sorted out. i wonder what your thoughts are on the overseas base closing, and is this the time where we look out to make sure we do not have a hollowed out nato? where we bring a lot of assets home and so on. i think we spend about, the president's commission on deficit-reduction, so that we could look at that $9 billion in that area. >> first of all, an overseas base reductions will necessarily, first of all, just prior to of things, the overseas

base reductions here in the united states, there would be at least at the beginning, it would be more expensive to bring them home than to leave them where they are, because they have facilities already built, and we get support from the germans, the japanese, and the south korean is in support of those facilities. >> i am not advocating closing all of those. this is now working its way through the agency. secretary clinton and i will meet to talk about open our and warm in japan and the forced presence there, and i think the biggest policy question that has to be asked is what kind of a

signal do you want to send the rest of the world in terms of the american role in the world, and if we, at the same time, we are cutting our defense budget, and we cut our state budget, and state has your assets to deployed abroad, we have fewer assets to deploy it abroad, and then we begin to do this, are we basically sending a message to the rest of the world, and i would say to china, iran, north korea, a variety of other places, the u.s. is closing up shop, and we're heading towards fortress america again. i think this is a huge thing for you to consider. what kind of role do you want for the united states. our presence in europe, one of the benefits it has brought in,

in addition to the benefit troops into iraq and afghanistan at less cost, but one of the things it has broad, if anything, it has slowed, i think, this deterioration of the nato military capability. >> because we are there? >> because we are there, and we are training with them and work with them, and they have to have capabilities, just like when we are doing that. >> mr. chairman, admiral mullen, respond? >> maybe it is because of my roots. i am a navy guy. there is just nothing like being there, and you can be there a couple of ways. you can live there, or you can rotate their. what i have found, we just came back from egypt. if but the relationship we have with each is different than the one we have with japan, because we live in japan. we interact with the families.

we know the japanese people in ways that we just do not in other countries. the same is true in germany. the same is true in the republic of korea. we can use those to prevent a crisis or to prevent escalation, i would not say it is not worth it. bp said this is so powerful in so many ways -- the president's piece in this is so powerful and so many ways. we did nothing about this in the short term in the rear of looking for a savings. -- we are not thinking about this in the short term when we are looking for a savings. >> quite frankly, there is

opposition technology and logistics. it is $400 billion. the house is dragging its feet. i think we should definitely stay the course in reducing our expenditures. i hope we get the chance to ask their opinion. >> we will discuss thought. >> thank you. we thank you for being here today. we congratulate both of you on a job well done. your leadership has been critical. in light of this progress, many americans are hoping our forces can soon come home from afghanistan after a decade of war. we begin with the drawing out forces of beginning with a sizable and a sustained reduction in forces this summer.

i like to ask about the government of afghanistan and president karzai. he seems increasingly hot style to the american presence in afghanistan. the first question is whether you see him playing a positive or negative role in afghanistan. i like to hear from both of you about what comes after karzai. you are not the president for ever. what kind of relationships are rebuilding with leaders from other political parties and ethnic groups? >> first of all, i have spent a lot of time with president karzai over the last 4.5 years. i think that we have often not done a good job of listening to president karzai.

the problems that he often raises in public are problems that he has often raised with us a year or two years before in private. i will give you a perfect example, private security companies. this became a crisis in our relationship late last year. we have worked our way through it. he has participated in working his way through this. in these countries. of these companies a long time oint is, yes, and he reacts publicly to things that are done and said. he is sensitive to civilian casualties. i think you would find if you talk to our commanders and the people that i talk to, he is somebody who understands the campaign plan, who understands

the importance of our role and wants a long-term u.s. relationship with afghanistan after he is president. he plans to set down in 2014. both of our military people are in talks with a very large range of afghan leaders and not just in kabul. on the government side, at the nato defense ministers' meeting last week, the senior ambassador reported that he had just gotten back from afghanistan. 75% of deputy district governors are choosien on the basis of merit. as the provincial governors change, and the quality steadily improves. i think you have the kabul environment and you have the outside of kabul environment. it is a lot better outside in

terms of what is going on around the country. it is a relationship from where we are dealing with the president his country has been at war. been very sensitive. i find that when i sit down and president karzai we have a very productive conversation. it is clear that he buys into what we are trying to do and we are allies and not occupiers. he sees a post-2014 relationship with the united states going forward to. . >> any comment? >> the security environment continues to improve. in some districts and provinces, it is getting better from a government standpoint.

it gets you to a point where you can start to develop areas. that is what the afghan people care about. there is this disparity between kabul and what we see locally throughout the country. we have to continue to engage. they were heavily engaged with this. we cannot do it without the governors. we can get the pieces necessary. it is not sufficient. we have to continue to push on better governance and the development piece of this. we are just getting to the point where the south can put the other pieces together. it is from an overall. the concept that this approach is having an impact.

the afghans have had the security leak for over a year now. that is the transition we have been trying to make. it is on a province by province basis. about 25% of the afghan population live in areas that are now under afghan security leak. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for extraordinary public service. for the historical record for young people who may be planning a career in public service, what is better preparation for the secretary of defense? the director of the cia or the defense? mr. secretary, about how many

military men and women do our european allies have? >> about 2 million in uniform. >> about how many are available to be deployed like libya or afghanistan? >> i would guess it would be in the 108% to 20% -- 10% to 20%. that number can be deceptive. for all of us, we find out we have to point to the men and women. -- we have 2.2 million men and women. we are going at a pretty good clip. >> i heard they might have 25,000 or 40,000 troops available. >> that was in my speech where i said they struggle to maintain 25% -- 25,000 or 40,000 troops

in afghanistan. >> in the gulf war, other countries paid for a large part of that. how much they pay for? >> virtually all. in the afghanistan and libya war, how much to countries pay for? >> the other countries are essentially paying their own way in the sense that they are paying for their own airplanes and things like that. >> the united states is paying for virtually all of it. is that right? >> not libya. we certainly have paid the bulk of the money in iraq and afghanistan. >> what is your testimony that in nato the united states is to pay what percent of the cause? what percent do we actually think? >> the line that i had was that up until the end of the cold

war we paid about 50%. since the cold war, that has risen to about 75% of the total military expenditures. >> as we prepare for any future military action, we might keep in mind not just getting approval of other countries agreeing that we ought to take the action and to do as was done in 1991 and 1992 to actually get their commitment to help pay for it. >> we can look at that two ways. one is the answer is absolutely yes. one thing i pointed out at the

meeting is that the trust fund to support the afghan national security forces going forward is, in terms of the dollars that had been contributed, is a joke. it is about three and a 50 million euros at a time when the united states is spending billion dollars -- 3.5 million euros at a time when the united states is spending billions of dollars. i've spoken to all of our allies about the fact that it is imperative for them to contribute to that trust fund. the circumstances of the gulf war were unique in the sense that the countries we reducing with that built the most threatened where kuwait, saudi arabia, the gulf states, and so on. i will tell you that looking back, and the two people who led the team's going around to talk

about their contributions were led by secretary of treasury nick brady. somehow there the look of the draw, baker ended up with saudi arabia, kuwait, and the gulf states. nick brady had to talk to the japanese and germans and others. nick was not nearly as successful. >> thank you. mr. secretary, since this is your last hearing, it seems ungracious to do anything except thank you and he preys upon you for your service. -- and heap praise upon you for your service. we will also add some questions.

i do sincerely thank you for a lifetime of public service that has made an extraordinary difference to our country and troops. i am concerned about the $400 billion that the president has assigned the department of defense for additional cuts. you have already made a tremendous effort to squeeze out waste and inefficiency and to reduce unnecessary spending. i am concerned that we could end up with a kind of hollow force that you warned us against and that was so devastating to our troops and potentially security in the 1970's and two decades later. were you consulted by the

president in the size of the target that has been assigned to the department of defense. >> my concern is that military requirements have to drag the budget and not the other way around. >> i will say this. when i was informed, i did it immediate agreement that this, before any specific budget decisions were made, this comprehensive review that we have been talking about would be carried out. we would present options to the president and congress that shows relative levels of risk of different kinds of cuts and changes. there was an agreement immediately to that read the before specific decisions were

made. view beforeread yo specific decisions were made. me, that is the opposite of the way we should be proceeding. let me switch quickly to libya and ask you a question. i personally have a lot of concerns about our involvement in libby and the transition from it being a humanitarian exercise to the goal of having colonel gadhafi really push power. let's assume that it does happen. the council is made up almost exclusively of the eastern libyans.

i believe it is a real question as to whether or not that council could effectively govern the country given the intense regional rivalries and tribal nature of libyan society. i am concerned we are not understanding who we are dealing with. do you feel confident that we have a plan for what we would do post-gadaffi? >> coming out of egypt and also in europe last week, i am encouraged that there are countries and organizations that are very specifically looking at this. we need to do that. i am more in courage and confidence -- encouraged and confident in this and that

there are civilian leaders and military leaders to recognize the challenge that you just described. what i have not seen yet is the kind of comprehensive collected view of how they will run the country. they recognize that internally. their focus on this is improving. i think we are at the beginning of that. there is a long way to go. i am more positive than i was a few weeks ago. there is a lot been brought to the table in terms of international focus on this from our government as well as many others. i feel we have a long way to go. >> one of the actions taken by nato was to resolve that nato would not be in the lead in any

transition and that the secretary general would be in the communication with the contact group and the u.n. to tell them that the planning for this transition should get under way now and not wait until he falls. >> thank you both for your service. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you both for your service. secretary gates, i echo the high priests that be all have for you and for your efforts -- the high praise that we all have for you and for your efforts. going back to libya and afghanistan, as we deal with the reality of a drawdown of comincg ahead, we had several thousand troops with the first

striker brigade combat team of deployth infantry just a pl this month. the concern i am hearing is that we want to be in that phase where we are withdrawing and coming out of afghanistan. we are concerned that our loved ones who have just now gone in are going to be on the back an end of that withdrawal. you will have these forces moving out. you had mentioned that between now and 2014 the amount of money that we will see going in to afghanistan will be dramatically reduced. what assurances can you get to those who are just now going into afghanistan and to will be there through the end of this

year -- and who will be there through the end of this year that it will not be riskier? >> alamance 2 points - i will make two points. the reduction in afghanistan really correlates to the level of troop drawdowns. the amount of money that is say it is associated with the number of troops we have but not by any skimping on the support of the neighbors that we have there to support. i have had conversations with the president about this. we are both committed to whatever decisions are made. the consideration will be to ensure that whatever steps are taken will not put the troops

that are leaving or remaining at greater risk. >> i appreciate that. let me ask you about guam. in light of where we are with the budget issues, he responded to a question -- you responded to a question about europe. can we expect any significant changes perhaps in the current direction with regard to the build up in ghulam? are we going to meet rigid ingua -- in guam? are we going to meet the target date given the cost estimate? >> in all honesty, secretary clinton and i will be meeting with the japanese on monday and tuesday. quite honestly, i will have a better answer after that meeting. >> we look forward to that.

>> thank you. >> thank you. it has been a great pleasure to work with both of you. i want to thank you for your tremendous service to this country. these are a very challenging -- these are very challenging times. i look forward to you coming to our home state and continuing our relationship. i am sure you are looking forward to that. >> 15 days. >> hopefully, the weather will be better. last friday, i visited the national naval medical center and talked with a number of our wounded warriors and their care givers. many service members have sacrificed life and limb and afghanistan. we will be taking care of them -- in afghanistan. we will be taking care of them for a lifetime. as chairman of the committee, i

take this issue seriously. i have been trying to draw attention to the unseen costs of war in thinking about how we should consider that as part of our decision. i think you know that the major component of this long-term war have a real and significant impacts on death from suicide among veterans. they are now on par with combat deaths. many of our warriors are facing difficult challenges with mental care when they return home. many had served five times. while we talk about rebuilding projects, i wanted to ask you today what you and the pentagon considered to be the

biggest cost of this war to our wounded warriors and their family, particularly those that will be paying for long-term and whether it is ever considered when we are making decisions about drawing down in afghanistan? >> i think it is self evident that the costs are exactly as you described them in bodies and lives that are shattered and mind that her shattered -- minds that are shattered. one of the things we have done is ensure that all of the funding that we have gotten in the past in supplemental and overseas contingency operations and dealing with family programs and care for our wounded warriors, and that all of the money has been shifted

into the basic budget knowing that we will deal with it for many years to come. from our part, in addition to v.a., we tried to make sure that these have been protected and will be protected in the future. i cannot say that decisions in terms of drawdowns or military strategy are made bearing in mind the costs of the soldiers and sailors to supper. it is on the minds of everyone who makes those -- soldiers and sailors who suffer. it is on the minds of everyone who makes those decisions. i feel like i have been more conservative and cautious about when we use of force.

i have seen the consequences up front. he has devoted a huge amount of effort to this. >> first of all, i appreciate your leadership on this. it has to have a voice. i believe we are just beginning to understand the costs. i will use fort lewis. we have more soldiers and airmen at a joint space than we ever had. they will be home for a couple of years. many have only had a year between employment. now they will have two years. they have been compartmentalizing challenges. they will start of packing it did unpacking -- they will start unpacking it now that we are back at home. the more quickly we get at the problem, at the less likely be

damaged. the damage will be reduced significantly. there is still a great deal we do not understand. >> it is changing. after their home for three years, the impacts are different. >> there are time bombs that are set up that we know are out there but not when they will go off. the relationship has to get stronger. we have worked in ways to try to focus on that. were you and others can help is, when we get into budget crunches, this incredible amount of money that we have, it is some of the purse money that they have been historically. -- some of the first money that they have historically. i have talked about and must be

watched that carefully, it will not be there -- and unless we watched that carefully, it will not be there. we do not understand that this as well as we should. not just for our members but also for our families. our families are as much a part of this as anything else. it was not that way 10 or 15 years ago. without them, we would be nowhere in these wars. leaders have to focus on what are these costs. you said it well. it is to be paid the debt for the rest of their lives. t is to repay this debt for the rest of their lives. >> we have all of these budget exercises. one is training and the other is all of our family programs.

i do not want any money taken out of those. >> i think we have to seriously consider this. it does impact our troops today. it also impacts our ability in the future for the next big one if we depleted all our resources. >> the other thing that i know you know is that we are generating a homeless generation. many more homeless female veterans because they are now serving in afghanistan and iraq. if we are not careful, we will do the same thing we did last do the same thing we did last