we have to keep in mind, too, mexico is right nextdoor. so basically in a sense if these guns are flowing to mexico, basically what we're doing is turning the gun on ourselves or guns on ourselves. and th case is a prime example of that. you know, i just believe that we have to take this moment and make it bring life, bring life out of this very horrific and terrible death, and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman and to the terry family, i cannot imagine the emotional roller coaster you have gone through and what today's testimony does to you. i appreciate that you are here and i am grateful to that. to the agents that are here, you

know, this investigation as you well know relies intensely on your testimony, not only in whole but in hope w find an answer at the end of this investigation to see this never happens again. to that end, i want to ask a couple of questions, specifically to you, mr. cost a. i was here for the beginning and missed for a coup of votes. to have the surveillance without interdiction and arrest, did that get the gist of it? >> for this investigation, yes. >> you stated in your testimony it has become common practice for atf supervisors to retaliate against employees that don't blindly tow the company line no matter the consequences. can you describe what any of that retaliation would be. >> i say refer back to investigations over the countless years, all the attorneys represented atf employees for all types of

retaliation for whistle blowing, repudtive actions whether they deserved that >> you mention the e-mail you received you thought was threatening. >> oh, yeah. >> were you personally threatened by mccallister or english or anyone else? >> no, they are my eql. but my supervisor would put tlin if you don't like what we do, go work for march cope a county sheriff's department. first of all, that was horrible taste. there are brave men and women fighting with us fighting crime in the phoenix area. >> what happened to that supervisor since thep? >> i have no idea. >> were there any repercussions as a result of his actions? >> not of yet. >> still in the same position, supervisory capaty? >> i understand is a group supervisor, i believe in minneapolis, st. paul, still a group 14 supervisor. >> you said they would stop you from arresting straw purchasers and interdicting weapons.

were there other occasions when the case agent told you to stand down, not make such arrests? >> in this investigation? >> in this investigation. >> again, it was common, more than one occasion. it was a few occasions. >> was there one where you watched them come out with a bag of guns? >> yes. one specific occasion, wish i had more time, i will try to be as brief as possible. we observed, i was with special agent dodson, we individual a straw purchase, ten fn pistols which by the way they penetrate law enforcement vests, called cop killers. >> that had to be particularly painful. >> yes. >> you saw that and ordered to stand down. >> saw them transfer to unknown individual, unknown. i said i called this since i was shift supervisor, called the case agent and said we need to interdict these firearms. >> who was that supervisor. >> mccallister. >> i was told stand down, do not

interdict, wasn't told why. he is street savvy, he makes a ten person surveillance, each car over and over to the point he stops in the mile of a small subdivision in front of special agent dodson and he is higher up in a jacked up pickup, we know he has at least ten fn pistols, and i said we need to engage. i called back in. the group supervisor who should have been there during the operation or case agent who should have been there in the operation were off for the day, they left, and no way to get in touch with them. i was told pointf contact them was probationary employee was english, and i had to take instruction, told me fall back. resur veil. >> that fall back, resurveillance, isn't that contrary to what atf policy shouldbe? shouldn't the policy be make the arrest in the interdiction? >> yes, sir, most definitely. furthermore, it created an officer safety issue. the guy knew he was being

followed but didn't know by whom. for all he knew, we could have been cartel members trying to rob the ten guns or could have been law enforcement. we didn't know. but it caused a serious officer safety issue. >> by the grace of god, could have been more than brian terry lost because of this. >> yes, sir. >> just briefly, i have a couple of seconds. is there anything you think your brother would want this committee to know about his life and service? >> brian was about making a differencend justice and i just feel that this country owes it to him because he spent his whole life fighting this country some way or another. >> i agree and he is a hero. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. go to the gentleman from arizona. >> mrs. terry and family, i am deeply sorry. as a father, i don't know, i can just feel that pain. and i hope what i say next does

not aggravate that in advance. okay? for the law enforcement folks, when you first heard about the shootings of congressman gabrielle giffords, was there a level of anxiety from atf that one of the weapons might trace back to operations of fast and furious? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> where did this anxiety come from and from whom specifically? >> sir, i received a phone call from my public information officer who was a friend o mine who said that there was concn from chainf command that the gun was hopefully not a fast and furious gun. >> i would like to add every time there's a shoong, whether mrs. giffords or anybody, any time there was a shooting in the general phoenix area or even arizona, we are fearful it might be one of these firearms. >> this happen time and time again when there was u.s. embassy personnel killed in juarez, mexico. fear spread through the

division. >> i am feeling like i am a dentist, i didn't participate in the military, but i understand there's a chain of command, and i feel like i'm watching the movie a few good men. and you know, this wasn't done, you know, from what i'm gathering, we talked about special art forcell, getting jurisdiction in new york, we are talking about the drug cartels. we are not talking about something simp. if an issue is this great, typically fore this one, if you have been involved, how far did it go up that people knew about something like that? >> sir, i know i had discussions with zack william who was the special agent in charge, former special agent in charge of phoenix division, the assistant special agent in charge who was involved in this case when it first started was george gillette. he and i had discussions where

he pretty much rolled his eyes when you voiced opposition to this. david vault and i hadn't conversed much, he is in a different building. from a briefing pair from knew to gillette this was briefed at the highest levels of atf. i heard the director was involved. and nobody stepped up and had a statement beyond the phoenix field division. i mean, there were tragic errors made here, and nobody has shown the decency and leadership to step up and say hey, we made a mistake and should have done something more. that's what i find as appalling as anything else in this case, short of, of course, the tgedy to the terry family. >> absolutely right, sir. no one in atf up to acting director nelson has shown any significant leadership in this matter. and i can tell you i know at our former group supervisor had to come to d.c. to brief our

headquarters dea special operations division in virginia, and he briefed ethics on it and we secured the funding for most of that. i recall march of 2010 when acting director nelson came to phoenix division, spoke about the case. the case agent by name, the supervisor by name, and even the defendants or would be defendants in the case. >> well, boy, this is going in the right way here. you know i am from arizona. >> yes, sir. >> you are currently aware and have for some time that department of justice has had lawsuits against arizona. were you aware of any biases within your scope at atf or comments versus arizona by the atf or by doj in regards to them? >> no, sir. you're sure? >> i don't recall. >> seems like this whole lacks attitude from jurisdiction from

timely and aggressive law enforcement that would create this. am getting this opinion because you said you couldn't get a jurisdictional aspect of oversite in arizona and you took it to new york, did you not, sir? >> yes, i did. >> seems like continued dismissal of acting charges and we have a problem in arizona. we have seen a concerted effort that we have called out law enforcement on the border. i think specifically sheriff devers. i see a lack of cooperation all the way across, so does arizona. we see a very defunct uniform -- from arizona, we see an organized, orchestrated plan or lack of plan from doj, particularly with arizona. >> interesting, sir, what i will add, one thing i will say emphatically is i have had

limited dealings with tucson office of u.s. attorney's office, extensive dealings with phoenix. in phoenix, there are some good people, i apologize for speaking ill of that office, but the is distinct difference in attitude between tucson and phoenix office. u.s. attorney's office in tucson seems tore more amenable to working on cases with atf, amenable to finding justice than the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and it is ironic because the u.s. attorney himself and chain of command are based in phoenix. that's all i can tell you. >> thank you. >> recognize the gentle lady from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to say to the mother of brian terry, i have six children and my heart is broken for you because your life is irrepairably changed and i want you to know that what mr. hire said about having someone step up and aept responsibility, that will behe charge of this

committee and that's what we will do for you because of the loss that you all sustained. you have my deepest sympathy. to the agents, thank you. thanks for your courage for being here today and for your forthrightness and standing up, doing the right thing. we appreciate that very much. i want to begin with miss terry. can you, is there a question you want us to ask and find out, can you share with us if there's something nagging you that you would like answer to? >> well, most of my questions and answers are done by my nephew. if i had anything to ask, i ask him and he gets me my right answers. >> then i would ask mr. hire, is there a question that you would like us to ask? >> i think we'd want to know if

the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murder will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. if the guns used in brian's murder were pa of this operation, then we'd want to know will everyone in that operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be brought up on charges facilitating the murder of brian terry. >> thank you. we will ask that question on your behalf. there was a press conference held shortly after agent terry's murder, and during that press conference special agent william newell veemtly denied guns were

walked. this question is for mr. por which he ee. were you at that press conference? >> i was not, but i watched it on . >> and did you hear him when he was asked regarding guns walking, did you hear his response to that? >> the hell no response? >> yes. >> i did, ma'am. >> and what was your reaction to that? >> i was appalled because it was a blatant lie. >> he was aware guns were being walked? >> yes, ma'am. as i stated earlier, there was a briefing paper that went to headquarters, mr. knew if not the author would have had asac prepare it and mr. newell two months ago stated the agent in this case should getn award. still thinks it is an outstanding investigation. i find it personally appalling. >> my colleague, dr. gosar, brought up, made analogy between

"a few good men" and this situation. but with "a few good men" there was an order in place. there was a this is what everyone followed, this was the policy. but my sense is and i would like to ask the three agents today, what happened in this situation was not the ordinary course of business, anso if you could each comment. >> i can tell you as recently as three weeks ago we had intradiks of a gun dealer. that individual showed up to pick up the rifle with cash, probably drug money. he was not a resident of the united states but had false id. we had three trackers, two on the gun, one on the package, and air support, the whole nine yards. once we got to a point where we realized we could not safely monitor that weapon, that individual was stopped and the weapon seized and he was arrested. that's how we normally do business. i can tell you as a supervisor,

no agents under my watch would have let a gun walk. i wouldn't have allowed it. >> special agent cosa? >> thank you. i would back up exactly what pete said. working a number of investigations, what we are going through now, i would never let one firearm walk. i am working a number of cases with other agencies and i have to assure them, and they know who i am, we will not let one firearm walk. we will stop that atall cost. one firearm on the street is one too many. that's all i have to say. >> special agent dodson? >> yes, ma'am. prior to my involvement with phoenix, in all my atf experience and my experience in local law enforcement, ma'am, i can tell you tat we've never let a gun walk. i've never seen it authorized or allowed to let a gun walk. and if one even got away from us, like i stated earlier, nobody went home until we found it. >> thank you all very much.

again, thank you for your service, for being here today, and to brian's family again, our deepest sympathy. i yield back. >> i thankhe gentle lady and the witnesses for their testimony. it is not a normal practice to have government witnesses along with family or what sometimes are called civilians, but in this case i thought it was appropriate you all be there together. i appreciate all that you have done for us today to have us better understand the situation, and mrs. terry, although i can never guarantee the outcome, about two years ago we were able to name borderpatrol station after three fallen border patrol agents several decades after they were killed. i instructed my staff to work with the boarder patrol to find a mutually acceptable to you and the family location to name after brian and i will author

that bill as soon as location is determined by the family. you have my promise we will do the other things you asked for he today, that we will keep this from being little plil until we get to the full truth of everything s

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

panel. mr. ronald weich is assistant attorney general, u.s. department of justice, pursuant to the rules would you please rise and take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate that the witness answered in the affirmative. i note that you sat patiently through all of the previous testimony so not only do you understand the red light/green light but you will be the final witness and i appreciate your patience and your being here to hear everything that came before. you're now recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would ask that my full statement be included in the record. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, i'm very pleased to be here today to discuss the justice department's continuing efforts to respond to the committee's subpoena concerning ongoing criminal investigations on the southwest border and pending indictments in the u.s. district court for the district of arizona. i want to say at the outset that the department is fully committed to working with you in good faith to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interests. we hope the committee will similarly engage in good faith with the department in a manner that recognizes the important confidentiality interests presented when congressional oversight involves open criminal investigations. it's difficult when the interests and principled exercise of the prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches come into potential conflict. the constitution envisions that the branches will engage in a process of cooperation and accommodation to avoid such conflicts, and we look forward to engaging in that process with

you. as the committee is aware, many of the subpoenaed documents concern an open criminal investigation conducted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms known as operation fast and furious. other subpoenaed documents concern the open investigation and pending prosecution regarding the shooting death of agent brian terry. let me just say here that the death of agent terry was a tragic loss and the justice department extends its deepest sympathies to his family. they testified courageously here a moment ago. we were very pleased to hear on monday of the committee's commitment not to compromise the investigation into agent terry's murder or the broader gun trafficking investigation, and we are fully committed to bringing to justice those who are responsible for agent terry's death. the department recognizes the important role of congressional oversight. including oversight of the department's activities. it's the policy of the executive branch at the instruction of the

president to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent, consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the executive branch. at the same time, attempts to conduct congressional oversight of ongoing criminal investigations are highly unusual and present serious issues. as the department's office of legal counsel under president reagan explained in 1986, the policy of the executive branch throughout our nation's history has generally been to decline to provide committees of congress with access to or copies of open law enforcement files except in extraordinary circumstances. the policy is designed to fulfill the department's obligations to preserve the independence, integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement investigations in the criminal justice process generally, and i want to say, this policy is completely nonpartisan. it has been relied on by administrations of both parties for decades. so in response to your subpoena,

this department has been striving to reconcile the two principles by accommodating the committee's oversight interests while protecting our confidentiality interests. striking this balance can take time and effort. it is not the case that the department is refusing to comply with the department's subpoena. in fact, we are working diligently to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests without compromising the important purposes underlying the department's policy that i have described. the starting point for our approach is an agreement by the department that this committee has a legitimate oversight interest in information shedding light on the genesis and strategy of the fast and furious operation. we have focused on identifying documents responsive to those needs. we have already made a good deal of information available. in total, the department has physically produced more than 675 pages of documents to the committee, made available more than 900 additional pages for review. in addition, we have made one

atf official available for interview with the committee staff and we hope we will be able to schedule more interviews in the upcoming weeks. the committee has requested briefings on specific topics and we have agreed to provide those. the department has taken the extraordinary step of retaining an outside consultant, contractor, at substantial cost to assist us in building a data base of e-mails of the 19 individuals at atf whom the committee has indicated a primary interest in. we have engaged in a search of great magnitude to ensure that we get the documents that you have asked for to the best of our ability. the individuals that are 19 selected user accounts you have focused on contain over 724,000 e-mails and attachments. in addition, the department has collected thousands of documents flagged to us by atf as potentially responsive. over two dozen lawyers at atf and the department are reviewing those documents and we have been

able to provide documents to the committee, each of the last three working days. yesterday, monday and the friday before. the department will not be able to make available all of the documents encompassed by the subpoena because of the law enforcement confidentiality interests that i have already identified. we cannot provide certain core investigative and prosecutorial documents but we will work with the committee to identify and make available documents responsive to your core request. let me conclude by emphasizing that the department recognizes that congressional oversight is an important part of our system of government. at the same time, congressional oversight that implicates ongoing congressional investigations presents sensitivities not raised in ordinary cases. despite the unique challenges posed by oversight of open criminal matters, we remain optimistic that the department will be able to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests while safeguarding the

integrity, independence and effectiveness of the department's ongoing criminal investigation. thank you for inviting me to testify. i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> i certainly hope so. i recognize myself. sir, if you're going to count pages like this as discovery, you should be ashamed of yourself. the only thing that this says is internal use only, not for dissemination outside the atf. that's not discovery. that is saying that nothing within the document requested under any circumstances are we going to be shown. it doesn't take so long if you don't spend your life redacting. the pages go on like this forever. you've given us black paper instead of white paper. you might as well have given us a ream still in its original binder. how dare you make an opening statement, how dare you make an opening statement of cooperation. we have had to subpoena again

and again. your representatives of your organization, of the executive branch, have discouraged witnesses from coming forward. it has only been the courage of whistleblowers like the ones you saw here today that have caused us to have more documents on this case than you have ever suggested turning over, and how dare you talk about 900 pages, all of which were available on the internet. your first discovery that you ever turned over, you gave us already available on a google search documents only. so sir, what executive privilege are you claiming? sensitivity is not envisioned. on monday, we held a hearing here, and i hope you had plenty of people watching it and if you didn't, get it on youtube. not one witness, not on direct or on cross, talked in terms of the kind of unique sensitivity. instead, they gave us case law and cases involving justice that say just the opposite of what

you're saying. sir, you heard from the family and you heard from the whistleblowers. they have concerns about whether you're charging everybody in brian terry's murder and yes, i'm deeply concerned. we've promised to get to the bottom of it. if somebody wants to call that political interference, so be it. you should be held to a standard of why everybody, including the people who lied and buy those weapons, why they're not being charged if there's any chance they can be properly linked to his murder. but let's move on. understand that's for the family. for this committee, we're investigating you, your organization, the executive branch above the phoenix office is who we're investigating. we want to know what felony stupid bad judgment led to allowing this program at the highest levels. when you've got the head of alcohol, tobacco and fire on basically his computer screen

watching these things, don't tell me you didn't know what it was doing. it appears to us on this side of the aisle and i believe on the other side that you thought this was a good idea. today, are you prepared to tell us that this program was, in fact, necessary and a good idea and are you prepared to tell us who authorized it? who was the greatest, highest ranking person who authorized any part of it? >> mr. chairman, you have raised a number of issues. let me try -- >> do the last ones first. who authorized this program that was so felony stupid that it got people killed? >> the attorney general has said that he wants to get to the bottom of this. he has directed the office of the inspector general at the justice department to review this matter in order to answer questions like the ones -- >> if that's the case, then why are we any burden at all? isn't every one of our requests consistent with what the inspector general and the attorney general should be looking at in this case?

>> i don't know for a fact that everything you've asked for is what they're looking at. >> i hope you came here to answer questions like that. we're asking for things related to the above the field level almost exclusively. our questions are about who authorized this, why did it happen, why did it continue. our question to you today is the president said he didn't authorize it. he said the attorney general didn't authorize it. he didn't say he didn't know about it. he said he didn't authorize it. who at justice authorized this program? >> as i've said, mr. chairman, the office of the inspector general -- >> who at justice and if you know, i ask you to answer who do you know was involved in the authorization of this today? do you know? do you know? >> well, mr. chairman, if you will permit me to answer the question, we sent a letter to chairman smith, who asked a question like that. we pointed out that this operation as with other law enforcement operations, originated in the atf's phoenix

office. >> that's not authorization. who authorized it at the highest level? >> again, mr. chairman, please -- >> do you know who authorized it at the highest level? don't answer phoenix or tucson or any part of arizona, if you please. >> well, mr. chairman, it's difficult to answer your questions if you won't permit me to answer them. >> i want the answer to my question, which was who here in washington authorized it. we know who looked at it on video. we know who authorized it effectively at least by acquiescence. who authorized this at justice? >> mr. chairman, i do not know the answer to that question. the inspector general is reviewing the matter. >> then we will have somebody back who does. the ranking member is recognized. >> mr. weich, let me apologize for that. you don't deserve that. perhaps somebody else in the department does. what is your role? what's your job? >> i'm the assistant attorney general for the office of legislative affairs, congressman. >> and these are not decisions that you make, are they, the

questions that he was just asking about, the chairman was asking about? >> that's correct. >> and as i've said many times, there's a certain level of integrity that we must maintain in this committee. i see this committee as just lower than a court, and i know and i've said it to the chairman and i'll say it over and over again, you've got to go home to your family. you've got colleagues who are watching this and for you to be hollered at and treated that way, i just think is unfair. so on behalf of the committee, i apologize. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not yield. i'm trying to talk to the witness. i didn't interrupt you. >> no. you didn't -- >> i'll yield as long as i get the time. >> hold the time. would the gentleman please note, you may apologize on behalf of something you say. i am not apologetic. you may not apologize on behalf of the committee. the gentleman may resume. >> let me say this. i apologize.

because we're better than that. we're better than that. and i do hope that we bring the appropriate people who can answer those questions and even when they come, they should not be treated that way. on april 13th, you wrote to the committee to explain the extreme sensitivity of some of the documents covered by your committee's subpoena of open law enforcement files. you explained that the subpoena quote encompasses records that would identify individuals who are assisting in the investigation and squashes investigative techniques that have not yet been disclosed. but this is not all of the records, right? i assume it is just a small subset of subpoenaed documents and that you can redact such sensitive information, isn't that correct? >> that's correct, congressman. that's what we're trying to do. >> now, i can understand the

chairman being upset because i would be upset but i wouldn't treat you like that, about somebody submitting to me some black pages. can you explain that to me? >> one thing i want to make clear, congressman, is that the number of pages that i cited in my testimony as having been produced or made available does not include such pages. where those pages are redacted, it's part of a document showing where there was law enforcement sensitive information that we were unable to provide, but that is not included in the total. >> what were the total pages that you submitted? >> i will get you the exact numbers. >> while your staff is assisting you on that, let me go on. >> i have it. >> okay. >> we have physically produced more than 675 pages of documents and made available more than 900 additional pages for review. i should say, this production is ongoing. we have made documents available and physically produced documents in each of the last three business days and i expect the document production to continue. >> the purpose of our investigation is to understand what occurred and who is

responsible. do you think that you will be able to provide sufficient documents to answer those core questions without disclosing highly sensitive records? >> i'm sorry, congressman -- >> in other words, you said there's some confidentiality issues. i'm trying to get to and you said this spans certain policy spans over certain administrations, wasn't just democratic administrations, republican administrations. i'm just asking you, is there a way that we can get -- what i've often said, i said it before the hearing that the chairman referred to the other day, i said we need to do two things. we've got two things going on here. we're trying to look to see how far this thing went up but at the same time, we've got these criminal prosecutions. i'm saying is there a way that we can resolve those issues? is that within your purview? >> yes, it is. and i believe that we can do so. we are doing that by providing documents, by briefing the committee, by making documents available, and by facilitating witness interviews.

we share the committee's goal in getting to the bottom of these questions, and we are assisting the committee at the same time that the department itself has a review by the office of the inspector general. >> you further explain that it is the public release of this information that presents the most risk to ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions. you stated and i quote, disclosure of these types of information may present risk to individuals' safety in the violent environment of firearms trafficking activities. disclosure may also prematurely inform subjects and targets about our investigation in a manner that permits them to evade and obstruct our prosecutorial efforts. even if we're not so upset about, and i am always concerned about prosecutions, the fact that somebody's life might be in danger gives me great concern because i see it living where i live almost every day. so tell me something, what is the -- can you give me a response to that?

>> yes, congressman. some of these documents identify cooperating witnesses. they identify confidential informants. they describe a strategy as to specific cases, ongoing cases, and revealing that strategy could inform potential targets of the investigation of law enforcement activities and it seems unwise. you yourself, ranking member cummings, highlighted a number of ways in which the committee investigation has already inadvertently overstepped the line and for example, made public a sealed document. so we're concerned about this. we really think if we work cooperatively, we can help the committee avoid such missteps, help satisfy the committee's oversight interests and get to the bottom of these questions. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. would you yield to me for 30 seconds? >> absolutely. >> did you provide those documents you say were released, that were sealed?

the documents you say were prematurely released, were they provided by you under any kind of request? >> i'm not certain. if you will permit me to consult with my staff, i will be able to answer the question. >> go ahead. >> i got the answer, mr. chairman. the answer is no, those were not documents we provided. those were documents that your investigators obtained and then made public in spite of the court order that they not be made public. >> so you're saying that if we get documents that we have no idea, because you're not providing documents, that we're responsible? >> yes, mr. chairman, seems to me that you should ask the justice department whether sensitive documents should be made public. that particular document related to a wiretap which is always a sensitive law enforcement step, and if the committee would consult with us, we would help the committee avoid -- >> if you had given us those documents with appropriate guidance, that obviously wouldn't have happened. you didn't do it. you had plenty of time to do it. yield back to the gentleman. >> thank you.

as i try to follow this whole day and try to process what's been going on, february the 4th, there's a letter senator grassley, back and forth with you, stating the allegation of atf sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers who transported them to mexico is false. may 2nd. you wrote again to senator grassley, reiterating it remains our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into mexico yet i just asked some agents about that and their statement was they think about 1500 weapons are still out there and probably in mexico. would you like to change your statement at all on that or have anything you would want to shift on your previous statements from february or may? >> thank you, congressman. the statements that you refer to are -- let me say this. every time the justice department sends a letter to congress, it is true to the best

of our knowledge at the time that we send it. those particular statements remain true for the technical reason that the committee's report issued last night described the straw purchasers don't take guns to mexico and in any event, atf doesn't sanction or approve of the transfer of weapons to mexico. that's obvious. >> but atf did permit those knowingly understanding they're headed towards the border and that was well known apparently among the phoenix office and as we can tell going up the food chain, that these purchases were not being purchased by someone out as was stated, bear hunting. these were straw purchasers buying in large quantities and headed towards mexico. how can we make a statement, we're not sanctioning that but we're also not interdicting or trying to stop it, either. >> obviously allegations from the atf agents you've heard from today and from others have given rise to serious questions about how atf conducted this operation and that's why the attorney general instituted an investigation and it's why we're

cooperating in this committee's investigation. >> was there any communication with leadership in mexico so that if these weapons showed up in mexico, we were actually doing a law enforcement process here to make sure they were both aware that these guns might be headed that way or that we had a working relationship when arrests were made, we would cooperate with them dealing with these arrests? >> congressman, i can't -- from my position in the office of legislative affairs, i don't have personal knowledge of the kind of communication. my understanding is that in general, there are close ties between u.s. law enforcement and mexican law enforcement, including on gun investigations. so as a general matter, the answer to your question is yes. as to specific cases, i'm not in a position to say. >> are you saying you were aware this fast and furious was going on and guns were headed their direction, and they were involved in that process, or it's just we know their phone numbers and occasionally call each other. this specific program, i'm talking about. >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer that question

with specificity. >> do you know who might be a good person we can contact to get that kind of information? >> the committee has already interviewed one atf agent and we are prepared to make other agents available. these include high ranking atf officials. i would think those individuals can speak with specificity to the question that you're asking. >> terrific. what other office besides the phoenix office was doing this type of program? >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer. i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. do you know how many offices that doj has a relationship with that were informed about this operation as it was ongoing that might be engaged, at least have not necessarily approval but at least acknowledgment this is going on, just be aware, the phoenix office is tracking straw buyers and they are out there, there may be as many as 1500 guns, just be aware of that? do we know how many other offices or agencies are aware of that? >> are you saying offices or agencies of the justice department? >> within justice that it has relationship with. >> i don't know.

there is close communication among the various u.s. attorneys' offices and the law enforcement components. there are cross-cutting meetings and task forces and so forth. but i can't speak with spea specificity as to this operation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. weich, from what i can see, the department of justice has worked hard to comply with the committee's very large document request. not only have you gone to considerable lengths and cost, you have worked with majority committee staff to prioritize documents of great interest. you have briefed the committee not only on your ongoing processing of documents but on a case itself. on top of delivering many documents, you have made the most sensitive documents available for review by committee staff in ways that

protect the documents' integrity. it seems to me that the department is cooperating with the committee's extraordinary request and i say extraordinary because not only is the scope of the request very large, but because of its timing. during ongoing criminal investigations as well as an ongoing i.g. investigation. flashing back to when the committee was investigating blackwater, during the previous administration, a member of this committee now in the majority said that quote, we are supposed to allow the administration to do its investigation and then we do oversight, end of quote. now, i believe we have a legitimate interest in conducting oversight of the administration but we should not

jeopardize ongoing criminal cases or i.g. investigation just because a different party now holds the white house. mr. weich, in your statement, you explain that the department has made certain documents available to committee staff for their review, but without providing copies. this is because the documents contain sensitive law enforcement material and the department needs to prevent their public disclosure. >> that's absolutely right. >> is this a common practice? >> yes. it's a very common practice, as i detail in my written statement. for many years, the department has used this process of making documents available in order to maximize the number of documents that a committee can have access to. chairmen for many years have accepted this practice and we do it because the rules of the house do not easily permit a

committee to keep documents confidential and indeed, this committee has declined to provide any such assurances, so this is what we do. we make documents publicly or make documents available physically that we are prepared to see be made public, and those that are not, we make available to the committee investigators. >> and it's obvious that it's very disturbing to you and to the department that -- to the fact that despite your procedures and clear warnings, the majority and senator grassley has inappropriately released sensitive documents. >> let me say this, congressman. i have as the chairman noted, i have been here all morning and listened to senator grassley as well as to the terry family and to the atf agents who testified, the common view of all the witnesses and the members of the committee is that it is vital that these prosecutions, most notably the prosecution of agent

terry's alleged killers be successful. that we not do anything to harm those prosecutions. our effort to preserve confidentiality of certain law enforcement sensitive documents is in furtherance of that goal. >> and you wrote on monday that you heard during the hearing on monday that the committee is committed to not compromising the murder investigation or the broader gun trafficking investigation through its oversight activities, given what we found out about improper disclosures, and improper contact with witnesses and the way these hearings have been structured and conducted. i'm not sure i agree with your assessment. i think that the majority's actions have come very close to compromising investigations and prosecution if they already have not done so. do you still believe in the majority's commitment to not

compromising these investigations? >> congressman clay, we want to work with the committee. we have an ongoing relationship with the committee staff. i think it's important for us to flag these warnings and maintain appropriate brouound ris but we share the committee's interest in getting to the bottom of these investigations. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> when did you first talk to attorney general holder about this issue? >> as best as i can recall, it came up in preparation for his oversight hearings in may. he was asked about it by chairman issa -- >> do you still hold tight -- you're suggesting that the letters that you sent on february 4th, 2011 to senator grassley and again, another letter on may 2nd, 2011 to senator grassley, that the content of those two letters is complete and accurate as best you know? >> congressman, i have said --

>> that's a yes or no question. is it complete, accurate? >> congressman -- >> yes or no? >> well, respectfully, that's not susceptible to a yes/no answer. >> go ahead. >> thank you. as the committee's report pointed out, there is a technical explanation for why the allegation that atf sanctioned the sale of guns to straw purchasers who then transported them to mexico is not an accurate statement, so we said that was false. however, serious allegations have come to light, including the testimony of the agents today, that cause attorney general holder to want there to be an independent review of this matter and he's initiated that review. so we're not clinging to the statements in those letters. we're saying -- >> so if i said that i think somebody knowingly and willfully actually misled and lied to congress, would i be off base? >> respectfully, congressman, you would be in that we make every effort to provide truthful information to congress. i know that's something that --

>> i would like to highlight january 8th, remember, these letters came out in february 4th and may 2nd, but on january 8th, i will quote from this internal document here from the phoenix field division that indicated on page 4, quote, currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of co-conspirators who would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to mexican drug trafficking organizations and it goes on there. the administration knew in january, before these letters came out, that it was on purpose, it would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to mexico. how can that stand? how can you and the department of justice and people who take responsibility for this allow the lies to continue to come to congress? why did this obama

administration purposely allow the illegal transfer of more than 2,000 weapons that they knew, according to this memo, were going to go to mexico? >> congressman, you have asked questions that the office of the inspector general is looking at, that this committee is looking at -- >> i want answers from you. that's why you're here. you have this document. you know that this is true. this memo goes on to continue to say again in january, to date, there have been five notable seizure events connected with the group. approximately 53 firearms originally purchased by this group have been recovered. three of these seizures have been in the country of mexico. we knew that this was -- these were going south. yet in your letter, that you state quote, it remains the understanding -- our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw purchase buyers to take guns into mexico. that is patently and totally false. how do you do that? how do you -- when this comes out in january and again in may, you write, you tell this

congress that they did not knowingly permit straw purchasers to take guns into mexico, in total contradiction of the memo of january 8th. how does that happen? >> congressman, i have explained to you that we do our best to provide the information to congress as we know it. as allegations have come to light, we have initiated an investigation and cooperating with this committee's investigation. >> is fast and furious still ongoing? >> i don't believe so, congressman. >> at what point did the attorney general order that it be taken down, did we stop doing it? at what point did they actually say all right, enough is enough? >> the attorney general made very clear as this matter came to light that guns should never be walked to mexico. >> i want to know when the attorney general actually got engaged in this. why didn't he know about it? when did he know about it? or is he just oblivious to it? >> congressman, he answered chairman issa's question on the house judiciary committee. the question was -- >> but i questioned him also on the house judiciary committee, if you remember. you were sitting in the row

right behind him. he said he didn't know when he first knew about it. i'm trying to figure out when did he know about it and what did he do about it. >> he told congressman issa that he first learned about it several weeks before the hearing in connection with -- >> what i don't understand is when you go back and look at the record, president obama knew about it back in march. if the president knew about it, why didn't the attorney general know about it, and why are you issuing a memo in may when the president of the united states in an interview with i believe univision, is saying we know there were some mistakes made. how does that happen? the president makes this comment, then still months later, you have the gall to issue a memo to this congress saying that's just false, it's not true. that does not add up. that's what this investigation's going to continue to pursue. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. if i may grant myself time for a colloquy because the gentleman does seem to be rather upset, i have read the statement and if

you were to parse words and determine the meaning of "is" then you probably could say that because the straw purchasers, the originally buyers, did not take them to mexico but rather transferred them to intermediaries, that in fact they did not knowingly take them into mexico. w i would not call it the whole truth but i certainly understand why if someone is trying to deceive and mislead that they could in fact write a letter like that and think that they technically didn't lie and they would be correct. with that, we recognize next the gentleman -- you haven't done yours? recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, i know that you were here this morning while the members of the committee were -- i will say this with all the civility that i can muster. i think it is bitterly ironic that you would refer to committee missteps before you refer to atf or doj missteps in response to questioning from mr.

issa, you used the phrase committee missteps. i think the purpose of this hearing is not so much our missteps, real or perceived, but the missteps of atf and doj. so let me start by asking when did anyone at doj know that firearms in connection with this investigation were going to mexico? >> congressman, that's not a question that i'm equipped to answer. as i've said, the inspector general is looking at it and we're cooperating in this committee's investigation. may i just say, congressman, i didn't start out my testimony by talking about committee missteps. i didn't talk about it in my opening statement. >> no, sir, you did not. but it is bitterly ironic that the first criticism you would have or the first use of the word overstep would be of this committee and not of atf and not of the united states attorney's office in arizona and i frankly am shocked at the relationship between atf and that particular united states attorney's office. it is untenable and unworkable and i would hope that someone at

doj would ask some questions of u.s. attorney's office in arizona. i cannot imagine that kind of working relationship where proffers are not allowed and subpoenas take six weeks to be approved. i would be hopeful that you would ask that. so you do not know when doj knew that firearms were going to mexico? >> no, sir. i personally do not. >> what is doj's policy on guns walking? >> the attorney general has made very clear that guns cannot walk to mexico. that is to say, guns, it is a violation of law for guns to be transported across the border to mexico. >> what is your definition of walking? >> that, as the committee's report made clear, is the subject of much discussion within atf and -- >> i'm asking about doj. >> i'm afraid i'm not in position to answer that question. i will say that it is -- >> but you would agree that saying that me physically handing someone who is a prohibited person a gun, that

cannot be the only definition of walking. having knowledge that a gun is leaving your area of surveillance or jurisdiction is walking, correct? >> i can't define walking. what i can say, congressman, is that it is -- this is a challenging enforcement environment as i think you know as a former federal prosecutor. >> i do. but i also got to tell you as a former federal prosecutor, this is unprecedented. i have never heard -- would you ever allow or sanction controlled substances if it were controlled substances and not firearms, would you ever have allowed or sanctioned or permitted them to walk? >> first of all, there's a big difference. drugs are per se illegal and guns are not. the sale of a firearm or multiple firearms to an individual who is not a prohibited person is not illegal, of course. >> i'm aware of that. would you have allowed controlled substances to skip surveillance and go to mexico?

>> that's a question that's well beyond my area of responsibility or expertise. i will note that of course, there are controlled buys in narcotics cases in order to pursue a drug conspiracy and pursue the highest levels of a drug spears. i know that from my personal experience as a prosecutor. >> who can we ask, who can we invite before this committee who can tell us definitively when the department of justice knew that guns were going into mexico? who would you invite us to invite? >> i think you're pursuing the right track, if i can be so presumptuous. you're obtaining documents, interviewing witnesses, you interviewed agent newell, one of the individuals mentioned in the testimony today as having been very involved in this. there were other agents and atf officials who we are ready to provide for interviews. >> what about the united states attorney in arizona?

when did the u.s. attorney know that guns that were part -- this was an investigation that it was impossible to deny he was part of it. when did the u.s. attorney in arizona know the firearms were leaving the united states and going to mexico? >> i don't know the answer to that, congressman, but can i say i know dennis burke, the u.s. attorney there. he is a very hard-working, dedicated public servant and what obviously happened here is there was a serious profound disagreement about strategy but the common goal of the united states attorney's office and all of the atf agents is to interdict guns, to stop the gun trafficking to mexico. so mr. burke, i'm sure, was dedicated to that purpose. >> sir, with respect, given the fact that you know mr. burke and i do not, would you share with him what was said this morning about the dissatisfaction with federal law enforcement in

arizona and the relationship that they have with the united states attorney's office? >> yes. >> because that has not been my experience, certainly not in south carolina, not in other jurisdictions. the level of animosity and the fighting between law enforcement and federal prosecutors over something as simple as a proffer -- are you aware of any united states attorney's office that doesn't allow the use of proffers? >> it's obviously a common technique. >> of course it is. there's no way to build a historical case without proffers. since you know mr. burke and i do not, would you ask him to do what he can to repair his relationship with law enforcement, because it appears to be fractured from this vantage point. >> i would be happy to talk to him but i'm sure he's monitoring this hearing closely. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, following up on that point, it would seem that the approach of at least the deputy or assistant u.s.

attorney down there was to require corpus delicti, body of the crime, to actually have the guns in order to proceed with the prosecution. that will, if that's the case, i believe it's an improper application of the law and since this committee is involved in overseeing that our laws once passed by congress are indeed enforced, it would serve us all i think if we review that, the application of the law, if that indeed is the approach of the office down there. >> congressman lynch, if i may, one thing that's been brought to my attention is that the united states attorney's office has brought cases involving large numbers of guns to our purchasers, individuals alleged to have trafficked guns without a license, and those prosecutions have sometimes resulted in hung juries or directed verdicts of acquittal because of their high standard of proof, especially in the ninth circuit.

so there may be something for congress to look at in its legislative arena as well. >> okay. with that, i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i want to submit our letter for the record requesting the minority day of hearings. it's dated june 15th, today. >> thank you. i'm in receipt of your request. >> i'm asking that it be admitted into the record, mr. chairman. signed by members of -- >> certainly. without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. i want to say this to you, mr. weich. i'm sitting here listening to all this and i want you to take a message back. some kind of way, we've got to establish the majority has some concerns and i think many of them probably quite legitimate,

and there has to be a balance here. i'm always concerned about people possibly dying as a result of something we might do in this committee. i'm concerned about murderers getting off. i spent a phenomenal amount of time trying to protect witnesses. i submitted legislation that has been held up in the senate side by the other side trying to protect witnesses. i believe in ultimate cooperation between law enforcement and public. i have a record of it for years. you know why? because i go to the funerals. i see the deaths. i hear the cries and i experience the pain. in some kind of way, we've got to make sure that we strike the balance that i was just talking about and i'm not sure, i'm just not sure whether that balance

has been struck the way it ought to be. this committee has a job to do. the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to

read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that the record will be clear. it says investigative, talking about this january -- on january 5th, 2010, it says investigative and prosecution, i quote, investigative and prosecution strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution. i just wanted to finish that. because i think it's important, particularly in light of the chairman saying that we needed to have the whole statement. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. weich, for being

here today. i have a couple questions. you keep alluding to the inquiry and the investigation that i.g. is going to conduct at the request of -- >> that office is currently conducting that investigation. >> okay. are you concerned that their investigation is going to conflict or interfere with doj's investigation? >> you mean the criminal investigation? >> yes. >> the inspector general has a good deal of experience in avoiding those kinds of conflicts and of course, their work is strictly confidential. any report that they would issue publicly would be carefully vetted to avoid those kinds of concerns. >> so you're not concerned that will interfere with the doj's investigation, to be clear? >> we are not concerned. >> why are you concerned that our investigation, there is an ongoing investigation so we feel we are not getting the answers we need, because you are concerned about compromising

this other investigation. i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply. >> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the

material that the committee is seeking and that is within its core oversight arena. >> with all due respect, i think this committee would disagree with your assessment that we feel like we've been stone-walled and not gotten the information we have requested from doj but i don't want to take up all my time on that line of questioning. you sat here this morning during the second panel with the three special agents. did you hear them say that this was the first time and perhaps the only time they had seen such an operation as this one exist? >> i did hear them say that. >> is that of any concern to you, that out of nowhere, there's this fast and furious program that results in the death of brian terry? >> it is obviously some of the testimony that was provided today is of great concern to the justice department and that is why we are investigating it through the office of the inspector general and cooperating with this committee's investigation. >> is this the first time you've

heard any of that testimony? >> i've been generally aware of it, in my role as head of the office of legislative affairs, i have obviously been aware of this for a number of months. >> when you say you're generally aware, what does that mean? >> i've been involved in producing responses to letters. i've been in discussions about how to comply with the committee's subpoena. so i have been aware. i must say, i was very pleased to be here today to hear personally all of the testimony that was provided. >> and before i get on to my last question, did you hear the issue they raised regarding retaliation? >> i did. i thank you, congresswoman. i want to assure the committee, i think a number of members raised this, that the department of justice will not, would never retaliate against whistleblowers. >> lastly, my question, and i ask the family of brian terry what, if they had the ability to ask a question, what they would like to know. so i'm going to read the

question that we were given to ask you. i would like, to the best of your ability, you to answer this question. i think that we would want to know if the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murder will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. >> the answer to that question is unequivocally yes. there is a firm commitment in the department of justice to bring everyone responsible for agent terry's death to justice. >> and the second part of his question, if the guns used in brian's murder were a part of this operation, then we would want to know will everyone in the operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be brought up on charges of facilitating the murder of brian terry? >> obviously, the whole purpose of the investigations that are ongoing, both in the office of the inspector general and here is to ensure there is accountability for decisions that have been

made, and most importantly to improve, to strengthen law enforcement efforts. if there were flawed strategies, if there's insufficient surveillance, weapons, obviously that's something justice department wants to rectify. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i assume y'all are investigating various crimes that were associated with these guns, that aside from the tragic murder of agent terry, are there any other american law enforcement officers or citizens who have died as a result of this program? >> congressman, i can't accept the premise of the question, i don't know that any particular murder could be attributed to this program. i think that assumes a lot of

facts, and i'm not equipped to deal with that. so i can't answer the question. >> you heard the testimony of the agents saying that there was some sort of strategy that we would allow guns to move up chain of command with the rather nebulous goal of snaring a drug cartel. are you aware, is this the strategy, and if so, can you tell me in any rational basis how the means we used justified the ends when we quit following the guns when they changed hands the first time. there was no cooperation with the mexican authorities, and it just seems like once they did the first talk, they went away. >> one thing i heard loud and clear from the agents' testimony today was that the people with whom they disagreed on the

strategic questions told them and believed they were engaged in a strategy to topple a significant transnational gun trafficking operation. if the strategy was flawed, then individuals should be held to account and the strategies should be improved, but i did hear that everybody had the goal of stopping illegal drug trafficking to mexico. >> to me it seems like the next step is you follow the guns all the way. the actions that appear to have been taken don't seem to make any relationship to the strategy at all. but i have a couple of other questions, so we're going to leave that. you have been reluctant to provide information and answer questions, citing on-going criminal investigations, and not wanting criminals to go free or jeopardize these investigations, but my understanding, i'm a lawyer. my understanding of our justice system is that the defendant is

entitled to all exculpatory evidence. so if we've got something that will help the defense, we are obliged to hand it over. seems like y'all ought to turn it over to us to finish the investigation and meet the legal obligation to any defendants for full disclosure. >> we are going to meet constitutional obligation to the defendants. i would note when the committee interviews potential trial witnesses, you're creating material that wouldn't otherwise exist, that may be used to impeach witnesses at trial. >> we're after the truth, and regardless whether it comes out in front of this committee or comes out in front of a trial, shouldn't matter. let me go on. you also say there's some concerns with releasing information to us that would jeopardize other investigations and other strategies and programs, is that correct? >> yes. >> would you be willing to

provide a briefing to all or some of this committee in a classified basis about those? i think you sense a lot of anger, i would say anger from the committee that our government is engaged in what we perceive to be a reckless operation. even if in a classified manner you could assure us you aren't so far off the reservation there's a problem, i think it would go a long way to stemming some of the for lack of a better word adversarial conversations going on here. >> i hear you, congressman. first of all, we would be pleased to brief the committee, we have briefed the committee and will continue to do so. it should not be adversarial. i want to emphasize this. we share the committee's concern about the matters you heard about this morning. we are not adversarial to you in this. we are trying to get to the bottom of this ourselves. >> i yield my remaining 30 seconds to the chair. >> thank you. you made a statement in that

letter that you signed on the 4th that said atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to mexico. who prepared that line in your letter? >> chairman issa. >> you signed it, who prepared it. was it you? >> these letters are the product of the justice department. >> so your signature on that letter doesn't mean you know it to be true, is that correct? >> i take ultimate responsibility. >> isn't that statement false now with what you know? >> obviously there have been allegations that call into serious question that particular sentence. >> were there documents that have been provided and made public that let you know that statement was false? >> and that's why you're investigating and that's why we're investigating. >> just take your agreement that those documents indicate that statement that you signed that someone prepared for your signature were false? >> congressman, i am not prepared to say that at this time. everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at

the time we say it. as more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced. >> just for the record, we will be posting online the 20 some pages that were made available since out of the 20 some pages, the only thing that's not redacted other than internal use only statements is kevin simpson, acting division operations officer, u.s. department of justice, atf, 201, east washington street, suite 940, phoenix, arizona, and the zip. the phone numbers are redacted. that's 100% of what you call discovery. would the ranking member like a second round? >> i just have one question. >> this is following up on what you just were talking about. let me ask you this, mr. weich. i want to go back to being effective and efficient. again, we -- i am tired of when

we are put in a position where we're wasting time. you know, we may be dead next week, so i'm just being very frank with you, i'm tired. i don't want to waste time. life is short. this is the question. if you guys are -- if the department got assurances we would not be disclosing documents that are extremely sensitive, and agrees to, you know, to try to make sure that -- and we would commit to working out accommodations where we could go through, i mean, you submit the documents, we go through them, making sure

that -- sort of together, would you be willing to come up with a schedule whereby we can get what we want, and you can be assured that we're not doing something that interferes with the kinds of things you just talked about? >> we will work with you, congressman. we strongly favor that kind of cooperative accommodation process, it is traditional, and in this instance where we recognize the committee's legitimate oversight needs, we want to re-enter that process and do as much as we can to provide information. >> would you all be willing to commit to a schedule, document production schedule? see, this is what i'm getting to. we can do this all day. and a new congress will be in, and that's why i'm talking the way i'm talking. we got to get stuff done. and i can't -- we cannot keep our commitment to miss terry by doing this back and forth thing.

it is a waste of time. it is a waste of effort. and life is short. >> i hear you, congressman. >> so i'm trying to get you to to help us. and hopefully help yourself at the same time. if we can work something out, can we move past this? >> yes. >> because obviously the majority feel like we're not moving fast enough, and i can understand that, but you're not moving fast enough. i know you have all kinds of -- you said like 700,000 pages or something like that. >> more than that. >> what would you suggest? let me put it another way. what kind of arrangements would you suggest so that we don't keep running into this wall? >> i don't think we have hit a wall. i don't think we are at an impass. i think we are now on track, it may have been a bumpy start, but we have produced documents in each of the last three working days.

we made a witness available for interview and we have a list of others who are ready to facilitate interviews. we are doing what i think you're asking, congressman, this is trying to accommodate the committee's needs, consistent with our confidentiality interests. >> would you after this try to sit down with us and try to see if we can't -- it is up to chairman, he is the chairman of the committee, but see if we can work out something where we can get our documents and set up a schedule to get these documents? the last three days was wonderful, but we need to see if we can move the process along. >> i would be pleased to do that, i would welcome that. one thing i would say, we devoted attorneys, resources for this, we hired a contractor to put them in a form they can be efficiently reviewed. we are rolling here. >> one of the problems here is something i talk about a lot, it is -- and i recommend this book

to you called the speed of trust by cubby, and he talks about when people don't trust each other, it slows down everything. when they trust each other, it speeds it up. and i think maybe we need to -- i know you all are worried about documents being released, seems like we're worried about not getting all the documents timely. somehow we have to break through that so we can do the work of the american people. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. and i will close more patiently than i opened. would you agree to voluntarily provide a list of doj and or other personnel that prepared or participated in the preparing of the february 4th letter that we had so much discussion about? >> congressman, i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. these letters are the product of substantial deliberation within the executive branch. as i said.

>> would you agree to make available a list of personnel who worked on and may have in some way been responsible specifically for the misstatement in the letter that says atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent the transportation in mexico. >> i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. what i am prepared to commit to is an on-going effort to help the committee get to the underlying questions here about atf's law enforcement activities. >> now, just for the record, your job, the reason you're paid and basically have the title you have is to answer congress's questions. >> that's a big part of my job. >> roughly five months ago, senator grassley was told by your office in writing he wasn't going to get answers because he wasn't a chairman. you're aware of that, right? >> i am. and that's not an accurate statement. if i may respectfully -- >> more specifically, that chairman leahy would have to

request them. >> we answered senator grassley's letters, we have great respect for senator grassley, worked on many products over the years quite productively. it is the long time position of the executive branch through administration of both parties that they speak through committees as to oversight, so you are exercising the power of the house, no senate chairman has made a parallel request. >> i am well aware for two years in this administration there were no republicans able to make the requests and have them granted, and the requests generally were not made at all. that is, in fact, the position of the majority here, that it wasn't valid oversight for those two years. it is my personal position and i'll go on the record today since people were kind enough to read things from the past that we need to have legitimate minority rights and that at some future time in congress and each time the rules are produced, i'm going to try to have a party of the opposite party of the president, even if they're a minority, have rights, because i

think it's wrong that in fact the majority ultimately often finds itself asked and encouraged to protect the administration. i was here for the bush administration. i was more junior, but i certainly saw people in your position constantly cajoling us to protect the president. i don't approve of it. i now appreciate just how wrong that was. having said that, i will on behalf of the committee suggest something that you may take back to doj. if you're willing to do in camera review, 100%, unredacted, i repeat, 100% unredacted, please don't say it is unacceptable because it is obviously above your pay grade, you prepare, we come over, we being the staff. they look at the unredacted material. to the extent we can't agree on mutual redactions and the materials are sent over.

to the extent we disagree, then we can talk in terms of documents that have been seen, but are not available, are not releasable, do not fall within your concerns, because i share your concerns that our rules are such that once something comes over here with the exception of the select intelligence committee, it becomes more problematic as far as review or release. i want to get around that. i want to work with justice on it. i cannot from this side accept responsibility for documents leaked by third parties who get them, and i cannot enter into a negotiation where you tell us you're going to redact what we got around you, while you don't let us see unredacted versions in camera. there's never been a time in which i was more animated than when my staff came back from that break through meeting to find out that they had mostly black pages as your response in

camera. so please take back on behalf of this member and i hope the minority that we should be trusted to send over career professional staff to look at unredacted documents, understanding we're not taking them with us, until or unless there is an agreement how they would be appropriately redacted. that is the extension i am putting on the record. until that occurs, we will continue to expect discovery, and we will continue to object to getting virtually all black pages. with that, i think the ranking member has a question. >> yield for a second. >> of course. >> i'm assuming the message you send to higher-ups would include both sides, staff from both sides. >> that's exactly the intention. it is a simultaneous. our policies, and for those that may want to be aware of it, our policies are that in fact anything that is received is a document production is received to both sides, as you know, mr. weich, normally we ask you to send copies to both sides

simultaneously. in the case of in camera, we would expect staff would be detailed from both sides to go over and review it. but we will only come back for in camera review if in fact, and we will send cleared personnel preagreed to from both sides if that becomes an issue, but we have to look at the source material if in camera review will be appropriate. no judge will look at redacted material as in camera, certainly you wouldn't expect us to see part of a document that does us very little good, then say yes, we had production. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your recognition, but i can't sort of negotiate this kind of thing at the witness table, but i can assure you, we will work with you on these process concerns. that's the mode that we're in, trying to help the committee address its oversight needs. >> we look forward to that. this has been difficult. i will go again last on the record that we believe there has been some break through in the last week or so.

we are thankful for the breakthrough, it has been awhile in coming, hopefully the last time we will have the log jam with that. with that, this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> at 6:30, a look ahead to next year's presidential election with former obama white house senior advisor and former republican national committee chairman. >> today on "newsmakers," philadelphia mayor and oklahoma city mayor talked to reporters about how federal spending decisions affect cities, job training programs and infrastructure.

that's at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> blackberry users, now you can access our programming any time with the c-span radio app, with four audio streams. you can also listen to our signature interview programs each week. and it's all available around the clock, wherever you are, download it free from blackberry app world. >> secretary of defense robert gates and joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen testified this week on the defense department's 2012 budget request. other topics addressed were u.s. relations with pakistan, the military capabilities of nato and funding for operations in afghanistan. this took place during a senate appropriations subcommittee hearing on defense it. it runs about an hour and 40 minutes.

>> this morning i'd like to

welcome dr. robert gates, secretary of defense. and admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chief of staff to testify on the administration's budget request for f.y. 2012. gentlemen, it's my pleasure and privilege to welcome you back and to thank you for your many years of admirable and dedicated service to our nation. you entered your current positions during a tumultuous period for this country when we're losing ground in both iraq and afghanistan. and you agreed to take on what was arguably two of the most difficult jobs in the country and your leadership not only turned a tide on the ongoing wars, but also maintained the capacity, capability and public

appreciation for the united states military. you observed -- you have served tirelessly and you have served honorably. this committee and this country are truly thankful to both of you. i understand that secretary gates has to leave by 2:30 today so nord in order to have time for testimony and questions, i will submit my full statement for the record and i will now turn to the vice chairman, senator cochrane. >> mr. chairman, it's a pleasure to join you in welcoming these distinguished witnesses to our committee. they have demonstrated through their service, secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs, the skill, knowledge and dedication they have to keeping our country safe and to helping protect the security interests

of our nation around the world. that's 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's 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. and it's in a good cause. i'm meeting with the director of o.m.b. on the f.y. 2012 budget. so wish me luck. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2012. as noted, my last budget testimony before this or any other congressional committee ever.

and this time i mean it. the budget request for the department of defense being presented today includes a base budget request of $553 billion and an overseas contingency operations request of $117.8 billion. my submitted statement includes many more details of this qufment but i would like to take this opportunity -- request. but i would like to take this opportunity to address several issues that have been a subject of debate and concern. first, the planned feature -- future reductions in the ground forces, second, the proposed savings to the tricare programs for working age retirees and, third, the budget and strategy choices requested to -- required to meet the savings targets recently laid out by president obama. nearly 4 1/2 years ago one of my first acts as defense secretary was to increase the permanent end 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. to support the later plus-up of troops in afghanistan, i subsequently authorized a temporary further increase in the army of some 22,000. an increase always planned to end in f.y. 2013. the objective was to reduce stress on the force, limit and eventually end the practice of stop loss and to increase troops' home station dwell time. this has worked and i can tell you that those stop lossed in the army is now over. there are no army soldiers stop-lossed. as we end the u.s. troop presence in iraq this year, according to our agreement with the iraqi government, the overall deployment demands on our force are decreasing significantly. that is why we believe that beginning in 2015 the u.s. can with minimal risk begin reducing

army, active duty end strength by 27,000 and the marine corps by somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. these projections assume that the number of troops in afghanistan will be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the president's and nato's strategy. if our assumptions prove incorrect, there's plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change. these reductions are supported by both the army and marine corps leadership. however, i believe no further reductions should be considered without an honest and thorough assessment of the risks involved to include the missions we may need to shed in the future. let me turn to another issue relating to the department's personnel 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 $52.5 billion in this request.

among other reforms, this f.y. 2012 budget includes modest increases to tricare enrollment fees, later indexed to 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 fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were ultimately crippled by personnel costs and in particular their retiree benefit packages. the house approved most of our changes in the authorization bill. i strongly urge the senate to endorse all of our proposals. which brings me to the third and last point, the difficult budget choices ahead for the department.

last spring we launched a comprehensive effort to reduce the department's overhead expenditures, the goal was and is to sustain the u.s. military's size and strength over the long-term by reinvesting efficiency savings. the results of these efforts frankly were mixed. while the services leaned forward and found nearly $100 billion in efficiency savings, efforts to trim overhead costs of d.o.d. components outside the military services were not as successful. i believe there are more savings to be found by calling more overhead and better accounting for and thus better managing the funds and people we have. but one thing is quite clear. the efficiencies efforts the department has undertaken will not come close to meeting the $400 billion in savings laid out by the president. to realize that projected savings targets will require real cuts, giving the escalating

costs of so many parts of the defense budget and as a result real choices. here i would leave you with a 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 both inside the penn and outside of it. that kind of salami slicing approach preserves overhead and maintains others from structure on paper but results in a hollowing out of the force from a lack of proper training, maintenance and equipment and man power and that's what happened in the 1970's, a disastrous period for our military and to a lesser extent during the late 1990's. that's why i launched a comprehensive review to be completed by the end of this summer, to ensure that future spending decisions are focused on priorities, strategy and risks and are not simply a math

and accounting exercise. in the end this process must be about identifying options for the president and for you, the congress. to ensure that the nation consciously acknowledges and accepts additional risk in exchange for reduced investment in the military. above all, if we are to avoid a hollowing effect, this process must address force structure. with the overarching goal to preserve a u.s. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities, even if fiscal pressure requires reductions in that force's size. i've said i'd rather have a smaller, superbly capable military than a larger, hollow, less capable one. however, we need to be honest with the president, with you, with the american people and indeed with ourselves. about what the consequences are. that a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go fewer places and be 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. our military must remain strong and agile enough to face a diverse range of threats from nonstate actors attempting to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated missiles to the more traditional threats of other states, both building up their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our traditional strategies. today i ask your support for a leaner, more efficient penn -- pentagon and continued, sustainable robust investments in our troops and future capabilities. our troops have done more than their part, now it's time for us in washington to do ours. in conclude i want to thank this -- in conclusion i want to thank this committee for all you've done to support our troops and their families. from my earliest days as secretary of defense, i have made a point of reminding

officers, from midshipmen and cadets to admirals and generals, that congress is a could he equal branch of government that under the constitution raises armies and provides for navies and now air forces. members of both parties serving in congress have long been strong supporters of our military and are owed honesty and candor from the military and from the department. i've just returned from my 12th and last visit to afghanistan as secretary of defense. the progress we have made there since president obama announced his new strategy has been impressive. the sacrifices our troops are willing to endure to protect this country is nothing short of amazing. and all they ask in return is that the country support them in their efforts through to success. it has been the greatest privilege of my life to lead this great military for the past 4 1/2 years. every day i've 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 at home and around the world, i continue to be amazed by their decency, their resilience and their courage. through the support of the 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 our nation may face in the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary, i thank you very much. may i now call upon the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen. >> mr. chairman, senator cochrane and distinguished members of this committee, i'm honored to appear before you today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 defense budget. as the secretary laid out this budget combined with the efficients effort that he led provides for the well-being of our troops and families, fully funds current operations in afghanistan and iraq and helps balance the global risk through

streamlined organizations, smarter acquisitions and prudent modernization. the army, for instance, will cancel procurement of the surface to aramisle and the nonline of sight launch system but will will continue production of the joint light tactical vehicle and spearhead the development of a whole new family of armored vehicles. the navy will give up its second fleet headquarters and increase its use of multiyear procurement for ships and aircraft, allowing it to continue development of the next generation of ballistic missile submarine, purchase 40 new f-18's. the marines will cancel the expeditionary fighting vehicle and like the army reduce their end strength starting in 2015 but they will inreinvest these savings to modernize the amphibious assault vehicle and the light armored vehicle, even as they advance a new concept of operations and restore much of

their naval expeditionary skillless. in the air force, we'll be able to continue development of the next generation tanker, a new bomber and modernize its aging fleet of f-15 fighters. all the while finding savings of more than $33 billion through reorganization, consolidation and reduced facilities requirements. none of this balancing will come on the backs of our deployed troops. we're asking for more than $84 billion for readiness and training, nearly $5 billion for increased i.s.r. capabilities and more than $10 billion to recapitalize our rotary aircraft fleet. these funds, plus those we are requesting to help build our partnership capacity in places like afghanistan and pakistan, iraq and yemen, all speak to the emphasis we are placing on giving our troops and their partners in the field everything they need to do the difficult jobs we've asked of them. we must also give them an ard their families everything they

need to cope with the stress and strain of almost 10 years at war. that's why i'm so pleased with the funds devoted in this proposal, almost 3/4 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 i penned a rare 24-star letter to congress expressing our unqualified support for the military health care program changes included in this budget. we sought equity across all health care programs, with beneficiaries and health care providers having the same benefits and equivalent 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 well below the inflation out of pocket costs set in 1995 when

the current fees were established. we sincerely hope you will see fit to pass it. it is clearly eating us alive. please know that we will continue to invest in critical care areas to include research, diagnosis and treatment of mental health issues and traumatic brain injury. enhanced access to health services and new battlefield technologies. we understand that changes to health care benefits will cause concern among people, we serve and the communities from which we 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 for whom the war never ends. i remain convinced that we haven't begun to understand completely the toll that war extracts from our people. just as the grandchildren of world war ii vets still struggle to comprehend the full scope of the horror those men conceal, so too will our grandchildren have

to come to grips with the wounds unseen from these wars. unless we get it right. i believe the investments we are making in wounded care and family readiness will pay off in that regard, but it will take time and patience and money, three things we rarely seem to possess. that brings me back to this particular budget request. with limited resources and two wars in progress, three if you count our support to nato operations in libya, we should be prudent in defining our priorities, in controlling our costs and in slaking our thirst for more and better systems. we should also be clear about what the joint force can and cannot do, just as we should be clear about what we expect from our inner agency and international partners. our global commitments have not shrunk. if anything, they continue to grow. and the world is a lot less predictable now than we could have ever imagined. you need look no further than the events across the middle east and north africa to see the

truth in that. in fact, i just returned from a trip to egypt and a week before that 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 challenges in both egypt and pakistan are distinct, to be sure, but at each stop and in fact in just about every country i visit, i've been struck by the degree to which civilian and military leaders alike desire to keep our military partnerships strong. this desire isn't rooted in the fear of revolt or recripple nation but rather a shared understanding of the external threats to their security and ours which still plague the region. therefore changes to these relationships in either aid or assistance 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 the urgency to save a dollar.

the support we provide many of these militaries has helped them become the capable professional forces they are and in that regard has been of inestimateble value. of equal or greater value is increased appropriations for the state department and our request in this budget 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 partnership capacity, prevent conflicts and prepare for emerging threats. the request is modest, an initial $50 million appropriation, along with a request for authority to reprogram an additional $450 million if needed. but what it will buy us 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 get more pragmatic about the world we live in.

we can no longer afford bloated programs or unnecessary organizations without sacrificing fighting power. and we can no longer afford to put off investments in future capabilities or relationships that preserve that power across the spectrum of conflict. as you know, the president announced his framework for addressing our nation's 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 unnatural for the services for the department and for the congress. but they are absolutely necessary. the president also directed that before making specific budget dggetses -- decisions, the department of defense will assess their impact by conducting a fundamental review of america's military missions, capabilities and rolls -- 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 will be based on strategy and risks, not simply budgetary math and our goal will be to ensure that 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, the training and equipment necessary to perform the tasks we expect from it. in my view, then, 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 indeed if i did not close by praising the incredible efforts of our troops overseas and their families as they finish one war in iraq, begin to turn corners in afghanistan and help save innocent lives in libya.

i know you share my pride in them and that you will keep them foremost in mind as you consider the elements of this proposal. i too 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 interact with you appreciate and i know our troops and our families appreciate as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> admiral mullen, thank you very much. i'm pleased to note the extraordinary attendance of members of the committee. however, as a result i will have to limit the q&a to four minutes. secretary gates, you have made a couple of public statements on how to achieve our president's $400 billion reduction over the next 1 years -- 12 years. instead of gutting the

modernization programs, i know that 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 be reduced? >> mr. chairman, 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 inefficiencies 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.

so 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 situations where perhaps two services have comparable capabilities and we can get by by having that capability in just one service. or there may be missions that we can set aside. the third category is the hardest and it's the one that admiral mullen and i both 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 do we

adjust our strategies and how do we evaluate added risk by reduced investment in defense? one example of this, just to give you the flavor of what we're talking about, for many years we have had a strategy of being able to wage two fairly major regional conflicts simultaneously. . that has real impact for forced structure. in terms of assessing risk, between 2007 and 2009, we in fact had two major regional conflicts going on simultaneously, so this is not far-fetched in terms of risk. the fourth category are the

issues that frankly are politically challenging. they 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. i think we have to challenges on retirement side. one is, about 7% to 80% of our force does not stay in the service long enough to retire, but they leave with nothing. if you serve five years or 10 years or a dozen years, you walk out the door was nothing. that does not make any sense. the private sector is well ahead of us in that respect.

the second problem is, we get a lieutenant colonel or a sergeant first class what 20 years of service, they are at their prime, and we make it financially silly for them not to retire in 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 that i think we need to address, both in terms of what is good for the fourth but in areas where rick and save some money. those four areas are the areas we are looking at in terms of how we can find this four hundred dollars billion. -- $400 billion. >> can i just make two brief comments? not unlike the government itself, where the defense department has roughly half of the discretionary spending inside our budget, a little less -- a little more than half is discretionary. what 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 in garment is going to be for us. secondly, if we do not come to grips with some of the most difficult issues, is as clear as anything to me that the only answer is we are going to get a lot smaller. we would give up force structure to sustain these benefits, to do all those 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.

>> to take up the slack in areas where we are not moving forward in trying to dominate and run a military operation, what are returning from their capabilities or inadequate that give you the most concern was more >> i addressed this last week in brussels in my usual, subtle form. the reality is that as they cut their defense budget, and have been -- have not been investing in their defense capabilities for a number of years, by default, the additional burden falls on the united states. so i think that there is a genuine worry that our allies have looked to us to pick up the slack as they cut their defense budgets, and a message that i had for them in europe last week was that because of our

financial problems, and frankly, a growing number of members of congress for whom the cold war and our connection to europe and to nato are not in their genes as they are for me, are going to be unwilling to pick up 75% of the defense burden of the nato alliance. so 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 are now going to face in looking at the american defense budget, brings this issue to center stage in a way that really has not been in the past. >> admiral mullen, on the same subject, what effect does that specifically have on our ability to project power to other regions of the world? a far east, for example, areas where we have been involved in actual combat operations, the

vietnam era, and what that brought in terms of expense of operations and training of our forces. can you give us an assessment of the direct impact on the u.s. navy and your budget request? >> i share the secretary's concerns and views with respect to the investment -- a dramatically decreased investment in our nato partners. one of the effects it has had is certainly that they do not have the depth of resources in some cases to do what their political leadership has directed them to do. although i also would say that both in afghanistan and libya, nato is more together than i have seen in terms of commitments over the course of the last 10-15 years. while they do get criticized, they also stood this operation up in an incredibly quick

fashion. we head and air operation -- have not had an air operation like this in a long time, and from my perspective, they have executed that well. the resources to do it is something we are all watching very closely and they are in some ways dependent on us. for countries who recently did their own strategic review, they found themselves getting rid of capabilities that now that they are in a combat environment, there are giving second thought to that. combat has a way of bringing that kind of reality to them. it argues for me that we have to be careful in our review about what capabilities we decide to either get rid of or trim back. where we are right now, and as you talk about the western pacific, we have tremendous relationships with the japanese, with the republic of korea

military, we have had with our australian friends, as well as growing relationships with other countries. i am pretty comfortable with where we are right now. we have both marines and navy and significant numbers in that part of the world. that makes a difference in terms of stability. pressure over time, it gets back to what i said. if we get into this war structure part of us in terms of defense review and have to reduce our force structure, there will be pressure there which in the long run, i think will start to undermine stability in a place like that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary and admiral mullen, thank you for your service. mr. chairman, i would like for my opening statement to be made part of the record. last year, you transferred about

$6 billion of your budget authority to the department of energy to pay for nuclear weapons modernization programs, because as i understood it, you are concerned about the neglect that had befallen the u.s. -- u.s. nuclear program. how concerned are you that the house is considering appropriations legislation that we would cut the program by almost 10% from what the president requested and what you have already paid for out of your already very tight budget. what are the implications to failing to fund a modernization program here? >> i am very concerned. as i recall, the actions taken by the house cut billion dollars from this modernization program. this modernization program was very carefully worked out between ourselves and the department energy, and frankly,

where we came out on that also, i think, played a fairly significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the new start agreement. so the risks are to our own program in terms of being able to extend the life of our weapons systems, to modernize them, not in the sense of capability, but in terms of security and reliability. this requires new construction. we have a lot of buildings at los alamos that date from the manhattan project. this modernization progress -- project is really important of from security and a political standpoint. >> in my short time, missile defense, i understand that the defense science board has compiled a report on the concept of what we call an early intercept a missile defense, and reports unclassified conclusion

is that the plans to achieve an early intercept capability is simply not credible. this is disturbing to some of us. since the promise to develop by 2020 and early intercept capability, but it was a central justification to cancel the third site and to kill the kei defense face. now it looks like the nation may be left with an inadequate defense in europe. is the department re-examining the phase adaptive approach in light of the defense science board, and should the department looking at ways to use funding in the current program to improve the gmt system or to

evolve more rapidly? >> we have the resources in the 2012 budget to do both, to fund the phase adaptive approach and to strengthen the ground-based interceptor program. the 2012 budget covers deployment and test purposes. makes investments in upgrades to long-range radars in greenland and the u.s. and canada. we also have money for developmental work in terms of other kinds of intersection of ballistic missiles, but i believe that the balance between the ground-based interceptor system and the money we are investing in that, plus the money that we are investing in the phase adaptive approach -- first of all, it will give us missile defense capabilities several years earlier than would have been the case with the

third site in europe. let's be blunt. the third site in europe was not going to happen, because that czech government would not approve the radar. if it was going to happen at all, it would have taken years longer and we still would not have negotiated the required agreements with the polls in terms of the interceptors. the balanced approach and the development work we have underway, plus the additional half a billion dollars we have added to the budget for fiscal year 2012, puts us in a pretty good place on missile defense. >> while i am not exceptionally close to it in this job, i have been around missile defense for the last 15 years, and whole issue of boost phase interceptors is an extraordinarily difficult, technical challenge. if someone has broken through on that, i have not seen that. i have seen a lot of efforts go after that, and i was very

supportive of the program adjustments that we made with respect to that,. i thought we were throwing good money after bad. secondly, and i have not seen this report, but i will take a look at it. i would not push back on it, but 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. we are still almost a decade away. i have confidence that we can continue to pursue that pass. it is an incredibly well tested system. the missile you are talking about does not exist yet, but i think we can get there in that timeframe, based on my understanding. >> i want to join the others and thank you for the extraordinary service you have both shown to

this country. you came to your role at very challenging times. admiral mullen, in your trip to vermont, when you joined me up there to meet with our troops when they were deploying. secretary gate, i have enjoyed our friendship of about 30 years now. one issue we do not agree on is the war in afghanistan. most americans and most people in vermont -- i think we have to dramatically accelerate our withdrawal of troops from that country. i supported going into afghanistan for the purpose of getting osama bin laden after 9/11. the subcommittee and all of us here on the appropriations committee have been strongly supportive of that.

and did not support the invasion of iraq. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but we borrowed the money to go into that war. it is an extraordinary thing in a war to borrow the money and continue to borrow the money. we said we will let our children and grandchildren pay for these two wars. i don't think we can continue to sacrifice so many lives. i think we can identify achievable goals in afghanistan and reduce our military quickly there. we look at pakistan and we see we have arrested five people, -- they arrested five people who helped us get bin laden. we can overlook the problems in pakistan, but we have president

karzai who cannot seem to make up his mind if he is on our side or the taliban. we say we have to privatize medicare. our military are performing extraordinarily well, but how long do we support governments that lie to us? when do we say enough is enough? secretary gates, let's start with you. >> first of all, i would say, based on 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.

sometimes they send people to spy on us, and they are our close allies. it 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 completed not later than the end of 2014. troops will be coming down during that time. the cost of these wars is coming down dramatically. it will drop by $40 billion and by several tens of billions more in the next few years. the prospects of having a more stable afghanistan in terms of a country that can defend itself -- i am not talking about a

vermont democracy here, but a country that can depend itself. >> neither am i, mr. secretary, and you know that. >> what i am talking about is, we are not in the business of nation-building. we are trying to build afghan national security forces to the point where they have the ability to defend that country and so that the taliban and al qaeda cannot reconstitute themselves in that country. i think we are making considerable headway in that respect. i know people are frustrated. the country has been at war 14 years. people are tired, but think in terms of stability and the potential for reconstitution, what is the cost of failure? >> what i am talking about is pakistan. we are in the midst and have been of trying to build a relationship that was badly

broken when we left last time. we terminated our relationship with them in the late 1980's and early 1990's, and we are back. it is my belief that if we were to do that again, it may not be five years or 10 years, but we will be back in a much more difficult situation. seeking to support civility in that part of the world to the degree that these two countries can evolve is, i think, a goal that we must continue to pursue, or the danger associated with a country that has 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 challenges associated with it. some of the criticism is more than warranted.

it is a conscious decision. i think that we have to make that decision, and if we walk away from it, it is my view it will be a much more dangerous place a decade from now and we will be back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i cannot speak for other states, but i can speak for the people of indiana, who are grateful for your lifetime of service. not only commitment to public service, but execution brilliantly in your jobs. you have been a model for us and i thank you, and i know the people of indiana thank you. secondly, i would like to reaffirm secretary gates, your statements about the greatest threat to our future security is a runaway debt and a trillion dollars of deficit on an annual basis.

that threat is not addressed, even the difficulties and scale back ability to respond to challenges around the world that will not go way are potentially reduced. that is nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains that will be placed on our ability to do that in future if it cannot get hold of this runaway debt and deficit. that ever shrinking part of the pie that goes to discretionary defense spending is going to keep shrinking if we do not deal with mandatory spending. i appreciate you speaking out on that basis. my question goes to where possibly we can get the savings. i note that the house appropriations defense subcommittee passed a bill that include research on a number of

health issues. millions on cancer research, traumatic brain injury, orthopedic research, restoration of help research -- health research. i am just wondering, that is $393 billion, it is a long way farm $400 -- from $400 billion. in the past, the business has been a goat to place or help research that in many cases is duplicated elsewhere. for instance, orthopedic research. our state is leader in the world in orthopedic research. all the leading technology comes out 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 -- i know it is the holy grail not to touch anything having to do with health service, but i am saying there may be some duplications there that we ought to be looking at. >> i think any of these things are worth looking into in detail, and i cannot speak to the cancer piece of it, but i will say that i think we have funded some of the leading research being done in the country on 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 that in terms of the practical applications of those things in terms of pure research, that 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 in particularly those three areas, because those are the areas in which our service members are suffering the most in these wars. >> i will except that. -- i will accept that. is a hollowed out nato worse than no nato? the reality that nato is just not stepping up to its responsibilities and 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. i would just add one point to that chairman's comment earlier. one of the things that has happened to our allies is that there really have stepped up in afghanistan, but the results of that has been that the costs of their participation in afghanistan have brought further

pressure on the modernization budgets of those european countries. so it has contributed to their overall narrowing of military capability, but partly because of the contribution that have made in afghanistan. >> a very much. >> like all my colleagues, thank you for your service. i think the enormous turnout of members and also the back that we are staying longer than usual is a tribute to the high regard that we regard your service. we want to thank you for it, from the incredible job you have done in keeping america safe and your strong support from the military.

there are many trips where we get out of washington and listen to the troops and talk to our military. you responded unflinchingly with the walter reed scandal and the way you took ownership, the way you assured accountability, responsibility, and corrective action, and i want to thank you for that. i have watched you with the troops, not only in uniform, but in things like the army-navy game, where you meet with them. there is such access to you, and the way that they thought they could approach you and talk to you, and the warmth and regard you have. i think that is what a real inspirational leader is, which is the difference in management. the farewell trips and speeches you have given have been eyebrow raising, the jaw dropping, and

for me, and must do list. from the eisenhower library speech in which you call for major reform, to the most recent one at nato. you have dropped more bombs in some of these than the air force. but let me get to my question. i would like to follow up on the questions raised about nato. what is nato? what are going to require of nato members? what action should nato undertake? let me go to something very specific. there are big policy questions to be sorted out. i wonder what your thoughts are on overseas base closing, and is this the time were we looked out to major policy and make

sure we do not have a hollowed out nato? what would be your thoughts on that? the president's commission on deficit reduction said we could save about $9 billion in this area. >> first of all, any overseas base reductions will necessarily require -- 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. we do get support from the germans, the japanese, and the south koreans in supporting those facilities. >> i am not advocating closing all bases. >> we have just been through that. in the department of defense, and is now working its way through the interagency in terms

of an assessment of our global posture and our presence in a lot of these different places. secretary clinton and i will meet with japanese the first of next week in our periodic 2 plus two meetings to talk about open our and guam and japan and the force presence there project about open now -- okinawa and guam. what kind of signal do you want to send to the rest of the world in terms of america's role in the world, and at the same time we are cutting our defense budget and we cut our state department budget, and the state has fewer assets to deploy a abroad and we have fewer assets to deployed abroad, and then we began to close foreign bases, are we basically sending the message to the rest of the world and to china, iran, north

korea, and right yana other places, the u.s. is closing up shop and going home, and we are headed toward fortress america again. i think there is a huge question for the country to consider and for you to consider, what kind of role do you want for the united states in the world? frankly, i believe our presence in europe, for example, one of the benefits it has brought in addition to the financial benefit of having troops be able to rotate from germany into iraq and afghanistan at less cost than from here, but one of the things that has slowed this deterioration of the nato military capability. we train with them and work with them, and they have to have capabilities two just when we are doing that.

>> maybe it is just because of my roots, and i am a navy guy, there is just nothing like being there. you can live there or you can rotate theire. i just came back from egypt, and we have had a long relationship with egypt. the relationship we have with egypt is different from the one we have with japan, because we live with them and interact with their families. we know the japanese people in ways that we do not know other countries. the same is true in germany and the republic of korea. extraordinarily strong relationships. when we are in a crisis, we can use those relationships to prevent a crisis, or prevent escalation. i certainly would not say -- i think the presence piece of this is so powerful an enduring and

it prevents conflict in ways that sometimes we do not think about in the short term when we are looking for savings. our investment is significant, i understand that. i just think we need to really be careful. >> if i could submit questions for the records in terms of military health care, and in the follow-up, that is four hundred billion. they have reinvented earmarks, and i would like to have three to five items out of that area where you think we should definitely stay the course in reducing our expenditures. i hope somewhere we get to ask his opinion on the house and earmarks. >> we will discuss that. >> we thank you for being here today and we congratulate both of you on a job well done.

your leadership has been critical to the progress we have made in afghanistan, iraq, and in the global war on terror, most recently the death of osama bin laden. many americans are hoping that our forces can soon come home from afghanistan after a decade of war. i share this desire to begin withdrawing our forces from afghanistan, beginning with a sizable and sustained reduction in forces this summer. i would like to ask both of you about the government of afghanistan and president karzai. president karzai seems increasingly hostile with the american presence in afghanistan, and his government is plagued by corruption. a first question is whether you see president karzai playing a positive or a negative role in afghanistan. i would also like to hear from both of you about what comes after karzai. presumably he will not be president forever. what kind of relationships are

we building with afghan leaders from other political parties and ethnic groups, but in power as well as the opposition? >> first of all, i have spent a lot of time with president karzai over the last four 0.5 years -- 4.5 years. i think we have 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. that is private security companies. this became a crisis in our relationship late last year. we worked our way through it, and he has participated in working his way it is in our working our way through this. but we knew from iraq that private security companies are a

problem in these countries, and we should have begun this transition to afghan oversight of these companies a long time ago. my point is, yes, he reacts publicly to things that are done and said. he is very sensitive to civilian casualties. i think you would find if you talk to our commanders, if you talk to people that i talked to, he is somebody who understands the campaign plan and want a long-term u.s. relationship with afghanistan after he is president -- after he is president, he told me plans to step down in 2014. other military people and diplomats are in touch with the broad range of afghan leaders all around the country. on the government side, i would just say that at the nato

defense ministers meeting late last week, the ambassador reported that he had just gotten back from afghanistan. 75% of deputy district governors now in afghanistan are chosen on the basis of merit. he told the defense minister's further that as the provincial governors change, the quality is steadily improving. i think you have the kabul environment and you have the outside of kabul in burma, and frankly, it is a lot better outside of kabul in terms of what is going on. it is a relationship where we are dealing with the president whose country has been at war, like us, for 10 years. he is very sensitive to the fact that the afghans are exhausted with war, too. i find that when i sit down with president karzai, we have a very

productive conversation, and it is clear that he buys into what we are trying to do and that we are allies, not occupiers. he does support post-2014 relations with the nine states going forward. >> as the security environment continues to improve, in terms of what we are seeing on the ground, it is getting better from a government's standpoint. between security and governments, that it should two. rican start to develop the areas, which is what the afghan people care about. they are tired of war. there is a disparity between kabul and what we see locally throughout the country. we have to continue to engage. this is the elected leader of a country. we cannot do it without the

government's. we have to continue to push on better governance, the reduction of corruption, and the development piece of this. we are just getting to the point in the south were security has gotten to a point where those other pieces can really start to kick in. we are not there throughout the country, but from an overall proof of concept, this uproot -- this approach is having the impact we thought it would, we are there. >> one other point i would make is, having talked about the rest of the country being better in some respects than kabul, in another respect, kabul is a model, because the afghans have had the security leak in kabul for over a year now. that is the transition we are trying to make throughout the rest of the country and a district by district, province by province basis. about 25% of the afghan

population live in areas that are now under the afghan security lead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your extraordinary public service. mr. secretary, for the historical record, for young people who may be planning a career in public service, what is better preparation for secretary of defense, president of the big university, or director of the cia? >> president of a big university. >> about how many military men and women to our european allies have? cracks about 2 million in uniform. >> about how many are available to be deployed in an exercise like libya or afghanistan? >> i would guess it would be 15%

to 20%. that number can be very deceptive, because for all of us, we find out we have 2.2 million men and women active in reserve and almost 300,000 the rick -- 300,000 people deployed around the world right now. >> i thought i heard somewhere that they might have only 40,000 troops available. >> in my speech last week i said they had struggled to maintain 25,000 to 40,000 troops in afghanistan. >> in the gulf war, and the first iraq war, if i remember correctly, the other countries paid for a large part of that. how much of that did they pay for? >> virtually all. >> in iraq, afghanistan, and libya were, how much of other countries paid for customer >> the other countries -- how much

have other countries paid for? >> they are paying for their own munitions and things like that. >> but the united states is paying for virtually all of iraq, pakistan and afghanistan. >> not libya, but we have paid the bulk of the money in iraq and afghanistan. >> what is your testimony that in nato, the united states is supposed to pay what percent of the calls, and what percent do we actually pay? >> the line that i had was that up until about the end of the cold war, we paid about 50% of the military cost of the alliance. since the cold war, since 1991, that has risen to about 75% of the total military expenditures in nato. >> is there a lesson that -- is there a lesson for this president and future presidents

and congress, as we prepare for any future military action that we might keep in mind, not just getting approval of other countries but to do as was done in 1991 and 1992, to actually get their commitment to help pay for it? >> we can look it that two ways. one is, the answer is absolutely yes. one of the things that i pointed out last week at the nato defense ministers' meeting is that the trust fund to support the afghan national security force going forward is in terms of the dollars or euros that have been contributed, is a joke, because it is about 300 pp million euros at a time when the united states is spending billions of dollars to support the development of those

military forces. one of the things i have talked to all our allies about is the fact that it is imperative for them to contribute to that trust fund. on the other hand, the circumstance of the gulf war were unique in that the countries we are dealing with that dealt the most threats were kuwait, saudi arabia, the gulf states, and so on. i will tell you that looking back, the two people who led the team is going around to talk to our allies about their contributions were led by secretary of state baker and nick brady. somehow, through the luck of the draw, baker ended up with saudi arabia, kuwait, the gulf states, and so on, and nick brady had to go talk to the japanese, germans, and others. he was not nearly as successful

as jim was. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator collins. >> mr. secretary, since this is your last hearing, it seems ungracious to do anything except thank you and heap praise upon you for your service, but since your before a group of senators, while we will do that, will also add some questions, but i do sincerely thank you for a lifetime of public service that has made an extraordinary difference to our country and to our troops in particular. i am very concerned about the poor hundred billion dollars that the president has -- the four hundred billion dollars that the president has assigned the department of defense for

additional cuts. you have already made tremendous effort to squeeze out waste and inefficiency and to reduce unnecessary spending. i am concerned that we could end up with the kind of hollow force that you warned us against and that was so devastating to our troops and our security potentially in the 1970's and to a lesser extent, two decades later. were you consulted by the president or zero m b in the size of the target of the $400 billion that has been assigned to the department of defense? >> i was informed about it the day before it was announced. >> my concern, mr. chairman, is i believe that military requirements have to drive the

budget, and not the other way around. >> i will say this, senator. when i was informed, i did get immediate agreement that before any specific budget decisions were made, this comprehensive review that the chairman and i have been talking about would be carried out, that we would present options to the president and to the congress that shows relative levels of risk of different kinds of cuts and changes in the force structure. so there was agreement immediately to their review before specific decisions were made. >> thank you. it still seems backwards to me, as far as the targets given. you are going to assess the risk of various scenarios to meet the , is thebut that, to mee opposite of the way we ought to

be proceeding. let me ask a question on libya. i personally have a lot of concerns about our involvement in libya and the transition from it being a humanitarian exercise to the goal of having colonel gaddafi leave and relinquish power. let's assume that colonel gaddafi does give up power. the transitional national council is made up almost exclusively of eastern libyans, i am told. i believe 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 also concerned that we are not certain who we are dealing with.

do you feel confident that we have a plan for what we would do post-khaddafi? >> just having come out of both egypt and europe last week, i am actually encouraged that there are countries and organizations, nato being one, that are specifically looking at what happens after the topic. i think we need to do that. i am more confidence that the more we learn -- i also see them now linking to the west more than they had in the past. there are civilian leaders and military leaders who recognize the challenge that you just described. what i have not seen yet is the kind of comprehensive, collective view of how they would run the country. i think they recognize that

internally. their focus on this is improving, but i think we are sort of at the beginning of that, and there is a long way to go. i am more positive than i was a few weeks ago. there is an awful lot being brought to the table in terms of international focus on this from our government as well as many other governments. i still think we have a long way to go. >> one of the actions taken by the nato defense ministers last week was to resolve that nato would not be in the league in any kind of transition, but also the secretary general would be in communication with the contact group and the un, and tell them it is our view that the planning for this transition should get under way now, not wait until gaddafi falls. >> thank you, and thank you both for your service.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service. secretary gates, i echo the high praise that we all have for you and for your efforts. speaking about afghanistan, as we deal with the reality of a drawdown coming ahead and the numbers and all the discussion that goes on there, i am going to make it a little more parochial. we have several thousand troops with the first striker brigade combat team of the 25th infantry that just a ploy. they moved out just this past month. the concern i am hearing from some of the folks up north is, we want to be in that phase where we are withdrawing and

coming out of afghanistan, but we are concerned that our loved ones, who have just now gone in, are going to be on the back end of that withdrawal. so you have these forces moving out. you 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 give to those who are just now going into afghanistan and who will be there through the end of this next year that their situation is not increasingly riskier? >> i would make two points. first of all, the reduction in cost in afghanistan beginning in fiscal year 2013 and beyond,

let's say the fall of 2012, really correlates to the level of troop drawdowns. the amount of money that is saved associated with the number of troops we have in country, not by any skimping or the enablers that we have there to support the troops we have. second, i have had conversations with the president about this, and i will tell you that he and i are both committed that whatever decisions are made, the foremost consideration will be to ensure that whatever steps are taken do not put the troops that are leaving at greater risk, or the troops that are remaining at greater risk. >> let me ask a question about wall -- about guam. in light of what we are seeing with the tightening budget, can

expect any significant changes perhaps in the current direction with regards to the buildup in guam? are going to be that 2014 completion date target that has been set, given what the estimates are at this point in time? >> secretary to lynn and i will be meeting with the japanese on monday and tuesday, and i will have a better answer to your question after we have that meeting. >> it has been a great pleasure to work with both of you, and i want to thank both of you for your tremendous service to this country. it is very much appreciated at a very challenging time. secretary gates, i look forward to you coming home to our home

state and continuing our relationship. i know you must be looking forward to that. >> 15 days. >> hopefully the weather will be better when you get there than it has been. >> last friday i visited the national naval medical center opened bethesda and talked with the number of our wounded warriors and their care givers. as you well know, many of the service members have sacrificed life and limb in afghanistan, and we are going to be taking care of them and their families, not just today, not just when they return home, but for a lifetime. as chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee, i take this issue very seriously, and i have been trying to draw attention to some of the all too often unseen costs of quarks, and -- costs of war, and thinking about how we should consider that as part of our decision in any long-term conflict. the major components of this

long-term or have had real and significant impact. death from suicides among veterans and service members from the war are on par with combat deaths. many of our warriors are facing difficult challenges with mental health care as they return home and a lot of service members have served sometimes five times, and the costs of these are real. while we all talk a lot on this committee about military resources and all the cost and components of the defense system, i want to ask you today what you and the pentagon considered to be the biggest cost of this war to or wounded warriors and their families, particularly those costs that we will be paying for a very long term, and whether that is ever considered and factored in when we are making decisions about drawing down in afghanistan.

>> i think it is self-evident that the cost are exactly as you describe them. lives that are shattered, bodies that are shattered, and mines that are shattered. i will tell you that one of things we have done over the last two to three years is to ensure that all of the funding that we have gotten in the past in supplementals and overseas contingency operations, dealing with family programs and with some of the medical research we were talking about, and care for our wounded warriors, that all that money has been shifted into the base budget, knowing that we will deal with this problem for many, many years to come. from our part, in addition to the va, we have tried to make sure that the funds for these programs 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 cost of the soldiers and sailors, airmen, and marines who suffer. it is on the minds of everybody who makes those decisions, but by the same token, it is the nature of war, and is frankly one of the reasons why, as i told an interviewer couple of weeks ago, i feel like i have become more conservative, more cautious about when we use force, because i have seen the consequences up front. admiral mullen has devoted a huge amount of effort to this. he probably ought to say something. >> i appreciate your leadership on this, because it has to have a voice. i actually believe we are just beginning to understand the cost.

fort lewis, we now have more soldiers and airmen than have ever had and they are going to be home for a couple of years bid -- a couple of years. they have been compartmentalizing challenges and they are going to start unpacking that, and is going to be tough now that we are back home. the leadership focusing on addressing the challenges that will come with that, medically and any ptsd-tbi world, there is still a great deal on the tbi side that we do not understand. >> and is changing dramatically. we are finding the impacts are different years later. >> there are time bombs set up

that we know are out there, we just do not know when they are going to go off. the relationship that the pentagon has with the dea and communities throughout country has to get stronger. where you and others can help is, when we we get into budget crunches like this, this incredible amount of money that we have put into these programs, it is some of the first amount of money that these budget types like to take out historic fleet. we are saying to keep our family programs intact. unless we watch that carefully, it will not be there when we need it. we have to have it in a way bettis is sustained over time. we do not understand them as well as we should. not just for our members, but

for their families as well. our members have become just as much a part of the regular is as anything else. without family be would be nowhere in these wars. so, leaders have to continue to focus on these costs. it is to repay this debt for the rest of their lives. and we need to stay with them so that we understand what that means. >> i told the service secretary and the chief that the best two areas in these budget exercises that we are going through, one of them as training and the other our family programs and i do not want any money taken out. >> i appreciate that. i think that we really need to seriously consider this because it impacts troops today and impacts our ability in the future for the next big one. if we are not taking care of our

folks. >> we are generating a homeless generation. many more homeless female veterans. i think that a quarter of a million have served in iraq and afghanistan. we will pay for the long term as an investment. >> we are about to make some of the same mistakes that we've made after the vietnam war? >> we are. >> the country will be paying for it in 24 years. >> yes. >> the gain of washington state is the loss of texas. we would take you in a heartbeat if you would come. he did a great job at texas a&m.

i want to go by to the senator's line of questioning. after the last american bracket, we had the same overseas bracket design to bring 70,000 troops back from certain locations. germany and korea especially. now we are looking, mr. secretary, at a military construction project that has just been completed this year that would take one of the ct's designated to come back from germany that is designated to take that vct from germany. but the department changed the

previous decision that would bring back two from germany to just basically say that we are not sure yet. in america you have about four under and $50 million worth to take one of them back. on the plan for military construction this $1 billion with germany contributing 7% as compared with japan. i would just ask you, if you are leaving these last two weeks, could you give serious consideration to the fact that we do not have an effort from germany? $1 billion for changing army headquarters and bassist, could

that money not be saved rather than saving it out of other personnel, health care, weapons systems, modernizing them for our troops in america? can we not take $1 billion out milcon that was supposed to be taking care of in a previous administration? it seems that there is a disconnect between what the senator is suggesting and what seems to be an opportunity here. >> the posture in germany was that we would come down from four combat teams to three. as far as the uncertainty in the army as to whether that fourth

vct in 2016 is simply disbanded, or if it comes back to the united states. the only one that i am aware of in germany is the consolidation of command control communications computers and intelligence. the original budget was $482 million. half of that has already been spent. there are $150 million between 15 and 16. the decision was made that we would come down in one in germany. >> in the interim i think that

we all believed all along the lines of what you talked about in europe last week. germans have fewer than 5000 troops in afghanistan. they have rules of engagement that are very restrictive. i would ask you to look at and perhaps work with the incoming secretary. determine if it is in our best interests to have the place is ready at forklift or vct. is it in our best interest to keep three of them there rather than two plo which had been the previous decision. certainly, i support having joint efforts and working with

our partners. but you yourself have said that our partners are not stepping up to the plate as they should. and i agree with you. i would ask if in your last few weeks you could work with the secretary to determine if it is in our best interest, the lack of effort made by the germans and in our nato alliance. with the preparation that has already been made by ask that you would one more time. mr. secretary, i still have time. if you are not going to answer that question, i would ask if you could elaborate on your view of nato. you said that some is better

than none. is there something that you could do proactively to encourage our allies to be more of an equal player that would make the nato alliance more effective? >> one thing where the congress could make contributions -- i know that they have a variety of parliamentary exchanges with european legislatures. i think that just voicing in those exchanges, but also publicly, essentially the message that i deliver thou -- last week, the american people are going to become increasingly skeptical of this alliance if united states has to bear three- quarters of the burden. >> thank you. thank you very much for your candid testimony.

more importantly, for your service to our nation. your ability to quickly implement your vision to others is a testament to your leadership ability. this nation is truly in your debt. turning the tide in iraq and afghanistan, we wish you the very best as you transition to the next phase. from the time that we take invitation we are not able to go through q&a. reconvening on wednesday, we will close our books than.

subcommittee stands in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the c-span coverage of the 2011 ncta cable show. at 5:15, the fcc chairman gets interviewed by the former chairman. then at 6:30 we will look ahead to next year's election with david axelrod and ed gillespie. >> from today's "washington journal," a discussion on the candidates for president on the republican side. this is a little over one not --

one hour. host: over here on the right is the national political reporter with politico. and the white house reporter. let's start with the baby important news of the weekend, the golf summit. any substance to that? guest: it was really more about the speaker and the president forming a bit of a relationship as they try to do business. most immediately the debt ceiling vote and the deficit reduction that the vice president has talked about. it was an interesting moment because barack obama is not someone who mixes business and pleasure, particularly on the weekend. this is something he has not

done with any member of congress. there's a lot of intrigue from the press corps to see him and the speaker kicking back and having a couple drinks afterward. both of them had a good time. they won a bet. there was another funny thing they did which, we were wondering if they released to the score. they fixed this of the speaker and the president played together so they came away winners. host: is there any significance to this get together? guest: it depends if they do it again. if it becomes a regular kind of thing. just in terms of doing business and building relationships, even reporters do this. it is better to know somebody on a personal level. it helps when they're sitting across the table hashing out

some tough issues. host: have you been covering the republican leadership conference? what is the significance of that? host: it culminated with the straw poll that we had. ron paul seems to win them regularly. former utah governor john husband came in secon -- jon huntsman came in second. he goes on things like civil unions. he supports cabinetry, climate change, he has had to explain some of those away. you would not think he would play so well with a conservative audience in the south. host: did he send an operation? guest: he canceled at the last minute on friday.

his wife was there instead and two of his daughters. she did not give a formal address. they were definitely present. host: in the first 45 minutes we're asking viewers about their enthusiasm levels for their candidates. our viewers called in with a high enthusiasm level but overall all the polls shows that they are pretty low for the republican field. guest: it is something that is easy to get caught up because we're so anxious for the campaign to start. it is very slow to get started. if you think about this point last time around with obama and hillary clinton already running aggressively. john mccain was well on its way to falling apart for the first time before getting it back together. now we have that first debate in new hampshire.

even still, mitt romney says he is not willing to campaign until labor day. whatever excitement is going to be there has not gone to the point where it is significant. host: how aunt up is the president 's campaign? guest: it is interesting how the field is taking shape. that has helped the white house. as the president runs, th're trying not to appear as politicized. that he is on the job and working and being president. he said he will not campaign until 2012. it would like to stick to that. to the extent that republicans are not hitting the trail in coming after him in a real way, him putting it off does not hurt him as much. right now the campaign is fund-

raising in trying to get a grass-roots network. the president has been hitting the fund-raising trail but not so much the campaign trail. host: will there be any long- term result because of the meeting he held with fund- raisers in the white house? guest: the white house brushed it off as something they do not see any problem with that. it was not a fundraiser. he was not soliciting donations. the white house press secretary said that the president meets th all sorts of different people. certainly a raise some eyebrows among observers of the president who has not necessarily engaged in the same kinds of ways that past presidents have in terms of opening up the white house to

various donors. he does that with all eight parties and different events and state dinners. but in this particular instance, it raised eyebrows. host: the chief of staff had a meeting with a round table last week. give us a snapshot of that meeting and the result. guest: he met with the manufacturers' association. it was interesting because they expressed some discontent with the present's policies and said they were hurting businesses. daley was amenable to that. it is something that is a problem for this white house. he suggested they would do some different things to make changes. changes. host: national political

reporter, to 02 is the area code. a political roundtable news of the week discussion. one more question, i will ask you both, what was the biggest news of last week? guest: way to put me on the spot. there's a lot i want to comment on. on. host: i really did put you on the spot. to get a chance to think? guest: for the white house, the golf summit. and libya. it was interesting to see john boehner launch an aggressive attack on the president in terms of libya. i do not think that story has

ended. even though the whiteouse said there within their legal rights. guest: for me the biggest news was last week. i was trying to figure out what happened this week. we were talking about h untsman. that was a big change to the republican schedule. it was pretty significant. host: the first caller is from baltimore. a democrat. caller: i'm calling because republicans never want to talk about how we got to where we got. they never talk about reagan. one trillion dollar deficit when he took office. it went up to $5.4 trillion. creating 21 million new jobs. let's talkbout bush.

record spending. doubling the deficit. i'm sure no one wants an republican in office for the new future. it will take quite awhile to get this country turned in the right direction. guest: i think there is wide acknowledgement on all sides that it is going to take serious effort and work to bng the country back to where we wanted to be with a 9% unemployment rate. yet seen this administration work hard to attempt to pull that down, to the -- whether the agenda is one that most americans support is a test we will make in 2012. that will be the opportunity for republicans to say their alternative. host: west vginia on our republican mind. please go ahead. caller: did either one of your

urbanization send someone to alaska to go through sarah palin's e-mails? to me, that is dumpster diving. why dig up dirt on a private citizen that is not running for office? i do not understand this. as far as enthusiastic, i am enthusiastic about bachmann. she is an example we should aspire to. guest: we had a number of people looking into the trove of e- mails. this was a longstanding issue people had requested them. the day they came out, there was interest. sarah palin is a political force. she is a national figure. ere is interest in her.

what surprised a lot of people is the portrait that erged focused on her as governor and her transformation from her time when she was governor and being looked at for the republican ce-presidential nomination. then when she got it. given the amount of interest in sarah palin, the news organizations felt it was a reasonable thing for them to put a team of reporters on. host: was there anything you found interesting? guest: in terms of, the perception of how awful she was. a lot of the stories pointed out that the public persona of hers did not match with the person did not match with the person that emerged in the private e- mails. host: the next call is from chicago.

ller: good morning. i was interested in why the numbers these people call in about taxes, you did not challenge them on where they got the information. since you have someone from wall since you have someone from wall street journal, maybe they can shed some light on it. business insiders say the budget deficit is $27 billion. then we have conservatives say there deficit in taxes is $11 billion. tell me how they keep saying that texas has this great economy. please elain. host: i do not think our guests are prepared to look at those numbers. but i would ask you about rick perry. we got a lot of calls about

that. his speech seemed to get a lot of attention. is he going to jump in the race? is he going to jump in the race? guest: his top aide worked for newt gingrich. most folks who have been watching this develop assume that unless dave is around to a baez rick perry, he was unlikely to do it. now that he is back to be a free agent,arry, there are more doors open. there are more conversations. it is something that would shake up the field as we know it and would make a major change to the race. it is an open question. host: this tweet came in. guest: you have to remember the

only one in the house. they do not control both branches of congress. it is much more difficult to pass final legislation when you are only in control of one chamber. the question will be, are voters going to feel that that house of representatives has full responsibility for the agenda that goes through? if they want to turn around and punish them, then you will see lower gop seats in the house. opposition parties have been more successful when there is an incumbent president, because there is some discontent and energy on the oppositional side in an attempt to oust the president. you're less likely to see the congress switched back over to the democrats. host: our next call comes from

westchester county, new york. caron, a republican. caller: this is partially statement and i wanted to make some recommendations. what i have been observing and the intert of people calling in and mentioning the governor from texas, to make predictions would be very dangerous. if is interesting to see the people that have called attention -- is it rick perry in texas? my queion would be the economy, and my perception would be that, and thinking that things can change dramatically within the span of 2008, when we had a serious recession, how

can things turned around so quickly? i would be more lenient on obama to give him more of a chance, because of the damage that had been done. but the new people that they are interested in, it makes people question. never underestimate, because obama was not the favorite initially. host: thank you very much. carol lee. guest: the interest and governor haley shows how influx that republicans are to a certain extent. -- the interests in governor pe rry shows how in flux the

republicans are to a certain extent they are trying to sort out how to look to the past in terms of what the president had when he came into office, how much he owes the economy, and they look to the future. some voters may give the president leeway. but that is the real question. most voters are not willing to. they want to look to the future. so there is at this struggle in the white house and the president how he should talk about the economy. they are really concerned about this. we had a poll that showed americans are the most pessimistic about the economy since july 2008, a real danger zone for the white house. host: on june 1, you reported

that no american president since fdr has won a second term in president when the unemployment rate on election day topped 7%. guest: that's right. they think it will not be 9%, somewhat lower to there, probably around 8%. host: most of their budgets have 9%. 9%. guest: there is a thinking and they will not say it now because they are not interested in the prediction business because their predictions were sell off when they pass the neck -- so off when they pass the stimulus bill. but that would still be higher than the rate was when fdr one. is there going to be enough to

tell voters, things would be really bad if we did not take these steps? the unemployment is at 8% or whatever it does in november 2012, but it could be 10%. we are headed in the right direction. the president talks about that all of the time. whether or not that is a sellable argument in the year is an open question. host: kasie hunt, how was the fund raising going on on the republican and democratic sides? guest: we have yet to see initial fund-raising reports from the republican candidates. e most noteworthy that we have seen so far, mitt romney raised more than $10 million in a single day in las vegas. that was clearly meant to lay down the marker. it said that i am clearly going

to hold financial dominance, or at the very least, be it will raise more than or at least as much as every other person running. you have some folks that are capable of self funding. mitt romney pour a lot of his own money into the campaign last time. jon huntsman is in the same position. when you see some raise less, like tim pawlenty? those officials will force will come out this summer. host: tim pawlenty did not have a great week, did he? guest: he did not. he finally came out after that debate in new hampshire and said i screwed up when i did not hammer mitt romney on health care. now he is trying to hammer him on obamneycare, as he says. several days before the debate, he referred to that in the public eye, when there were more

voters watching. they made the calculation that that was a screw up. we will be looking to see if he continues to go after mitt romney on health care. host: the next call for kasie hunt and carol lee comes from kenneth in greensbo, n.c., the independent line. caller: i was calling about the presidential politics. i had been thinking for a long time that is all it has ever been any way, a popularity contest. i cannot really think of a time in my lifetime since i have been voting, since bill clinton, even though [unintelligible] he was still a man that knew how to get things done in washington.

and he did that. he had come from somewhere out of the midwest, some place i had never heard of him, but he turned out to be the best president within the last 20 years that i hav seen, for the economy, for the working man, and everything. but everyone constantly castigates him for his malit. most folk out there do not have any morality. i do not see how you can jump on one person and beat them down when they have been one of the mostuccessful presidents in the history of this country. host: carol lee. guest: bill clinton is a figure who a lot of democrats see as one of the best presidents in the last 20 years. in terms of a popularity contest, to a certain extent, i think that can be true.

but this election in these economic times will come down to that. host: kasie hunt. guest: i cannot help but think about how this election could be this similar to the one where he first ran. at that time, we were coming out of a very successful military operation, desert storm, and there were many popular democrats urged to run who did not because they felt that they could not be the incumbent. everyone had to pin their hopes on this small town governor from arkansas to no one really knew. it turns out he has been one of the most popular presidents in the modern era. republicans are crossing their fingers that even though barack obama has been so strong, and popular republicans have decided not to run because they feel they might have a better shot in 2016 when the field is more

op, who knows? we could see one of these guys step up and become a figure on that scale. host: carol lee, how will your job transition as we get closer to 2012? it is only six months away. guest: it will be largely the same in some respects. the president will still travel on air force one and the presidential press pool will travel with him. it will not be like 2008. even now the places that egos are still 2012-focus. he is in florida, north carolina -- so itill be different in the sense that he will really hit the campaign trail and to campaign-specific events. almost everythin that the president does is political to

begin with. host: you are on with carol lee and kasie hunt. go-ahead, jeff. caller: thank you for c-span. as far as rick perry is concerned, you might want to think long and hard before he makes a bid to run as president team made these comments about seceding from the united states, very treasonous talk. neo-confederate, almost racist overtones about the president. he needs to think long and hard before he makes a bid as far as tim pawlenty, he had the opportunity to call out mitt romney, he has marginalized himself. newt gingrich, he told the truth

about the rise in planning that castigated by his own party. after the 2010 elections, i think a lot of people are having buyer's remorse. we see that what thompson in ohio and new jersey, governors are attacking unions, teachers, people of color, women's rights, and a lot of people are having buyer's remorse. the democrats do not need to rest on the laurels but they do not need to go into pending mode. sarah palin does not want to be in politics. host: we will leave it there. kasie hunt. guest: you mentioned tim pawlenty and i think that you have hit on something that has been an undertone in his candidacy f a while, whether he is aggressive enough. that is the murmurings that you hear from his opponents. it will be interesting to see whetr he can step up and move

past this or the statements he made this week continued to dog him throughout the campaign. host: of a " wall street journal" is carol lee's paper, but we're going ask kasie hunt bout it. the republican feelings abo their party's field of candidates. dissatisfied, 45%. satisfied, 45%. compared to four years ago. compared to four years ago. what do those figures tell you? host: the reflect on something i hear every day in talking to people here in washington, this broader story about the upcoming election. but the republican establishment and republican

voters do not know what to do with the current field of candidates. there are many that are unknown, for they have seen before and not like, like mitt romney. romney has a national profile that many of these others do not have yet. that has certainly put him in the position of front runner. but there is some soul-searching still going on as you can see with even the interest of your callers have. maybe people are looking for something different. host: carol lee, the current gallup poll, president obama's approval rating 45%. no president watches polls, we have been told by every president. how closely do they?

guest: president's advisers guest: president's advisers watch polls and they did around polling. -- do their own polling. talking about how beatable the presidents, we have seen worse numbers for incumbent presidents, but it is certainly not for the white house would like him to be. the osama bin laden bounds that he got was so fleeting. it lasted just a couple of weeks. anyone who thought that voters would go to the polls a year from now with that in mind was mistaken. host: what about his white house communications adviser getting booed at the netroots conference? guest: ihink it was notuite surprising, but the level, to

see the moderator being intense that time. he was pressed on issues that those voters are going to care about in 2012. barack obama could not have won the presidency without the support is. as that event showed, it will be a challenge when they are unhappy with h position on wars, on gay-rights, and other things. host:im on the republican line. caller: i am celebrating father's day by having everyon sleep in the house. so much to talk about, but the biggest problems we have on the scene right now are not necessarily the republican field. it is the lack of intense scrutiny of the president. we do not really question the economic numbers that come out,

or the press does not make any effort to explain the economic numbers. says obama has been in office, he has been taking so many people out of the labor force, that is rarely talked about in the mainstream press. they talk about sarah palin and whether it is unethic to vestigate her. have seen an uncritical press here when it comes to obama. where are all the people who have known this guy all of his life? we have a total blank slate until he stepped into the united states senate. those of the biggest problems that we have come of a lack explanation of what economic news means, and a critical analysis of who is this obama guy? host: a lot on the table. carol lee. guest: i like their respect -- respectfully disagree. i think the press corps does scrutinize and question the president and his policies. there was a very long campaign

in 2008 where barack obama's background and policiess a state senator, united states senator, were deeply scrutinize. in terms of the economic numbers, there is a lot of analysis going on right now as you saw what the numbers in y, or the unemployment rate picked up a bit. there is a confluence of factors that are playing into the economic situation that we have right now. guest: like carol was saying, the economic situation has been an intense focus of folks here in washington and of the press. it is a complicated subject that takes a lot of effort, time, and money to report in a very serious way. most of these organizations are making very serious attempts to break down those numbers and explain exactly what is going

on. as we get further into this race, you will end up with a more intense discussion of the unemployment nbers, jobs, the economic situation because the republican candidates will be talking about a summit. they have decided that they will have messages the center are around the economy and jobs. host: congress -- to you approve or disapprove of how coness is doing its job? this is a gallup poll. congress has a 17% approval rating. guest: interesting to see what they think of their own congressman. people tend to love the person that they have st their but intensely dislike the institution. there is some warning in looking at this graphic that you have it has dipped recently saw the republicans need to look out for that. guest: also about anthony

weiner. host: about the troops in afghanistan. will this be an issue in 2012? gut: i think we do not know yet. it is far out to know what the issues will be. but it will certainly be an issue. thpresident has the decision that he will make very soon, perhaps as early as this week, the drawdown that he promised when he's sent the 30,000 troops to afghanistan in december 2009. how the structures that, how that drawdown happens, what the situation is on the ground there a year from now, 16 months from now, a lot of people are looking to him as to what

decision he makes in terms of the drawdown. there's a lot of intensifying pressure for the u.s. to pull pressure for the u.s. to pull out of afghanistan at the -- at a much quicker rate. a large chunk of the u.s. mission there has been completed, so there will be intensifying pressure. host: john mccain did not think too much of withdrawal. guest: i think that what you heard from romney as a reflection that is going on in the broader couple and field. -- republican field. some candidates that did not run were talking along these lines. haley bbour who has been one of the party's top strategist

was saying things along these lines back in march. "maybe this is not the right time for us to be throwing more and more troops in." maybe we should reduce our footprint, small number of special operations forces th ere for border operations. you think that this will develop across the field. depending what obama deces to do, it could be a big issues if republicansecide to continue with the way that they have been trending, away from a stance in afghanistan. host: we will also have the budg talks going on, vice- president by then's with congress, after we take this call from des mnes, a democrat. caller: i have to say that that

those same that there's not enough press criticism of obama, i am a democrat. when i became a democrat, you had to be 21 toote. i just had my 81st birthday the other day. i see nothing wrong with a 18- year-old voting. they are old enough to die for this country, they are certainly old enough to vote. i have heard so much criticism of the president. my late husband had been a political analyst for a radio show for many years. but no one is talking about the praise the president received when obama was killed. excuse me, when bin laden was killed. he received a lot of praise for that. i had some reluctance last time.

i had no reluctance. i will vote for him this time during my ncern is that at my age, i'm very concerned about what is happening with medicare. that is hurting me a great deal. what do you think is going to happen what the republicans and medicare? host: let's start with kasie hunt. guest: that is an important. bankers we just had a special election in new york and use all the democrats pull that out, and the credit for that on both sides was largely given to the democratic message on medicare. they came out and started bashing the paul ryan budget plan which would make significant changes to that program. is of them really turn the tide on that message. i think that democrats took away from that that that is a winning issue for them. republicans took notice and said, maybe this is not exactly where our message needs to be.

escially when they are talking to seniors like you. guest: i think the democrats certainly thought that paul ryan gave them the big victory when he put out the republican budget, which showed deep cuts to medicare. the white house has said that they are not going to consider changes to medicare, and you have seen the republicans concede that in the current budget discussions. they will not get what they want out of that. it was an interesting moment when the president brought that republicans over to the white house and he was challenged on the demagoguery that democrats had been engaging in, in congressman ryan's work, and he said that it was going both ways. host: "cq weekly" writes the

republicans may be budging on taxes and democrats may be budging on entitlements. guest: the budget talks have been interesting because members of congress and the members of the white house involved in these have taken up the pledge not to leave too much. but a little bit that we have been managed to pull out of that has shown that once was considered a joke in town, it has turned into the only thing in town in terms of that deficit reduction, and they are looking at all the things that you have mentioned.

how significant of a plan they have come out with in the next couple of weeks remains to be seen. but all of those things e on the table in their talks. host: kasie hunt. guest: the budget discussions, there have been so many attempts to rankle this decision. we had that deficit commission failed, and so from a political perspective, what comes out of this wilbe closely watched. it wil come out as a republican alternative or something that is not paul ryan's budget plan. it becomes a litmus test for the republican presidential field. if you come out against paul ryan's plan, you are actually against a republican orthodoxy or your making remarks that are not helping our party, they say. that is something i'm going to be paying close attention to.

host: this is "washington journal" our live call-in program. we're talking to washiton- based reporters, kasie hunt and carol lee. michelle from washington, on the independent line. caller: how does anybo in the government, expect anything to change if our own government continues to use the same fraud paper of like foreclosures? they never stop it and it continues. how was anything supposed to change if one can get up brought out of the system? host: carol lee. guest: tackling waste and fraud is something that every president says he is going to

do. barack obama included. in the last couple of weeks, they have renewed his call t try to go after waste and fraud in government. i think you mentioned foreclosures. the housing industry, going back to the economy, the things that we have seen taking shape in the housing market haseally added to some of the frustration and concern about the economic situation. it is creating some angst within the white house. we may wind up seeing some things down the road to do with that issue. host: on our republican line, go ahead. caller: i'll make that comment not a question. who would really want to be present right now? if you think about who is running and house delegate candidates are, i was just

talking to my dad about that this morning. you have a war in three countries, the economy, the falling dollar, the unemployment, housing market, gas, the house and senate squabbling, ethical issues. there is also criticism which is so severe these days. er the last decade of ups and downs, presidents are really under criticism. sarah palin it's on tv and you have newt gingrich saying that vacationing is not so bad. being president right now is not really that great of a deal. guest: you make a point that have been picked up on by many people had thought about running this time around and basically decided not to. mitch daniels would be one, the governor of indiana. he declined because his family was so uncomfortable with the

idea of standing out under the scrutiny that you're talking about, putting the family in the glare of the spotlight and having absolutely picked apart as it i this days. and that is before you even get to where you start solving all of these problems, which are a long list. guest: this is why we have elections. the best part of all that is that it is an even playing field. everyone's side has to play on the same turf fothe economic situation is not different for any republican candidate or a democratic candidate. the scrutiny that they all go under is all the same. it is a test of the candidates just have to cover. host: does the president enjoyed campaigning? guest: he would say no.

but when you watch him on -- with crowds that are very enthusiastic about him, and he feeds off of that ergy, watching him and his 2010 campaign when he started off slow and once he was really hitting the ground, there was this energy and you could see him tryinto reprise the magic that we saw in 2008. to the extent with his energy, yes, he enjoys that. host: kasie hunt, when it comes to the republicans, who seems to enjoy the campaign trail? guest: i have covered jon huntsman most in debt, although i covered mitt romney as well as some of the others. comfort to the's most noteworth most noteworth he is shaking hands, talking,

chatting up at harley dealerships. mitt romney seems to wrap up a number of uncomfortable moments. he was in new hampshire for his announcement, cracked some jokes that were of little bit high- raising. he does not spend a lot of time taking questio from the press, either. host: your access to mitt romney is limited? guest: one of the lessons they learned from the last campaign, they feel like he tried to answer every question period that ended up getting him into all sorts of rhetorical trouble. it was creating issues that did not necessarily exist. this time they ha been much more controlled about when they make him available, how long he is available, whether or not he will take more than three questions, taking questions on issues that he is not there to

specifically talk about. i am ensure to see now that he is officially announced if they open him up more and allow f all more free-wheeling discussion, or if they keep making sure that the circumstances are controlled. host: what is your frustration level of that control? guest: 4 reporters, it is always frustrating when a candidate is not accessible. in primary campaigns, they are so free willing. because they are so long and you're so close to the candidate, you get to see what they are like before they go inside the bubble like when carol is covering the white house. access to them than is very controlled. when you are on the campaign trail in these early stages, you get a chance t watch them interact in a way that feels more authentic than before they have decided to be more

official. the more relaxed, less frustrating for us. host: what is your relationship with the white house press office? do you depend on them? do you depend on them? guest: as anyone would. i serve on the board of the white house correspondent board. we deal with them regularly and have discussions. it is interesting to talk about access. when the candidate becomes president, you look at the number of questions that he covers and the questions that he declines when it comes into office. he can be as simple as not taking questions since before the government shut down until

he was in europe. he had a great press conference with the prime minister cameron. even after he had this great victory after killing of osama bin laden, he will do individuals with individual news organizations more regularly. host: lancaster, pa., thank you for holding. caller: my question is on the deficit. i am going to be 62 years old and about six months. i plan on collecting my social security. i needed desperately. they keep wanting to raise the retirement age. every time there is a problem in washington, they want to raise the retirement age. how do you feel about the young adults and you think you'll ever see your social security? if they keep on raising the retirement age, you will not be arnd to collect it.

they are hurting the people who work all of their lives. i worked 43 years, and then they say you have to work longer. is there going to be any protection for people nearing retirement so this does not happen to them? host: let's see how far they will go with this question. carol lee, let's begin with you. guest: i have to say that is not something i think about on a regular basis. i am not planning accordingly. but social security in terms of deficit reduction, one thing the white house has sd is that social security is not on the table in these deficit reduction talks. they would not support slashing cial security benefits. what that means is an open question. none -- it could mean that they could be open to other things.

but that this is something that they will deal with in the next coming years. guest: i personally am in the same boat as carol ann using social security in t future. it is on the table and there are questions about the future of the program. for folks in their 20's 430's, what they will see down the line is an open question. social security is an important and significant chunk of the deficit. medicare is the main problem. it will cause the most headaches for us in the long run. you have seen both the political and practical focus on that. host: from twitter.

is that going to be a consistent and constant thing by the democrats? guest: it will. we had the election in nework and itorked out pretty well. i do not think you will see them back off of that as long as they think it is politically viable. host: from south carolina, you are on a the air. caller: good mornin i wonder how long you think this presidential primary will drag out? we are not even in november, but the south carolina primary is will happen around here in february. do you think after the south carolina primary that they will have the republican nominee figured out by then? or could stretch out to april? i think that is the latest date, a little after april, when the figure out who the nominee is going to be. i think only then will the

contest truly start. host: we will get an answer from kasie hunt, but what is your enthusiasm? are you a big supporter of president obama? caller: yes, although i think all democrats and republans are critics. but considering their wreckage that was left for him to have to pick up, i know republicans do not want to go there. but we have wrecked the economy not as a country, but basically the government. tax cuts to the very rich, and i am all for tax cuts, but he had done a great job. he has a cool head and i think he is keeping his powder dry for when the nominee comes out. i do not think we will know until then. my question to you is basally when do they believe -- and i

will make a prediction. the republican nominee will be there. guest: it is actually something that will make a big difference in the course of the cpaign, how long it lasts. i think we'reeeing the candidates themselves prepare for the long haul their there is a lot of talk about florida, probably going to be right after the south carolina primary. it is a huge state so you need lots of money. one of mitt romney's primary arguments is that he actually has the money and organization to go the distance, so to speak. to take a primary campaign to florida ando michigan and t super tuesday states. if he needs to. can everyone else in the field compete with that? it is going to depend on how strong from the's main opponent turns out to be. if that person can run with him

all the way through florida to michigan to super tuesday, you will see fit primary drag out. if tommy -- if romney can dominate, it will decide earlier. host: it from the text iowa and new hampshire, it is it over? guest: i will not say that it is over, but it will go a long way. if he loses in new hampshire, he has some real problems. his campaign has staked evything there. there will be series of questions been about if he can go all the way. host: who is the white house planning on running ainst? guest: they are looking mostly at mitt romney and to a lesser extents with mitt romney. andlso john husband. he was the president's ambassador to china. if he could survive the

republican primary, they think he would be up formidable candidate. host: time for one more call from knoxville, tennessee. joan, you are on the air. caller: 1 obama took office, the unemployment rise it was 7.6% and now is 9.1%. we were supposed to be out of the recession and march of last year. he is not growing the economy to get us out of the recsion. he has done nothing but put us back into a deeper hole. i think that each and every one of our candidates running, they are much more knowledgeable than he was when he took office. and i thank you.

guest: the point you make about the unemployment rate, i think you're going to see the white house make the argument that if we h not taken certain measures, things would be a lot worse. that is what they will say about the stimulus, about some of the other economic package as they pushed through. whether or not that is something that voters can support is an open question. it is very difficult to imagine something that did not happen than to understand that you make less money or you are unemployed or that your house is worth less. whether democrats can successfully make that argument remains to be seen. you'll see the republicans take them to task for it. guest: theuestion that the white house argues that things were so bad when the president came and, worse than they

reale, and things would be much worse if the president had not done the stimulus package and other things. what you see now, the way the white house explains some of the dips, is the slowing the progress, that debt crisis in europe, and gas prices. gas prices have been a big drain on the economy produce start to see them come down a little bit come up but the white house wrings its hands daily on how to deal with gas prices, i can tell you. it is not something that they can control but it has a huge impact on the economy. host: what is the president's weak light coming up? guest: we have fun racing in advance of the june 30 deadline. he is going to the key state of

pennsylvania. in afghanistan, everyone is looking to see the decision. there will be an announcement of some sort. host: he is having one dinner up in manhattan will take a position on the gay marriage issue? guest: there will be a lot of pressure to do that. ask,mpression on "don't don't tell", but there is still set us -- dissatisfaction because that policy has not taken place on the ground. that is still in place and the repeal is not complete. but the next front is the gay marriage is you. i think you will take a lot of questions about that. host: kasie hunt, what is your week like? week like? guest: one candidate is

announcing and florida where ronald reagan made his first spee of the general election. standing in front of the statue of liberty. if you look at those photos, it helps you understand who reagan was and why he became the commander that he did huntsman is taking a leaf out of that book. he is doing a tour of early states. is going to new hampshire and in south carolina and florida. we will be with him for that. host: our republican activist glomming on? guest: he is still unknown. there is a lot of interest in had this guy is. they want to know more about him. th activist in the early states are still learning ilyas, figure it out. he has gone a good warm reception in south carolina.

some people have been surprised about th because he is on more me anne romney people says that they can hurt you in the primary. this will be my first trip with him to florida this week. i'm interested to see how the folks that he meets with their respond and whether r or not he >> monday, in william crystle of "the weekly standard." after that, training home openly gay officials. and later, it from "congressional quarterly," they talk about the agriculture spending bill, which includes cuts in aid for various

agricultural programs. that is here on c-span. federal communications chairman julius genachowski. he was interviewed by michael powell. this is about 25 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> hello, and i am glad to welcome you to this session, and i am proud to welcome an old friend. we are blessed to have an individual with impressive experience appropriately suited for meeting the types of challenges that new technology and brought burr and boring. not only is it to the attorney,

having served for the united states, he has a vast array of business experience as an entrepreneur in the state, and he has previous experience at the federal communications commission. we could not ask for a better individual to serve in this extraordinary office. i am proud to call him friend. our chairman, julius. >> i normally have that seed. >> never. >> i could not have been happier when i set you up -- sought you

appointed to the fcc, and one of the things you did, the country was able to galvanize its focus on broadband, and you really pick up that mantle, and i want to ask you, how do you think about this, through broadband. it is really just a bad cable or broadband. it tends to be a converged message. talk about that and how you govern differently. >> shirt. it is great to have you in that seat, is and it is a terrific thing that neither of us have changed all that much in the last 20 years. you said yesterday that broadband powers the american dream, and i think we probably

talked about a version of that 20 years ago. we may be did not use the word "broadband." we may be talked about how technology works and how we are going to march into the future, but there is no question now in this period of our technology history that broadband, that high-speed internet -- economic growth in the 24th century, a central platform for innovation, a platform for redressing hard national challenges, like education and health care and energy and public safety, a platform for civic engagement. part of what i was going to do is focus the agency on the opportunities and challenges akin broadband. >> extraordinary.

one of the things that is challenging at the agency, it i am sure you live with this every day, an appreciation of broadband but at the same time, we continue to beat note run by its dutch and fat are balkanized. your cable services provider. how do you work through that? how do you work through dealing in reconciling a legacy structure when the market reality has converged? >> i completely agree on the convergence. what are the goals, trying to be concrete about what the challenges are, and figuring out what needs to happen. sometimes it is government action. " sometimes it is not.

it does give us the ability to look across the landscape can see this is what we need to do it to maximize things. at some point, the communications act will be updated. but the challenges we have right now are so pressing that our focus is on identifying them and tackling them one at a time. one thing in the cable industry that has become quite clear to me in this job, the fact that we have a cable infrastructure that reaches over 90% of the country, 93% of the country, and that infrastructure is now almost entirely available for broadband, used for broadband is

an amazing thing. this is one of the great american success stories. a bunch of pioneer saying, "hey, let's string some wires on telephone poles and see if we can offer a brand-new television platform to americans," and then to actually pull them off, and then to turn that into something that provide high- speed internet access is really an amazing thing. broadband is really important to the united states because it is important to the rest of the world, so it is part of our global competitiveness, and the fact that we start with this fat pipe that reaches 93% of the country gives the united states a competitive advantage in the global economy. >> in contrast, in many countries, a cable has been off and the leading infrastructure in the united states, broadband, whereas a good job of the broadest is " still sort of an

incumbent telephone story, right? we have potentially an advantage in the united states if we can harness it properly, having these multiple infrastructures to work with. >> and we have to harness it. we have a number of advantages in the united states. that is one. the fact that we are moving faster than most of the rest of the world in forging wireless pitkins is another advantage we have. we have in the u.s. the most extraordinary, innovative culture and results anywhere in the world, and we are seeing that now in both the wired and wireless platform. we see it when it comes to video programming. for years. this is very exciting. of course, we have some challenges ahead of us. >> you talk about broadband a lot, and sort of the subtext, a subset of the upper is competitive reasons and more competitive tools in the

toolbox. i would love to hear you tell our audience about how you see this opportunity. with the you see but -- see 4g -- we have some that provide terrestrial service. hottie and fink about the cable? a lot of questions. the wireless area has changed more dramatically in the last 2.5 years than anyone could have predicted. to go from the featured phones we have a couple of years ago to be smart phones and tablets that we have today is, you know, much more than just a little bit

of an upgrade. the new devices are obvious retreating extraordinary opportunities for innovation. we all know it. almost everyone has a smart phone or a tablet and is using it, and the cable industry is looking at very innovative ways to those platforms as a way to reach customers where they are. all this is exciting. it is creating a ton of jobs. not just in silicon valley but all of the country. it is empowering small businesses to reach new markets, reach more customers, increase their revenue, lower their costs. all of this is great. here is the problem. the demand that these new devices placed on our capacity is not just a little bit more than the old feature phones. it is not 50% more or one letter% more or 200 percent more. a smart phone puts a demand on

spectrum capacity that is about 25 times more, 2500. the tablet the man on spectrum is about 140 times. some demand is increasing exponentially. supply, by contrast, is relatively flat. we have to do something about this if we really want to harness these opportunities of mobile in the u.s. as you know, we introduced a market oriented idea to vote free up a tremendous amount of spectrum and reallocated from older, inefficient uses to new were forward-looking uses that will raise a ton of money for the treasury and also free up but more for unlicensed. how does cable fit into this? i do know that when i speak to people here, as you do, the creativity of the thinking is

really impressive, and whether it is thinking about something like unlicensed and some kind of innovation and experiments that cablevision and time warner are planning, hbo to go, or other ideas on how to use these platforms, the comcast application. all of these are signs of innovation and signs of the cable industry understanding that the mobile platform is a very real thing. we have also heard a lot of developers seedings vote from cable companies that have become direct buyers of mobile services, like cops, like brightstar. -- like cox. they were very effective at convincing us that cable has a

positive role to play in the wireless competition landscape and that there are some basic smart things that we need to do, like broadband data running, that would unleash investment in competitive wireless, and we were happy to do that a couple of months ago. >> this is more of your business had it investment experience. a mobile wireless play of some sort, and i do not just mean handsets? >> i thought that five years ago, although i remember when i was in the private sector, i remember the debates going from but "hey, maybe there is something interesting going in mobile 2, while well, mobile really needs to be a part of our core strategic game plan. i think that is going to be more true, not less true. >> let's talk about the economy.

one thing that was really interesting in yesterday's panel of c.e.o./ -- ceo's is about the housing market. i know you have a passionate belief that broadband companies play a critical role in getting the economy of the whole. do you want to say something about that? >> i think you just said it. broadband is an absolute key to helping us recover from the terrible economic situation of the last few years, and also making sure that we have sustainable economic growth in the united states. a broadband platform is one thing that " help make sure that the next generation of products

that consumers are buying are developed here, launched here, marketed here, and exported to the rest of the world, and you can think about this from a lot of different perspectives. i will give you two. for small business, and the number one growth path for a small business in america invole product. being able to reach consumers beyond those it can just walk or drive to your store, and seldom in the next city and the next day in the next country. the ability to take advantage of broadband, with broadband services at lower cost, and the new broadband based marketing techniques. group on has treated 8000 jobs in chicago.

these can be incredible for small business and we see more and more small businesses taking advantage of this. think about this from the perspective of someone looking for a job. a few years ago you would look in the classifieds, and you would call the company and you would send in an application. 80% of the fortune 500 companies do all their job postings on line. if you don't have access to the internet, you cannot even find out the job exists. i hear more and more from the ceos that if people do not have basic digital skills, their candidates for fewer and fewer jobs. this is an example of the way

broadband can power economic success. and they have to look into the issues that we face to make certain that broadband plays its role in powering the american dream. >> a question about regulatory philosophy. i have all the power of the fcc chairman cuts in two directions. i want to focus on what you choose not to do. you ask to do a lot of things, looking for solutions around issues that they think are regulatory. how you think about looking for what you should not do, where you make your own decisions, from the standpoint of the negative option, that this is something we should not do? >> this is a couple of things.

one of them is focusing in making certain that the staff of the agency is focusing in a dispassionate way, on asking what our goals are, and what challenges to meeting those goals, or the best ways of achieving those goals, the neutral about this government action is the way to do this. this is making certain that everyone is asking these questions. the second step is preserving this fashion that i think the fcc needs to have, recognizing that there are no easy answers to our problem, and that the job of the agency is to work through issues and think about costs and benefits, to think about solutions to problems that, to

borrow one of your phrases, with the appropriate humility about what government can accomplish and what the risks are if the government makes a mistake. there is a report issued a couple of days ago on the future of the act -- information needs. the changing media landscape. this was partnered by things everyone saw, newspapers shutting down. there were cutting back on news reporters, and this assessed the media landscape. and obviously a lot of people thought there were a whole series of major government actions that need to be taken to save journalism, and others thought we should not even ask

these questions. at the end of the day, the report identified a lot about what is going right in news and information, and a documented a significant problem, a decline in local reporting and local news coverage, local journalism, and explore a series of creative ideas on how to tackle them. some of them involving government action, with a greater emphasis on putting more information online to help the reporters and the public in streamlining the government rules, changing the things that make sense. one thing that the report had the want to mention here, one of the great accomplishments of the cable industry, this is the launch of c-span. this is a very important

accomplishment. it has given people and insight into congress, and everyone can judge what we have learned over the years. the direct access has been very important. at of the 50 states in the country, only four of them have state c-span. michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania and california. reporters covering state government -- government has declined by one-third in the last few years and more states with c-span can help a local information landscape by giving the public more information about what the local government is doing, and it easier and less costly for the reporters. i asked for the industry to look hard at this, to take up the challenge of creating more state c-span. >> heated a heroic job on this,

continuing to look for ways to provide better local and community information. >> my last question is something you are passionate about. i think he deserves some credit for highlighting the broadbent challenge in terms of the reach, but i think in some ways, we're all mildly comfortable that we're working hard to connect most of america. the very interesting thing that came out of your report, was that a significant number of americans who are not choosing to subscribe with this problem. this is something you talked about well as a multi- dimensional problem and i want ask you a little bit about adoption, and how we can partner with you on this.

>> this is a very big topic. when we look at the broadband landscape and where we have to go to accomplish our goals, there are three big gaps. there is the deployment gap, with 25 million americans without the infrastructure. with the help of the cable industry, we are deep into transforming the universal service fund. the spectrum gap is another one. and then, there is the broadband adoption gap. among the people who could subscribe to broadband, 67% of americans do, one-third of them don't. 100 million americans don't sign up. this compares to 90% adoption rate in singapore.

if you think as i do that broadband is what powers the american dream, and as was necessary to create and find jobs, to get the full of vantage of education and to transform health care, 67% so far from good enough that we cannot be satisfied with slow change. there are good and creative things happening in this industry. one of the first things i learned was the trade of programs that they have been doing to increase adoption, starting in santa barbara. comcast made a major commitment to this regard, with the nbc transaction and they're putting this in place. but even with this, we need to

step this up a few notches. i am calling on the cable industry, other industries in the broadband economy, to step up to help close the broad band gap. this is a big deal and i am looking forward to working with you on this, i will work with my fellow commissioners to launch a new task force that is going to focus attention on what can be done through public and private partnerships and other creative ideas. we cannot be satisfied with the pace of improvement on broadband adoption. this was 67% in the next -- last year and we have to step this up. >> you can count on the cable industry. for the audience to see the adoption that we are doing, it

is great to have you, ladies and gentleman. thank you. >> tomorrow, you can see the fcc chairman again as he talks about how the fcc is dealing with mystery costs on monthly telephone bills. today, the mayor of oklahoma city, a republican, and a democrat talked about how federal employee -- federal costs affect spending and infrastructure, at 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> next weekend, but tv and american history tv look at the life of savannah georgia. including the child home of flannery o'connor.

a conversation with the sister of -- a character in "midnight in the garden of good and evil." and we go to warm flow foundation and civil war savannah. the local content vehciles will andin savannah on c-span 2 n three. >> george p. bush talked at the republican leadership conference. this runs 15 minutes. >> george p. bush. [applause]

>> how was it going. i hope that you were not expected one of the other george bush's, the one that lives in dallas or houston, but they convey their best regards and wish that there were able to join. i am able to braque today that i am the first george bush to be on facebook. i ask that you will like me so i can keep in touch with you with respect to a political action committee that i am involved with. i might as well give an update on the bush family. my grandfather recently turned 87, and my grandmother, the

enforcer -- she restricted them from jumping out of a perfectly fine airplane once again. but he will jump out again when he is 90 and we're all looking forward to that. some of you might have seen that he received an honorary law degree along with conan o'brien. this face and the third lawyer in the bush family. so much for tort reform. he received the presidential medal of freedom, the highest honor given to a civilian. he thought this was cool because he got to meet bill russell. these all culminated in a celebration at the kennedy center, with this foundation. we were all able to enjoy this with him and celebrate in this

moment. what faults of also ask about, the former governor of the state of florida, and his political plans, i do not have any breaking news. he is currently focusing on the reformation of the government, with respect to the charter school movement and advising republicans to spearhead this effort. the activities he has accomplished since leaving office is an amazing testament to how you do not have to run for public office to make a change in the country. with respect to my uncle george, i would ask you to purchase their book. "decision book, s," was on the bestseller's list for several weeks.

we look forward to welcoming you. is vice president cheney said, this is the only show already project. it goes without saying that in my generation, 9/11 is the defining moment, whether with the numerous deployments, pursuant to military service, or getting involved in politics for the first time, the americans have answered the call the public service. after returning from afghanistan, i learned about the painful realities of a government hoping for public servants to get involved to help a better tomorrow. by generation faces another challenge, that the greatness of the country has been compromised. it has been an unwritten rule

that the leadership strides to leave the country more prosperous and rich with opportunity, but this is no longer the case. my generation will be the first thought to have as much opportunity as those who came before. we are being handed an invoice. one generation ago, it would be unlikely that the u.s., would be on the top of the list, but this year in 2011, the same economists is tasked with a similar challenge, and he would be fired if he did not attend. the u.s. as a country substance -- subject to sovereign risk. this transformation happened in tiny increments over the years. this is the economic crisis that demonstrated the underlying

problems stemming from our public policy. a dysfunctional health care system and unfunded pension liabilities, the limiting entitlement bomb, and the unsustainable federal debt and deficit are a few of the reasons why. these and other challenges show why ratings agencies have the united states on the watch list for a downgrade status. i am not here to talk about the current fiscal crisis, and i do not think the average person my age resigns themselves to inaction. my generation and the republican party willie the turnaround of the decline with policy changes the focus on long-term economic growth and corresponding job creation. given how we take on great challenges and the entrepreneurial nature of young

americans, the united states will grow at a more robust rate, with profound changes with policies being spearheaded by the party. i would talk briefly about three of these issues about the state all -- statehouses throughout the country. this involves more use of common sense than anything else. this is with energy, tax and regulation and education policy. the biggest political fight of my generation is to undertake the limning national debt that we face. and the size and scope of government. this is a fight worth fighting in my opinion. this should not stop us from creating energy security policy, unshackling american businesses from over regulation and taxation, transforming how we educate our children. great countries cannot defend of -- depend on current sources of

oil. 20% of the oil was imported 20 years ago. nearly 60% of oil consumed is imported from other countries, even though our country has the resources available to us. 10 of these countries that we import are on the travel warning list. we spend approximately $1 billion per day, purchasing overseas oil and set of investment dollars that could be used within our own borders. this is a destructive tax on the american consumer. we have gone from predictions of imminent decline of our own resources to projections of having 100 years of current supply period however, the current administration is trying to restrict this new development, imposing new taxes and new regulations, and also,

supporting special interest groups that try to strike fear in the hearts of those who are developing in urban areas. if we are to grow at a 4% gdp rate, as the white house projects, this is what we need to service the current debt and the within striking distance of reducing the national deficit, we have to exploit our own forms of energy, in the form of natural gas, nuclear, and in the long term, renewable. the president should create a long-term strategy around this crisis, and the amendment that was recently passed for all ethanol subsidies is a step in the right direction. time and time again, the rock history in our country, we are

taught that to generate meaningful revenue, we have to do this by lowering taxes, to encourage production and job creation -- we have to do this. taxes on corporations are way too high, the second-highest in the industrialized world. we need to reduce the current tax rate because just by doing so by 1%, the investment falls by 3.7%. there was a study showing a reduction of just 30% of the corporate income tax would create 50 basis points of gdp growth. republicans are focusing on what government actions will do for small businesses, the lifeblood of the economy as it relates to the young americans. 99.7% of all businesses are small businesses that employ

half of all of the employees in the country, providing to other three first jobs for young americans, and small businesses create half of all intellectual property, which we desperately need. most small-business owners have taxes at a marginal income-tax rate, we prevent the hiring of new workers and stagnant wages for the existing workers precisely at the time and we need our country back on track. larger businesses can access the stimulus programs are available, and small business funds tend to pay the price. maybe there should be a czar of small business, to fight the stifling of entrepreneurship and innovation.

finally, our education system is being transformed based on the good works of republicans throughout the country to match the needs of the 21st century. we have to change the current education system. we still have a school year based on c. time. standards are no longer meaningful and the curriculum is that -- is not germane to the jobs of the future, and we aren't behind countries like korea and singapore and most of europe. to be competitive the republicans are working to revamp the system, stopping social promotion. students have not mastered how to read by the fourth grade have to do this before they promote a middle school when they learn essential subject matter. sanders need to be raised in our country so that high school

students don't have to take remedial class is to get by in college. we have to emphasize math and science so we don't have to import our scientists from other countries and encourage young americans to take on careers in these fields. we need more career learning alternatives, so that they find subjects tangible and more interesting to them. we have to pay teachers for student performance rather than longevity of service. we need more school choice, both private and public to give parents and students alternatives and create competition in the inner cities. we spend more per student than any other country in the world but the outcome is to be better. we need to have accountability now.

you have to look at the compelling evidence of greece to look at the deficit and a weakening of the currency. the consequences of a nation when the debt surpasses the gdp and ratings agencies put the credit on all watch list when the interest on the debt exceeds the normal level of gdp. without delving into the shameful realities of federal spending, we as americans face the choice of higher tax rates or significant austerity measures if measures are not taken now. entitlement spending alone will supersede federal revenue. we cannot spend a dollar on the fence or discretionary programs, and we would not be able to balance the budget. the president's response has been to propose a budget to

spend 40 cents for every dollar that we take in. this is not leadership or entitlement reform. we have a slow and gradual increase as we all hold our commitment to seniors that are near retirement. we can index of benefits over time to mitigate funding shortages. for younger americans we are more likely to see a ufo? social security check. but implementing simple reforms right now gives us a fighting chance. this is the case when we discuss the system that was treated during the depression were 40 workers basically provided for the benefits of one retiree, and currently, regretfully, that ratio is 3-1. with medicare and medicaid going bankrupt,

we have to reform the publicly mandated health care, so that we're able to provide more flexibility to the end user. if the president and the adversary were not already talking about the campaign cycle, and containing the looming debt problems, but would provide either proposals of their own, or utilize our proposals to begin negotiations. just as my generation stepped up to this country's challenge, we are on board with some of the painful decisions that we will make. the 9/11 generation cannot go down as the bankrupt generation. we have to reform entitlements now. in business meetings that i have

the pleasure of engaging in, i sense that many believe that america's days are behind it. i believe republicans are capable of leading the turnaround. we have to support the -- the republican leaders but are willing to put aside short-term focus and willing to risk their political careers. we need leaders to speak freely about the challenges my generation faces, and the opportunity if we do act on these challenges. leadership that uses integrity to make this happen. and with that, but meet levy with the words of a remarkable american. my grandfather. these words were delivered in his swearing in as the 41st president of united states. let future generations understand tle