many solar panels you would need or how many windmills you would need to develop enough energy to run a large city. host: your energy and commerce committee is holding a hearing today on the status of online gambling. can you tell us what options are on the table right now? as i understand, there is a bill to legalize it in the united states? guest: there is a bill to legalize it for poker only come up but we passed recently a bill in congress to say no internet gambling on the internet. we did this by outlawing the use of credit card and money orders and money transfer, and that pretty much stopped it. now it has all gone overseas and done illegally. the people that are advocating internet gambling are saying because is going overseas, we're losing the tax revenue, and also, there is a lot of fraud. that fraud will occur anyway.

secondly, i think the other side of the coin is we want to have internet gambling, which would be poker possibly, there will be all kinds of gambling on the internet. for people that are addicted to gambling, they have the computer in their study in bedroom in this addiction would increase, so the trade-off is -- host: you are saying it would be too easy? guest: and also, children could get into it. children have a problem with pornography about lying about their age. the majority of congress when we passed this bill felt legalizing gambling on the internet was not the way to go, and now there's a bill to open it up for poker only. and then perhaps you will have a gambling across the board in sports and everywhere. at this point i support the status quo. the hearing is important, and i

compliment the chairlady for having this hearing, because i think we should hear both sides and have a new understanding of what the other people feel. host: is there a time frame for when we might see this bill come out of it? guest: i do not think there is a time frame. i do not know how many coats- hunters there are. my concern is that if the bill was brought up they would put in gambling across the board, and not just for poker. host: last question on solyndra, what is the next step? guest: we will bring in the department of energy and asked them to explain the memo saying why they could support host: hos -- host: you are also asking for documents from the white house? guest: we're having a little bit

of trouble. the president indicated he was going to be transparent. we have specifically asked for these documents. i am not sure he is going to claim executive privilege or we will have to subpoena the documents, but i think it's better to understand how this happened and bring in the council and explain why they subordinated taxpa x in a few moments, rick perry on his plan for a flat 20% income tax rate. a hearing on proposals to overhaul the military requirements system. after that, oh look at president obama decision to send 100 u.s. military personnel to you gone up. -- to uganda. >>. defeat by truman was iconic and he continues to impact political history. this week, all the carrero

thomas e. dewey, a dominant force in new york state politics, influencing national politics in the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. the contenders, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. [applause] >> texas governor rick perry today outlined his proposal for a flat, 20% income tax rate. governor perry was up to sell tehran a manufacturing plant for a little more than a half-hour. >> it is indeed an honor to be with you today. he was a high-school classmate with one of the great conservative senators in our country, and that is jim demint. i want to thank you for allowing me to come here today.

we discuss a plan that will get america working again. today i lay before the american people might cut, balance, and grow plan. it cuts taxes and also cut spending. it balances the budget by 2020 and it grows jobs and growth the economy. it neither reshuffles the status quo nor does expand the ways that washington can reach into your pocketbook. it reorders the way they do business in washington by reinventing the tax code and getting our nation back to his -- fiscal helper balanced budgets and entitlement reform. central to my plan is giving every american the option of throwing out that 3 million

words of the current tax code. and i might add, the cost of complying with all of that code, in order to pay a 20% flat tax on their income. [applause] the size of the current code is more than 72,000 pages. that is represented and by this pallet right over here and the reams of paper. that is what the current tax code looks like. the best representation in my plan is this postcard. this is the size of what we are talking about right here. taxpayers would be able to fill this out and file their taxes on that. [applause] each individual taxpayer will

have a choice. you can continue to pay your taxes as well as the accountants and lawyers, under the current tax system that we've got, or you can file your taxes on the postcard, with the deductions on their for interest on your mortgage, which charitable billick -- terrible given, your state and local taxes, and in -- your charitable giving, and fill it out and send it in. if you will no longer have to worry about taxes on social security when you retire, or your family members paying the debts tax when you are gone. think about that. he has worked hard. he is going to pass this on to his family one these days. the idea that the federal government can take half of that is nonsense. you can also wave goodbye to the

capital gains tax as well as a tax on dividends. [applause] we will increase the standard exemption for individuals and dependence to $12,500. that means that families in the middle and on the lower end of the economic scale will have the opportunity to get ahead. taxes will be cut across all income groups in america. the net benefit will be more money in americans' pockets, with greater investment in the private economy instead of the federal government. on the corporate tax side, i am offering an equally bold reform. my plan closes those corporate loopholes. it ends at the special breaks for special interests and stopped the gravy train of lobbyists and tax lawyers in

washington d.c. that are there at the trough. [applause] in exchange for a corporate free -- or i should say corporate tax free of car melts and exclusions, i offer a much lower rate of 20% that represents the average corporate rate among the developed nations. it will make our corporations much more competitive on the global scale. it will shut down the cottage industry of corporate tax evasion by creating a tax that is broad and fair and low. my plan also offers incentives for corporations to invest in america again, with two major reforms. first, we will transition to a territorial tax system on corporate income that is our

overseas. what this means is, companies that pay the appropriate taxes in the country where that income was earned, but are not taxed a second time when that income gets moved back to the united states. secondly, all corporate profits currently that are languishing overseas, i will offer a one time reduced rate of 5.25% for a limited period time on those repatriated dollars to bring those dollars back to the united states. the u.s. chamber of commerce said that this is one time tax reduction would bring back over a billion dollars in capital back to the united states, creating up to 2.9 million jobs , and increase the economic output in this country by $360 billion. in other words, it is the kind

of economic stimulus that president obama could have achieved if he was not so bent on passing big government schemes that have failed american workers [applause] . today's corporate combined tax rate of 39.2% is the second- highest in the developed world. it is time to overhaul of our tax code so that companies can invest more in their people and in their products. tax rates have consequences. liberals myopic lee ignore the realities of human nature. they think raising rates will raise revenue. what they don't understand is that large employers have choices. i might add, so to wealthy

individuals. that includes moving money offshore. when they try to take -- when the federal government tries to take too much, they end up hurting the very people they supposedly seek to help, the working class. we need tax policy that embraces the world as it is, not what some liberal ideologue wishes it to be. the goal of my cut, balance, and grow plan is to unleash job creation to address the current economic crisis, while at the same time, generating a stable source of revenue to address our record deficit and put our fiscal house in order. my plan should not be viewed in a vacuum, but in comparison to the continuation of the status quo.

it provides employers and investors certainty, which is critical in getting capital back into the economy. the president's plan provides temporary tax relief, which it does nothing to encourage long- term investment, because it doesn't provide the private sector any certainty. the way to stimulate the economy is not free temporary tax relief or government spending. it is to stimulate private spending for a permanent tax relief. the flat tax and will unleash growth, but growth is not enough. we must put a stop to this entitlement culture that risks the financial sovereignty -- solvency of this country for future generations. the red flags are alarming.

our children are born with a $46,000 in debt. every young child is born with a $46,000 debt to the federal government. our credit was downgraded for the first time this past august, in part because of the lack of seriousness about deficit reduction. according to the white house office of management and budget, by the end of the year, our debt will exceed the size of america's economy for the first time in 65 years. we are on the road to ruin, paved by stake serfdom. freeing our children from financial disaster requires the courage to reform the entitlements. my plan establishes firm

principles and to preserve medicare and social security for today's beneficiaries while saving it for tomorrow's generations. i am putting forward by principles to save social security for the long term. first, we will protect existing benefits for current retirees, and we will work with congress on the exact age where those nearing retirement are grandfathered out of the changes to the program. secondly, we will end the current pillaging of the social security trust fund by washington politicians. [applause] here is the hard fact. the trust fund is full of i o u's. without a single dime of money left over from what workers have

paid in. the politicians have borrowed against it for years, and in order to redeem those ious's, they will have to either raise your taxes or cut spending on other programs to replenish it. those are the only two choices. here is the other hard truth. in 25 years,ct, benefits will be slashed by 23% overnight. protecting social security begins by protecting the solvency of the fund and stopping all of the current borrowing from the fund, just as we have done with the highway trust fund. the third principle of reform is to allow young workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts if they so choose. [applause]

i am not naive. i have an idea that this idea will be attacked, but a couple of facts are worth stating. one, the return on investment in social security is so small, it is kind of like having an interest-bearing savings account at the bank. over the long term, the markets generate a much higher yield. secondly, opposition to this simple measure is based on a simple supposition. that is a that the people are not smart enough to look out for themselves. i don't believe that. liberals think the american people cannot be trusted to safeguard even a portion of their retirement dollars. i happen to think is the time to end the nanny state and empower

our people to exercise greater control over their money. [applause] the fourth principle is to return to the pre-1983 law and allow state and local governments to newly opt out of social security and instead, allow their employees to pay solely into state or locally run programs. this has been done around the country. i might add, with very good results. we ought to allow it again. lastly, we should raise the retirement age for those younger workers on a graduated basis to reflect the longer life span of today's americans. i am going to work with congress to determine the right formula, beginning at the right age, but this is just common sense.

it can help save social security for future generations. we will also reform medicare, to save it for future generations of americans as well. we will do this by working with congress on several options, including giving patients greater flexibility in choosing the plan that best fits their unique needs three things like bundle premium support of payments for the individual, or as a credit against purchase of health insurance, for instance. second, we should look at gradually raising the age of medicare eligibility. early, we should consider adjusting medicare benefits to be paid on a sliding scale, based on the income of the recipient. lastly, we must tackle the $100

billion annual waste and fraud and save this vital program for americans who live longer. my plan also restructure unmedicated, returning control over that program and the dollars needed to administer it to the states. one-size-fits-all health care does not work for people on private plans in the form of obamacare, and it sure doesn't work with public land such as medicaid. washington has broken it. they have shown no will to fix it, either. we must give the states the flexibility to fix medicaid, to control those costs. these reforms are essential to balancing the budget. my plan balances the budget and as fast as any serious plan that is being offered out there.

in the year 2020, with reforms to entitlements, greater economic growth, and with cuts to discretionary spending, and i don't take the tack of the current president, with his arbitrary cuts to defense spending. the question we must ask is not what we can afford to spend on national defense, but what does it cost to keep america secure? [applause] at the same time, we are going to reform the way that we spend money in washington so that we can balance the budget in eight years. but to truly protect taxpayers, we need the extra protection of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. [applause]

i will also reduce the spending in the department of education, the department of energy, the epa, and a whole host of other agencies, returning greater control to the states [applause] . my plan also reduces non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in year one, and it builds on those savings in the years to come. i will also institute several principal reforms to the budgetary process, which is contained in my cut, belts, and growth plan on my website. you can go there and read it, and it is not the links of the novel "war and peace." it is very simple, bold

approach. included in my budget reforms are elimination of baseline budgeting that assumes that the previous expenditures are sacrosanct. an end to non-emergency spending and emergency bills. who would have thought of that? a permanent stop to the bridge to nowhere projects through the elimination of the year marks. -- the elimination of earmarks. a couple these budgetary reforms with an overhaul of the regulatory process. when federal agencies like the are dictating to companies when they can create jobs and when they cannot, they have overstepped their boundaries and undermined our free-market system. [applause] on my first day in office, i

will freeze all pending federal regulations and immediately begin a review of all regulations put in place since january 2008. today, the federal register contains 165,000 pages. the index alone is 1100 pages, and somehow, despite not having any of these new regulations for over the first 219 years of this country's history, america not only survived, it thrived. heavyderal nanny state's handed regulations are keeping our economy in the ditch. it is time to review and scrap those regulations that are harming jobs and killing growth. lastly, one of the greatest impediment to investment --

john, you and i were talking about this before came in, is a dodd-frank rating regulations, and i will lead the charge to eliminate them. [applause] dodd-frank is killing small banks. it is freezing assets to credit, just one small businesses need them most. it enshrines bailouts and the notion of two big to fail and federal law. benefits wall street while the it is killing main street. it is wrong, it is unfair, and it has got to go. [applause] my plan does not trim around the edges and it does not bowed down to the established interests. but it is a kind of bold reform that is needed to jolt the economy out of the doldrums, to renew american prosperity. those who oppose it are going to

wrap themselves in the cloak of status ". america is under a crushing burden of debt, and the president simply offers larger deficits and the politics of class warfare. others simply offer these microwave plans with warmed over reforms based on current ingredients. americans are not searching for a reshuffling of the status quo which simply empowers the entrenched interests. this is a change election. i offer a plan that changes the way that washington does business. the great issue facing this nation is whether we have the courage to confront the spending and the vision to get our economy growing again. we need a tax code that unleashes growth instead of preventing it, that promotes fairness, not class warfare,

that sparks investment in america instead of overseas interest. it is time to create incentives for american companies to invest in american workers. [applause] it is time to end these corporate loopholes, end the special tax breaks for special interest, end the gravy train for lobbyists and tax lawyers. it is time to pass a tax that is flat and fair and that frees our employers and our people to invest and grow and prosper. we will set our employers and our people freed by slashing the cost of government, cutting taxes for the middle class families, balancing our budget and growing our economy. the future of america is too important to be left to the washington politicians. [applause]

to get america working again, we have to cut taxes and spending, balance the federal budget, and grow our economy and jobs. my plan unleashes american ingenuity for a new american century, restores the hopes and dreams of our people, and renews our great promise, and it entrusts the fate of this nation in the hands of our people, setting them free. let's be the land of the free again. god bless you, and thank you all for coming out and being with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ >> what more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest

campaign contributions with c- span is website for campaign 2012. easy to use, and helps you navigate the political landscape. there are links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. >> former treasury secretary hank paulson said "the whole world will pay the price" if china does not meet its economic goals. speaking today at johns hopkins school of international studies, mr. golson noted that china is not immune to europe's debt crisis, saying its leaders should pay attention in order to avoid the same fate. >> what is happening in europe is china's second warning bell in as many years. china is just too big an economy can still too dependent on exports to ignore what is happening in the early market

system that has powered china's system for so long. frankly, the present crisis should make financial reforms more, not less, urgent for china. china has been able to wall of its financial system in the past. during the asian financial crisis, and again more recently. but can a $6 trillion chinese economy and deeply integrate into the global system, remain forever immune to what is happening in the $30 to win economies of europe and the united states? it cannot. >> watch this entire event tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. in a few moments, a hearing on proposals to overhaul the military retirement system. in a little less than an hour and a half, a look at president obama decision to send 100 u.s. military personnel to uganda. after that, we will be air

republican presidential candidate rick perry on his plan for a flat, 20% income tax rate. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning, marine corps, john amos will be at the council on foreign relations, discussing the marine corps and national security. that is second in 30 a.m. eastern. at 10 eastern, the joint deficit-reduction committee hears from the congressional budget office director. the committee's deadline for cutting the deficit is four weeks away. also at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span3, homeland security secretary to janet napolitano is testifying before the house judiciary committee on u.s. immigration policy and enforcement. story tot want every be 1800 words appeared >> last month, jill abramson became the

first woman to hold the post of executive editor at the new york times. she believes the times is more replaceable than ever, but also envisions a few changes. >> there is a certain lack of discipline, sometimes a point is repeated. too many times in a story, there are three quotes making the same point, where one would do. i would like to see a variety of story lines. >> she will discuss her career, her new book, and the future of "the times." >> next, a hearing on proposals to overhaul the military retirement system. defense secretary leon panetta has said the pentagon will have to consider changes to the retirement system because of rising costs and possible budget cuts. this is a little less than an hour and a half.

>> good afternoon. ladies and gentlemen, welcome. today the military subcommittee will discuss the subject of military determined, an issue of immense importance to service members and in terms to combat readiness. it was essential that this subcommittee address this expeditiously. thank you for your insight and call to action. the defense business board, one element of the department of defense, was quick to present a major retirement reform proposal that set the tone of the retirement reform debate. the board's proposal would move

the retirement system aggressively toward a private sector defined contribution system based on the personal investments of service members. the proposal received immediate criticism from service members and military associations. the proposal is certainly a radical solution that would result in a significant reduction of retired benefits for all service members. as could be anticipated, the unveiling of the defense business board proposal injected considerable uncertainty into the force, to include troops fighting in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the proposal created an immediate merrell firestorm as service members fear that senior members within the department of defense and the military departments were seriously considering its implementation. we invited the defense business board to testify today, to face the arguments of their critics

and explain the merits of their proposal, but they declined the invitation. i am concerned that the defense business board knowingly elected to pursue a very controversial proposal with immediate negative consequences to morale and combat readiness, and yet they were unwilling to come before this subcommittee and defend their actions. in my view, their failure to appear speaks volumes about their own lack of conviction that their proposal is deserving of serious consideration. secretary of defense leon panetta has been clear that retirement reform must be on the table for consideration as the department of defense contemplates the wide array of programs that will be considered for cuts to meet the budget reduction goals. i am pleased that the secretary understood the morale problem that has been created by the defense business board and announced his clear support for grandfather in the benefits to

be provided to currently serving service members who have borne the burden of war over last 10 years. we simply cannot betray the trust of the service members who have performed with such courage and expertise in afghanistan and iraq. i was disappointed that secretary panetta did not disavow the defense business board proposal. that statement would have removed a major irritant to the force. i was, however, very pleased at general dennis c.'s statement before the house armed services committee that recognized the unique requirements of military service and that strong asserted that the military requires the retirement system totally different from any civilian retirement program. today we hope to learn more about the current positions of the department of defense and

military advocacy groups concerning the need to reform military retirements. i would like to welcome our witnesses, dr. joanne rooney, the principal deputy, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. dr. rooney, this is your first opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. welcome. i am certain we will be seeing more of you in the future. next we have a two high respected professionals that are longstanding friends of the subcommittee. miss virginia as penrod, the -- and the director of government relations of the military officers association of america. only, let me introduce mr. john davis. he is a marine, not a marine

veteran or former marine, a marine. we appreciate so much you being here today. the director of legislative programs, mr. davis, this is also your first time as a witness before the subcommittee. welcome. council member david, you are recognized for your opening remarks. >> i note this is your first time testifying before the subcommittee, so we are glad to have you. thank you all. i look forward to hearing your comments on potential reforms to the military retirement system. we all know the concerns about the current state of our nation's economy. the discussions on the condition and the future military retirement are once again being raised, no surprise. such discussions are not new. during previous economic

downturns, focus has turned to the sustainability and affordability of our military retirement programs. for the most part, the current military retirement program was established over 60 years ago, so it is valid, no matter how difficult, difficult knowing the nature of the service and the sacrifice of the men and women who served, but still appropriate, i think, for us to ask ourselves whether the current program still meets the requirements it was set up to cheat, which of course we know is the focus of today's hearings. only 17% of the force actually complete a full 20 years of service in order to qualify for a non disability retirement. many have expressed concerns that the current program does not recognize the sacrifices of those who served during tenures

of conflict and may not stay the full 20 years to earn a return. is it fair that that person who may have been deployed once and stayed to return is eligible for a lifetime benefit, while an individual who may have multiple deployments in a combat theater does not stay 20 years, that person walks away with nothing more and the admiration of a grateful nation. when the 20-year retirement program was established, the not -- a life expectancy in 1949 for a white male was 66.2 years. for black male, it was 58.9 years. compared to the latest data available, the life expectancy in 2009 for a white male is 76.2 years and for black male, 70.9 years. so there is no doubt that americans are living longer and fuller lives. which means an average individual who achieves military retirement for 20 years of

service will receive return for nearly twice as long in his adult life. him or her adult life. in addition, many of those who retire at 20 years of service have gone on with an ability to seek another full career in a different field. changes to the personnel compensation program including the retirement system often strikes fear in the force. it is important that we do not necessarily undermine the fate of those who are currently serving. but we do have a responsibility to ensure that the compensation package that is provided to service members are meeting the needs of our nation's national security, and that includes looking at the military retirement package. thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important hearing and i look forward to our witnesses testifying today. thank you.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the defense business board report on their proposal to reform the military retirement and a statement from the reserve officers association be injured in to the hearing record. hearing no objection, so ordered. at this time will proceed in order with our witnesses, beginning with dr. rooney. >> the afternoon. chairman wilson, ranking member davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you on behalf of the women and men who so ably serve in our nation's armed forces. i am here today to speak to you about the military retirement system of our uniformed services. since the military transitioned to an all volunteer force, military compensation has been under continuous scrutiny. the primary goals of the military compensation system are to attract, retain, and

eventually separate members so the united states forces can support the numerous missions both here and abroad and when called upon, succeed on the battlefield. even though some consider military benefits far reaching, we must remain cognizant that they support the brave men and women who volunteer to defend this great nation. over time, while the military retirement system has remained relatively constant, pensions in the private sector have changed and more closely aligned to support the more mobile work force in that sector. unlike the private sector, the military services must grow most of their military work force internally. it generally takes 15-20 years to develop the next generation of infantry battalion commanders and a submarine captains.

this need for greater longevity in continuity suggest there are valid reasons why mirroring a private sector compensation package may not necessarily be the proper approach for the military. however, the department does believe that reducing the retirement system is both a fair and reasonable in denver, and over the past year has begun reviewing such retirement in the context of a total military compensation system. the officer of enlisting in civilian leadership of all services from the active-duty reserve and national car components as well as the u.s. coast guard are participating in this review. the review is designed to be delivered, careful, and pragmatic. the defense business for proposal is just one of several concepts that are being reviewed and modeled to determine the impact on recruitment and retention.

the department is working to write the correct balance. this includes weighing the impact on the new system of recruiting and retention, considering the welfare of the individual service members and families, which includes grandfathering our existing force, who took their oaths under the current system, and acknowledging our responsibility to the american taxpayer. the department needs to ensure any proposed changes do not break faith with the current members or negatively impact the current force. before proposing changes to the military retirement system or any part of the military pay and benefit structure, however, the department is committed to conducting significant evaluations and in-depth analysis of any proposal. the department must ensure its ability to continue recruiting and retaining the highest quality members and must understand to the fullest extent possible the impact of any changes on the future of the all volunteer force.

finally, while the department acknowledges military retirement system appears expensive, it is nearly -- neither a unaffordable nor spiraling out of control, as some would contend. the department annually contributes in accordance with the carmen's set forth by the office of the actuary, but contributions as a percentage of military basic pay our projected to remain relatively constant over time. at this time, the department does not have any specific proposals or recommendations ready to offer. within the last month, the president recommended forming a commission to review the military retirement system. if this commission is formed, the department expects to provide significant input to the commission. the department also expects that any proposals offered will be similarly presented to the congress and to this subcommittee for discussion and assessment. all i look forward to continuing

to work with each of you, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify can for your continued support of our military members and their families. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for the opportunity to come before you and discuss the military retirement system for uniform services. dr. rennie towed to the department has begun a review of military retirement, and it is my office that has been tasked with this tremendously important undertaking. the purpose is to determine the impact and feasibility of restructuring. i would like to point out that the current system has supported the most successful all volunteer force in the world. question now is whether the current system is still relevant in today's environment.

if not, should be modified to meet these requirements in a manner more in line with private sector? to ensure that we are doing -- that we are getting it right, along with associated personal the personnel, to have an impact on recruiting and retaining the all volunteer force. we are not looking at retirement in isolation. i work is not yet complete so i am unable to report to you on the results of the review. i can assure you that sustaining the all volunteer force and the men and women that so ably serve our nation will be at the heart of whatever we do. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you for this opportunity to present our views on military retirement concerns. we are grateful to the committee for standing up as champions both now and in the past to

ensure military retirement incentives remain commensurate with the extraordinary demands of career service. the primary purpose of military retirement package is to induce toys of all the people to serve multiple decades under conditions few americans are willing to endure for even one term. after a decade of war in which career service members deploy time after time after time, with ever-increasing of coming home a changed person, we find it shocking insensitive that some now seek to curtail their retirement package to make it more like civilian workers. these are the primary incentives that have sustained the career force in peace and war. we are very concerned the recent proposals are aimed mainly at achieving budget savings, with scant regard for longer-term damage to retention and readiness. the fact is we already have a considerable history with military retirement cutbacks. enactment of the three-year average basic pay system in 1980

cut retired pay by about 8% with subsequent interest. through the 1980's and 1990's, military pay raises for capped below private sector pay growth in nearly every year, dramatically reducing lifetime retired pay for all the thousands of people retired under those depressed pay cable. in 1986, congress passed the so- called reducts retirement system that cut lifetime return paid by more than 25% for a 20-year military retiree. at that time, secretary weinberger, secretary of defense at the time, warned congress that we ducks would undermine retention in readiness, which proved true a decade later, and congress repealed it in 1999. recent proposals by the defense business board and the 10th quadrennial review of military compensation envisioned for more dramatic cutbacks than reed texted, delaying most retirement compensation until age 57 or 60,

even though the services don't want to keep most people anywhere near that long. it also proposed investing option for people who choose to leave early. we believe this is a formula for retention and readiness disaster that would have destroyed the career force had it been in effect of the past 10 years. some support vesting or principle of fairness with private sector workers, but it is and odd concept of fairness that would dramatically cut compensation for those who service and sacrifice the longest to pay more for those who leave early. defense leaders have saw to quell concern in the deal by saying that plan to grandfather the current force, but their real ducks experience proves that grandfather in does not avoid -- the redux experience crude that grandfathering does not work. current defense leaders have repeatedly expressed support for significant retirement cutbacks

for future entrance without a word about long-term retention risks. in our view, that is an abdication of their responsibility to protect future as well as current readiness. we are extremely grateful that this subcommittee and the full subcommittee have stood up to highlight those retention and readiness concerns to the super committee when few others seemed so inclined. that concludes my portion of the coalition's statement. >> thank you very much, colonel, and now we proceed to lieutenant davis. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. the all volunteer force has successfully fought in a protracted war, due primarily to the dedication of our men and women in uniform. we should not underestimate the pay and benefits keeping the for sustained in this time of challenge. many raleigh believe that the uniform service should receive 50% of pay for 20 years of service,the tired pay is based n

the basic pay excluding housing and allowances. personnel with 20 years of service are retired pay that replaces 34 to 37% of cash, pay, and allowances. and the accounting should acknowledge retirees that have already given under the past budget cuts. they have already forfeited $3,000 a year for the rest of their lives. regarding the change in cpi, some believe the consumer price index fails to recognize consumers change their behavior when prices rise sharply. people buy a cheaper substitute products like chicken instead of beef when the price rises. it is more complicated with other substitutes.

over time, this leads to a major change. the change cp either would reduce lifetime high -- lifetime paid by $100,000. they oppose any kind of cuts because that violates the very purpose of -- to protect against the erosion of benefits by inflation. another proposal is to use the high five in lieu of the 53. we oppose this because it is just another way to devalue military service. the 10th report suggests a 401k type retirement payment starting at age 57 to 60. this would change it from $20,000 a year to a ridiculous

the thousand $600 a year. this change would do grave harper retention and recruiting -- recruiting. a recent survey indicates 90% of respondents believe if benefits were delayed until age 60, fewer people would serve and they would serve shorter periods of time. the survey indicates more than 80% would leave the military center. 84% believe fewer people would it tooling. --join. their leadership guidance are invaluable as a result of many years of experience. it would likely result in many of them leaving the military early. these positions are difficult to replace. the bottom line is, the current retirement system is that it has worked as intended. sustaining a quality career force through good and bad

budget times through war and peace -- and only stopped working after congress cut it back in 1986. that is a lesson we should not have to relearn. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will proceed now. each member will have a 5 minute. . we have a person above reproach, mike havens, who will be our timekeeper. you can almost look at his face and tell when the five minutes are up. i would like to begin with dr. rennie. it has been reported that with the defense reform proposal last summer, there was a great deal of distress among career service members. disavow theance to proposal that is given rise to concern that there is strong

support at dot for such reforms. does dot intended to support the defense business proposal? it has already been identified by both of you that there are studies under way as to how this proposal will affect retention. when should we expect a report on the affect of retention? >> yes, sir. in regards to the defense business or, you indicated early on we did not come out adequately against it. i believe recent statements by the secretary, this -- the chairman, and in our opening statements indicate we are seeing the defense proposal as just one datapoint for consideration and review as we are looking at the overall retirement and compensation system. again, the key factor for us is any change or any system must

insure that we are able to recruit and retain the volunteer force and is not at all damage it had the courage to face the the troops have and as. it is a datapoint for us and we see it just as that. you also asked -- and where are we in terms of a proposal coming forward? we have a group that is currently looking at a number of alternatives. we are working closely with the corporation to also help us in the analysis of that. again, with the idea that retention are key factors to consider in any kind of proposal. at this point we don't have a specific date. with the president's proposed commission, that would stand up in the springtime should go forward, we would be prepared at

that point in time to be very much for me decomposition but that. >> we are working to model any proposals or changes to the current retirement program. we criminal -- preliminarily have the final report and it does have a negative impact on retention. that is what is the showing at this time. we are not complete with the review. again, as dr. restated, it is a datapoint. we will take that point and reform our review. >> thank you both of you. i was very impressed. the fact he pointed out, people should know how this affects individuals. with that in mind, and what is or action that the retirement reform as unavoidable because it

is unsustainable. what would be your response, each of you? >> the testimony we have heard today from the witness refutes that were it says it is neither spiraling out of control or unsustainable. their projection is that will be the same percentage of basic pay into the future. i think the committee has statistics that show retirement cost has been relatively stable over time. the first time i worked on military retirement was in 19707. we showed projections at that time that critics are pointing out it would be -- the system would go broke by the year 2000. we are still here and we just fought a war since the year 2000. >> thank you.

>> i would just add that the price of military benefits is really part of the cost of fighting a war we are currently involved in. it should be put in that category as well. >> i did want to thank you all of you. i can see your appreciation of the career junior officers. we can get new recruits, but the expertise must be maintained with the security of our y.untry can n >> thank you all for being here. i was wondering if you could address the issue of fairness as i mentioned in my opening statement, we have hundreds of thousands who served out the 20 years.

the man almost -- they may deploy once if at all purses those who deploy on many occasions. we know in the last 10 years that is quite common. how you think we should go about looking at that issue? d think it is one of fairness or is it just the way it is? >> the key purpose on the retirement system is sustaining the career force. national defence comes first. i am all in favor of fairness, i have built my career on arguing issues of fairness. you have to sustain the system through peace and war and through good but it tightened ad budget *.

' we have all seen. in the past where we pull out the stops to retain people. would we have had condition so terrible or an economy so strong we have to raise retention bonuses, we have to pay extra things. those are going to happen in the future as well. win we acknowledge the military service conditions are unique and it's vastly different from civilian conditions, the fact we can only get 17% of enlisted people to stay for the current system, to me, speaks for itself about the career and the few people willing to endure them for a long time. to then turn around and say, but we need to pay more to people believe. to me any time you have a vesting system, that detracts from a career incentives. it cannot do anything else.

in that budget times, it leads people bidding against themselves p l it drives up costs. if you want to talk fairness, the first thing you have to do is be fair to the people who suffer sacrifice the longest. that is the career person. the last thing we should be doing is cutting their package to fund a better package for people believe. >> when we are looking at fairness -- he brought up a good point because you were not even talking about the range of people. that is why in my opening statement -- you heard other, the department of defense -- you look at compensation as a total package. so across that whether it is basic pay, hazardous duty pay, and in danger pay, all of the different aspects that go into a compensation, that is how we get the balance of fairness.

when people come into the military, they understand the situation. they come in knowing what the various pieces are. as a result, because we are viewing it from not only basic pay but the ketchup conversation, we do get a balance of fairness. the point you bring out in terms of -- should we be adding a component to retirement to compensate for people less than 20 years, that is one of the reasons we are saying it is a very prudent to be looking at military retirement as part of the overall compensation to determine if there is something in that aspect we need to look at more closely. >> in the little time left, did you want to comment? "i just want to point out that we did a survey. that was one of the questions we asked. de think it is fair for people to get a pension -- you have to serve 20 years? 81% of them thought it was fair. in the ranks of the military,

there is no feeling that, gee, if i served 10 years and get out, it is unfair because somebody else serves 20 years at night they get a pension. i would also like to point out that it is not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. if somebody serve 20 years, they are then under the jurisdiction of the veterans committee. they have a colatitude of things they can use to be basically. >> did you want to comment? >> i think i agree with you that i believe we should look at it. we have a different color coming in every year. how do we know what the future will look like? what people are looking for in

their retirement system. it may make the military more enticing to come and if an individual thinks they may have something they can take with them. also, even though you have a gi bill, i think that is an outstanding benefits. whistle have an individual who will be separated possibly during drawdown with 12 years of service. i think we need to look at that. that is what we will do. >> to read very much. we will proceed to mr. kaufman of colorado. >> i guess my first question is, some of the testimony reference to that it is a relatively low percentage of payroll that supports the retirement system but nobody has said what that is. i wonder if somebody can give me a percentage number. >> at this point we have some of the numbers i would like to

take a for the record, please. >> very well. i just think -- first of all, i agree with the secretary of defense with the sec -- testified before. whatever reforms we do should not affect those who are currently on active duty and went in with the understanding that this is what the system is when they in fact interested or commission in the armed forces of the united states. with that said, myself being a retiree, to remember as i was approaching the 20th year marked -- if you are injured -- not on active duty, it is not considered line of duty. he don't fall into that, you report back for duty. i was in the marine corps

reserve. if you are determined to can't do what they ask you to do because you sustained an injury scheme, then you are automatically out. there's nothing there for you. i give up skiing in colorado as i got over to that 20 year marked just to make sure that nothing happened as i got closer. i just think that we need to take a look -- not so much the reservists, but the active duty components. i disagree with the notion that we ought to go in the direction of bond fund contributions. we are asking service members to get a lot. i think there needs to be a component of certainty in that. perhaps a more bifurcated approach that would be defined benefit with an element of defined contribution for those who would enter the armed forces after the effective date of the new system when it was put into

place. i just think this system needs to be reformed. indeed to be revised. his father was under the system as a world war to end of korean veteran. i think things have changed since then has terms of life expectancies and the number of other issues. i just think everything we ought to look at -- i understand the defense advisory board only looked at one issue, if i understand that. the only come across with one suggestion. is that my understanding? >> yes. that is the only proposal we have seen as one that is a defined contribution. >> i am surprised and disappointed by that. if you look at the system for civil service are members of congress -- i think for members of congress and their staff, it

is 1.7% a year for the first 20 years. it is 1% every effort for the next 10 years there is a defense plant. it is a lower factor -- i can't tell you what it is for federal employees. the difference between federal employees and the military or members of congress as well -- i am not a fan -- for the military they do not have and they do not want them to have the sort of career protections that federal civil service has. when you compare the two retirement systems, i think you need to recognize that in a military system it has to complement the fact that today are all at will employees when making the determinations about retirement. i look forward to working with

you which it all of you in terms of coming up with a new system. i certainly am not want to say that the old system ought to be replicated going forward. i don't believe that. i do believe that we need to look at those folks who served less than 20 years -- i think it ought to recruit something for that. in the new system they can for those who are not members of the terps forces yet, i think we ought to look at the notion that she began drawing the defined portion of your retirement tried at the end of the 20 year mark or whatever the market is, i think there are a number of issues that ought to be on the table. with that, i yield back. >> we now proceed to congressmen dr. joe heck. >> thank you for pulling this together so quickly after my

request. thank you for providing the testimony p l i agree that it is certainly reasonable to review the pay and benefits and the retirement system of our armed services. when i disagree is what the defense business proposal -- when the defense business reposal bid without consideration to those serving in harm's way. i receive the e-mails and phone calls from folks wondering what is going on in hearing firsthand what you more rolla's on theater. not that they are not already worried enough about whether or not they are going to get their next paycheck back home, now they are worried about what will happen when they hit the 20 year market will go on with the potential retirement. the question of is the benefit package or the retirement relevant i think it poses a concern in how you define relevance? i hope that is not a euphemism

for the cost associated with the retirement program especially when 17% of the folks the spend a lifetime and the service wind up qualifying for a full retirement. i know it is hard enough under fiscal times what we are trying to figure out how the department of defense's 2400 $50 million that this administration has already called for. is this review of benefits and pay taking place in a vacuum or is it being looked at in conjunction with the amount spent on facilities and the amount we are spending of hardware and weapons system? are these being viewed in a silo? my concern is we can we can have the best weapon system, if we do have the person to pull the trigger like the great pilots i have at the creeks air force base manning the rpa is now in

theater, that weapon system does not do anything. is this being done in a vacuum or is it being looked at across the board in the entire dod budget? >> no, it is not being looked at. we are looking at not just across the board cuts but very strategically looking at what it needs to look at -- look like. how do we attract and retain the best people, keep our current troops but also go forward to retain. it is part of an overall strategic look at how we are going to face the budget challenges and the budget of defense going forward. >> @ appreciate what he stated having gone through the years of

incentive bonuses and then using stop-loss to keep people in. now we are getting to the point where we are cutting the active duty for some of the army and the marine corps. how does that play into the decision? we are already trying to downsize the for some purpose. now we are talking about potentially changing the retirement program which may cause an additional accidents. >> when i was indicating strategic, i do mean we are taking into consideration the we are looking forward and acknowledging the we will be recruiting new force is going forward. you mention specific capabilities. that is part of the area we know our forces for the future will rely on new technologies. we may have new requirements for recruiting those faults. as we are looking at what does this force look back -- look like, what are the attributes,

we want to make sure our overall package is the right combination of package.

>> i believe in five years on this side, i could get tested into a prayer retirement. in talking about that later. as i sit here today, i am very concerned. it takes me back to the "by george washington. toward washington talked about how it will regard their service to this nation as how we treat our veterans. i recall my father sitting down and talking to me about how great it would be to set a career in the military. when i look at the career in the military, when i look at people serving in the military, that is a defining contribution. on the backside, i think we should be giving them a defined benefit for the contribution because of what they do. my first question is, to still have the savings plan for the men and women who made just serve five years'. while they are in a combat theater, they are able to go back into the service plan and

put it with some money. >> >> when we talk about comparing military service to the civilian sector, does it have something that is equal to the military justice? >> no, sir, they do not. >> in the private sector, other than being a professional athlete, does your position and your ability to progress through the ranks depend on your physical abilities? do we mandate people have to get up at 6:00 in the morning regardless of the conditions there of to participate in physical training and activity? >> i cannot comment on private sector employment. however, i can say we all agree that sacrifices are not the same for our military personnel as they are for the private sector civilians. >> i think that is my biggest

concern. when we ask the men and women to do ever since those men answered the call of arms is different from somebody going to a bank or different from somebody coming here to work on capitol hill. if a dangerous road will mr. to go down the comparative analysis of the private sector of the united states military. i ask me be very careful about that. i think we are already starting to make some decisions. how many people in the panel did you remember what happened after desert shield desert storm will offer people money to exit the united states military? i.t.. have you done any research as far as the degradation of leadership which is something that general martin dempsey talk about when he came to testify before us a couple of weeks ago? have we look at that and what can happen as far as the congressional leadership? >> i believe used the term

hauling of the force. that is something we have learned many lessons in the past. we will not do anything to our compensation system so we end up with that forced. >> any comments? >> i would like to say, i know what you are saying about that. from the enlisted said, you have senior enlisted people -- you need first sergeants. >> nothing else, because people combined with the junior officers, you also have a senior enlisted person who can have a wealth of experience with the military 20 or 30 years who can exploit things to call on them, that makes it very powerful combination. >> ever testify to that as a

young, stupid second lieutenant when i came in. >> so many of these things in these analyses treaty people in the context of human resources. as if they were which it in a box. instead of thinking of human beings. when we model -- i have a lot of -- doing a lot of studies, working with ramp. the problem with all of these is the models do not include things you can not quantify. things such as a sacrifice, time away from home. they include all of the money people spend. they can measure behavior. but they do not talk about -- there is nothing in the bottle that accommodates the chance

that we might go to war tomorrow. you might be going to iraq for the next 10 years every other year. there is nothing in there that accommodates for the fact that we might do the opposite. we might stop a war. we might have a budget driven drawdown and you built your plans on staying for a career and all of a sudden we are going to force to oust. those are the kinds of things that service leaders are always seeking additional flexibility to be able to micromanage the force. the only thing we know about those kinds of plans is what every plan for five or 10 years is going to be wrong. the world is going to change your plan for you. to us, that is one thing when you have a very powerful incentive like the 20-year retirement plan, it is very resistant to day to day

manipulation. that is a good thing. >> thank you. i just hope that our fiscal responsibility on this side does not become born on the backs of our men and women in uniform. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i am going to focus more on the gentleman -- ladies with my questions if i may. i would like to focus of we can on the 83% they get nothing. you were just talking about the potential of somebody to go overseas every other year for the next 10 years, 5 tores, and then have a drawdown or a force reduction. the bottom line is, that person would not qualify even though they may have wanted to stay for 20 years. they would get nothing, is that correct?

is correct.nk that what we have these types of drawdowns. pour example, the congressman was talking about what happened in the 1990's. we had very special programs to provide additional incentives to try to entice people to separate voluntarily, for people with 15-19 years, congress authorized an early retirement program. as difficult as those things are, that was probably the best example of the kind of thing that can be done. now, the challenge is to drawdown what is coming up, and his physical environment, i think it will be a lot tougher for congress to authorize those kinds of programs. we are going to be seeing less incentives. there will be some incentives, but probably less. >> of the 70% received the benefits from 20 years, what

percentage of them are listed? 17% of the men and women who qualify? >> what percentage are invested? probably about 70%, i would think. >> 70% are enlisted? i guess my question is, i hear your objection to having -- you object to having any other plan, is that correct? no, i don't object to having any other plan. i object to saying that because civilians do these things, that the military should as well. the military is a very different system that is built to serve a very different purpose. to me, it has to start with the uniqueness and did not assume that what happens in the private sector is a good thing.

it needs to be evaluated on its own merits. >> i agree with you that they are different. i do think it is necessary for the committee and for us as the congress to do something that helps that 83%. there are many of them who serves many tours overseas. i understand that we have to have our experience and our offices and maintain those things, but i will also tell you that i do think we need to remember the 83% of people who spent their time and their family's time contributing a great deal to the freedoms we enjoy in this country. i see nothing wrong with them being free to choose a different retirement plan on their own

will. we will work on that as time goes on. i would ask mr. davis, would you give me the match again that you used where you said 3000 was the last number and maybe 24,000 was the first in your presentation? >> that was a 24,600 for 20 years as compared to the taking of the plan proposed which was to put them into a 401k after -- they would not be able to get that until age 57 to 60 years old. >> how many years of the contribute to that 401k -- could you share the math to the committee? >> how the 3600 would be the

initial volume of the defined a benefit retirement. in other words, the $24,000 would be reduced by 5% for each year the person left before age 57. assuming an enlisted person leaves at age 40, that means it would be reduced 85% so the defined benefit contribution or the defined benefit portion would be $3,600 a year. it would be some additional amount that person would receive from their thrift savings plan that would be in the range of 10 to $13,000 tickets are drying at the age of 60. >> that would be contingent on how much money they put into the savings plan. >> sure. >> i will like to see the math on that. >> short. we have a chart on that and our formal statement. i can get that to you.

>> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate all of you being here. i wanted to start if i could with the colonel and ascii to expand a little more on your comment earlier that you don't think if there was a new plan, you don't support having a new plan and grandfathering and current members of the military. could you expand on your concerns? >> i think my point was that people grandfathering, everything would be ok for grandfather the current force. i have a letter i referred to that went to tip o'neill expressing concern about the reduction plan congress was

about to enact. the latter spoke very eloquently on grandfathering. if you don't mind i would like to read it. while the changes we have been required to submit technically effect on the future interest, we expect an insidious effect on the moral of the current force. no matter how the reduction is package, it communicates the same message. the perception that there is an erosion of support from the american people for the servicemen and women on the call upon to ensure our safety. in absolute terms, its is the unique and interests and vital sacrifices they routinely make are not worth the taxpayer dollars they receive which is not overly generous. there was a line in their work he said, basically, you have two categories of people serving side by side who each know that they have different benefits. that was a very accurate picture of what happened in the

1990's. you had the people who were trying to reenlist people saying they either best lead them and tell them what benefits they have, when the people find out that was not true, they get particularly upset. you have people saying, sorry, the benefit you have is not what your predecessors have. there is no way those people go through 20 years serving together that does not become a burr under their saddle. >> you are not for any changes at all? he wanted to keep the system the way it is now forever. >> it is probably not realistic to say here will never be any changes at all. the thing i think we would have to -- very frankly, and it would probably end up being budget driven changes of some type p l i think we have to start from the standpoint that we have tried some of these things before. the one at that we know was a tragic failure was the redox

system which compared it to the things we compared to they were pretty modest. >> can i hear from the department of representatives what you initiative the whole process? why do you think there needs to be some changes? what is the rationale? >> is actually multi-purpose. one is we are looking to our future force. we talked about such concepts as we don't want to hollow out the forces we are changing piano we know we are facing drawdowns. we know that our future force can very much look different in terms of the type of force and must occur, the qualifications, the technical aspects. right now as we are doing a review, that prompted us to say, are we sure we have the correct pay benefits compensation package going forward. the timing of that review and not only the steve but -- speed

up the deliberateness of that ties into our budget concerns going forward in the budget that we must begin the reductions we must meet. we are trying to meet all of the budget reduction strategically. this does become part of that discussion. it is not solely driven because it is a budget exercise. >> i want to jump to a concern that i have heard at home and see if any discussion has taken place with this with about 30 seconds left. is there any incentive currently in the system -- i do not believe there is -- to encourage people to stay 30 years? some of the concerns i have heard from a retired military at home is that right now we have many people retiring at 20 years and we are losing the knowledge and all of that experience. is there anything being looked at to encourage people to stay longer? >> actually as we look at our

review, we look at the whole force profile. we enjoy the 20 -- we agree that the force today of the services, they built their force profile around the behavior. we continue to have 2.5 percentage points of every year you stake in the military to over 100%. we do have changes that have happened several years ago as far as retirement. that will be part of your review. we have a model as steve said. a very strong model to look at the impact on retention. that is just reforms the product -- the process. all services are representative. that is where you have the piece of the review and the experience. >> thank you. i just want to encourage all of

you as you go through this process to continue to get input from as many people as possible effected by this as well as members of congress. this is a very important topic to people in my district and to our national security. no changes should be made lightly. thank you for what you are doing. thank you for the input. thank you for your service pd -- thank you for your service. >> do you have another question, miss davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman peter i was not sure if we were going to have another round. there are a few questions bels. i am wondering if within this discussion whether there are really some priorities, perhaps,

that have been identified whether they were some areas to feel you could find savings, can you prioritize any of the benefits for us, what should be protected, what could be modified, reduced, or eliminated. acknowledging, of course, he would rather not see any reductions at all. even the target is problematic. are there some carriers that could be helpful? >> what think you have to recognize is we are here representing 34 organizations. that does require a wide and diversity. we did have some difference of opinions on health care. the kinds of differences we were talking about or $5 a month. those were very significant within the coalition. we had a lot of debate over the.

whether we should just say no changes. there are a number of reasonable crypts would say no changes. i think are some people who would be willing to discuss some things. it would be much tougher on retirement, carry frankly then healthcare. even though we were talking about that, we were talking about the kinds of things that were on the table now which were very disappointing to us who did buy into a two dollar increase on pharmacy fees to having a the administration turn it around before that even gets enacted and say, no, we are going to raise that to $40. that is a big problem. that raises some credibility issues.

and give support to the idea that if you give an inch, you take a mile. that is a significant idea. every retirement plan that has been put forth for the past four or five years when you go back to look at the defense advisory committee for military compensation proposal, the defense business or proposal, all of those entailed radical changes -- way worse than the pretext that failed. when you see that, i think we all get our hair on fire and said, i am sorry, you are starting from the wrong place. we are starting from -- how much money can we take out of this when what we should be starting for is -- what should people are for a career of service and sacrifice under conditions that can range anywhere up to and including deploying every other

-- coming back and not only your life of your family's life is going to be changed forever. and those are the kinds of things that we believe have to be counted as the contribution. that is what people really pay in a career of service and sacrifice. >> thank you. i certainly appreciate what you are saying ' i think we all the. if there are things that you can offer to us, that is always helpful p l i don't know if you want to comment further. i have one other question -- >> i just wanted to second -- when looking at the retirement system, i think it is important to remember that our armed services are there to fight wars. woman's young band's or profession. i look back at some of the things i did in the marines

carrying artillery shares and the kind of activity that you do, i probably would not be able to do it today. when you think about it, it is a young man posing woman's profession. the retirement system should reflect that. >> you can do this for the record because my time is almost up, could you also help us understand where you are looking to address other increased costs and expenditures we have in our contract services. i would like to know what we are doing about that. the concern, of course, is we are looking at retirement benefits and other benefits to the military. will see that despite the fact are trying to look at some of those costs, at the same time, we may be doing it with some services from our civilian personnel that we would have to go back and a contract with the outside.

-- i would like to know how you are going to address those issues. we are talking about cost across the board. i know in response to one of the other questions, you did say this is not the only thing we are looking at, of course. i'd like to know how you are going about that. call for a long we are in looking at a lot of the contracted services that also cost us a great deal of money. thank you very much. >> we will take up for the record given her time. thank you congressman. >> thank you very much. during her whole debate, i was impressed several times. it was reference about military families. as we are looking into the issues of retirement, the military families truly are of service and sacrifice. i just hope every effort is made to work with military

families and get the input. a truly sacrifice so much. a question that i would have is, as the department of defense consulted with your organization's and have they consulted with other military organizations at and associations for their input on this issue of retirement reform? >> not to date, no, sir. i think there are people who would prefer that they did not. >> we have not been emperor -- contacted from them for our

input to. >> i know what resources can be. i hope that he would be contacted. i know how broadbased both of your organizations are. monetary organizations active. i know there would give heart felt samples firsthand of the consequence propel any reform effort. i'd like to proceed to mr. kaufman. >> i was in the military in the army on active duty during the first reduction which was in deal early 1970's -- which was

in the early 1970's. there was no separation pay as was in the early 1990's, post- gulf war penuchle i think they get a lump-sum payment to separating senior noncommissioned officer of. i think what is stressful for that population in a reduction forces there is no understanding of what the system will entail -- it received notice that they're going to be out. then there may be a decision. that is unfortunate. i think that is one reason why i think it is important to have a reform that reflects some

accrued retirement benefit for people less than 24 years. i think that is something important to look at -- watch out for. i also want to reiterate again that i think whatever system would put into place should not impact the people currently on active duty. with that -- are there any responses from the panel to what i just said? >> i would just comment that the separation page you're talking about, at least as far as the law is concerned, we do not think it is right. would you look at the law, it is hard to come to the conclusion which is deemed a type of retirement payment. if you come back into the service and qualify for retirement, they will deduct the separation pay from the retirement pay. we don't like that, but that is the way it is.

in other words, under current law, that is the retired a piano the separation pay. -- the retired pay -- the separation pay. >> my last tour in iraq was civil affairs, i was infantry in the united states army. i have to tell you, that pretty much wore me out to. i think to the casual observer, they will verify that. there is such a wide disparity in occupations in the military. i have to tell you there are a lot of them that people show up to work in the morning and leave in the afternoon. it is not a whole lot different than a civilian job. there are those the jobs who are -- there are those jobs that are just a tough. if we cannot recognize that and retirement, we ought to recognize it and tossing up our

hazardous duty pay and all the other things that recognize people that don't punch out on saturday -- friday afternoon to go home. they just go day after day after day. i have done that he can theater -- and were twice. it is tough stuff. we needed to recognize that certainly i appreciate everybody's service in the united states military. i also appreciate the difference is. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. congressman heck. no further questions. congressman scott of georgia. ms. davis? being no further, thank you all for being here.

again, military families, when we are talking about are consequences far beyond today. the meeting is adjourned p.o. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and a few moments, a hearing on president obama's decision to send 100 cluster personnel to yield on the. and about two hours, republican presidential candidates rick perry on his plan for a flat income tax rates it. after that, we will prepare the hearing on proposals to

overhaul the military retirement system. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will hear about the gop's plan for creating jobs from tom price, the chairman of the republican policy committee. henry cuellar, a member of the homeland security hearing -- the homeless security committee, and the atlantic senior editor megan mcardle trust to talk about her article on whether members of congress are guilty of insider trading on the stock market. with our live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> it is time to get the cameras rolling for the student camera and video competition. get it to c-span by the deadline of january 20. you could win the grand prize of

$5,000. >> members of the house foreign affairs committee on tuesday questioned president obama's decision to send 100 u.s. personnel to uganda as a combat the lord's resistance army which has terrorized so africa since the 1980's. this is a little less than 2 hours. >> the committee will come to order. that was my gavel. v m -- we improvise. hub like to acknowledge the presence of evelyn. she is said lra survivor who

has traveled to washington to witness this important meeting firsthand. we thank her for coming in for her continued efforts on behalf of children impacted by this horrific conflict. after recognizing myself and the ranking member for nearly seven minutes each, for our opening statements, i will recognize the chair for three minutes. the chair and ranking member of the terrorism and the trade subcommittee. also for three minutes each for their opening remarks. the department of state has included the lord's resitance

army on the terrorism exclusion risk -- list since 2001. its leader since 2008 was designated as a global terrorist plo the nra is responsible for one of the longest and most violent and most underreported conflicts in africa. a conflict which has spread from no. you got it to south sedan. the democratic republic of the congo and it threatens costly investments in peace and stability in the it has perpetrated some of the most deplorable atrocities. they make no attempt.

it is of ducting women and children to surf this. they are forced to commit atrocities. we're not here to determine whether he is evil. we know that he is. he signed into law of the army does armament in northern uganda recovery act. there are over 200 co-sponsors in the house. they enjoyed overwhelming support.

it requires the president to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal and provide political and intelligence support to protect civilians. one increases the protection of civilian, apprehension and removal of the other senior commanders. promotion and the disarmament and reintegration of remaining combatants. there is the provision of humanitarian relief. they emphasize the u.s. pulled pork with the national

government and regional organizations to accomplish these goals. what steps to the u.s. undertake to achieve the objectives outlined? we ask them to summarize what progress has been achieved toward meeting the strategic objectives. u.s. troops are being deployed to central africa. i have authorized a small number of u.s. forces to deploy to central africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal. although the forces are combat equipped, they will only be

providing assistance to partner nation forces. they will not engage forces unless necessary for self defense. as the sole house committee of jurisdiction for the lra act, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that it complies with both the letter and the spirit of the law and further u.s. national security interest. personate information was omitted from the report to congress. we need clarity on the rules of engagement. what is the precise nature of the assistance that will be

provided? houle of the partners be -- how will the partners be vetted? does the administration interpret the lra act as an operation of force? we will address this more throughout the hearing. thank you for making yourselves available to testify before this issue. i am pleased to recognize my good friend, the ranking member, for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much. two weeks ago the obama administration announced it would send 100 u.s. military advisers to central africa to

support regional efforts to defeat the large resistance army, lra. many questions were raised about the deployment. while lra -- why the lra? why now? this provides an excellent opportunity to discuss this important issues. as noted in the letter to the speaker and as reflected in the title of this hearing, it is congress that played a leading role in putting it on the agenda. for years they pass resolutions drawing attention to lra the't's reign of terror. the bipartisan legislation which president obama signed into law

required the its mission to develop a comprehensive strategy for dismantling the lra and protecting civilians. we have all heard about the horrors perpetrated by the lra and the deranged leader. mass killing, rape, mutilation of innocent civilians, children forced to kill their neighbors and family members, more than 20,000 children of debt and forced to become soldiers or sex slaves, 2 million people displaced and tens of thousands murdered. while the lra may not pose a direct security threat to the u.s., it does threaten the stability of a large area of central africa, the size of california. this includes south sudan whose independent efforts the u.s. strongly supported. you gonna, one of the the

strongest allies against -- uganda, one of the strongest allies against terrorism. they're suffering the brunt of the atrocities. it is squarely in our natural interest to build allied forces so that they can fight and to support our allies when they need assistance as we expect them to do for us. the u.s. and international to vanity have recognized that the lra poses a threat to the stability of central africa and have taken steps to stop the behavior. in 2005, at the criminal court indited him and three of his commanders for crimes against

humanity. the u.s. place them on the terrace exclusion list -- terrorist exclusion list. uganda try to negotiate peace agreements. they launched a joint military operation but failed to apprehend him or stop it. i am very hopeful the comprehensive strategy including the deployment of a modest number of advisers will help turn the tide against the lra. it is important to remember that civilian lead programs are an integral part of this effort. it includes diplomatic engagement with all of the

central african countries to remain strong cooperation, effective campaigns to encourage child soldiers to abandon the group and reconstruction assistance for devastated communities. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the goals and expectations as well as the details of these efforts. thank you. >> i am pleased to yield three minutes on non-proliferation and trade. >> thank you. the lra has been pillaging central africa for a while now. they exist for one reason, it to kill and capture and to resupply

for the next plunger. there is no other reason for its being. this savagery has landed them on the terrorism list. it is good to see evelyn here. we appreciate your efforts on the behalf of other of debt to gross employees. one boy told that he was supposed to kill eight other children. they were surrounded in a circle. they were taking turns bashing heads in. if this is not a crime against humanity, i do not know what is. it was orchestrated by a kony. congress passed legislation to counter the lra threat.

we pressed it is rationed to be bold, and to develop a plan to help apprehend or remove joseph kony and his top commanders. a broad coalition were passing this. the administration is now sending small teams specializing in training foreign units. this is a reason the command was created. the need for a light footprint is targeted. this is far from the peacekeeping model. the u.s. has made a big commitment in south sudan. the lra de in situ de stabilized. -- threatened to destabilize its. they seek to eliminate the root of the problem. the africans are not sitting on their hands.

david like some help getting kony -- they would like some help getting kony. that is the deal. history is full of captivating leaders with bad idea is to do great damage. kony's removal will not guarantee peace. it is the one thing that makes peace possible in region. we tried this mission was before again kony in 2008. let's succeed now at sidelining this terrorist. >> thank you. >> i am pleased to yield three minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee on africa of global health and human rights. >> thank you very much for calling this very important hearing. after years of congressional

bipartisan support and resounding support from the american people, the administration has taken action to bring an end to the predatory military group known as the lord's resistance army, lra. over the last 25 years, they have murdered, raped, objected tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and judge. they killed at least 22 civilians. they heard about the lord's resistance army. they were wreaking havoc on the community. there is no doubt that without a sustain the u.s. action, kony and his gang will increase their

attacks on civilians and abduction of children. a large number of commanders recently reduced in august, i traveled to the eastern congo where i met with women who were raped and sexual violence was used as a weapon of war by justice kony. i spoke to women who had been victimized and have lost their children, adapted from their villages. i am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about the details about the strategy that will be used. i was pleased that my friend recently stated on the senate floor a statement that the lra must be eliminated. he said that we are not at war

with the lra. the troops are prohibited from any kind of combat aside from self-defense. last year we passed the lra resistance disarmament in northern uganda. the president announced that the troops will follow the letter of the law. i strongly support the president's action. we must eliminate the murder. i go after this would chaining the groups in uganda.

>> thank you very much for that eloquent statement. i will now yield one minute to any members who wish to make opening statements. he is recognized for one minute. >> thank you for completing this hearing. u.s. forces are engaged in more than 50 countries around the world. they're providing support in more than 20 african countries alone. they're concerned about our military presence throughout the world. i am hopeful that this limit said -- this limited mission that has been approved by the house and senate on multiple

occasions is critical to our security as well as global stability. i fear there is widespread information about the current mission even in defense of the lord's resistance army. we know that the lra has terrorize central africa from more than 25 years. its leader kony is guilty of unspeakable crimes. >> your time has expired. >> this hearing is especially timely and helpful. the kony terrace populations in

uganda. the tactics included the employment of child soldiers, sexual violence, objections and then slam them. millions have been displaced. this body to an important step in passing the lra disarmament, reaffirming the u.s. efforts to support regional partners in combating the lra. i yield back. >> i yield to my friends. it is not proliferation and trade.

>> in the last decade, the lra has killed thousands of innocent civilians. authorization to deploy to work with regional partners toward the removal of is against the objectives. i look forward to hearing your perspectives. >> the decision by the president to dispatch 100 military advisers to assist in the

effort to address that threat is consistent with congressional intent and the passage of previous intention. it is important. we need to hear exactly what the rules of engagement are going to be and how the united states will react. he has demonstrated leadership here in this targeted dimension. i yelled back. >> thank you. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> thank you for calling this hearing. is a horrible group that has tortured and raped hundreds

of thousands of people in uganda. our concern is that the mission may be an expansion of military presence in a world that does not directly bolster security. this is just before members were breaking for a week. i have anxious moments about whether the troops will grow to more. i will try to reserve judgment about this appointment until there is more of information. thank you. >> now the chair is welcoming

our witnesses. i welcome the principal deputy assistant secretary for african affairs. he recently served as the ambassador to the federal area of ethiopia. and u.s. ambassador to the republic of djibouti to 2003. then we welcome mr. alexander vershbow. prior to his appointment, he served as u.s. ambassador to the north atlantic treaty organization from 1998-2001. u.s. ambassador to the russian federation and u.s. ambassador

to the republic of korea from 2005-2008. i would like to remind our witnesses to keep your oral testimony to no more than five minutes. without objection, the written statement will be inserted into the record. we will begin with you. >> thank you very much. of the u.s. strategy eliminates the threat posed by the large resistance army. we are grateful for the bipartisan support. the legislation sent a very strong message not only that -- that we will help protect

civilians and bring an end to the lra ugandthreat. we have appreciation to the americans have expressed their concerns for humanities under siege in to the people who are here today. from 2005 to 2006, they moved to the more remote border regions. this is now known as the sudan. the united nations estimates that over 385,000 people are currently displaced in this region as a result of the lra

activities. there have been to a near 50 attacks attributed to them this year alone. for the recent years, therefore together to pursue them across this. as reggie centers on four areas. protecting civilians, apprehension and removal of joseph kony, the promotion of support of disarmament and reintegration of remaining fighters, and the provision of humanitarian relief to afflicted

areas. they have continued to work with the united nations, the african union, and the regional government to put a military pressure. the united states has a strong interest in supporting our partners. they are addressing the press to peace and security. the united states is deploying u.s. military and pfizer's to improve our support to the coalition -- and advisers to improve our support to the coalition. i will defer to my colleague to describe the details of these operations. we continue to consult with all the regional leaders.

this is a short term deployment was specific goals and objectives. we know it leaders can provide capability to help forces succeed. we will review and ask whether this is sufficiently to enhance the regional effort. our staff will work closely with the advisers and make share that the political dynamics reduce and make sure that the political dynamics will help counter the work of the advisers. the administration is helping communities to develop protection plans enjoying an early warning network including setting up high frequency radios and towers. this is not yet exist across the

border. we recognize this gap. we hope to work with our partners to help address this. of the will continue to work on -- we will continue to work to come home. there are 12,000 you have done so. we will continue to work with the government to ensure that the fighter has the necessary importance with the family. we are grateful to you and the members of both the house and the senate. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank you all for inviting me today to discuss with you our efforts to assist the central african military

encountering the large resistance army. as has been mentioned, there are four pillars to the comprehensive strategy to help our regional partners ended the threat. the second is the apprehension or removal of the joseph kony from the battlefield. that is the focus of the effort. is to be the focus of my remarks. -- it will be the focus of my remarks. we have been pursuing the lra for several years. it's the reduce the significantly. the mood out of northern uganda completely. while the weekend the there remains at large, they continue to commit unspeakable atrocities.

we have deployed a small number of u.s. military personnel to lra effected areas who are pursuing the lra. the personnel deploying under this mission will travel out to field locations with the regional forces were they will work in advisory and liaison role. these u.s. personnel, u.s. army special forces, will collaborate with the militaries engaged for information sharing, cooperation, and effectiveness. what the department of defense is not in the lead with regard to the other pillars, and our advisors working alongside forces will be sensitive to the challenges of civilian protection. they will work to ensure that considerations are incorporated into planning.

they will seek to encourage the relationship and sharing of information between regional militaries and local populations. this reflects lessons learned. they have key capability gaps. this would give impact well exposing u.s. forces to the brig. we expect that only a portion of the personnel will directly advise and assist forces in the field. most of the u.s. personnel will carry out the functions. to be clear, u.s. forces deploying for this mission will not themselves engage in forces.

given the potential need to defend themselves, there will be equipped for combat. they provided a formal report. we appreciate the strong congressional interest in this effort. we continue to engage with the congress to keep you informed of our progress. this is a great joint initiative between the executive and legislative branches. despite the bipartisan support, there are still many questions. many were proposed by you. i would like to address several of these questions in remainder of my remarks. regarding the purpose and timing of the deployment. we are providing advisers to the forces because joseph kony and other leaders have refused to

end peacefully. they continue to commit atrocities. there was a negotiated peace agreement during the talks in in 2006-2008. they ended when kony refused to sign. regional governments have continued to pursue a military approach. as for our regional partners, we provide assistance to the region's military in recent years. we're providing equipment to the armed forces of the central african republic and supporting people support force. we believe that despite the assistance they will benefit from the capacity to process

information on the information. the u.s. advisers point to the operation. there is a specific timing to the deployment. it was predicated on the availability of the pre u.s. forces. >> thank you. >> maybe we will get to the rest of it. >> i have not measure the success. >> thank you very much. thank you to both of you for excellent testimony. we will begin our questions and answers segment now. i wanted to ask you if the president's report to the congress transmited consistent with the war powers resolution trigger the authorization

requirements under section 4 of the war powers resolution? if not, why? what is the anticipated scope, duration, and cost of this deployment? from where in the budget will the costs be absorbed? how does this deployment square with the department of defense's effort to cut 350 billion over the next 10 years. cuts may force d.o.d. to pull back from africa. >> on the war powers issue, i think the reason why be made notification was based on one simple fact. the nature of the rabin region

of the weapons are considered -- the nature of the weapons are considered to be equipped for combat. even though they're not going to be engaging in combat, the fact that they are equipped for combat trigger the requirement to file a report to congress when they will be entering the territory of a foreign nation. i do not know if he has more on the legal aspects of that. i am not a lawyer. we can be a more detailed response for the record. >> we would appreciate it. we have some of our members that have many questions about the legal analysis of when the war powers act is triggered and what would constitute that. and your interpretation of it. >> we will do that. >> than on the scope, duration, and cost.

>> i think that the clear goal for this advisory mission is to enhance the capacity of the regional forces so they can better protect their civilians and track down joseph kony and end the threat posed by the lra. we will be measuring success in a number of ways. we will see whether the regional forces are able to successfully apprehends lra commanders on the battlefield. whether we can encourage larger numbers of the sections for lra moody -- from the lra and whether we can see a measurable degree of professionalism of the forces engage in this effort so that they have greater capacity both to protect their citizens and conduct counter lra

operations. this is not an open ended commitment. as part of the decision to employ our advisers, we have agreed that there would be a review after several months in order to assess whether our advisers are making sufficient progress. continuing this is conditional on a number of factors including a sustained commitment and cooperation by a regional governments in addressing the lra threat. it is not open ended. we do not have a specific time lime that we have adopted. we will be reviewing a state of affairs. >> thank you. i do not know that answers the question. we will follow up with that. this has been going on for so many years. what assurances can you offer that we will not be in intrenched conflict?

>> we have already seen progress by other militaries in conducting this mission and reducing the lra numbers. we're building on a strong foundation. we do feel the regional forces have been limited by their capacity to acquire and process actionable information. giving them the information and greater skills in terms of using intelligence could create a significant improvement in in ability to track -- in ability to track this. >> i look forward to getting written responses. if you could provide that in

writing, i would be grateful. >> thank you very much. a few points. on the issue raised by the gentleman from illinois regarding a briefing, and the fact is that the administration pursuant to congressional law prepared a strategy which specifically included references to a military objective to remove kony and his top commanders from the battlefield. it is a public document. it is a private briefing. this has been out there for almost a year.

i would like to ask the questions. do you see them as the leading operations of? will we have some of our special forces working with the drc's first battalion? >> thank you very much. i think we need to focus on the approach. it has to be addressing the problems of the crisis from victims. >> i understand that. >> the other issue is to help the countries that are victims of kony to coordinate better to

go after him. >> will our forces be working with him? >> that is correct. in effort, they are trained on the border area. the issue of uganda troops has to be a coordination between the drc and the uganda troops. they must coordinate the work between them and how they will corner kony's forces. when we had transferred the drc peacekeeping operations, at in there was one aspect of having focused on the lra and better coordination. this is something we have been trying to do. >> do you envision that our

advisers will be deployed at the brigade level, the platoon level? are they authorized to be deployed with the ugandan forces? >> thank you. as he said, anything we do will be based on full coordination and consent of part of the government. while they have all come out in support, we take nothing for granted. there'll be continuing consultation to ensure any steps we take will be with their consent. within the concept of operation, we would deploy forces into the drc possibly at the platoon level or at the

headquarters level. what will be most effective. >> there is no artificial constraint on where you might deploy? >> no. there will be full consultation. >> i understand. they could well be deployed at the platoon level in field. >> that is right. but in advisory role. quite i understand. -- but in an advisory role. >> i understand. what will our military trainers be equipped with? you say they will be combat equipped. >> i will have to give you a specific answer after the hearing. they will be carrying small arms for their own self protection. there may be other communications gear of course.

beyond that, i would like to consult with my colleagues bac in joint staff to give the more specific answer. >> thank you. >> i would encourage the investors to be little more precise about the answers to the questions that we are opposing. thank you for getting it for us later. >> no. to askstion i was going has to do with the reality on the grounds that the you gone dins -- that the ugandans have been doing some heavy lifting in somalia. i have heard concerns that they might be little distracted on the follow-through. obviously, you have a different read.

can you tell me your discussions with the uganda embassador and how you read their willingness? >> i did meet with the president on several issues. we have had very close discussions. he is fighting a multi-frontal conflict. it does not mean that he has lost or he is distracted. he is equally focused on both areas. on the lra and the violence against uganda, that sits in the psyche of the ugandan people. he still have 1.5 million that are displaced. >> to the extent we can keep him focused on this, this will be part of our task.

the other question is about them operating in the territory. how do we address this? >> we spoke to the president. we're trying to do process sees in which they will arrange how these forces will do it. >> what steps are you taking to try to improve intelligence? that is one of the missing pieces in the past on the relation -- location of kony. >> the issue is trying to get intelligence that each of these countries have and to fuse it together and to analyze it. the military will be very helpful. >> that is somewhat limited. you have the ability to utilize radio's in order to get it.

you are going, you're going to be able to advise and directs them. will u.s. personnel be deployed in that kind of effort? i would suggest it be wise to do so. >> the u.s. forces will be able to help advise and train the indigenous forces in proving their skills. encouraging that people provide tips to the forces. >> we need better until then we had not could 2008 -- intel than we had in 2008. thewill have to drive capacity by getting defectors to

us the and gettign ung information needed. they specialize in training foreign units. the are going to provide advice and assistance to these units. expectation is that you have some at the platoon level. i imagine both of them will be back in uganda coordinating the logistics. is that correct? >> yes. of the 100 people will be in uganda. small teams will be deployed with small forces to help them improve their skills on the front line. >> special operations is headed by a a navy seal. he previously commanded u.s.

forces. he knows the region well. i was wondering how this would be engineered. >> i believe that is the case. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i was at a camp last month. i visited with people from villages that have been disrupted by the lra. we see the destruction that is continuing on. a number of people wonder why we are going after the lra and why we should care about uganda. uganda has a tremendous amount

to treat in somalia. i was exported by the troops. they were doing an excellent job. we have so many responsibilities because of the fact that al qaeda is supporting al-shabab. it is all connected. we wonder why we have any concerns. it is clear why we ought to be here. they are going after small ian's -- somalians. there were one of the strongest supporters of u.s. democracy around the country. kenyanss of canyons -- enyan

died. it is intertwined. when countries are going out to support our causes, i think at least we have reciprocal 100 u.s. troops trained. i want to ask quickly. what impact will be elections -- will the elections have? quite the elections in the drc are tight. it is not clear whether he could be elected or reelected. the issue comes in to the commitments. this still remains pivotal. we discussed this closely.

>> what about the president in sudan? he supported the lra and the formation. they supported it together. is there any evidence that the government is supporting the lra today? >> we have not seen any of the intelligence since 2002 and beyond. we had a very close discussion with the government on this issue. we have not seen evidence. >> what about the lra's activity in southern sudan?

they are trying to put together the government. are they there in any large numbers? will they be a part of the training? >> part of them are in southern sudan. the forces of lra which has been depleted to about 200 corps in the drc area.he >> what about a special advisor to the great lakes region? is this in the making? what is the prospect of that?

>> we take it under serious advisement. the fact that we know that there is an expense of mobile phones. that you be using be technology to get the word out of? >> the use a cell phones, they're calling in on a regular basis. it is better communications and ordinations. greg thank you. -- >> thank you. >> thank you. bac in spring -- back in the

spring, rhodes said " we are enforcing a resolution that has a fierce a set of goals that is protecting the libyan people, averting a crisis and setting up a no-fly zone. that involves kinetic military action. the nature of our commitment is that we're not getting into an open ended war in libya." since 2008, at the u.s. says helped finance regional military efforts to capture commanders. the u.s. has been $497 million strengthening the ugandaj army. as we delve into this, before

deciding to deploy approximately 100 u.s. military personnel, did they receive a request from uganda to provide this assistance? been a continuing effort. we have been working in partnership. they have welcomed them today. they had been indicating that additional support is needed. we looked at the experience from 2008 when we did provided by users. >> did they specifically asked for boots on the ground in? >> they understood that they lack this capability.

they're still out there committing atrocities. they indicated that they would welcome this kind of hands-on training. >> what we're doing is mainly training. define "kinetic military action"? >> i understand it to mean the views of actual legal force. we use considerable conidiophores to take out to the air defenses of libya. most of the kinetic activity was carried out by our partners and nato allies who conducted the lion's share of the air strikes.

we did continue to support the suppression of air defenses. we used armed predators but for specific terms at -- targets. >> in this action in new dawn deck, do we go -- in uganda, did we get other help or did we go in alone? >> i would defer to my colleague. >> is this a nato action? >> this is a u.s. action we have some support with french, and the u.k. and uganda but we're providing the bulk of the assistance as far as the military training. there is humanitarian assistance that they are helping with. >> ok. how long do we anticipate the u.s. forces being there? do we have some sort of timetable at all? >> we do not have a specific

timetable. we are talking, i think, months, but i would not put a number on it at this month. if we will review the operation in a few months to see if it is achieving the entire project the desired effect -- it is achieving the desired effect. >> what you define success? >> we define success first and foremost on the basis of whether kony and other commanders are captured. if we see fracturing of the lra and a tangible improvement in our partners capacities out in the field to succeed. that includes not just the genetic part of it but in terms of whether they are more rigid the kinetic -- not just the kinetic part of a.

>> when we put americans in harm's way like this, we need be very clear what to do and the war powers resolution. i am out of time. >> mr. carnahan is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. i want to start with a general question about how the u.s. is working with the international and regional partners to strengthen coordination. in particular, what are the strategies and approaches but them at a lethargic most rigid both diplomatically and otherwise that the u.s. government is utilizing to ensure a more effective collaboration among key actors to counter lra's efforts? let me start with ambassador yamamato? >> we have been talking directly to the president at that level,

but also within their command structures, militarily as well as diplomatically, to see as -- how we can better coordinate and comprehensively as the lra. the second thing is that we're talking to the african union, the regional groups, as well as the donor community is still linked to some of our own specific actions that we have. for instance, with a military training program, uk, france, others are doing new bridge humanitarian programs. -- are doing humanitarian programs. >> ambassador here spoke? >> i would add that in this specific case, this is a subset of the broader effort that we're making throughout africa to promote professional a session

of militaries, to promote capacities of the african countries to solve their own problems, and part of that is to invite countries to participate in bilateral and multinational training and exercises which will hopefully inculcate a greater pattern of cooperation among them. i think this initiative, in addition to hopefully it cheesing -- achieving the specific goal of taking kony off the battlefield, will bring greater cooperation among the key states involved. it can be a factor for longer- term stability in the region so that we do not have to intervene in the future. >> let me next turn to, i guess, a more particular question for these operations. is this in your opinion a unique model that is being used in central african? or is this comparable to other

operations like in the southern philippines -- chairman roy barker led the chair birgit a delegation there -- chairman rohrabacher led a delegation there few months ago or we're not engaging in combat but been very focused on the terror have safe havens and training camps there. again, is this unique drawing on some other experiences in other places that have worked, and let me start with ambassador years shbow? >> partner equipping and training is something that we've done in many places in the world. my experience, if you look at my biography, is more in europe. it had training programs to

train the bosnian forces after that date in accord. we strengthen the georgian forces to deal with the border issues with the russian federation. each mission is tailored to the specific circumstances and requirements of the partner involved. but this advise and assist so that they can deal with the problems more effectively and more professionally, it is a well established model that has proven its value. >> ambassador yamamato. >> if if you look at africa, as far as good cooperation and coordination between the department of defense and the department of state and training on non specific areas but also con -- continent wide, which trained about 150,000 troops in key operations in 24 countries. we use that also with the department of defense for

coordination. in this context as well, if you have the state department helping to do diplomatic corp., also assistance as far as money to provide logistical support an actual individuals doing training. we are also looking at other areas in part of africa. >> thank you very much. ms. schmidt of ohio is recognized. >> thank you, very much. ambassador yershbow. i have read your report and i'm a little confused in one point on page for you referred to this is doing nothing more than what we already do with the fricon.er -- arfi

that's an educational thing to help african nations develop a more professional military and also develop some schools on the ground. but you had in your report that the reason that the president had to go to congress is because there might be a potential need to defend themselves because they are on the ground prepare for the war powers resolution was put in place. is what we do under africon, or is it different? there is always the danger that they would have to defend themselves other would not have to be in need to come to congress to say that the war powers act needs to be invoked. but are we not only anticipating but expecting some conflicts to arise so that this is a heads up?

that is question no. one. in the report you said that you felt that we would be asking what the in person -- in purpose and the timing of the deployment and how we would judge success of the mission, and yet i did not hear any rear clear answers as to what success is or the timing of this deployment. i think that we should -- somebody should know what the cost is per day for these troops to be on the ground, real cost right now and anticipated costs if they have to go into conflict. those are my two questions. >> thank you, congressman schmidt. good questions and i'm sorry that my statement confused you. when we say that this is not fundamentally different from previous missions, is because the overall concept of training anodizing and assisting forces

is the watchword of u.s. africon. we do it in other parts of the world. >> we have created that because we wanted specific attention to the region. >> and helped grated developer expertise -- and help develop greater expertise. it is different and some of the specifics in the sense that we do not put our advisers always and trainers in the field with the forces that will be carrying out the actual military operations. that is what in the specific case led to the judgment by our military planners and commanders and then by the president and he approved it that despite their mission not including any engagement and con platt, they could be in a hostile environment -- combat, they could be caring than that -- the kinds of weapons needed

to defend themselves. and that is what triggered the war powers notification. we do not anticipate that they will get into the mists of conflict but i do not want to preclude that possibility. they want the capacity to defend themselves at the need should arise. -- if the need should arise. in terms of defining success, and beyond the very specific metric capturing or killing joseph kony and other commanders, it will be a judgment call as to whether our partners are making substantial gains or making effective use of the additional training that they have learned the planning that they regretted that we think is the missing piece that has prevented them from going from reducing the lra from actually reducing the threat. but we will start with the congress and of inform you of our assessment of the operation

as it unfolds. this is a unique example of executive/legislative collaboration so we wanted to work with you all the way along. i apologize for not having the bottom line. i can say more about the state department offenses than the defense to spends -- expenses. -- state department expenses than the defense expenses. we're still working on an overall cost assessment to give you that day by day estimate, and we will provided to the committee was that estimate has been refined. >> you have any idea when we will get that, tomorrow or the next day? it should be relatively easy. >> i do not want to give you any specific commitment. we would get if you very soon. >> mr. connolly is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i am sure, mr. secretary, the sensitivity appeared -- up here

about the cost of military operations, the previous administration lowball that the cost of iraq and afghanistan and it is a significant contributor to the united states debt which so many of my colleagues are concerned about, and yet we accepted very loose assurances about those costs. it is reasonable as what this is one of cost or your estimate, and to get that estimate in a timely fashion. what is the rationale for putting troops the u.s. military advisers, into uganda? what is the goal? >> first of all, i reiterate that we will get to the cost figures as soon as we can. >> thank you. >> but this will certainly budget -- it will be much more

modest than the cost of actual combat operations. there is a continued threat to civilians and stability in the region. we think that this very discreet specific increase in the scale and form of our military assistance can make a difference. in the threat of the lra. >> thank you, mr. assistance secretary. so is the goal, given what you just said, to in fact defeat the lra and disbanded? or is the goal to lessen the threat to civilian control in the region? >> we would certainly hope that this additional support will lead to the break through of capture of joseph kony and the other commanders and the literal destruction of the lra. but we will not necessarily wait

for that to happen. this will be an operation that runs in the months, not an open- ended operation. we will evaluate with the assistance is achieved its purpose, so in terms of raising the capacity of our partners, and we may disengage even as they continue to fight on the run. >> ok, but is the ultimate goal the opposing of mr. kony and the dismemberment of the lra? >> that is the stated goal, one of the four parts. did and i think it is very important that we have a clear understanding. >> there is a broader understanding that we are serving is to support our partners in africa to address the threats to their civilians and achieve stability and become more productive contributors to security in the region and more broadly. we've seen some of them stepping

up in somalia, at great risk, and loss of life. this is a problem that is debilitating for several countries. to the extent that we can help them put an end to this threat, i think it will help their security and make them better partners for us going forward. >> was there a perception in making this decision that our partners were on their own not capable of meeting that goal? >> yes, congressman. the judgment was that while they had made a lot of progress, we have seen the lra's size reduced substantially -- going that final step of destruction of the lra was something they were not quite capable of. this assistance could make a difference. that would make a worthwhile investment to make. >> moving to 30,000 feet, a devil's advocate question for you as well mr. embassador.

what is the strategic interest of united states in doing this? i mean, there are a lot of unpleasant people in the world. there are lots of insurgencies and terrorist movements throughout the united states and we cannot try to dictate every one of them through what is our strategic interest here? >> i would say that we have seen in today's world everything is increasingly connected. to the extent that, eastern and northeastern africa isn't stable -- is unstable, undeveloped, uncover and space in which these time of rapacious extremists and terrorists can run amok. it creates conditions in which other radicals could emerge. we have seen in the worst case in somalia with but a breakdown

of governance and a rise of the house about terrorist movement. -- the al shabaab terrorist movement. >> mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. at question no. -- a question for ambassador yershbow. if the stated goal is to decapitate the leadership of the lra, as i understood from your question before, we are not using aerial drones or observation. would we be authorized to use to take at the leadership if it were seen and observed? -- to take out the leadership if

they were seen and observed? >> at the present time, the project -- the use of drones is not envisioned in this mission. this human intelligence gathered on the ground depends on closer ties between the military forces of the countries involved and the local population. and sort training and assistance -- and so our training and assistance has the broader objective of helping them to acquire and make better use of that kind of ground intelligence that makes a difference. i think the questions of authorities ford drone strikes is a more delicate matter is not -- which is not suitable for commenting on in this open session. again, the focus is on a bias in assisting the forces on the

ground so that they can -- on advising and assisting the forces on the grounds that that they can do the job. >> thank you and i a bad. >> thank you, mr. turner. mr. higgins also of new york is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. the lord's resistance army emerged from northern uganda in the 1990's. since that time, it has murdered and killed and mutilated some tens of thousands of people. john kony was invited -- indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the tribunal at the hague. connie is also designated as a special global terrorist. some 300 fighters are rigid and out of uganda -- some 300

fighters are more prevalent in uganda. we employ advisers to happen that the special forces. i think we should call of what it is. this is a killing capture mission. i'll ask you to comment on that. >> congressman, i think we certainly are trying to enhance the capacity of our partners to capture or kill joseph kony and other commanders. but they will be doing the actual military mission on the ground. we will be advising and assisting them so that they will be more effective in doing it. yes, i do not disagree with you in terms of one of the and results of this if it worked. but it makes sense for the united states point of view to enable partners to act when they have the capacity to do so.

they have some capacity and they have done a lot and we have helped them get to the stage. but to go the final distance requires this additional support. goodink it is ia investment. >> ambassador? >> you're absolutely correct. the main objective is to support these countries to do the jobs themselves and to build the capacity. that is what we have been trying to do for the last decade. >> i just think that there's a tendency to dance around the stock. of a sleek, john kony is a bad guy doing bad things. he is a region that is strategically important to us. i think sometimes we need to call it what it is and clearly to me, that region of africa, we

send advisers there, obviously very well trained and have an expertise in doing certain things, in particular, taking bad people out. i think this is indicative of that. it is a religious group -- the lord's resistance army, presumably islamist? >> no, it is not religious. >> published reports indicate that it is. >> i know that connie said in the early days that he was related to christ. >> any relation to al qaeda? >> none the window. -- know. -- no,.

vaining the lord's name in is not a good thing. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to return to a question was posed earlier. it is important that we need to make sure that our efforts in the region are not piecemeal. we have requested to a number of hearings -- through a number of hearings -- and you said that you would continue to have taken under advisement. we've gone this direction before but can you explain if you are resistant as to why this has not happened, or are there other concerns that we may not be aware of? >> we had a special envoy locally. he did a fantastic job. after that, assessing where do we go from here, we heard loud and clear from the congress that

a special envoy is needed. >> how long as the position been vacant? some time. >> over a year now, a year-and- a-half. >> given the heightened intensity of these measures, i think this is the appropriate time to revisit this question with a certain sense of urgency. this return as well to gain a broader understanding of who are the other international partners involved here. specifically in military operations. we talked about other international donors for relief work. specifically, what is the ugandan army's effort going to be? >> the specific amount of assistance on military support in this effort has been the

united states. $40 million for the united states in the last three years. it was specifically aimed for support as the lra moves into the clr. to enjoy talking about the affected countries and not other countries. >> as far as the other countries are concerned, the guns themselves are also as a fighting -- you ugandans themselves are providing assistance. there's a coordinator -- a coordination efforts with the troops fighting ugandans andy car, -- and the car, working out those logistical issues. >> those two countries and a

coordinated efforts of the primary -- are in a coordinated effort as the primary drivers. >> yes, and the lra has gone in and out between the two countries. in any other international partners like france engage militarily? >> all linked as far as training car trips. >> france is involved in the car. what other international actors are involved beyond the military operations to coordinate disarmament efforts and rehabilitation efforts in reintegration average pressure margins in the united nations and the african union. -- reintegration efforts. the united nations and the african union.

>> we probably need to stop using acronyms. >> the congolese troops and ugandan troops core know it together. -- coordinate together. >> the african union involvement. >> it is not as much as the united nations. they're talking to the leaders. >> explained that further. >> to discuss with the leadership in the country on the lra problem and what more they need to get the job done. going to african union and effectively is not involved here. is that a potential development? >> it is. >> the reason for pressing the issue is that the united sites cannot solve all the problems for all the people -- united states cannot solve all the problems for all the people. we're hopeful for positive and

quick outcome. but we need to continue to press the international community for swift engagement to be a broader part of this effort. >> thank you. mr. rohrabacher is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. let me note that -- i do not know if i'm disappointed, but not even have and i cost estimate, coming before congress and and lettuce and no -- letting us know that there is a military operation -- have these troops already been sent, are they on the way? >> only some of the initial personnel have arrived. the fall hundred have not deployed. >> so the mission is actually under way. some people have already been sent but you do not have a cost estimate of what it will cost? even an estimate? >> i apologize congressman.

i'm embarrassed not have a more substantial answer for you. the forces already there are being funded by regular operations. when we get further along, there will be more cost incurred. we will definitely have that estimate for you. >> we take it that they will also bring with them their equipment. >> correct. >> it is not our place to ask about our specific equipment going into a combat area. bayh's considerably costly as well. -- but that is considerably costly as well. i notice from your testimony that lra has been reduced to approximately 200 core fighters? so it might be significant for us to know the cost of this mission is going to be $500 million or whether it is going

to be $100 million or $20 million in terms of the cost of getting 200 hikers -- fighters, criminals basically, 200 organized criminals in central africa. i take it also that if they reduce to 200 and what we've got our the armies of these various countries you're talking about, we're talking about 200 men who are now fighting thousands of other armed troops, but we feel compelled to send 200 of our own troops there. i am not sure whether -- they will look closely at this. i think the american people will as well as to whether this was the right decision or not. would you say that tribal

loyalties have anything to do with the ongoing strength of the lra? >> i would defer to my colleague who knows more about the contacts. >> it was originally i no. you've gone and days, but now it -- and northern ugandan base. >> to tribalism -- do tribal allegiances have something to do with the strength? >> is the open areas that are terribly hard to extract people. that is how he has been able to survive for two decades. >> i ticket that was a gas. so we are sending our troops in -- i take it that was a guess. -- a yes.

that does not sound very good to me in terms of possible success. then again, this force may be evil enough to justify sending our troops in. let me ask you, you are involved in ethiopia. you were ambassador to ethiopia. during that time period, was a border disputes -- there was a border dispute that went into arbitration and it went to decide what? >> there was a determination on the border -- >> that eritrea had the rifle position. >> only in the bottom area. >> did our government at that time, what you were ambassador, recommend that the ethiopia

respect the arbiters and we did? >> we did. >> when ethiopia rejected the arbitration over our guys, what did we do -- our advice, what was our government's position on ethiopia, considereing that sine they decided not to settle but thumb their nose at arbitration, have we provided ethiopia with weapons and training and guns since then? >> we have not provided weapons. we have provided training because of their forces in dark for. -- darfur. >> thank you. mr. marino will not be recognized. he will be asking -- will now be recognized. he will be asking questions

submitted to our committees website which connects us to our constituents. we're asking the public to enter their questions when we have the honor of having secretary clinton appeared before our committee on thursday. thank you for using those questions. >> thank you, madam chair. i have a website for my district and i asked my constituents to send questions to me prior to my hearings. the questions i asked will be repetitive, but if you could answer them in a different light, bear in mind, i have less than 4.5 minutes. please be sustained. whoever feels that they can answer the question to satisfy my constituents, please jump in. the first question comes from sharon. who will be paying for this,

what the cause, and how many will be involved or how long? >> united states will be paying for this operation. as i said sheepishly to congressman rohrabacher, we do not have the complete cost, but we estimate it will be in the tens of millions of dollars not the hundreds of millions. we think that we can eliminate a very evil force from the earth. >> how would u.s. forces in central africa address widespread development needs of the region? if the lra is removed, will that be improvements to the economic stability of the region and could another military force replace it? >> the efforts of usaid and u.s. diplomatic efforts in coordination with the international donor communities and other organizations and the regional states to look at how we can establish economic aid to

these countries. >> what the europeans and other allies doing to help stop the lra? >> raising consciousness, supporting and assisting the rehabilitation of victims, and also supporting the governments in their efforts to go after the lra. >> how about any money? >> our money for the region has been around $50 million in total for the last three years. just on the lra operations, but overall on the operation, the europeans and other organizations are contributing money. i do not have specific amounts. >> is this a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission are moribund and riser role? -- or more of an advisory role?

>> more of an advisory mission, preparing partners to do the job themselves. but it has a humanitarian motivation, the long suffering for more than two decades at the hands of the lord's resistance army. >> to show that i'm covering both sides of the story here, thank you to the members of congress who have decided that the destruction of human rights in central africa at hands of the lra matters and have taken steps to bring peace to those assisted. good to be more specific about the ways in which the troops deployed will train and advise specifically in the hunt for kony as opposed other large- scale tactical planning? >> it should be understood that our forces are going there to help train the capabilities of

the local militaries who will carry out the actual operations in the field. we hope to help them with confusing the operation -- the intelligence with the plans to more quickly respond to reports that the lra is active and engaged. and we hope to eliminate their remaining leadership of the lra. we're not taking on a combat role ourselves. >> most of these questions were from my constituents and pennsylvania-10, north central and northeast pennsylvania. here is my question. do you have an exit strategy? >> we do, because we've said from the outset that this is not an open-ended mission in terms of its goals or duration. we certainly hope that it achieves the overarching goal, a lisbon at -- eliminating joseph kony and the other commanders

from the battlefield. but we will not go on indefinitely. we would judge whether we have improved our partners capacity to deal with the threat and encourage more defections and substantially reduced the threat. then we will pull back and we hope it will be of the continue with this training to finish the job. >> quickly, yes or no, all week following the money for handing a check over? >> following. >> or are we just handing the check over? >> we are following the money. we will be there on the ground ensuring that what we use the taxpayers' money for is achieving positive results. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. marino. i do not know how that could have been answered yes or no, but it is done. excellent questions. i encourage all my members to try to bring in our constituents

to the committee process. thank you, mr. marino. >> it is working out. >> i am so glad. mr. sherman is recognized. >> ambassador yamamato. in this enterprise, are we introducing our armed forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated? it and the reason why they are there is that mainly ford buys and support and assistance. however, if they need to defend themselves, they need to be fully equipped. didn't u.s. marines in the london embassy would defend themselves. in vietnam we use the term training to mean american troops going to go on combat missions when accompanied by indigenous forces. are they in safe areas training,

or are they hout training through engaging the enemy? >> congressman, some of the training will take place in safe areas far removed from the area of conflict. but in the commission approved by the president forces will have the possibility based on what is judge most effective to deploy to the field to revise an assistant -- tour advise and assist at the front line level. we do not think it is highly likely that our forces will be engaged. >> will we be shooting at the enemy? >> only and self-defense. >> would be placing ourselves within 100 yards of the enemy, so that self-defense would be

necessary? >> congressman, i obviously do not know whether they would be within 100 yards to a hundred yards. at this point it is hypothetical because it is in the early stages. >> the constitution provides the congress the authority to declare war and now you're telling me that decision will be made by lieutenants. we've seen in libya a terrible lesson brought home to the american people. if you shred the war powers provisions of the constitution's, good things happen in the world. my fear is that you're going to be teaching the american people this lesson at a second time. that is to say, i think you pay -- you may very well accomplish something good in eastern africa. but will we do so in a way that constitute an intentional violation of the war powers act?

both of you have been rather vague on what our forces are going to do it except that the tenants and captains and majors on the ground will decide what to do. are these combat officers authorized to bring their forces into hostilities? >> the short answer is no. the only condition in which they might use the weapons that they are caring is if they are fired upon. enacted self-defense. i would have to defer to my legal experts. >> that is as good an answer is i am likely to get. let me shift over to mr. yamamato. the say the mission changes and in fact it is necessary to

introduce the armed forces of the united states into situations where hostilities are clearly needed for the circumstances. will the in addis states follow the war powers act? -- united states follow the war powers act? >> we are following the war powers act in this situation. >> are you acting parallel or argue conforming to the war powers act? is that at the law of the land that you're following question we are respecting the intent of the congress and providing that. >> are you respecting the law with a free floating in 10? >> no, the law. >> the law the land and you are going to follow it, correct? thank you, that is all that i need. >> mr. rivera, my colleague from florida, is recognized. >> may i yield to my chairman,

mr. rohrabacher? >> absolutely. >> this should not indicate whether we oppose our support this particular mission. i happen to believe that missions like this are positive and can play a positive role and a positive strategy post-cold war, helping other people fight for their freedom. the cost is a really important factor. since they cannot afford to pay the price to win everyone's else's freedom in the world, the libyan operation that this administration just engage the san, perhaps, is a good example of that. if indeed the libyans now, and i would challenge the libyan a party sama to step forward and

announce that they will repay the united states for every time that we spent in helping them win their freedom, we are in a financial crisis. they are sitting on the biggest deposits of oil and gas in the world. they should repay us. if indeed they do, then it was the right thing for us to help the people of libya overthrew their tyrant. if indeed the cost of this mission is repaid to us from it, theno benefit from ne this type of mission, fighting against evil forces in the world, is justified and speaks well of the united states of america. what does not speak well of us is when we become intertwined with dictatorships. that is why am asking questions about ethiopia and i would ask our former ambassador to and therapy of -- to ethiopia, was

there an election held why you were ambassador? >> i came in after the election. >> did it happen right before you became ambassador and did the winners of that election then take over the government, or did they arrest those who won the election? >> the parliament took their seats because we negotiated to do so. the issue was city hall. they did not take up their seats. in that context that they were arrested, we work with them. >> the answer to the question is that they arrested those who won the election. those who lost the election stayed in power and those who won the election ended up in jail. during that time period, opec decided that there were several cases in ethiopia were american

citizens owning property, the ethiopian government now run by those who do not win the election, but imprisoned those who did, that the ethiopian government had this property and was illegally refusing to give it back to them. and opec still has the standard, by the way. it still has that finding. do you agree with that finding? >> the government -- the carter center declared that. we abide by what the carter center and the international observers had to say. as far as the opec, the question you are referring to, his property was confiscated and

the communist regime to -- and i am not talking about a person, but that general theory is that american citizens have property claims not adjudicated by the ethiopian government. >> we tried to help adjudicative with the government. >> we have, and that is why opec to clear that ethiopia was now no longer eligible for opec loan guarantees. they have not yet changed that policy, correct? >> because of restrictions. >> and those restrictions were placed on the fact that american citizens still have property claims not being met. back to ethiopia and eritrea. there was an agreement between them decided by arbitration. and the and, it is my understanding that the arbiters actually decided in eritrea's favor, get we prevented the government of the dlp had to

renege on the agreement -- of ethiopia to renege on the agreement. >> we helped both parties be accountable to the results. >> thank you very much. i want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us. we look forward to your written answers. i would remind the committee members that if you could join me to say hello to ellen, it is a true delight and honor to have you with us. and the committee is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in a few moments, republican presidential candidate texas governor rick perry on his plans for a flat 20% income tax rate. and a little more than a half- hour, a hearing on proposals to overhaul the military retirement system. then we will we care they hearing of president obama's decision to send 100 military personnel to you going to. -- to uganda. >> several live events tomorrow. john amos will be at the council on foreign relations discussing the marine corps and national security. you can see that on c-span2 at 830 eastern. also come to that joint deficit reduction committee hears from douglas elmendorf, the

congressional budget office director. the deadline for cutting the deficit is four weeks away. also on c-span3, janet napolitano and testifies before the house judiciary committee on u.s. immigration policy and enforcement. >> from the textbooks festival last weekend -- >> the strategy is going after the head of the snake and the rest of the snake dies. has been the idea. unfortunately the reality has been very different. >> almost all the other founding fathers are thinking of their colonies on the eastern seaboard, jefferson is already dreaming of his empire of liberty they will go all the way to the mississippi maybe, maybe of the missouri, and even to those great harbors on the pacific, san diego, monterey, and san francisco.

>> i had covered the military and the cia after that. in the years before and after 9/11. you see things grow around me that i was not sure what they were. people i had known for a long time disappear in the world's that did not exist before or they had new titles. after 10 years of working in that realm, and you say, what is going on? >> i finally decided to call up the ripple effect. a chapter title, because i realized that every time we use water, it sets off a ripple effect. a series of consequences that most of us are aware. watch every event from our covers less weekend of the texas book festival online at the c- span video library. archived in searchable. watch what you want when you want. >> republican presidential candidate texas governor rick perry outlined his proposals today for a flat 20% income

rate. gov. perry was at a south carolina manufacturing plant for a little more than half hour. >> as we were talking, he was classmates with jim demint. i want to thank the film company for allowing me to come here today, and you in particular for opening your business. we discussed the plan that will get america working again. today i laid before the american people might cut, balance, and grow plan. it cuts taxes and it also cuts the spending. it balances the budget by 2020. and it grows jobs and it grows

the economy. it neither reshuffles the status quo nor does expand the way that washington can reach into your pocketbook. he reorders the way they do business in washington by reinventing the tax code and getting nomination back-to- school helped to balanced budgets and entitlement reform. central to my plan is getting every american the option of throwing that 3 million words of the current tax code, and i might add, the cost of complying with all of that code, in order to pay a 20% flat tax on their income. [applause] the size of the current code is

more than 72,000 pages. that is represented by this pallet right over here in the reams of paper, that is what the current tax code looks like. the best representation of my plan is this postcard. this is the size of what we're talking about right here. the tax payers will be able to fill this out and file their taxes on that. [applause] and each individual taxpayer will have a choice. you can continue to pay your taxes as well as accountants and lawyers under the current tax system that we've got. were you confine your taxes on this postcard. with the deductions on their fourth interest on your mortgage or charitable giving, your state and local taxes. deduct those in sin did in.

under my plan, you are no longer going have to worry about paying taxes on social security when you retire. or your family members -- ya. or john, your family members paying the deaths tax when you work on. [applause] you can save -- think about that. he is going to pass this on to his family one of the days. the idea that the federal government can take half of that is nonsense. and also the end of capital gains tax and tax on dividends. we will increase the standard exemption for individuals and depends to $12,500. that means that families in the middle and on the lower end of the economic scale will have the opportunity to get ahead.

no, taxes will be cut across all income groups across america. the net benefit will be more money in american pockets, with greater investment in the private economy instead of the federal government. on the corporate tax side, i am offering an equally bold reform. my plant closes those corporate loopholes, it in as the special breaks for special interests, -- it ends at the special breaks for special interests, and stops the gravy train for their that trough. [applause] in exchange for a corporate free -- or i should say corporate tax free of car melts and -- carve out and exclusions exclusions, i offer a much lower

rate of 20% that represents the average corporate rate among the developed nations. it will make our corporations much more competitive on the global scale. it will shut down the cottage industry of corporate tax evasion by creating a tax that is broad and fair and low. my plan also offers incentives for corporations to invest in america again, with two major reforms. [applause] first, we will transition to a territorial tax system on corporate income that is our overseas. what this means is, companies that pay the appropriate taxes in the country where that income was earned, but are not taxed a second time when that income gets moved back to the united states. secondly, all corporate profits currently that are languishing

overseas, i will offer a one time reduced rate of 5.25% for a limited period time on those repatriated dollars to bring those dollars back to the united states. the u.s. chamber of commerce said that this is one time tax reduction would bring back over a billion dollars in capital back to the united states, creating up to 2.9 million jobs, and increase the economic output in this country by $360 billion. in other words, it is the kind of economic stimulus that president obama could have achieved if he was not so bent on passing big government schemes that have failed american workers. [applause] today's corporate combined tax rate of 39.2% is the second- highest in the developed world.

it is time to overhaul of our tax code so that companies can invest more in their people and in their products. tax rates have consequences. liberals myopic lee ignore the realities of human nature. they think raising rates will raise revenue. what they don't understand is that large employers have choices. i might add, so to wealthy individuals. that includes moving money offshore. when they try to take -- when the federal government tries to take too much, they end up hurting the very people they supposedly seek to help, the working class. we need tax policy that embraces the world as it is, not what some liberal ideologue wishes it to be.

the goal of my cut, balance, and grow plan is to unleash job creation to address the current economic crisis, while at the same time, generating a stable source of revenue to address our record deficit and put our fiscal house in order. my plan should not be viewed in a vacuum, but in comparison to the continuation of the status quo. it provides employers and investors certainty, which is critical in getting capital back into the economy. providesdent's plan temporary tax relief, which it does nothing to encourage long- term investment, because it doesn't provide the private sector any certainty. the way to stimulate the economy is not free temporary tax relief or government

spending. it is to stimulate private spending for a permanent tax relief. the flat tax and will unleash growth, but growth is not enough. we must put a stop to this entitlement culture that risks the financial solvency of this country for future generations. the red flags are alarming. our children are born with a $46,000 in debt. every young child is born with a $46,000 debt to the federal government. our credit was downgraded for the first time this past august, in part because of the lack of seriousness about deficit reduction.

according to the white house office of management and budget, by the end of the year, our debt will exceed the size of america's economy for the first time in 65 years. we are on the road to ruin, paved by stake serfdom. freeing our children from financial disaster requires the courage to reform the entitlements. my plan establishes firm principles and to preserve medicare and social security for today's beneficiaries while saving it for tomorrow's generations. i am putting forward by principles to save social security for the long term. first, we will protect existing benefits for current retirees, and we will work with congress

on the exact age where those nearing retirement are grandfathered out of the changes to the program. secondly, we will end the current pillaging of the social security trust fund by washington politicians. [applause] here is the hard fact. the trust fund is full of i o u's. without a single dime of money left over from what workers have paid in. the politicians have borrowed against it for years, and in order to redeem those ious's, they will have to either raise your taxes or cut spending on other programs to replenish it. those are the only two choices. here is the other hard truth. if we don't act, in 25 years, benefits will be slashed by 23%

overnight. protecting social security begins by protecting the solvency of the fund and stopping all of the current borrowing from the fund, just as we have done with the highway trust fund. the third principle of reform is to allow young workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts if they so choose. [applause] i am not naive. i have an idea that this idea will be attacked, but a couple of facts are worth stating. one, the return on investment in social security is so small, it is kind of like having an interest-bearing savings account at the bank. over the long term, the markets

generate a much higher yield. secondly, opposition to this simple measure is based on a simple supposition. that is a that the people are not smart enough to look out for themselves. i don't believe that. liberals think the american people cannot be trusted to safeguard even a portion of their retirement dollars. i happen to think is the time to end the nanny state and empower our people to exercise greater control over their money. [applause] the fourth principle is to return to the pre-1983 law and allow state and local governments to newly opt out of social security and instead, allow their employees to pay solely into state or locally run programs.

this has been done around the country. i might add, with very good results. we ought to allow it again. lastly, we should raise the retirement age for those younger workers on a graduated basis to reflect the longer life span of today's americans. i am going to work with congress to determine the right formula, beginning at the right age, but this is just common sense. it can help save social security for future generations. we will also reform medicare, to save it for future generations of americans as well. we will do this by working with congress on several options, including giving patients greater flexibility in choosing the plan that best fits their unique needs three things like bundle premium support of payments for the individual, or

as a credit against purchase of health insurance, for instance. second, we should look at gradually raising the age of medicare eligibility. early, we should consider adjusting medicare benefits to be paid on a sliding scale, based on the income of the recipient. lastly, we must tackle the $100 billion annual waste and fraud and save this vital program for americans who live longer. my plan also restructure unmedicated, returning control over that program and the dollars needed to administer it to the states. one-size-fits-all health care does not work for people on private plans in the form of obamacare, and it sure doesn't

work with public land such as medicaid. washington has broken it. they have shown no will to fix it, either. we must give the states the flexibility to fix medicaid, to control those costs. these reforms are essential to balancing the budget. my plan balances the budget and as fast as any serious plan that is being offered out there. in the year 2020, with reforms to entitlements, greater economic growth, and with cuts to discretionary spending, and i don't take the tack of the current president, with his arbitrary cuts to defense spending. the question we must ask is not what we can afford to spend on national defense, but what does

it cost to keep america secure? [applause] at the same time, we are going to reform the way that we spend money in washington so that we can balance the budget in eight years. but to truly protect taxpayers, we need the extra protection of a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. [applause] i will also reduce the spending in the department of education, the department of energy, the epa, and a whole host of other agencies, returning greater control to the states [applause] . my plan also reduces non- defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in year one, and it builds on those savings in the years to come.

i will also institute several principal reforms to the budgetary process, which is contained in my cut, belts, and growth plan on my website. you can go there and read it, and it is not the links of the novel "war and peace." it is very simple, bold approach. included in my budget reforms are elimination of baseline budgeting that assumes that the previous expenditures are sacrosanct. an end to non-emergency spending and emergency bills. who would have thought of that? a permanent stop to the bridge to nowhere projects through the elimination of earmarks. [applause]

a couple these budgetary reforms with an overhaul of the regulatory process. when federal agencies like the nlrb are dictating to companies when they can create jobs and when they cannot, they have overstepped their boundaries and undermined our free-market system. [applause] on my first day in office, i will freeze all pending federal regulations and immediately begin a review of all regulations put in place since january 2008. today, the federal register contains 165,000 pages. the index alone is 1100 pages, and somehow, despite not having any of these new regulations for over the first 219 years of this country's history, america

not only survived, it thrived. the federal nanny state's heavy handed regulations are keeping our economy in the ditch. it is time to review and scrap those regulations that are harming jobs and killing growth. lastly, one of the greatest impediment to investment -- john, you and i were talking about this before came in, is a dodd-frank rating regulations, and i will lead the charge to eliminate them. [applause] dodd-frank is killing small banks. it is freezing assets to credit, just one small businesses need them most. it enshrines bailouts and the notion of two big to fail and

federal law. benefits wall street while the it is killing main street. it is wrong, it is unfair, and it has got to go. [applause] my plan does not trim around the edges and it does not bowed down to the established interests. but it is a kind of bold reform that is needed to jolt the economy out of the doldrums, to renew american prosperity. those who oppose it are going to wrap themselves in the cloak of status ". -- quo. america is under a crushing burden of debt, and the president simply offers larger deficits and the politics of class warfare. others simply offer these microwave plans with warmed over reforms based on current ingredients.

americans are not searching for a reshuffling of the status quo which simply empowers the entrenched interests. this is a change election. i offer a plan that changes the way that washington does business. the great issue facing this nation is whether we have the courage to confront the spending and the vision to get our economy growing again. we need a tax code that unleashes growth instead of preventing it, that promotes fairness, not class warfare, that sparks investment in america instead of overseas interest. it is time to create incentives for american companies to invest in american workers. [applause] it is time to end these corporate loopholes, end the special tax breaks for special interest, end the gravy train for lobbyists and tax lawyers. it is time to pass a tax that

is flat and fair and that frees our employers and our people to invest and grow and prosper. we will set our employers and our people freed by slashing the cost of government, cutting taxes for the middle class families, balancing our budget and growing our economy. the future of america is too important to be left to the washington politicians. [applause] to get america working again, we have to cut taxes and spending, balance the federal budget, and grow our economy and jobs. my plan unleashes american ingenuity for a new american century, restores the hopes and dreams of our people, and renews our great promise, and it

entrusts the fate of this nation in the hands of our people, setting them free. let's be the land of the free again. god bless you, and thank you all for coming out and being with us today. [applause]

♪ ♪

♪

♪ made in america ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ sing a song about the heartland ♪ life ♪a song about my

♪

>> is he will reporters are saying and track the latest contributions with our website. easy-to-use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with a water feeds and facebook updates and the latest polling data plus links to c-span's media partners. >> coming up, a hearing on

proposals to overhaul the retirement system. in a less than an hour, a look of president obama's decision to send 100 personnel to you gonna -- uganda. and a land swap deal between a mining company. later, a hearing on how the financial crisis may affect the u.s. economy. >>, washington journal, we will hear about plans creating jobs from georgia representative tom price, the chairman of the policy committee. henry cuellar of california will discuss the hearing on possible iranian terrorist operations and the atlantic a senior editor joins us to talk about her article on whether members of congress are guilty of insider trading in the stock market.

washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> spend this weekend in knoxville, tenn. with book and tv and look behind the scenes at the history and the literary life of the city. the university of tennessee's farm is 4 acres of decomposing human remains. a real life csi. also look at and routes author alex haley. how he fell in love with the city during a 1982 visit. an american history, a visit to

the sequoia birthplace museum. the director explains how an indian silversmith successfully created a system of writing for the cherokee language. and in visit to a laboratory who developed the atomic bomb. preschooler on its history and future. saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. what struck the weekend on a book tv and american history tv. >> next, a hearing on proposals to overhaul the military retirement system. defense secretary leon panetta has said the pentagon will have to consider changes to the retirement system because of rising costs and possible budget cuts. this is a little less than an hour and a half.

>> good afternoon. ladies and gentlemen, welcome. today the military subcommittee will discuss the subject of military determined, an issue of immense importance to service members and in terms to combat readiness. he recognized their retirement would be a pivotal issue in the coming months and that it was essential that this subcommittee address this expeditiously. thank you for your insight and call to action. the defense business board, one element of the department of defense, was quick to present a major retirement reform proposal that set the tone of the retirement reform debate. the board's proposal would move the retirement system

aggressively toward a private sector defined contribution system based on the personal investments of service members. the proposal received immediate criticism from service members and military associations. the proposal is certainly a radical solution that would result in a significant reduction of retired benefits for all service members. as could be anticipated, the unveiling of the defense business board proposal injected considerable uncertainty into the force, to include troops fighting in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the proposal created an immediate merrell firestorm as service members fear that senior members within the department of defense and the military departments were seriously considering its implementation. we invited the defense business board to testify today, to face the arguments of their critics and explain the merits of their

proposal, but they declined the invitation. i am concerned that the defense business board knowingly elected to pursue a very controversial proposal with immediate negative consequences to morale and combat readiness, and yet they were unwilling to come before this subcommittee and defend their actions. in my view, their failure to appear speaks volumes about their own lack of conviction that their proposal is deserving of serious consideration. secretary of defense leon panetta has been clear that retirement reform must be on the table for consideration as the department of defense contemplates the wide array of programs that will be considered for cuts to meet the budget reduction goals. i am pleased that the secretary understood the morale problem

that has been created by the defense business board and announced his clear support for grandfather in the benefits to be provided to currently serving service members who have borne the burden of war over last 10 years. we simply cannot betray the trust of the service members who have performed with such courage and expertise in afghanistan and iraq. i was disappointed that secretary panetta did not disavow the defense business board proposal. that statement would have removed a major irritant to the force. i was, however, very pleased at general dennis c.'s statement before the house armed services committee that recognized the unique requirements of military service and that strong asserted that the military requires the retirement system totally different from any civilian retirement program. today we hope to learn more about the current positions of the department of defense and

military advocacy groups concerning the need to reform military retirements. i would like to welcome our witnesses, dr. joanne rooney, the principal deputy, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. dr. rooney, this is your first opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. welcome. i am certain we will be seeing more of you in the future. next we have a two high respected professionals that are longstanding friends of the subcommittee. miss virginia and the director of government relations of the military officers association of america. only, let me introduce mr. john davis. he is a marine, not a marine veteran or former marine, a marine. we appreciate so much you being here today. the director of legislative programs, mr. davis, this is also your first time as a witness before the subcommittee. welcome. council member david, you are

recognized for your opening remarks. >> i note this is your first time testifying before the subcommittee, so we are glad to have you. thank you all. i look forward to hearing your comments on potential reforms to the military retirement system. we all know the concerns about the current state of our nation's economy. the discussions on the condition and the future military retirement are once again being raised, no surprise. such discussions are not new. during previous economic downturns, focus has turned to the sustainability and

affordability of our military retirement programs. for the most part, the current military retirement program was established over 60 years ago, so it is valid, no matter how difficult, difficult knowing the nature of the service and the sacrifice of the men and women who served, but still appropriate, i think, for us to ask ourselves whether the current program still meets the requirements it was set up to cheat, which of course we know is the focus of today's hearings. only 17% of the force actually complete a full 20 years of service in order to qualify for a non disability retirement. many have expressed concerns that the current program does not recognize the sacrifices of those who served during tenures -- ten years of conflict and

may not stay the full 20 years to earn a return. is it fair that that person who may have been deployed once and stayed to return is eligible for a lifetime benefit, while an individual who may have multiple deployments in a combat theater does not stay 20 years, that person walks away with nothing more and the admiration of a grateful nation. when the 20-year retirement program was established, a life expectancy in 1949 for a white male was 66.2 years. for black male, it was 58.9 years. compared to the latest data available, the life expectancy in 2009 for a white male is 76.2 years and for black male, 70.9 years. so there is no doubt that americans are living longer and fuller lives. which means an average individual who achieves military retirement for 20 years of service will receive return for nearly twice as long in his

adult life. him or her adult life. in addition, many of those who retire at 20 years of service have gone on with an ability to seek another full career in a different field. changes to the personnel compensation program including the retirement system often strikes fear in the force. it is important that we do not necessarily undermine the fate of those who are currently serving. but we do have a responsibility to ensure that the compensation package that is provided to service members are meeting the needs of our nation's national security, and that includes looking at the military retirement package. thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important hearing and i look forward to our witnesses testifying today. thank you. >> i ask unanimous consent that

the defense business board report on their proposal to reform the military retirement and a statement from the reserve officers association be injured in to the hearing record. hearing no objection, so ordered. at this time will proceed in order with our witnesses, beginning with dr. rooney. >> the afternoon. chairman wilson, ranking member davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you on behalf of the women and men who so ably serve in our nation's armed forces. i am here today to speak to you about the military retirement system of our uniformed services. since the military transitioned to an all volunteer force, military compensation has been under continuous scrutiny. the primary goals of the military compensation system are to attract, retain, and eventually separate members so

the united states forces can support the numerous missions both here and abroad and when called upon, succeed on the battlefield. even though some consider military benefits far reaching, we must remain cognizant that they support the brave men and women who volunteer to defend this great nation. over time, while the military retirement system has remained relatively constant, pensions in the private sector have changed and more closely aligned to support the more mobile work force in that sector. unlike the private sector, the military services must grow most of their military work force internally. it generally takes 15-20 years to develop the next generation of infantry battalion commanders and a submarine captains. this need for greater longevity in continuity suggest there are valid reasons why mirroring a

private sector compensation package may not necessarily be the proper approach for the military. however, the department does believe that reducing the retirement system is both a fair and reasonable in denver, and -- endeavor and over the past year has begun reviewing such retirement in the context of a total military compensation system. the officer of enlisting in civilian leadership of all services from the active-duty reserve and national car components as well as the u.s. coast guard are participating in this review. the review is designed to be delivered, careful, and pragmatic. the defense business for proposal is just one of several concepts that are being reviewed and modeled to determine the impact on recruitment and retention. the department is working to

write the correct balance. this includes weighing the impact on the new system of recruiting and retention, considering the welfare of the individual service members and families, which includes grandfathering our existing force, who took their oaths under the current system, and acknowledging our responsibility to the american taxpayer. the department needs to ensure any proposed changes do not break faith with the current members or negatively impact the current force. before proposing changes to the military retirement system or any part of the military pay and benefit structure, however, the department is committed to conducting significant evaluations and in-depth analysis of any proposal. the department must ensure its ability to continue recruiting and retaining the highest quality members and must understand to the fullest extent possible the impact of any changes on the future of the all volunteer force. finally, while the department

acknowledges military retirement system appears expensive, it is neither a unaffordable nor spiraling out of control, as some would contend. the department annually contributes in accordance with the carmen's set forth by the office of the actuary, but contributions as a percentage of military basic pay our projected to remain relatively constant over time. at this time, the department does not have any specific proposals or recommendations ready to offer. within the last month, the president recommended forming a commission to review the military retirement system. if this commission is formed, the department expects to provide significant input to the commission. the department also expects that any proposals offered will be similarly presented to the congress and to this subcommittee for discussion and assessment. all i look forward to continuing to work with each of you, and thank you again for

the opportunity to testify can for your continued support of our military members and their families. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for the opportunity to come before you and discuss the military retirement system for uniform services. dr. rennie towed to the department has begun a review of military retirement, and it is my office that has been tasked with this tremendously important undertaking. the purpose is to determine the impact and feasibility of restructuring. numerous studies have criticized the system. i would like to point out that the current system has supported the most successful all volunteer force in the world. the question now is whether the

current system is still relevant in today's environment. if not, should be modified to meet these requirements in a manner more in line with private sector? to ensure that we are doing -- that we are getting it right, along with associated personal the personnel, to have an impact on recruiting and retaining the all volunteer force. we are not looking at retirement in isolation. i work is not yet complete so i am unable to report to you on the results of the review. i can assure you that sustaining the all volunteer force and the men and women that so ably serve our nation will be at the heart of whatever we do. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you for this opportunity to present our views on military retirement concerns. we are grateful to the committee for standing up as champions both now and in the past to ensure military

retirement incentives remain commensurate with the extraordinary demands of career service. the primary purpose of military retirement package is to induce toys of all the people to serve multiple decades under conditions few americans are willing to endure for even one term. after a decade of war in which career service members deploy time after time after time, with ever-increasing of coming home a changed person, we find it shocking insensitive that some now seek to curtail their retirement package to make it more like civilian workers. these are the primary incentives that have sustained the career force in peace and war. we are very concerned the recent proposals are aimed mainly at achieving budget savings, with scant regard for longer-term damage to retention and readiness. the fact is we already have a considerable history with military retirement cutbacks. enactment of the three-year average basic pay system in 1980 cut retired pay by about 8%

with subsequent interest. through the 1980's and 1990's, military pay raises for capped below private sector pay growth in nearly every year, dramatically reducing lifetime retired pay for all the thousands of people retired under those depressed pay cable. in 1986, congress passed the so- called reducts retirement system that cut lifetime return paid by more than 25% for a 20- year military retiree. at that time, secretary weinberger, secretary of defense at the time, warned congress that we ducks would undermine -- redux would undermine retention in readiness, which proved true a decade later, and congress repealed it in 1999. recent proposals by the defense business board and the 10th quadrennial review of military compensation envisioned for more dramatic cutbacks than reed texted, delaying most retirement compensation until

age 57 or 60, even though the services don't want to keep most people anywhere near that long. it also proposed investing option for people who choose to leave early. we believe this is a formula for retention and readiness disaster that would have destroyed the career force had it been in effect of the past 10 years. some support vesting or principle of fairness with private sector workers, but it is and odd concept of fairness that would dramatically cut compensation for those who service and sacrifice the longest to pay more for those who leave early. defense leaders have saw to quell concern in the deal by saying that plan to grandfather the current force, but the redux experience crude that grandfathering does not work. current defense leaders have repeatedly expressed support for significant retirement cutbacks for future entrance without a word about long-term retention

risks. in our view, that is an abdication of their responsibility to protect future as well as current readiness. we are extremely grateful that this subcommittee and the full subcommittee have stood up to highlight those retention and readiness concerns to the super committee when few others seemed so inclined. that concludes my portion of the coalition's statement. >> thank you very much, colonel, and now we proceed to lieutenant davis. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. the all volunteer force has successfully fought in a protracted war, due primarily to the dedication of our men and women in uniform. we should not underestimate the pay and benefits keeping the for sustained in this time of challenge. many raleigh believe that the uniform service should receive 50% of pay for 20 years of service, but that is not the

reality. personnel of 20 years of service earned retired pay that replaces 34% of their cash pay and allowances. any accounting should acknowledged that retirees who have already given under the past budget cuts, hundreds of thousands and retired between 1980's and 2000's. they have already forfeited $3,000 a year for the rest of their lives. some economists believe the key consumer price index overstates inflation by failing to recognize the consumers change their behavior when prices rise sharply. when that happens, they say they buy cheaper products such as chicken instead of beef. it is more complicated with

other substitutes. is a compact car substitutes for a full-size? this leads to a change in living patterns. it would reduce lifetime pay what 20 years of service for $100,000. we oppose any cuts because of violates the purpose of them and to protect against erosion of benefits by inflation. another proposal is to use the current high three. this would cut payments 6%. we oppose this because it is another way to devalue military service. the 10th report suggests a 401k type retirement a starting at age 57. this would reduce pay from $24,000 a year, already a modest

amount, to a $3,600 a year. this change would do great harm for recruiting and retention. a recent survey indicates that 90 percent of respondents believe that if benefits were delayed until 60, fewer people would join and they would do serve shorter periods of time. 80% would leave the military earlier if it were switched to a four one k plan. -- 401 k plan. their leadership and guidance is in bible as a result of many years of experience. benefits likely result in them leaving the military early. these positions are difficult to replace. the current retirement system has worked as intended.

sustaining equality career force through war and peace. it only stopped working after congress cut it back willingham 8 -- 1986. >> thank you. we will proceed now and each member will have a five minute period of asking questions. we have a person about the approach will be our timekeeper. you can look at him when you're five minutes is up. i would like to begin with dr. rooney. it has been reported -- reported that to the proposal, there was a great deal of distress among career service members. the reluctance to disavow the proposal has given rise to

concern that there is a strong support for such reforms. with this report, dui intends to support the proposal? there are studies under way as to how this proposal will affect retention. when should we expect the report on the effect on retention? >> yes, sir. in regards to the defense business board, you indicated that early on we did not come out against it but i believe that recent statements by the secretary and even in our statements clearly indicated we are seeing the proposal as a just one datapoint for consideration in review as we look at the overall retirement compensation system. the key factor for us is that

any change or system must insure that we are able to recruit and retain the all volunteer force and not at all the damage the current faith to the troops have been as. matt reports has some limitations. it is a data point for us. that is how we see it. you also asked where we were in terms of a proposal coming forward. we have a group that is looking at a number of alternatives. we are working with the rand corporation to also help us in the analysis of that with the idea that recruiting and retention are key factors to consider in any proposal. . with the proposed commission, if that would stand up in the springtime, we would be prepared

at that point in time to be informing the conversation with them. we are working to model any changes to the current program. we have the final report and it does have a negative impact on retention. we are not complete with that review. it is a data point. we will take that report and its will inform our report. >> i think both of you. i was very impressed with colonel and mr. davis the facts that you point out. with that in mind, where is your reaction that the retirement

reform is unavoidable that it is a fiscally unsustainable t? >> the testimony we have heard today from the witnesses refutes that. they said it is not spiraling out of control. their rejection it will be about the same percentage of basic pay into the future. i think the committee has statistics that show retirement costs as a percentage of the budget have been relatively stable over time. the first time i worked on retirement was in 1977. we have projections at that time that the critics were pointing out the system would go broke by the year 2000. we are still here. we just fought a war.

>> i would agree with everything the colonel said and i would add that the price of the military to retire -- retirement is part of the cost of fighting a war that we are involved with. and the price of defending our nation and they should be put in that category. >> as i conclude, i can see your appreciation of the junior officers. we can get to new recruits but the expertise must be maintained for the security of our country. we will proceed to congresswoman davis. >> thank you. i wonder if you could address the issue of fairness. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we have had thousands of our personnel who served out

the 20 years though they may only deployed once. if at all. purses' those to deploy on many occasions. we know on the last 10 years that is quite common. yet they do not serve the full 20 years. how should we look at that issue? do you think it is one of fairness? did you want to get started. >> to me, mickey purpose on the retirement system is sustaining the career force. national defense comes first. i am on favor of a fairness. i have built my career on arguing issues of fairness. but you have to sustain the system through peace and