over the next few hours, we're airing several washington events focusing on jobs. president obama is first talking about his plan to create jobs by repairing the nation's infrastructure. in 20 minutes the republican study committee outlines its jobs plan. after that senators mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer focus on jobs in speeches on the senate floor. later, federal reserve chairman ben >> which continue your statement? you will receive the answer in due course. >> he was the un ambassador president kennedy during the cuban missile crisis, a former governor of illinois, and twice ran at the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson is featured this week on suspense series of the contenders. clive friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern crude for preview

including more speeches and other video, go to our special website for the series. >> reading the wrong book can be an education as well, as is seeing bad movies. >> cleopatra author stacy schiff has advice for would-be writers. given that she won a pulitzer prize and was a senior editor at simon and schuster, or advice is pretty good. >> every young writer should remember that publishers out there are desperate for good new books to published. there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more on sunday night on c- span's "q&a". >>, went to a waterfront park in the georgetown neighborhood of

washington, d.c. to encourage congressional support for the part of his jobs plan to repair the nation's infrastructure. he spoke near the key bridge which crosses the potomac river connecting the district of columbia with virginia. this is 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> hello, everybody. all right. thank you so much, everybody. please, have a seat on this beautiful day. it is good to see all these construction workers out. of all the industries hammered by the economic downturn, construction has been among the hardest hit. since the housing bubble burst,

millions of construction workers have had to look for a job. so today, i'm joining many of these workers to say that it makes absolutely no sense when there's so much work to be done that they're not doing the work. not when there are so many roads and bridges and runways waiting to be repaired and waiting to be rebuilt. one of these potential projects is behind me, just a few miles from the capitol building. it's the key bridge, one of the five major bridges that connect the commonwealth of virginia to washington, d.c. two of these five bridges are rated "structurally deficient," which is a fancy way of saying that you can drive on them but they need repair. nearly 120,000 vehicles cross

these two bridges every single day, carrying hundreds of thousands of commuters and families and children. they are deficient roads, and there are deficient bridges like this all across the country. our highways are clogged with traffic. our railroads are no longer the fastest and most efficient in the world. our air traffic congestion is the worst in the world. and we've got to do something about this, because our businesses and our entire economy are already paying for it. give you an example. last month, i visited a bridge in cincinnati on one of the busiest trucking routes in america. more than 150,000 vehicles cross it every single day. but it is so outdated that it's been labeled functionally obsolete. it worked fine when it opened 50 years ago.

but today, it handles twice the traffic it was designed for, and it causes mile-long backups. that means that big shipping companies like ups or fedex are tempted to change routes, but it turns out that would cost them even more to take the long way. so their trucks, their vans, are just sitting there, bleeding money, bleeding time. smaller businesses, they don't have a choice. they have to go across these bridges. when a major bridge that connects kentucky and indiana was recently closed for safety reasons, one small business owner whose shop is nearby watched his sales fall 40 percent in just two weeks. farmers, they can lose five cents a bushel when a rural bridge closes. so all told, our aging transportation infrastructure costs american businesses and

families about $130 billion a year. that's a tax on our businesses, that's a tax on our consumers. it is coming out of your pocket. it's a drag on our overall economy. and if we don't act now, it could cost america hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs by the end of the decade. so you're paying already for these substandard bridges. you're paying for these substandard roads. you could be paying to make sure that workers were rebuilding these roads and you would save money in the long term if you did. i'm speaking to all the american people right now. [applause] building a world-class transportation system is one of the reasons that america became an economic superpower in the first place. today, as a share of our economy, europe invests more

than twice what we do in infrastructure, china, more than four times as much. think about that. europe invests, as a percentage of its overall economy, twice as much in roads and bridges and airports and ports, china, four times as much. how do we sit back and watch china and europe build the best bridges and high-speed railroads and gleaming new airports, and we're doing nothing? at a time when we've got more than a million unemployed construction workers who could build them right here in america right now? we're better than that. we are smarter than that. we've just got to get folks in congress to share the same sense of national urgency that mayors and governors and the american people do all across the country. i've got to say, we've got some

members of congress here who get it. amy klobuchar, from minnesota, she gets it. she's seen a bridge fall apart in her state. senator whitehouse from rhode island, he gets it. congressman larson from connecticut gets it. i know the mayor of washington, d.c., gets it. but we've got to have everybody on capitol hill get it. last month, republicans in the senate blocked a jobs bill that would have meant hundreds of thousands of private sector construction jobs repairing bridges like this one. it was the kind of idea that, in the past at least, both parties have voted for, both parties have supported. it was supported by the overwhelming majority of the american people. it was paid for. and yet, they said no.

the truth is, the only way we can attack our economic challenges on the scale that's needed is with bold action by congress. they hold the purse strings. it's the only way we're going to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work right now -- not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but right now. it's the only way that we're going to rebuild an economy that's not based on financial bubbles, but on hard work - on building and making things right here in the united states of america. that's the deal that every american is looking for -- that we have an economy where everybody who works hard has the chance to get ahead, where the middle class regains some sense of security that has been slipping away for over a decade now. so that's why i'm going to keep on pushing these senators and

some members of the house of representatives to vote on common-sense, paid-for jobs proposals. in the meantime, while i'm waiting for them to act, we're going to go ahead and do what we can do to help the american people find jobs. we're not going to wait for them and do nothing. i've said that i'll do everything in my power to act on behalf of the american people -- with or without congress. we can't wait for congress to do its job. if they won't act, i will. [applause] and that's why today, i'm announcing that we are actually going to expedite loans and competitive grants for new projects all across the country that will create thousands of new jobs for workers like these.

if there's money already in the pipeline, we want to get it out faster. and this comes on the heels of our recent efforts to cut red tape and launch several existing projects faster and more efficiently. see, construction workers, they want to do their jobs. we need congress to do theirs. but here's the good news, congress has another chance. they already voted once against this thing, they've got another chance. this week, they've got another chance to vote for a jobs bill that will help private sector companies put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, our airports, our bridges and our transit systems. and this bill, by the way, is one that will begin to reform the way we do projects like this. no more earmarks. no more bridges to nowhere. we're going to stop the picking

of projects based on political gain, and start picking them based on two criteria, how badly they're needed out there, and how much good they'll do for our economy. and by the way, that's an idea -- (applause) -- that's an idea that came from the good work of a texas republican and a massachusetts democrat, because infrastructure shouldn't be a partisan issue. my secretary of transportation, who is here, ray lahood, a great man from peoria -- (applause) -- he's the pride of peoria -- he spent a long time in congress. he's a republican, member of my cabinet. he knows how badly we need to act on this issue. the other members of congress here, they understand that this is important to their states. i can't imagine that speaker boehner wants to represent a

state where nearly one in four bridges is classified as substandard. i'm sure that the speaker of the house would want to have bridges and roads in his state that are up to par. when the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell visited that closed bridge in kentucky that i was talking about, he admitted, look, "roads and bridges are not partisan in washington." that's a quote from him. paul ryan, the republican in charge of the budget process, recently said, "you can't deny that infrastructure does create jobs." okay, so if the speaker of the house, the republican leader in the senate, all the democrats all say that this is important to do, why aren't we doing it? what's holding us back? let's get moving and put america back to work. [applause]

the ideas in this legislation are supported by the leading organizations of republican mayors, supported by mayor gray, who's here. the idea would be a big boost for construction and is therefore supported by america's largest business organization and america's largest labor organization -- the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio think this is a good idea to move forward on. and they don't agree on a lot. and when 72 percent of the american people support the ideas in this bill -- 72 percent of americans agree with this -- republicans, democrats and independents -- there's no excuse for 100 percent of washington republicans to say no. that means that the republicans

in washington are out of touch with republican voters. we've got to make this happen. [applause] now, if you don't want to take my word for it, take it from one of my predecessors. it's one of the previous presidents. he said that -- and i'm quoting here -- "the bridges and highways we fail to repair today will have to be rebuilt tomorrow at many times the cost." he went on to say that "rebuilding our infrastructure is common sense" --that's a quote -- and "an investment in tomorrow that we must make today." that president was ronald reagan. we just put up a statue of him at the airport. since when do we have republicans voting against ronald reagan's ideas? there's no good reason to oppose this bill -- not one. and members of congress who do, who vote no, are going to have to explain why to their constituencies. the american people are with me

with this. [applause] and it's time for folks running around spending all their time talking about what's wrong with america to spend some time rolling up their sleeves to help us make it right. there's nothing wrong in this country that we can't fix. there are no challenges that we can't meet, especially when it comes to building things in america. it was in the middle of the civil war that lincoln built the transcontinental railroad. it was during the great depression that we built the hoover dam that brought electricity to rural america. we have built things even in the toughest of times -- especially in the toughest of times because it helps us improve our economy. it gets us going. it taps into that can-do american spirit.

it gives us pride about what we can accomplish. now it's our turn to forge the future. everybody here -- we are americans. we're not people who sit back and watch things happening. and if congress tells you they don't have time -- they've got time to do it. we've been -- in the house of representatives, what have you guys been debating? john, you've been debating a commemorative coin for baseball? you had legislation reaffirming that "in god we trust" is our motto? that's not putting people back to work. i trust in god, but god wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work. [applause] there's work to be done.

there are workers ready to do it. the american people are behind this. democrats, republicans, independents believe in this. these are ideas that have been supported by all those groups in the past. there's no reason not to do it this time. i want you to make sure your voice is heard in the halls of congress. i want us to put people back to work, get this economy growing again, and remind the entire world just why it is that america is the greatest country on earth. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> today on capitol hill, the republican study committee announced its jobs bill which includes changes to the tax code and federal regulations that members they will stimulate the economy. this is a half-hour. >> let me thank you all for being here this afternoon. one of the things i do back home now, every speech i give i asked

a couple of questions of the audience. how many think we need common sense energy reform? how many think we have enough regulation? every time i do, every single hand in the audience goes up. the old line that the american people get it is true. they do. what we have today is our jobs for growth act put together largely by the rnc but under the leadership of our budget and task force chairman, scott garrett, we have reviewed what we think this does is build on the good work the conference has done, particularly on the regulatory front, taking the initiative sitting over there in the senate, using the tax reform component we have in this legislation which is largely the work of paul ryan and others over the years. then some of the common-sense energy reform that members of

the energy and commerce committee have put together. we think it builds on that good work in those three areas and brings it together in a concise and compact way. the other thing i would add is, we also think it builds on the work we have done at the rnc over the last 10 months where we have focused so much on spending. it should be cut, cap, balance, and grow. that is what we try to put together here. we think it is a good package that makes sense and will help create jobs in the private sector, not this crazy concept of more government employment, but real employment in the private sector. i will turn it over to the architect of heading this effort , mr. scott garrett.

>> i am more a simple country lawyer, but thanks anyway. good morning, everyone, and special thanks to our chairman for being the driving force on all the major issues we have been leading through the r s c. i appreciate the leadership of all the folks behind me, each one taking different parts and some major parts of the legislation we are going to be discussing here this morning. the president's proposal is simply a rehash of the proposals of job creation in the past by this administration which has simply consisted of spending more money, rolling out so- called job ready programs that we hear from the price house

would immediately create jobs for the country, but then quickly we learn that those jobs rated programs are not jobs rated programs and did not create the jobs anticipated but cost the american taxpayers more money. on the other hand we have reposal will be laying out here today which does actually create jobs and does not create more debt for the american taxpayer. we do so in three ways, in the area of tax reform, regulatory reform, and then energy reform as well. the one area i will talk about right now is the area of tax reform, specifically in the area of families. what we try to do is make the tax code simpler, fairer, and better for working families. we do all this at the same time of making it optional as well, the point that jim referenced already. in a nutshell, what we do is create a system for individual

tax rates that are two-tiered, 15% and 25%. there is a standard deduction of 12.5%, and $100,000 for standard deductions. packaged on top of this in order to make it simpler and easier to understand in the more convoluted system we have right now, you do away with a number of provisions that make our current tax code complicated. it will do away with the death tax, the gift tax, with regard to investment taxes, and index capital gains. put all of that together can you have a fairer, simpler system that people can opt into or they can remain in the current system. at the end of the day, we

believe this is good. it is good for families, good for the economy, and good for job creation, what this is all about. i would like to now turn it over to reed. >> i appreciate you having me up next, because this is getting heavy. i was asked to head up the regulatory reform portion of this. most of the regulatory reform aspect of our jobs bill has to do with reforming process, but it starts with putting a moratorium on regulations until unemployment reaches 7.8%. during that time, or while the moratorium is on, we are asking our regulatory agencies to measure regulations against the 21st century economy. we also changed the process --

you might be familiar with the grains act by which a regulatory agency promulgates a major role, the congress would have to weigh in on that and approve it before it can be promulgated. any regulation that exceeds $100 million, legislative officials would have to weigh in. the single most important thing i can demonstrate today is why this is so important. i am from northeastern wisconsin. i represent the eighth congressional district, and a large and robust timber industry in wisconsin. it is less robust today. we are importing construction lumber from canada, just miles outside of one of the most robust forests in the united states. if we were to do a timber sale in the state of wisconsin, this is the contract that is required right here. pretty simple to handle. however, if it were to do a federal timber sale, this is the

contract. i was just told by a timber company in hayward, wisconsin, that the federal government just finished a study for a timber study in hayward. it cost nearly $8 million and took six years, and the timber sale was for $4 million, all at the cost of the taxpayer and that the cost of wisconsin jobs. what our bill is intended to do is begin to clear up the red tape, reform the regulatory process, and makes certain key part of the dialogue with america's large and small businesses. thank you very much. >> first of all, i want to thank all my colleagues for the hard work they have done in putting this together. this is exactly what the american people have been telling all of us that they need.

we all know as we said before that the government does not create any jobs. the tax provisions with lowering corporate raids and closing loopholes makes the u.s. more competitive and helps keep jobs here, which is one of our goals, so they are not moving offshore. the importance -- those in my district are saying we could do something or expand, but we are not going to because we don't know what tax relations -- regulations are coming down the pike. we don't know what regulations in general are going to do. i don't want to hire somebody and next year have to turn around and lay them off after i have spent all this money train them. the message is there. they just want our help in making their job easier so they can actually create the jobs. in my opinion, this report plan does exactly that. again, i thank everyone who had

a part in it. i am introducing to you the energy to room -- the energy guru. >> i want to thank jim andy rsc for their leadership for bringing us all together. we are bringing a jobs act because we want to get our economy back on track, and we are proposing solutions that go to the heart of the problem. while the president is riding around on his canadian made thus giving political speeches, it is his own speeches that have been standing in the way of our job creators. when you look at the energy sector, what we have put together in our package for energy, however objective is to completely eliminate our independence on middle eastern oil, and we can do that just by utilizing the resources we have here in america that are currently blocked off by the federal government. if you go through the bill and

look at the things we are doing on energy, we are opening up areas that are blocked by the federal government from expiration. there are vast reserves of oil on the outer continental shelf. not only will recreate millions of jobs with this legislation, we will also be able to bring in billions of dollars of federal revenue that will help us pay down our national debt, so you accomplish many things by doing this. the president gives a lot of lip service to the keystone pipeline. right now you have a project, one project that can create 25,000 jobs today. canada is saying they want to send us more oil that we don't have to buy from middle eastern countries, and at the president continues to hold up this project. 25,000 jobs are at stake right now and billions of dollars of private investment. the president's idea of stimulus is another stimulus bill that spends more money we don't have to have government play this on

the capitalism and that we have seen from solyndra. unfortunately the taxpayer is left holding the bag. you have private investment out there. there are billions of dollars of private capital out there waiting to be spent creating jobs in america. 25,000 jobs that are ready to go, and yet the president continues to hold this project up. mr. president, if you don't want to create 25,000 jobs, we are going to make sure they are created whether or not you continue standing in the way. , spoke in a bipartisan way over the last two years and said we don't want cap and trade. we don't want a national energy tax. we prevent epa from doing that. if you look all throughout the vast reserves we are finding in natural gas, we see that in louisiana with hanes bill shale, which has employed thousands of people and brought tens of

thousands of dollars into louisiana's economy. the ability is there to create those jobs and to create that american may energy. american made energy can lead the way and job creation. we can create millions of jobs and bring in billions of dollars in new federal revenue. the only thing standing in the way right now is president obama and his radical policies. with this bill, we are unleashing the potential of america's energy sector in creating those jobs. that is something we need to do to get our economy back on track. mick mulvaney will be the tax guru. >> to follow-up on chairman georges introduction, this was really the start of cut, cap, and balance. as we started to work on that it grew and grew. we knew it had to stand by itself. it is properly seen as a complement to the next step of

cut, cap, and balance. we have regulatory reform, energy reform, and that tax policy reform. tax policy breaks down into two separate pieces, the individual tax policies that congressman garrard talked about and the corporate tax policies. a lot of the work started on actually taking the president at his word in his state of the union address when he said he wanted a lower, flatter, simpler corporate tax rate. we never saw any real movement from that from the white house. our proposals are very simple, we go to a simple 25% flat tax for corporations. we anticipate a world with all the loopholes gone. we are actually trying to put it into action here. one thing we try to move to is an immediate appreciation on

capital expenditures. these are things we think will be solid bipartisan support for. we have a repatriation proposal to encourage the industry to bring money back from overseas. we are hearing there is more and more bipartisan support for that as well. we anticipate going permanently to a territorial tax system. i will talk about my experience with that back in my district. procter and gamble makes duracell batteries. every aa battery they make is made in my district. that factor makes money. they also make them in china, and that factor makes money as well. if procter and gamble makes $100 in my district and $100 over in china -- if they want to bring that money back into the united states to expand that money- making plant in my district, we tax them on it again. the choices so many multinational corporations based these days is, do not want to lose some of that money, do i

want to pay that tax to invested in the united states, or do i want to expand my overseas operation? we are the only developed nation in the world that does this. we are anticipating changing net and are excited about the possibilities that will open up for us. i will turn it over now to the lady from wyoming to talk about more regulatory reform. >> i want to thank all my colleagues for their work on this project. every single year since the clean air act passed, we have had cleaner air, every single year. so now to come in with regulations that are killing jobs at a time when we desperately need jobs is absolutely the wrong approach for this country. i have over here just the rules that have passed in the first 10

months of this year. we stack them up in my office. they are over 9 feet tall. as you all know, the federal register is in teeny tiny print. 9 feet tall. we cannot get it to stay up, it kept falling over. so we wrapped in red tape, because the government just wrapped our economy in red tape. whether i am talking to my local community banker in wyoming, a little farming community, about borrowing some money, loan applications have gone from being this kid to being this thick, for every single borrower. -- from being this fit to being this thick. same business, same banks, and now the ability to borrow money, even for our little business, has become exponentially harder,

exponentially more expensive. imagine trying to start a business in that scenario. i began to wonder, is this the new experience that my little family had happened? i went and did an unscientific survey on my own web site, and i got feedback from all over wyoming. what is the number one impediment to jobs that people in wyoming seat? we targeted businesses with this e-mail. by far and away, federal regulation was listed. it is not even you need to my state. we know from the world bank study that the united states went from no. 3 in ease of starting a business to #13. our ranking has dropped because of this garbage.

we know from the gallup poll recently that it is regulation that is choking business. that is their number one argument, regulation is choking business. i don't know anybody that thinks we are under regulated. honestly, i don't know anybody who thinks we are under regulated. so why don't we do a moratorium on these regulations? why don't we pass the bills that the forgotten 15 at the house sent to the senate that includes a lot of regulatory reform, and just see if it works. i think it is important that we get about the business of taking the shackles of this economy, and this is one way to do it. i would like now to turn over to my colleague from kansas. >> thank you, cynthia. i am from the state of kansas.

i want to thank you for your leadership and others as a freshman, it is and honor to participate in moving the country in the right direction. the president says he wants jobs. we have a plan, the jobs for growth act will create new jobs. we all know washington is not the source of jobs, but it is the impediment to the creation of new jobs. real growth comes from growing the economy, not the government. we need to unleash the potential of america's energy capabilities. the keystone project, the president indicated himself is single-handedly holding up the creation of 25,000 new jobs. mr. president, let the jobs begin. 25,000 jobs. we have the proposed expansion of the electrical power plant in kansas. let the jobs began. we need them in our nation.

we can meet inner -- america's energy needs and improve our national security with the keystone pipeline. the potential is there. the problem is this, red tape in washington. >> i will be very brief. a big thanks to our leader, jim jordan, for initiating this to congressman derrek for spearheading it, and to congressman -- the other congressmen for doing the lion's share of the work. there is somebody in america who doesn't think we are overregulated. that is the president of the united states. this is not hard. this is not rocket science. this is a collision of two dramatically different mindsets. this president believes that this town create jobs. that is what he believes. you all should not be bashful about reporting that. everybody up on this stage believe something very

different. i would argue most of the american people believe something very different. this country creates jobs. all we want our government to do is get out of the way. this plan is the personification of that, to get washington out of the way so that the job creators in this country can do what they do best. this is the response to the president, who for months now has been out campaigning on a jobs plan based on his mind set. let's have that debate. let me introduce my colleague from idaho, congressman labrador. >> i am going to be brief. about four or five months ago was talking to my staff and we were trying to decide what we need to do to change the economy could we started talking about all the plans that were here in congress and we talked about cut, cap, and balance, and we realize we need to cut, cap, and balance the budget. we also talked about how there

is no time in history in the united states that we have actually been able to get out of an economic mess by just cutting spending. i started talking to the rnc and other members of congress that we needed to start talking about growth. we need to have a pro-growth agenda. we decided to write a letter to the president. wrote a letter where we used his own words. we use the words that he used in the state of the union, and i wish that you would look at the words he has said himself. he told us in the state of the union he wanted to get rid of job killing regulations. he told us he wanted to have a flatter and fairer tax and he told us that he wanted to actually have energy independence. he has continued that theme. i invited the president to work with the republicans in the house, and i reminded him that the last time we had huge economic growth, it was under bipartisan legislation when you had bill clinton in the white house and you had republicans in the house and senate, and they

decided to work together to bring america together and to bring america forward. we can do it. we can work together. we can actually grow our way out of this economic mess and save thousands and thousands of jobs that are being lost. we can do it together. now it is time for the president to act on his words, or is he just going to continue to campaign and blame the republicans and house for the problems that he has caused through his of overregulation, over taxation, and over stimulation. we need to do these things. i invite the president and the democrats in the house and senate to work with us. thank you. >> we will take a couple of questions. >> what steps based on what you are hearing from colleagues [unintelligible]

going in the opposite direction and raising taxes. >> obviously we think that is the wrong approach. i will let the members speak for themselves, but my guess is every member is opposed to tax increases. we are watching it closely and reading the same stories that some of you are writing. we saw the story yesterday that six of the 12 now are talking in an independent way. there may be some focus on the catchall term which is revenue. we are watching it closely. we think the way to get economic growth is through a proposal like ours, not for tax increases. >> [unintelligible] there is some form of revenue [unintelligible] >> we are against tax increases.

the speaker has a strong history and a long record of being against raising taxes. obviously this summer when there was talk of this, there was no tax increase, which was one of the positives that came out of the entire debate this past july. we are adamantly opposed to raising taxes. the entire leadership has been strong on that as well. >> [unintelligible] >> what we are talking about is, we don't want the tax burden to increase on families and businesses in this country. our plan reduces the tax burden and make it more fair for families and businesses, so that you get a growing economy and more job creation across the country. >> you have an estimate for how many jobs the plan would create? >> we think it will create a lot more than obama has created, but

we don't have a number. we have not put a score to it. when you do the kind of things that steve and others are talking about on energy, allowing things to take place, he know that indian, that is job creation and additional revenue to the treasury. we think it will generate where it would score it in a positive way. >> [unintelligible] doing something that would be revenue neutral approach to tax reform. >> i will let the tax experts talk about that. >> let's go back to the deficit for a secondary look at the group up here. this is the group has been fighting against the deficit since we got here. you will not find a group were committed to plugging this hole in the deficit.

one of the beauties of actually taking a serious look get this is, you can look at what other countries have done and what the historical experiences have been. the system has prevailed in hong kong since after world war ii. it is actually a flat tax of about 15% with options for rate progressive system. the tax code there is about 200 pages long. it generates almost exactly the same percentage of tax revenue for share of gdp as our tax code does. we believe that simpler taxes it paid. people are more willing to pay the taxes. if the move to a simpler system, we will enjoy the benefits of that. secondly, you have a situation where there is $350 billion every year that is not collected because of complexities of the

system. there is another four hundred billion dollars in tax preparation charges sucked out of the economy that we will be able to push back in. the third piece is what the opportunities are here, which is grown. you put together the simplicity of the system, which has been proven worldwide to generate the same percentage of gdp as we have now. you have this tax gap, the money we expect to collect, and then we have growth. none of those things are scored on the way the cbo is going to look at this bill. if we take real-world approach, the deficit -- it will help solve the deficit problem, and not a single one of us would be up. we thought otherwise. thank you all very much. we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> all house republicans were outline their plans, the question of jobs was on the senate floor in remarks from chuck schumer and minority leader mitch mcconnell. their comments or little less than a half hour. >> there is no denying the fact that the policies of the past 2.5 years have made a bad situation worse. for 2.5 years, the democrats completely dominated this town. they got everything they wanted.

and what happened? unemployment has hovered around 8% for 32 months. the so-called misery index is worse than it has been in more than 25 years. unemployment has hovered around 9%. consumer confidence is at levels last seen during the height of the fund into crisis. if there is one number that really stands out, it is this. 1.5 million. that is the number of fewer jobs we have in this country since the day president obama sign his signature jobs bill into law. these are just some of the numbers and that all of us, republicans and democrats, read about every single day. but it is not the numbers that compel us to action. it is the stories that lie behind them. it is the millions of men and women who have seen their dreams shattered, their lives up in did, and their potential unfulfilled.

what republicans have been saying is that if we truly want to help improve the situation we are in, if we really want to turn this ship around, then we need to learn from our mistakes and take a totally different approach. we know what policies have not worked. we have tried that. what sense does it make to try the same policies again and again? that is why republicans in the house and senate have been taking a different approach. democrats may control the white house and may control the senate, but for the past 10 months, republicans in the other half of congress have done their best to correct the mistakes and excesses of the previous 2.5 years and set us on a different course. they have done something else the democrats have not done of the past few years. week after week, the republican majority in the house of representatives has been passing bills that actually have a chance of gaining bipartisan

support and becoming law. they are actually trying to do something. unlike the president and the democrats who run the senate, house republicans are designing legislation to pass rather than fail. they want to make a difference rather than make a point. the only thing keeping these bills from becoming law is that some democrats in the senate will not take them up. we know the president's strategy, the so-called jobs bill has one purpose, and only one. to divide us. just this morning i read a story that quoted some democratic operatives almost bragging about the fact that the don't expect any of the legislation the president has been out there talking about on the bus tour to pass. that openly admit these bills are designed to fail. it is not exactly a state secret that republicans and some democrats don't think we should be raising taxes right now on

the very people we are counting on to create the jobs we need to get us out of the jobs crisis. yet the one thing that every single proposal the democrats bring to the floor has in common, it does just that. so the democrats plan is to keep putting a bill, for they know ahead of time we will vote against, instead of trying to solve the problem. the don't even hide it. the president's top strategist issued a memo a few weeks ago saying the president will use this legislation not as a way to help people, but as a way to pummel republicans. meanwhile, house republicans have passed bill after bill after bill that are actually designed to do something. on march 31, the past hr872, the reducing regulatory burdens act. it got 57 democratic votes in the house, a bipartisan bill that could pass and become law.

on april 7, the past hr910, the energy tax prevention act. it got 19 democratic votes. there are 15 of these, madam president, that passed each with significant democratic support. 28, one with 21, one with 23, one with 16, one with 10, one with 47 votes. so there are 15 of these bills that have passed the house with bipartisan support, and here in the senate we don't take any of them up because we're busy taking up bills that everybody knows are not going to pass. this week over in the house they're going to pass four more bills making it eier to hire out-of-work americans. and just last week house republicans passed a bill that

would repeal a law requiring the i.r.s. to withhold 3% of future tax payments from any customer that does business with the government, a bill the president himself said he'd be willing to sign into law. 170 democrats voted for it. why don't we pass it here in the senate? the president is waiting to sign it. this is just the latest example of a simple bipartisan bill that struling businesses are begging us to pass, but t senate democrats are holding it up right now because it doesn't fit t story line. now i'm not saying we have to vote on every one of the bills that the house passed just as they are. there is an amendment process for that. but why not take them up? every one would help create jobs and none -- none -- would raise taxes. that's what we call compromise. it's called finding common ground. and it's how the american people expect us to legislate. what we're witnessing in washington right now is two very

different styles of governance. a republican majority in the house that believes we should actually do somethi about the problems we face and which has put together and actually passed bipartisan legislation that would help address those problems. and a democratic majority here in the senate that's teamed up with the white house on a strategy of doing nothing. nothing. all for the sake of trying to score political points and spread the blame for an economy that their own policies have seen in place as they look ahead to an election that's still more than a year away. now the president's economic policies have failed to do what he said they would. and now he's designing legislation to fail. americans are actually tired of failure. so republicans are inviting democrats to join us in succeeding at something -- anything -- around here that would make a differenc

i guess to sum it up, madam president, what we're saying is why don't we quit playing the political games? the problems we face are entirely too serious to ignore. let's take up bipartisan bills, house republicans have already passed and actually do something. there is no better timeo tackle the problems we face than now. let's not squander this moment because some political strategists over at the white house is enamored with their own reelection strategy. let's take advantage of this moment when the two parties share power in washington to act. as i often note, it's only when the two parties share power that they can share the credit and the blame. that's why some ofhe biggest legislative achievements have taken place at moments like

this. and that's why i've been calling on democrats in washington privately and publicly for the past yr to follow the example of those congresses and those presidents before us who were wise enough to seize an opportunity like this one for the good of the country we face many serious crises as a nation. we know how to solve them. let's not let this moment pass right. well, madam president, today i would like to discuss the jobs bill we're currently debating and how important it is that we pass this right away. i'd also like to respond to the minority leader's remarks this morning in which he tried to deny the bipartisan nature of this proposal and instead sought to divert this chamber towards a hodgepodge of bills taken up by the house. mr. president, madam president, all across the country and in our state of new york from

poughkeepsie to buffalo, there are roads, bridges and sewer systems in need of serious repair. and in each of these places, there are thousands of middle-class families desperately looking for work. in the construction trades, the backbone of the middle class in many of our communities, in new york and around the country, there is 25%, 30%, 40% unemployment, and that's true for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we all know that in previous recessions, 60% of the new jobs were in construction. that's because they would lower interest rates and build more housing. now there is no more lower interest rates because when the recession began, they were already very low, and of course there is a surplus of housing right now in america. but this week, by voting to pass the rebuild america jobs act, the senate can get thousands of those americans off the

unemployment line and back into the work force, and because they get paid good salaries, the money they get flows into the economy and creates a multiplier effect and creates other jobs. these are good, solid, high-skilled american jobs, jobs that we need. and investing in our roads, bridges and sewer systems couldn't be more urgent. more than one in four of our nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or obsolete. i put out a list of those in new york state and it was astounding in every part of our state, and we all know as we get closer to winter, our deteriorating roads will place a heavy burden on commuters and on local taxpayers. our local towns and villages and counties and cities, they can't afford the infrastructure work that's needed right now because of tight budgets and budget cutbacks at the federal, state and local levels. and as this past weekend's storm

made clear, investing in our crumbling sewer systems has never been more essential as up and down the northeast old sewer systems give way to serious flooding. now, we can make a down payment on these priorities by passing this bill, and we should do so in a bipartisan manner. when i travel across new york state, two of the first things people bring up to me are jobs and fixing our infrastructure. this bill does both. it doesn't matter whether the people are democrat, republican, independent -- upstate, downstate, men, women, liberal, servive. they all say the same thing and we see this reflected in public opinion. a recent cnn poll showed that nearly three-quarters of americans support additional federal investments in our infrastructure. yes, they're worried about the deficit and our long-term fiscal

health. but they know we can't cut our seed corn. infrastructure projects that create jobs and help america grow economically. here's the best part of this bill: it invests in projects that create jobs, but it's fully paid for by asking the wealthiest among us -- those who have incomes -- incomes -- of over $1 million -- to pay a praks on more of their taxes and they pay that not on their entire income but just on the part that's before $1 million. so if a millionaire, someone worth a lot of money, if somebody has an income of $1.1 million, they only pay this small .7% increase on the $100,000 that's over a million. their first million doesn't change. the tax policy doesn't change. now, over the last drkd the middle class has taken a punch in the gut. the cost of sending kids to

college has gone way up, the job market is tougher and tougher. middle-class incomes are declining while middle-class costs are rising. it is so hard as a family -- the middle-class family sittings around the dinner table friday night to figure out thousand pay all those bills and provide a great live for the future and for the children. the very wealthy, the very, very wealthy have done very well over the last decade. a lot of those wealthy people live in our state of new york. we say, god bless them. they've started successful businesses, done well over the last decade, and so, to pay for this bill, we're just asking them to pay a sliver more -- .7% more of each dollar they earn over $1 million, and this one they can't say, well, we're afraid the money will be wasted because it goes to infrastructure, directly to infrastructure. and there is no -- the way this

is set up, there's no politics in the process. it's the most needed projects that work. let me give you a fact, folks. right now -- i know many of my colleagues joined with me and senator brown, senator stabenow, senator casey in saying china has got to play fair. we're all worried that china will get ahead of us economically. well, right now china is spending four times as much on infrastructure as the united states -- four times as much. that's not four times per capita as much. that's four times as much. and here's the real kicker: according to a recent survey of 1,400 business leaders in 142 countries, the u.s. ranks number 24 in overall infrastructure quality. is that a shame? we're behind countries like barbados and oman. we also rank number 20 in roads, behind the united arab emirates

and libya. 29th in ports, behind malaysia, bahrain and panama. and 31st in air transportation infrastructure, behind chile, and malta. how can it be? these great united states which we dearly love, which always was at the top in creating roads and bridges and tunnels and great water systems. the third water tunnel in new york is being built right now. it is an engineering wonder. it started in the 1950's, the planning for it i believe. and now we're number 31 in transportation, 22 in ports, 20 in roads, in those categories behind countries like the united arab emirates, portugal, malaysia, thailand, chile? if that isn't a wake-up call, i don't know what is. we can't afford to let our

global competitors get the edge. so this bill rebuilds our infrastructure, will send a shot into the arm of an economy that desperately needs it, and pays for it only by taxing those with an income over $1 million of those who are very, very wealthy and have done very well in our society. how can we vote against something like this? well, one would think maybe the only haven't because some people don't want the economy to grow and prosper. i hate to think that, but infrastructure has always been a bipartisan issue in this body, and it should continue to be. now let me respond directly to the minority leader's comments this morning. he derided the proposal on the floor as something that had already been tried, something that had no chance of passing, and something that was not

bipartisan. well, first, already been tried? oh, yeah. is the minority leader saying because we built the eerie canal or the highway system in the 1950's we shouldn't do anymore infrastructure? it makes no sense. makes no sense. and every study shows that the infrastructure part of the stimulus bill created lots of jobs and then left us with better infrastructure. now, then he said -- as i mentioned -- not just was it i t tried already, but it was not bipartisan. well, we know that the need for infrastructure is a bipartisan economy. because the minority leader may be imposing a top-down strategy that bars anyone on his side from voting for any proposal offered by the president to improve the economy doesn't mean these proposals aren't

bipartisan. just yesterday the former republican senator from ohio, a fiscal conservative if there ever was one, senator voinovich, was quoted saying he believed the need to repair our roads and bridges was so great that he thought president obama should be raising the gas tax to fund those investments. i don't know if i agree with him on that specific solution, but, mr. president, isn't that remarkable? a republican senator calling for revenue increases to pay for infrastructure investment. that's what we do in this bill, madam president. and let me just say once again, he's not in the senate right now, so he's free to pretty much do what he wants. i would hope other senators who are here in the senate would join in that call because i believe they know in their heart it is the right thing to do. the only difference between what we proposed and senator voinovich proposed is that instead of asking middle-class

americans to pay more at the pump, we ask those whose income is above $1 million to pay their fair share to help put construction workers back on the job. that seems like the right set of priorities to me. so the minority leader is clearly wrong when he says this concept isn't bipartisan. another former senator, chuck hagel from nebraska, has been a leader in calling for an infrastructure bank, which is in this bill. senator hagel sponsored one of the first pieces of legislation creating an infrastructure bank and has continued to call for it since leaving the senate. so there are lots of republicans out in the country who support this measure. the polling shows a large, large number of republicans support the kind of proposal we have on the floor. building infrastructure and having those who make over $1 million pay for it so we don't increase the deficit. that is a bipartisan proposal.

so, mr. president, let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else -- madam president, let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else that the proposal on the floor isn't bipartisan. just this morning the top republican on the environment and public works committee is quoted discussing the progress that he and the chairwoman of that committee are making on a two-year surface transportation bill. this is great news. i'm glad to hear they're close to advancing that bill. but if you believe infrastructure is enough of a priority that you can support a long-term highway bill, why would you object to speeding up 107some of that investment now o we can put more in americans to work quickly? madam president -- you're clearly madam president -- this bill is bipartisan for sure. the minority leader just has a political strategy to block all of our president's initiatives

to improve the economy. now, what has the minority leader called for instead? he's called for the senate to take up a hodgepodge of bills sent over by house republicans that even when taken together don't do enough to tackle the jobs problem. who would believe that this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than the traditional way we get out of recessions: infrastructure building. most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to do with jobs at all. many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyists' wish list rather than any serious jobs agenda. it's a stretch to call many of these bipartisan. many of these bills are items that republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a boom and had full employment. many are just ideological

priorities dressed up as job solutions. it's laughable for the house leadership to act like these proposals would address the jobs crisis when they are signature on real solutions like the china currency bill. i would say to the speaker and majority leader over in the house who want to do something about jobs and are worried about the two houses not working together, we had a large bipartisan majority -- 65 votes -- saying we're going to force china to play fair on currency. their failure to do so causes millions of jobs, good manufacturing jobs primarily, not exclusively, to leave this country. there is nothing congress can do more that would uplift our manufacturing sector than confront china's unfair trade practices. but speaker boehner, majority leader canter sit on that bill and now tell us to take up this little hodgepodge of items?

autograpour bill passed, the cha currency bill with a bipartisan supermajority in the senate. the house leadership continues to sit on the sidelines while china takes advantage of us, and the china exrenc currency bill s languishing in the house for no good reason. speaker boehner, heed the will of your chamber and put that bill on the floor. and the minority leader in the senate would be well-served to stop pretending that these pieces of the president's jobs bill are not bipartisan just because he is withholding his support in service to perhaps a strategy that outlines his number-one goal: the defeat of the president. it's time to stop the games and accomplish something that can make a real dent in the jobs crisis. i say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, pass this

bill, rebuild our ailing and aging infrastructure, create jobs, and make sure that what we do here does not reduce the deficit by having those whose income exceeds $1 million pay a small, bass said the economy would be worse off. this is 50 minutes. >> this afternoon. welcome. the war review the policy decisions of the market committee.

i will place it in the context of our economic projections. the committee decided to maintain the policies that were initiated a previous meetings. the committee is keeping the target range at the zero.14%. it will warrant load funds through 2013. the committee will continue to extend the average maturity by purchasing an equal amount of shorter-term securities.

by helping theere balance s heet. we are continuing our previously announced program in which the principal payments are being reinvested. the committee regularly reduce the size of the holdings. we are prepared to adjust these as appropriate. the purchase pence amid projections for economic growth, the unemployment rate, and the inflation rate for the years 2011-2014. the tendency is our indicated in the figures that have been distributed. the projection shown represent the assessment of the break to which each variable will

converge over time. the longer projection has a tendency of 2.4%. the longer run have a tendency of 5.2% to 6.0%. this can be interpreted as estimates of the growth. because the rate of output growth are determined by non monetary factors that may evolve, these estimates are uncertain and subject to revision. the tendency for inflation is 1.7% to 2.7%.

these projections reflect judgment about the inflation rate that is most consistent with the federal reserve mandate of stable prices. the rate is just to be 2% less. i turn to the economic outlook. the projections for 2011 have a tendency of 1.7%. output growth strengthened, and had win on growth earlier in the year. global supply disruptions associated with the japan have diminished. the prices of oil and other commodities have gone down. the committee expects only a

moderate pace of growth in quarters reflecting the troubled housing sector and credit conditions for many households. looking further ahead, growth is expected to pick up somewhat. it strengthens confidence. the central tendency pecks of gradually from 2.4% it to 2.9% in 2012. in light of the anticipated ones, they expect the rate will come in coming quarters. projections have a tendency of

8.5% it to a 0.7%. it is lower than they lately monthly reading. the unemployment rate is expected to climb further by the fourth quarter of 2014, well above estimates for the longer run rate of unemployment. while we still expect economic activity will improve gradually over time, the pace of progress is likely to be frustratingly slow. there are some of again downside risks. issues have contributed. the fed had adverse effects of confidence and growth. we will continue to monitor european developments closely. i will turn to the outlook for inflation. the prices of oil and other ones

are earlier this year. they picked up over the first half of 2011, reflecting higher prices of gasoline, food, and goods and services. prices of motor vehicles surged. inflation appears to have moderated. a survey measures a market indicators implied that longer- term inflation exhortations have remained stable. inflation will settle at or below the mandate consistent rate of two% or less. the tendency for inflation projection is 2.7%-2.9%.

it remained subdued for 2014. the committee will pay close attention to the evolution of inflation expectations. the current outlook shows context. the mandate for the congress is to say maximin unemployment. frederick is to save a maximum unemployment. the committee decided to maintain the current degree of monetary policy accommodation. we'll continue to assess the outlook. we are prepared to employ our tools to promote a stronger economic recovery. they strive to do this as clearly as possible.

we have a series of discussions about the approaches to a provide additional information about our policy goals and strategies. no decisions about approaches were made about this meeting. thank you for your patience. >> over the past several months, there has been increasing criticism. e received a letter on the eve of a meeting encouraging enough to take actions from the gop leadership perr. what are the gop candidates not

hearing? stay non-ried to sanine partisan. we do what we can for maximum unemployment. although it must be accountable, in the short term is important that they be free from pressures. we will make these decisions based on what is good for the economy. i would point to the record. this has been average to%.

the criticism is based on the concern of inflation. we listened to everyone's input. we are free to make decisions based on the interest of the american people. do. is what we're going to >> >> what are your views of the advantages and disadvantages? the mandate is a dual mandate. to have one for both employment and price stability. we have a free market in place that allows us to communicate and think about the mandate.

we talked about nominal gdp as a variable us something to add to the list of variables with think about. it is an interesting discussion the lives of both sides of the mandate, not just some accommodation. we can do this. we have not contemplating any radical change in framework perr. >> you said you understand some of the framework. the leaded the anger is directed at the fed. some say the fed is part of the problem.

is the can the fed to anything to >> i understand that many people are dissatisfied with the state of the economy. increases in the quality have been going on for 30 years. that has continued. i sympathize with the notion that the economy is not performing the way we would like to be. i think the concerns about the fed are based on misconceptions. the federal reserve was involved.

weaver during this because it wanted to preserve salaries. that is not the case. we are trying to prevent a serious collapse of both financial system and the american economy. i believe that our efforts which proves successful were very much in the interest of the broad public. it would be helpful to keep its

assistance to work with us to help create more jobs. we're doing our part to try to create more jobs and opportunities. this is too good chance to earn in coming gain experience. >> the statement says that this will stay near current levels through mid-2013.

does that suggest the fed could conceive of raising short-term interest rates before unemployment gets to 8% are lower tax it could be beyond that. one of the things we discussed was having my brother clarify this part of the statement. we have not come to this point yet. there is no implication that we would necessarily move to 2013

with those conditions prevailing. >> we had the balance sheet march to the regionaoriginal bae sheet. this belongs scale as a purchase. >> who like to turn our portfolio to this only. they began to reigbring it up.

there by creating this. the housing sector is very important. i do thing purchases of mortgage backed securities is a viable option. it is seven we would consider it conditions where appropriate. we will certainly look at that. >> thank you. this seems to be holding a lot of cash.

the deficit is very large. could you shed some light on /his ta >> a great deal of the investment takes the form of u.s. government debt. it reflects the desire for liquidity and safety. they hold these primarily us change reserves. while it is good that foreign central banks has the confidence to buy u.s. treasury, it is not like the same as investing in

equipment. with us in a little bit of improvement. it is too low to be consistent with the full economy. >> could you comment on the failure of mf global? the ration was 40-1. were you aware? did the fed approve? is that acceptable of a level ratio? >> the new york federal reserve bank approved it to be a dealer in feb of this year. the company met the criteria had been set forth.

we accept the standards in a way that would allow smaller firms to participate. there are a couple of points. this is done by them. we do not have ongoing insight into developments within the company. this and not in any way constitute to a seal of approval. we were a primary dealer. the stock trading with them.

we suffered no consequences. the company declined quickly based on the a small number of large bets. we are not aware of that. we are not the overseer's. >> was that an isolated case? and appears that we are monitoring the cost of impacts on funding markets elsewhere. we have not seen any signifi cant impact. >> should they be doing this?

corrects the combination of a broker-dealer and futures commission markets imply that the sec is the appropriate supervisors. there would not have qualified under the provisional guidance. there's no plan for them to be an overseer of the companies. >> this is a third straight set of economic projections of have been downgraded. is there some systematic error or blind spot that is behind these forecast stacks water you

do to understand what a gong? >> we spend a lot of time reviewing those errors. we look at this very carefully. i think it is clear that in retrospect the severity of the financial crisis and a number of other problems including the house and market is more persistent. there were deleveraging by the household sector. but it slowed the pace of recovery. we have downgraded the medium term forecast.

i would add that although i think it is very important to look at the fundamental factors affecting the recovery, there have been some elements of bad luck. and natural disasters in japan. the european debt crisis was not anticipated to be as severe. all of these things have the negatives for growth. they explain part of the downward revision. >> many wonder what the fed has accomplished.

this is the effect the have on interest rates. can you explain what you have managed to accomplish? what do you fill your mandate has required you to do? >> it is a fair question. this has effects on the economy. we talked about the effects in asset prices. analyze the changes in interest rates on decisions like this. this has been a mortgage market

where credit standards have prevented many people from refinancing their homes. monetary policy may be less powerful up than has been in the past. if you ask about the accomplishments, i would mention a very important one. we have kept inflation close to average parent it is difficult to get out of once you're there. we've been able to achieve stable prices on average. with respect to growth, our policies including cutting our

interest rates and the first round of asset purchases in the fall were very important for helping to explain why the economy began to grow again. a lot of things to promote growth. we have been successful with some of the later actions. our best estimates are that the economy would be in much deeper ditch and unemployment will be much higher than it is. people recognize that we have not yet gotten the economy back to where we wanted it to be.

this is perfectly understandable. i do think we do need to do what we can to move this toward price stability. >> use if you consider more purchases. can you elaborate a lot would be appropriate? >> and nothing that could be as precise. the purchases are one set of tools we have.

they tie this to economic decisions or time. the committee will have to look at the alex. this is in terms of inflation falling. the committee would try to take corrective action. it is a committee decision. we remain prepared.

>> year colic phrase this as further action would be required in the action of this. does this mean that if we do not see improvement that further action will be required? >> i cannot speak for my colleagues. it is very unsatisfactory. the judgment we will have to make are the tools we have.

we're going to have to continue to evaluate the outlook. we have looked at the entire array of data appeari >> in the european debt deal that will mayor may not come pass, it has been said that the bank's operating at 89% tier one capital ratio. a lot of u.s. banks have been arguing that it cannot afford to do that and reduced lending.

it did put them at a competitive disadvantage. do you think it is appropriate that the big banks should except such a capital requirement? how does that developments stand at this time? >> we are in the process of implementing bael 3 that has a buffer of 7%. and additional surcharges. we think that is appropriate. the 9% is not comparable to the requirements that we will be imposing. the composition of their capital is not common equity. i do not know what risks are

being applied. there is a number of questions up probability perr. this is being phased in their recovery. these have all the key elements. >> you parley addressed this. given that your forecast is still looking for employment and you're not worried about inflation, why not act today?

>> our forecast is not a very satisfactory one. unemployment is very high. growth is very slow. we have taken a lot of action. it is clear that this is highly accommodative del. we brought rates close to zero. we have taken a lot of steps in the last two meetings. they're being very aggressive. we're prepared to do this.

we've taken quite a bit of action. more if itared to do no mor is appropriate. there's a broad range of policies that can affect growth and employment. this will complement and supplement the reserve's efforts. >> you mentioned a streak of bad luck. the debt deal was seemingly done. are you getting the sense that the economy cannot catch a break? how would you advise them to

deal with the sharks for -- shock to the economy? >> we did over estimate the recovery for fundamental reasons. of the did it to do the repair and the state of the housing market. there has been a certain amount of bad luck. there has been volatility associated. there has been this concern.

consumer confidence is about where it was. drag on the consumer's ability to invest. americans are trying to improve their balance sheets. this is important. you want to budget properly. financial literacy is a big part of this. lack of literacy is what got us here in the first place. i would it buys people to be

smart. the things that are happening there do affect us. i know that europeans will find a set of solutions allow markets to come down. >> could you explain the many option that the committee has? it might make sense to them to publish a forecast. >> as i noted, and no decisions have been made.

final outcome here. there are a range of things we can do. we can provide information about what we want inflation to be. we compared inflammation -- information about the future past. an alternative approach would tie it to economic conditions and provide more information. this is something we have discussed. it is an interesting alternative. there's a lot of interest in using the economic projections. it provides information about our plans. in particular using it as a way

to get information about our future policy. decision made about that. it is one direction that we might find productive. >> he mentioned that it has an impact here. to what degree can they do to react? >> it is frustrating. the key decision makers in europe are the european leaders. it is their response ability. i and other economic policy makers prefer to meet with

policymakers on a regular basis. sometimes they take the advice and sometimes they don't. what we can do is only a couple of things. we can look at their own financial institutions and try to assess the exposures between our institutions and those in europe. we have been doing this on a consistent basis. we have looked at other regulators. they have connections to europe. that is one thing we can do. we can stand ready to provide whatever support of the economy needs should things worsened. we are hopeful that the latest measures will reduce the

stretches. our policies are available to insulate the u.s. economy from the effects. >> can you talk about what impact you have seen from operation twist? de have any message from those here are relying on those instruments? >> it is a little bit early to assess the effects of the maturity of extension. it does seem to be having the intended effect of lowering longer-term interest rates and twisting the yield curve.

that, in turn, should lead to still lower mortgage rates and other things that are relative to the economy. we are quite aware that low interest rates, particularly for a protracted time frame, do have costs for a lot of people. they have costs for savers. we get complaints from banks who complain that their interest rates are affected. pension funds will be affected if low-interest rates continue, it will require them to make larger contributions. we are aware of those concerns and we take them very seriously. the response is, though, that there is a greater good here, which is the health and recovery of the u.s. economy. and for that purpose we have been keeping monetary policy conditions supported in trying to support job creation. after all, sabres will not get -- sabres will not get --

savers will not get very good returns in an economy that is in a deep recession. ultimate, you have to invest in an economy that is growing. we believe that our policy will ultimately benefit not just workers and firms and households in general, but it will benefit savers as well as the returns they can earn on their best since will improve with the -- on their investments and they will improve with the improvement of the economy. >> given how difficult it has been to bring down unemployment in the past, why are you confident that you have the tools to bring it down in the future? >> we have the ability to provide more stimulus and accommodation. we believe that a good bit of the unemployment that we are seeing is the kind that we would call cyclical unemployment, that is, unemployment that is rising because of inadequate demanded

the economy. if that is the case, that monetary policy by lowering interest rates and making financial conditions more accommodative, it should stimulate demand and over some time it will bring down cyclical unemployment. that is something that we know from a lot of experience. although it has been a very slow process here, but there is no reason to think that the same basic approach will not work in this case as well. it is also possible that part of the unemployment is from mismatches between workers' skills and job opportunities, a loss of skills, geographical mismatch, etc. to the extent that is the case, monetary policy is much less effective. if that is the case come all the other kinds of labor market policies can affect that. but again, a good part of it is

cyclical and is amenable to a monetary policy. final comment. cyclical unemployment, if left untreated for some time, can become structural unemployment as people lose skills, as their networks dry up and so on. and as they lose attachment to the labour force. from that perspective, it is important to address the unemployment problem while it is still amenable to monetary policy. >> you mentioned that the fed has the tools and will use it. but given the numbers from the third quarter, it is fair to say that the fomc [unintelligible] -- less aggressively considering accommodation given an improvement in the third quarter. >> we saw, for example, stronger consumption spending,

a reasonable amount of capital investment, lower inventories, therefore suggesting more production in the fourth quarter. it looks like the fourth quarter will also be a moderate growth quarter. there was some improvement at least early in the timeframe in the financial markets. although, it looks like that was reversed. that was part of the situation that we acknowledge in our statements as true. but as has been noted, the outlook remains unsatisfactory over the next few years and we will continue to ask ourselves whether or not additional stimulus or additional actions can be accommodative. that is something that will remained on the table as we go forward.

thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and a few moments, new hampshire secretary of state announces the date for his state's first in the nation presidential primary. in a little less than half an hour, the chief of the four branches of the armed services testify on the capitol hill, saying that cuts in defense but in -- dispense spending will be detrimental to national security. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow on a companion network c-span 3. the senate banking to mindy

holds a hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern on -- banking committee holds a hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern on protecting military service members from predatory lending and then at 12:45 p.m. eastern, the pentagon briefing on u.s. troop withdrawal from iraq. >> obviously, reading the web books is usually helpful, but reading a long book is educational as well. it is like seeing a bad movie. you can see what you would have done differently yourself. >> given that she won a pulitzer prize and was a senior editor at simon and schuster, her advice is pretty good. >> i've think every young writer should remember that publishers are desperate for a new book to publish and an exciting new water to publish. there should be enormous help

for what is yet to be done. >> if more with stacey shift sunday night on c-span's kendeigh. >> new hampshire will remain its new hampshire park -- romaine the first primary, this year. >> good morning. this will be the 25th new hampshire potential primary. contrary to what you may have heard, this is only the ninth one to what i set the date for. [laughter] standing to my left is former state representative and senator jim blaine, who wrote

the language 36 years ago that was the first protection that was codified in state law to preserve the tradition of the new hampshire primary. he has been with me when i have set the date in years past. to my right is cy gregg, the son of the late former governor hugh gregg, who in my opinion champion to the primary -- championed the primary more than anyone else in my years in office. and kay gregg, but she was unable to be with us. i asked cy, and he was with me in 2004 when i set the day then. last week at the end of the

filing time frame, and o'donnell, one of the candidates -- ed o'donnell, one of the candidates, he came up to me and he had filed many years ago. he said something to me that sums up in many ways what the new hampshire presidential primary tradition is all about. he said that there are still many tyrants in countries around the world, but new hampshire is like no other place on earth. all individuals, regardless of their status in life, can get their name placed on the ballot by a very simple process and have a chance to run for president.

and he made that comment, as others have in the past, that new -- the new hampshire primary has been, regardless of the pass, -- the past, they have a chance here. it will be held on the second tuesday, the 10th day of an exterior -- next to your, 2012. most of you in this room have in your own way, whether you are legislative leaders, legislators, party leaders -- from all walks of life -- have helped inappropriate ways -- helped in appropriate ways to

protect the primary, and that happened again this year. it's whether it was your work with candidates who took a lot of appropriate action that they felt was best, but a lot of individuals here have been part of preserving that tradition. i want to point out that our friends in iowa and south carolina, and particularly the state republican chairs there matt strong and chad connolly, they were very helpful at the critical times during this last month to six weeks demonstrating the solidarity of the early states, and both were willing to come here to demonstrate that solidarity if it was necessary.

in their owne able t personal conversations to help without having to do that publicly. i will ask a former representative blaine, because without that language 36 years ago we would not be where we are. that was the first time that after having the primary for over half a century with a specific law having it on a specific day, it was necessary after 50 years to change if we needed, to have the flexibility if we needed, to preserve and honor a tradition. i was in the legislature at the time and i know there were a lot of people there were not exactly supportive of that at that time. but the language was put in the to the statutes -- was put into

and the language has come in handy over the years. and he has always been here in my years to make sure i live up to what the spirit of the law actually meant. with that, would you like to say something, jim? >> i have been involved in one way or another in every primary in new hampshire since 1960 when i delivered a little flyers in my neighborhood for a neighboring u.s. senator who was running for president. in all that time i have learned and scene was -- that the new hampshire primary is not about new hampshire. it is about protecting american democracy, to make sure there is a way and a place where candidates running for office in a real election, which new hampshire primary is, can be

with the voters' eye to eye and face to face in their living rooms and on the street. it is not so much about money. it is not so much about national networking. it is about relating to people, and we get to see them up close. they learn from us as well. it has never been about competition between new hampshire and any other state or any other national parties. that new hampshire will consider in the future in 2016, 2020, whatever, a december scenario if necessary, as the secretary of state indicated he might be willing to do this year. that should give a message to other states that they need to find ways to be able to make sure that the seven days or more after new hampshire is a protected window in the future. and i think this year we did incredibly well at being able to make clear that the seven days

is what the new hampshire primary is all about. there are at least seven days, and there likely will be more this time, after the seventh -- the new hampshire primary that the candidates either did well, either came in first or second, or communicated their messages while and learned a lot in our state and can go on to other states and do well there. it is the strategy of the past several months to make sure new hampshire will stay first, and begins the process that the election for the candidates begins today. january 10, 2012 happens to be 68 days from now. the polls open in new hampshire at midnight on that day. and that is 1644 hours from now. the candidates have a lot of

work to do. what we have learned in the past, though, is that everything that has been done before this date as the new hampshire primary series that gets under way is what has happened in the past. we have seen a lot of unpredictability in candidates in past elections, and candidates want ordaz -- might want to forget the polls, they might want to forget the fund- raising they have already done. they might want to focus on the next 68 days in new hampshire because this is where it counts. bill, you did a wonderful job again. >> thank you. [applause] >> realistically, how close were we, if nevada had not moved, to announcing that we would be in december? >> well, uh -- i was sort of on

the edge of a cliff. i was hoping that if i had to move, there would be a pile of water to jump into, if necessary. this cycle, in my opinion, the most difficult cycle for new hampshire was 1984. then 1996. and then 2000. and in 2008. and this one. [laughter] we had been at the point where if you have considered the cliff to be going the year before, had said first that new hampshire could possibly have its primary before the end of this year only after it was confirmed by need that nevada had a resolution that said the nevada was going to have its

event four days after new hampshire, whenever new hampshire was going to have its event. once i confirmed that, i knew that based on that, we would have to have the possibility on the table that we might have to go the year before. we face the before the 1990's. if we had two states that actually have laws that they were or to have their primaries on the same day that ours was going to be. and we know the four days after us, that state decided to set a date and then that state decided to change the date. we never had to look at the other side of the cliff.

we were just looking on the side that we had come from. >> what do the party is due in the case of florida in the next election cycle to prevent this from happening again? >> that is a question, certainly, on a lot of people's minds across the country. i am always hopeful. i thought after the last cycle that we would not face this again. and i am hopeful that in the next cycle we will not have to face it again. but there is no simple answer to that question. >> [unintelligible]

[laughter] are you encouraged, though, by the way the nevada situation was handled, that they do understand the way we want to go about this in the future? >> yes, and by what they demonstrated they were willing to do to help in the process. that was a good thing. and it helped. >> for those who do not know, can you remind us about the new hampshire is record in picking presidents? >> new hampshire has always -- the winner of the new hampshire primary, going back, has become president except for three

times, and it was a second place finisher in new hampshire that became president. no one has finished below second and become president since we have had a listing of the presidential candidates on the ballot, in addition to what we have the delegates on about grouped together by candidates of that a voter could actually -- by candidates, so that a border could actually -- you do not have to win in new hampshire. in some cases, a candidate who exceeded expectations substantially was perceived to be the winner here. that is an historical fact over the years that has made a difference for some candidates. and that was clearly the case

in 1968 when this primary really gained the attention of the country because of what happened here, a sitting president changing his mind and decided not to run for reelection after the new hampshire primary, and before the next state have a primary. >> with that record, in your opinion, what does that say about the new hampshire primary? >> while, the thing about the new hampshire primary, and new hampshire in particular, just think about this. four years ago, over half a million individuals in this state went to a polling place on january 8 and voted. over 500,000 voters that day. we have 529,000 votes cast. less than 5% were by absentee. people in this state wait until the end.

they do not do early innings, late innings, or even middle innings. they want to watch all of it. significant events have been here during the last weekend of the campaign. it it has become sort of symbolic for people, sort of making the difference a among parties and candidates are not as great as the general election. little things make the difference. people in this state care deeply about who they choose, and that it be right for the country. they put a lot of time and effort into this. they attend the events. we have a survey after 2000 that actually one-fourth of the people surveyed said they had shaken the hand of a presidential candidate. i think about that. not just ask a question, but actually shaken the hand of a

candidates. people care here and we have this turn out that every person on the checklist in new hampshire can vote in the presidential primary. we have a closed primary because you have to declare your party before you vote, but we do not have a requirement that someone has to stay in the party for a week, six months, six years. we do not have it original requirement, but before you vote, you have to have declared your party. and anyone who does can vote. that is why our numbers are so high and that is why the result here is so meaningful, because it is a true cross-section, not just a small percentage. but a huge percentage of the people of this state. >> what role do the presidential

candidates have -- some out there say it is a distraction. what do you think? >> anything that candidates felt was appropriate on their own to help preserve the tradition of the primary helps us and is appreciated. crutsinger during this 247-24 -- >> been doing this 24/7 news cycle that we have, you kind of get elevated into other worldly status. it was old hampshire before bill gardner got here. it is new hampshire now. [laughter] what do you think about the status you have created around yourself? >> well, we did not know much about it.

there is a suspect in this room -- [laughter] who is believed to have started that. but no one has actually treated in this office. -- tweeted in this office. i was actually asking people just six weeks ago if they could show me what this is all about. there was only one person who had actually ever looked at it. it was pretty entertaining. the first person to mention it to me was the second day. and the person actually told me two of them, and one of them was about the 11 days versus the seven days. of the other one was about that i was not really bald, just my hair left in fear. [laughter] those were the two but i

actually heard. -- that i actually heard. when i set the date for the first primary, we have the three national networks and that was it. and then we got cnn and some of the others. and then later cycles, we have local tv stations from detroit or atlanta, and each cycle, technology has changed how this is followed by the rest of the country. wherever you live in the country, it is almost in your backyard because of technology. it was 2000 that for the first time, computers actually played some role in this. and in 2004, bigger. and this time, it is twitter that the suspect in here got started.

that is how fast everything is changing. but i remember when it was just the three networks and we have come along way, but the primary tradition has come along with it. >> do you personal leonel -- male the paper for the ballot? -- do you personally mail the paper for the ballot? [laughter] >> one of them was about the fact that no one in new hampshire's need a photo i.d. because i know everyone that votes. [laughter] that was a good one. many of you were here during the filing period.

now you take it from here and it is your way of treating the candidates fairly. new hampshire is unpredictable and it is unscripted, and those moments are precious because those mamund have shown the rest of the country some insights -- moments have shown the rest of the country some insight into the candidatesf that they may not have had a chance to become aware of. those moments are your moments. because that is how they happened. you play a big role in this as well in how the candidates remember their time here. as i mentioned, the legislative

leaders, party leaders, legislators, citizen activists, and the person who puts the time into it really wants to do the right thing and really wants to make the right choice. they care about it and they do it and it is time for them to go from here. 10 weeks, 70 days -- yeah, that is it. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will discuss possible cuts to government money -- a government funded food and nutrition programs with representative jim mcgovern of massachusetts. we will also be joined by a michigan republican rep to look at the qana men -- to look at the economy. and we will discuss the history of vaccines with dr. stan mclachlin -- stanley plotkin.

"washington journal" begins every day at 7:00 a.m. >> when i started selling my books, everybody i have worked with i had a rejection letter from. it was kind of cool. i was like, what about this. [laughter] >> the ethics and morality of brilliant people. his account of mark zuckerberg was adopted for the screen. his latest tracks a possible astronaut candidates as he steals a nasa saved full of moon rocks. now it is your time to ask the questions sunday at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2. >> i know -- i want you all to no the wanted me to run so

badly and ardor -- terribly disappointed that i'm doing the right thing. >> i will establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the soviet union. >> the c-span video library is a definitive source for online video affairs. there is a way to access our programming. download and beat the programs, just nine 9 cents each. -- download mp3 programs, just 99 cents each. >> if the joint deficit- reduction committee does not come up with a $1.2 trillion in cuts by november 23, larger, automatic cuts to federal spending will automatically go into effect. the chiefs of the military services told congress wednesday that those larger cuts known as sequestration could hurt national security and cost lives. this is two and a half hours.

>> the committee will come to order. good morning. the house armed services committee needs to receive testimony on the future of military services and the consequences of defense sequestration. to assist us with the examination of the impact of further defense cuts to each of the military services, we are joined by all four service chiefs. gentlemen, thank you for your service. thank you for being here. i appreciate your willingness to be here before the committee today. i cannot recall the last time we had all four service chiefs on the same panel. this is a unique opportunity for our members to assist with oversight responsibilities. the committee has held several hearings to learn lessons

applied since 9/11, and to evaluate those lessons for the future of our force. and we have steve perspectives from the former chairman and joint chiefs of staff, former commanders of the national guard bureau, former chairman of the armed services committees, outside experts, secretary panetta, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey. today, we have the opportunity to follow up on the testimony of the secretary of defense annex joint chiefs -- and the joint chiefs to examine more closely the challenges faced by each of the services. as i continue to emphasize that our success in the global war on terror and in iraq and afghanistan appeared to be low in our nation into a false sense of confidence, such as a september 10 mindset. to lynnae appear to believe that we can maintain a solid defense -- too many appear to believe that we can maintain a solid

defense with budget cuts. defense spending did not cause the current the fiscal crisis. nevertheless, the defense can and will be part of the solution. the problem is that today, defense has contributed more than half of the deficit reduction measures we have taken and there are some who want to -- who want to use the military to pay for the rest, to protect the sacred cow of entitlement spending. not only should that be a non starter from a national security and economic perspective, but richard also be a nonstarter from a moral perspective. -- it should also be a nonstarter from a moral perspective. consider the implications. i cannot think of anyone who has earned the right to benefit ahead of our troops, by volunteering to put their lives on the line for this country. they are entitled to the best training, best equipment, best leadership and our nation can

provide. i hope our witnesses today can help us understand the ramifications of these possible cut in relation to our force structure as well as our ability to meet the future needs of national defence. how can we make sure that the military is a good story of the taxpayers' dollars without increasing the risk to our armed forces? where can we take a risk? what changes would go too far? with that in mind, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. with that, i yield to ranking member smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. it is an honor to be here with all four of our service chiefs. i appreciate your leadership in the military, and i appreciate the hearings this committee has had in examining the impact on the defense budget. i think it's critically important that we signed -- that we make smart choices with our

budget. there's no doubt that the debt and deficit have placed enormous pressure on our country, but also most specifically on our ability to provide national security. defense is 22% of the budget. it is going to be part of the solution, but as the cause chairman points out, it has already been part of the debt ceiling in august. the fdot chairman has agreed to -- the chairman has agreed to somewhere around $5 million in cuts in the next years. but it is wrong to think that is held apart from our debt and deficit problems. quite the opposite. it has been front and center. we need to hear from panel members how they will handle the initial cuts over the course of the next 10 years, how they will do that and continue to protect our national security. keep in mind, even though we do have off debt and deficit problems, we also have a growing threat. certainly, the threat from

outside your remains. we have iran and north korea -- the threat from outside government -- al qaeda remains. we have iran and north korea as growing threats. the threats are not going away even though the money is becoming harder to come by. we have to manage that. and as the chairman pointed out, there are limitations how far we can cut defense spending and still provide adequately for national security. i would ask that our witnesses get specific about it. we have heard a great deal about cutting below a certain level and how it will raise the risk level. what does that mean? we need to hear about here is what we can do and here's how it could potentially affect our national security.

the process is ongoing and i think it is critically important and we look forward to hearing more about what choices you face and what we need to do to make sure we adequately provide for our national security. with that, i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now let me welcome our witnesses this morning. we have general odierno, chief of staff of the u.s. army. we have admiral greenert, general schwartz, and general amos. gentlemen, thank you for being here. i appreciate you being here and before too candid dialogue this morning. general odierno.

>> thank you for inviting me here to testify today. i look forward to discussing the future of the army and the potential impact of the budget cuts on future capabilities, readiness, and death. because of a sustained support of this congress and this committee, we are the best trained, best equipped, and best led force in the world today. but as we face an uncertain security environment and fiscal challenges, we know we will probably have to get smaller. but we must maintain our capabilities to maintain a decisive force, if force trusted by the american people to meet our security needs. over the past 10 years, our activities army and national guard and reserve has --

nine dozen soldiers require long-term care. in that time, our soldiers have learned over 14,000 awards for valor to include six medals of honor and 22 distinguished service cross. throughout it all, our soldiers and leaders have displayed unparalleled ingenuity and mental toughness and courage under fire. i am proud to be a member of this army, and we must always remember that our army is today and will always be about soldiers and their families. today we face an estimated $450 billion or more in dod budget cuts. these will be difficult budget cuts that will affect force structure, monnatization progress, and overall capacity. and it will increase the risks. and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of previous reductions.

i suggest we make these decisions strategically. keep in mind the realities of the risks they pose, and that we make these decisions together, unified, to ensure that when a plan is finally decided upon, all at for has been made to provide the nation the best level of security -- all effort has been made to provide the nation the best level of security. it is my challenge to balance the fundamental tension between maintaining funding security and the increasingly complicated and unpredictable world and the requirements of a fiscally austere environment. the u.s. army has committed to being a part of this solution in this very important effort. accordingly, we must balance our force structure with appropriate monnat toization and sufficient readiness to sustain a smaller, but ready force.

we must have the right mix of forces, the right mix of heavy, medium, like an airborne forces, the right mix of active and reserve component, the right mix of combat and combat support services. the right mix of generating forces and the right mix of soldiers and civilian contractors. we must ensure the services we employ to operate our commitments are maintained entrained to the highest level of readiness. -- and train to the highest level of readiness. as the army gets smaller, how we reduce it is critical. and while we downsize, we need to do it at a pace that allows us to work -- to keep a high quality force that remains legal, versatile, adaptable, and ready to deploy with the ability to expand if required. i am committed to this, as i am also committed to the development of our future leaders.

although overseas contingency operation funding will be reduced in the next several years, i cannot overstate how critical it is in insuring our soldiers have what they need while serving in harm's way. as well as the vital role funding placed in a setting our key equipment. in failing to sufficiently reset now could incur higher future cross, potentially in the lives of our young men and women fighting for our country. along with the secretary of defense and the secretary of the army, i share concern about potential sequestration, which will bring a total of a reduction of $1 trillion in the department of defense. cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military, and in the case of the army, would significantly reduce our capacity to ensure our partners abroad, response to crisis, and deal with adversaries.

sequestration would cause significant reduction to both active and reserve components, impact our industrial base, and almost eliminate our modernization programs. we would have to consider additional infrastructure efficiencies, including consolidations and closures commensurate with force structure reductions to maintain the army's critical capacity to train soldiers and units, maintaining equipment, and prepare the force to meet combatant commander requirements now and in the future. it would require us to completely revamp our national security strategy and reassess our ability to shape the global environment in order to protect the u.s. the nation would incur an unacceptable level of strategic

and operational risk. i thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you. i also thank you for the support you provided each and every day to the men and women of the army, the army civilians, and their families. thank you. >> thank you. the admiral greenert. >> thank you, chairman, members of the committee. i am excited to appear before you today for the first time as the chief of naval operations. and i very much thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee for all you have done for our sailors throughout the years. in the interest of trying the that willistic -- paint a thousand words, i bring a picture with me today that we call the strategic maritime crossroads.

we have about 45 ships under way on the east coast and west coast collectively, which are preparing to deploy. the 145 ships under way total. that is about 100 ships deployed, 35% to 40% of the navy is deployed today. and it has been that way for about three years. in 2001, about 29% of the navy was deployed. we operate out and about what i call the maritime crossroads, where commerce is, where the sea lines of communications are, because it is about ensuring economic prosperity and influence in all the theaters. those crossroads of like little bow ties to, perhaps. we operate from what are called cooperative security locations. those are the squares from guantanamo bay in the caribbean

to diego garcia in the indian ocean to singapore through the bomb, through djibouti, bahrain, and of course -- through guam, djibouti, bahrain and others. we operate as well in afghanistan where we provide about one-third of the close air support for our brothers and sisters on the ground. no permission is needed for operations. as i said, is about freedom of the seas for economic prosperity. as a we change operations in the mideast to a ground focus, the navy will not deter, this way, and the shore. we will -- will deter, dissuade, and ensure. we will not be interested. we are stabilizing and -- we

will not be interested if. we are stabilizing and will continue -- we will not be intrusive. we are stabilizing and will continue to support. our focus in future will be the arabian gulf, but we will not be able to ignore the other regions. where trouble will emerge next is unknown. the future is unpredictable, as we know. our challenge is to posture before the possibility. in the end, we can never be hollow. we ought to be equipped with a motivated force. we have to build the navy of tomorrow. and underpinning it all are our sailors and their families. we have to take care of the sailors, the civilians, and the families with a motivated and

the verse force of the future. as john paul jones said years ago, and it still applies, men mean more than guns and the rating of a ship. but above all, we have to be judicious with the resources that congress provide us. as we look ahead to the current budget plan, about half a trillion dollars over 10 years, it is a huge challenge. there are risks. in my view, it sequestration will cause irreversible damage. it will follow the military and we will be out of manpower, both military and civilian. going in and summarily reducing procurement accounts here and there will upset quite a bit of our industrial base, which in my view if we get into sort -- into sequestration, might be on recoverable. today, we have six shipyards

going to fight in 2013. if we go beyond the end -- and a member of the 19th, manpower, we are fine through november 18, but we would need additional funds through continuing resolution language if need be because our manpower starts ramping up at that point. we would need assistance regarding manpower and a continuing resolution. as we start the second quarter, we would be compelled to do what we have done in the past, the for maintenance, the for modernists -- modernization of our sites, and maybe freeze civilian hiring. it depends on the date. we have been engaged with your staffs and we appreciate the support of this committee. i thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions.

>> thank you, general schwartz. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, and privilege to be before you today. i think that we can all agree that our men and women in uniform deserve all of support and resources that we can provide them in their vital nation -- in their final mission protecting the nation. -- vital mission protecting the nation. in this time of sustained physical pressure, the air force joined its teammates in helping to solve the debt crisis. last year, they are forced identified 3 $3 billion in

efficiencies as part of a broader effort -- $33 billion in efficiencies as part of the broader effort for operational and modernization requirements. the air force found additional $10 billion in the course of completing the 2012 budget. we will continue to make it extremely difficult decisions to prioritize limited resources and prepare for a wide range of security threats that the nation will potentially face. but these difficult to forcechoo ensure a dynamic and strategic environment must be based on consideration and not solely by budget targets. we must prudently evaluate the future security environment, deliberately accepted risk, and devise strategies to mitigate those risks in order to maintain a capable and effective, if smaller, military force.

otherwise, a non-strategy-based proposal that does not consider defense capabilities will lead to a hollowed out for similar to those to a greater or lesser degree in every single conflict since world war i. with across-the-board cuts, we again will be left with a military with aging equipment, extremely stressed human resources with less than adequate training, and ultimately, declining readiness and effectiveness. those of us at the table who remember when we faced a similar difficult situation in the years after vietnam and the cold war, we therefore, i joined secretary panetta and chairman m.c. in advising against across- the-board cuts, and particularly

pursuant to provisions. at a minimum, they would cut our top party -- top priority equipment. they would raid our operations and maintenance accounts, forcing the curtailment of important daily operations and sustained efforts. and they would include other second and third order effects, some of them currently an unforeseen, certainly, affecting the well-being of our airmen and their families. and ultimately, such a scenario under mind our ability to protect -- gravely undermines our ability to protect the nation. even the most thoroughly elaborated strategy --

deliberated strategy will not be able to go beyond the cuts if they are $450 billion or more in anticipated budget reductions over the next 10 years. this is true whether directed by sequestration, or by joint committee proposal, or whether they are deliberately targeted or across the board. from the ongoing dod budget review, we are confident that further spending reduction beyond the budget control act's first round of cuts will undermine our core capabilities, and therefore, our national security. it will lead to further reductions in our strength. continued aging in the air force fleet of fighters, bombers, and tankers. as well as to associated bases

and infrastructure. and will have adverse affects on training and readiness, which has been in decline since 2003. most notably, deeper cuts will amount to a diminished capacity to execute current missions across the spectrum of -- spectrum of operations and over vast distances of the globe. while the nation has become accustomed to and, perhaps, has come to rely on effective execution of wide-ranging operations in rapid succession or even simultaneously, we will have to accept reduced coverage in future similar concurrent scenarios if further cuts to the national security budget are allowed to take up -- take effect. for example, the air force's simultaneous response to crisis situations in japan and libya, all the while sustaining our efforts in afghanistan and iraq,

will be substantially less likely to be effective in the future. in response to other operations requiring concurrent action spanning across the globe. in this case, a humanitarian relief in east asia and north africa. in short, your air force will be a superbly capable and unrivaled bar none in its ability to provide game changing your power for the nation, but as a matter of physical limitation, it will be able to accomplish fewer tasks in fewer places at any given time frame. while we are doing our part to bring the nation back to a more robust economy, we are also convinced that we need not forsake national security to achieve fiscal stability.

we believe that a strategy- based approach to the necessary budget cuts, and keeping those cuts at a reasonable level, will put us on an acceptable path. mr. chairman and members of the committee can on behalf of the men and women of the u.s. air force, i thank you for your support of our airmen, there joinedher teammates and their families. >> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify for the u.s. marine corps. as we face the challenging times ahead, the marine corps reaffirms its commitment to its traditional culture of frugality. and you have my word that the marine corps will only ask for what it needs, not for what it might want. but before i begin, i cannot pass up the opportunity to briefly comment on your marines in afghanistan.

we continue to provide the best training and command to the fight. this will not change. your marines will keep relentless pressure on the enemy and ensure success in the helmand province they have made great progress. they continue to have all they need with regard to training and leadership to accomplish their mission. thank you for your continued support. while the nation moves to a post-afghanistan and iraq world, i'd does so in complicated times. there emerges a clear imperative that our nation the nation maintain a means of meditating risk. like an affordable insurance policy, the marine corps and the counterparts represent a very

efficient and effective head to. like so much of the world, week rely on the maritime commons for ideas. many depend on us. we continue to take this responsibility serious. we respond to the crisis for re have no facilities perc. will the nation faced a sticker price. with the same force, our nation

gains the ability to respond to unexpected crises. this can be reinforced and share axis in the major contingency perrin there's a broad spectrum of operations. marine so be present and will turn in a performance. heartfelt beliefawk fel that this is good for the country. there is a proud self-reliant citizens.

an investment continues to be the character of the young people. cried thank you very much. for the past few decades have been spending money we do not have. probably all across the government, we probably had some spending that included some waste. that probably is true in the de fense department as in all. gates looking ahead and seeing we would have cuts, asked you to find 100 billion in savings and

said to be able to keep that for things he needed more. just a balancing. find ways to save money that had been spent for things we did not ned as much. you did. then he said you were only going to keep 74 billion of it. it had to be used for must-pay items. we found another 78 billion we would cut out of future costs. before he had given speeches, saying we had a 1% increase to stay where we are.

this is by the year 2015. the president gave a speech in the attic of another 400 billion out of the defence pierre -- defense. he said he had given year the number of foreigners 65 billion that he had to come up with in savings. when we all came back to start this new congress, everything had to be cut. out of the first cuts we made,

defense was hald of the table. you had already done it. those cuts are going to kick in next year's budget. you are already making those cuts. i'm not sure that is happenign ng across the rest. it is important that you understand that the cuts are real. many of it is irreversible. when i met over the weekend with the admiral, we were down. crew.t to meet with the one asked me -- they will not let me re-enlist.

that is just starting. another asking me, "what is going to happen to our retirement and future?" we have had 5 hearings. and then one that talked about the impact on services. this will bt the 6th. we had one last week about what will be the economic impact. we do not hvaave the total number odf jobs that will be lost out of the contractors that make it to protect our nation. we do know that if the frustration hits, it will be about 1.5 million jobs.

we are talking about deep cuts in defense that will affect our readiness. it has to. we are talking about training and the things that are so important to have this top military, the best we have seen. all without a talk about threat or about strategy. it comes from budget-driven. if we had a clean sheet, we would look at the risk the country and world faces. we stand between the risk and the rest of the world. i want to make sure when these start happening and all of

our people in our district and those who represent it, that is not what we meant. we wanted to cut the waste. i have seen this happen. we played this before. after korea and vietnman. we draw down to not b prepared for the next. we need to take a breath and look at this. some cuts right now we will not reverse next year or two years from now. this sailor that has 12 years in the navy, it will take 12 to replace him.

in your testimony, you stated the department that further spending reductions beyond fornicate the billion, i have heard numbers of to $489 billion. they are needed to comply with the budget control act. they cannot be done without a damaging our core military capabilities and our national security. this is serious stuff. he told us certain cuts would be eerie vocable. did the notion persists that they can weather further cuts so lons as we increase it later. the carrier i saw, if we put that on hold, take a little furlough, mabny are addicted to

eating and providing for their families. we just asked them to take a little furlough and maybe we will pick up where we left off. and each of you tell us whether you agree and and provide us with examples that would have impact even if they were increase in a year or two? >> thank you. i would remind everyone that as we look at cuts in in next two years so, that the army still has 100,000 researchers -- soldiers deployed. there's a significant amount of burden that the army will face through 2014.

it is important to remember and the impact on our ability to assure they are ready and have the processes in place. we are going to reduce to 520, 000 before we recieve these cuts. that will impact our soldiers. it will impact the stress on the army, families. equipment.line, i is if we try to fund our solider, it would affect our training and readiness as our enemies what does reduce our

capabilities. it would also require -- we have already had to consolidate other areas of manufacturing that is allowing us to gain efficiencies and additional cuts would cause us to look of that even further and challenge our ability to provide for our soldiers and equipment and readiness that we will need. it is across the board that we would be affected as we move forward. >> from our perspective, we share the same anxiety is over than a $450 billion addition to the bill. what it will do for our nation, there is no question it'll

reduce our board presence. the admiral talked about the chinese hospital ship in our hemisphere. as a result of drawing back because we cannot afford the operations and maintenance to deploy it, we cannot afford the ships and personnel to be able to do that. anotherbe field lled by nation. down the road it could mean a lack of access and ability to engage in shaping nation around the world that our country believes it is important to be involved in. if there is the question that it will decrease, forward we go. we only have three ways we can pay bills. one is in procurement, one is in

personnel. the other one is operation and maintenance. you can dial those dials and and combination 0-- in any combination but there are three. you are going to reduce the force presence. that will decrease the time between units. it is going to decrease the quality of life of our service members. it will stagnate the sectors. there's no doubt in my mind that we are going to struggle trying to free shed picture urging to restructure this. -- there's no doubt in my mind that we're going to restructure this. we saw less of a rotated this. we do not have the depth to not reset that equipment.

as it relates to irreversible damage, and become a cannot regain again, a couple of thoughts. he talked a little bit about that. this could be there. there are two capabilities that are slowly built throughout the world. the only place being billed as the united states of america. that is the offer for the landing. there is not another nation in the world. if they were close, it becomes irreversible. you not be able to gain it back. the most important wine is we will lose its. it is at the five, six, seven year mark. did they shouldered it. we will lose it.

they will leave. it'll take us another six or 10 years to grow that down. >> thank you. i think he laid out the choices pretty well. our choices are similar. i go to the industrial base. you were there. you brought us under budget and early. there and that mix. they have the welder's there. they have the people there. they are rolling. we will pay a premium for when we will reconstitute its. we will not have that process in place. we're looking at nuclear ships.

we have 90% of the seven vendors. they make reactor components. this is their livelihood. if we interrupt that, i do not know how many we lose our reconstitute. folks have to eat. where will they go? they will go somewhere else. they have designed this. we are in the early stages. we're giving them a holiday, that will not work. when the british navy did something similar, they were compelled to do it to build the next submarine. that is not very efficient. there will be layoffs pa.

where do you reduce the should such are of played? -- where do you reduce those that are deployed to? they are kind of tired. we are on a rapid pace. we need more time to change and maintain it. we would still come held to go there. it does not a very good set of choices. that is what we have to contend with. thank you. >> i cannot emphasize what my colleagues have said except to emphasize that your marines are

not one to go on break. i think that is wishful thinking. >> thank you. >> if i could just follow. we talk about this. it is important to think about it in a more strategic sense. from an army perspective, it is our ability to win. this is based on our credibility. it is based on our capacity and our modernization. our ability to win is based on testing decisive and dominant. we can still win. we win at the cost of the lives of our men and women. because of the capabilities we

have. they are not equal to what will allow us to win decisively. we have to be able to build the engagement. it is our ability to build partner capacity. will go hand in hand and protecting our allies. that is what this is about. this affects that. that is my biggest concern. we will have those who attempt to exploit our vulnerability. they will watch very carefully at what we do. they will challenge her credibility. this could cause some significant issues down the road. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

i agree strongly with the argument he just made. it is a master of losing core capabilities and having u.s. companies. it is not that well understood. there is an increase in our reliance on international companies to provide capabilities. we do not want to this fiscal said of our workers after necessary for that. it has an impact on the non- defense portion as well. the manufacturing skills such are developed as we are making some of our systems have direct applications. it leads to economic growth. to hit that would be a very devastating impact on our economy. i do feel the same argument

applies to infrastructure and energy. and also applies to education. about maybeing going to a 3 day school week. this impacts our national security. there 55% of our budget. we take 55% of the budget. they are too important. they have a huge impact on the quality of the impact of life for our citizens. revenue needs to be part of the equation a part of what we discussed. part of this is making sure we have the money to pay for them. up. spending has gone up a pai

if the super committee succeeding is all that stands between us and the frustration, we have cause for concern appear to have the super committee perri. all that is left is the discretionary budget. this is more than half of the discretionary budget. if it does in an untenable decision. he talks about our ability to add have power.

this is incredibly important. why do we have the troops we have in asia and europe? you have done a good job of explaining this. make clear the money. a lot of people did not understand that our foreign partners pay the amount of the cost. if they were to bring the troops home, it to a cost us more money. could you lend a little bit of your expertise? >> if you want to be a global power, we have to be out and about. that implies having -- if we want to contribute to regional stability, that includes

bringing forward. if the western pacific is rising, what we don't want to do is reduce the capability. they do assist us. they provide us the abilities. this gesture and korea and japan. >> it is economics. it is access to overseas

markets. there is access to critical mammalminerals such unnecessary. they're critical needs. this is the link that people need to understand. >> a byproduct of that is the access. >> the bottom line is having relationships with others. it is vitally important. >> thank you.

this is a place. we get on the order. it varies with the yen rate. it is room for billion dollars of nation support. we of the partner for over 60 years. they share information. this is more than information sharing. we're not have been able to do this on operation libya of we were not for word. pagoda singapore, which -- if you go to singapore, they have provided this opportunity.

they do this to repair ships. bahrain.y anin they offer us to repair our ships. our headquarters are ther.e there is a host there. influence ifo u we are not there. >> if i could just piggyback on the comments. we will have to prioritize. this is a strategy. we have korea, japan. the army has relationships with

share costs. these will continue. some places my want to expand their relationships. is this still viable? as you look to europe, you look at relationships we have. this is because of the presence. we have to come up with unique way see do these in the future. there are other areas where we would not be able to do that. this could be based on where we

believe our interests are. these are the discussions. one last thought about this. there is an awful lot of economics with regard to foreign presence. if you look in a specific air, there chokepoints that are there. if you just take a look at the gulf and the eastern side of the coast of africa all the way out in the blue water with the piracy, imagine that happening down to the southwest area.

the economics would want us to have foreign presence. i am reminded in november when things began to get pretty exciting and career. i'm not sure how that will turn out. things will not escalate. our ability to have the forward presence there can assure japan that we have been an alliance for 70 years. it's a significant. our allies pay a pretty hefty price of their own money. it is not completely without costs.

>> it does not work that way. thank you. >> thank you. they're not the time for an adequate response. many of us remember the italians is task force. they took up positions. the north koreans advanced with the tanks. this is not damage the advance. the armies were no longer used. as they continue, they conduct

this. although the task force had inflicted 127 casualties, they solved 181. this symbolizes a price in blood. the program was terminated as part is the reductions following world war ii. it is clear that if we continue to fight these wars, it was provoked by an enemy with weapons of his choosing. any cut in our military will put this in a position where we will

be repeated this kid the reality is you borrow 42 cents of every dollar. we have several hundred billion dollar deficit. and you do not have cuts. you have some of the other programs. yet 50 cents to balance the budget. assume that the super committee is going to default. what he needs to with the military that remains in your service tax what kind emissions canyon perform? i studied in national strategy.

it could you please include this for the record? we do not have time here. if they're so confident that it will succeed them bring value to the taxpayer, it would be nice if they put a little more against the $1.9 billion. consider taking advantage of this average shed take, it supported the competitive engine development. it is $110 billion in march. -- earmark.

there is no competition. but who the crucial development was to be completed in fiscal year 2010. now it is projected for completion in 2015. the government accountability office indicated that there is an opportunity for cigna began savings. bill perry said competition for procurement is the only way to .ontrol program cost sparin

why do you believe this is not such a good idea? we have to get most of this for the record. our time is out. >> my comments were made prior to 400 billion. >> it would decrease the cost. they continue to contend it. there is all that is associated. >> he said that it will save money. it will not cost money.

thank you. >> it might. >> thank you. i would like to begin for being before us again today and taking a stab. were heree dollar's before. it is a lot to put on the table. i know we're trying to work through that. you're trying to work through that. i am not excited about the super committee touching too much more in defense. i'm not excited about the not getting their job done and going into a deep opposition. there is a lot of things. it crosses for all of you.

there are issues like arer-security wher ewe we in the dark. it will take more money than we think. when we talk about defense cuts, we raare talking about intelligence, homeland security, veterans. when a look at the fact that we have not addressed our returning soldiers, etc., who have been out there and many of them who will need additional help and the types of hits that the peplople have taken, there is a big underfunded issue in

healthcare for those people. i am concerned. i work with mr. turner on missile defense. there are issues there. we will have to work if our testing goes well. there are a lot of places that need money in the future. i am not thrilled about more cuts. but there is a majority in the house who do not want revenues -- want new revenues on the table. i have a feeling if they come up with some solution, we are

going to see cuts in defense. where would you cut? i am not talking about another trillion, but where? where -- after the 465 that you are looking after, where would to?suggest we poitnt where would you cut? >> the imperative is whatever size we end up, we want to be a superb air force. that means a readiness needs to be protected. the only two other areas where you can make reductions are in the size and number of squadrons and assets and in modernization.

that is what our future depends. >> you have actually been decreasing the structures of in air force. >> we have. we will to make for 50 + targets. further reductions will drive us to get lower levels in modernization. >> you got up 20,000 marines? >> in 2006 we went up from 100 to 60,000 220,000. we did the review. >> are those troops going to have it shrink? >> yes, ma'am. the plan was to shrink to about 15,000 below that level. >> that is under the 4 65

billion we are looking at? >> that was below that. with the added costs, there is a good chance we will be below its. if we end up with more in the form of this or the super committee adds, more of we bills are going to continue to go down. we all agree that whatever force we end up with, has to be the most capable for our nation. it will be a smaller force. the ramifications are less engagement and presence. in a quicker turnaround time. you will reach a point or capability will come down. eventually, we will start seeing

capabilities leave the military. that is some of the danger. it'll be to die let down and reduce the modernization and procurements accordingly. we have to end of of the marine corps that you can call upon and a confident in. >> thank you. >> if i could just have the comments. i would appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you all for being here. the chairman outlined what has already been reduced from the defense budget this year. most americans do not realize that. you have said that you can handle thtat much. that it is ok. we agree that another 600 billion dollars is not ok.

the greater danger is that some will say "if 465 is ok, why not 466 or another 50 or 100 billion dollars out of defense?" i would appreciate your answer. that is the great likelihood. >> 465 is not ok. it is something we can manage. it comes as they risk. we have been asked to reduce to 520. that is before the cuts. we will have to reduce this.

if it goes further, we have to start significantly decreasing this. it does have a dramatic impact on our ability to respond whether it be a broad or in support of natural disasters. once you get beyond this, we have taken all the efficiencies be can take. we have reduced modernization. it is lower than we need. it becomes critical. it becomes a fact that we will no longer modernize. or have to get to a size that is small enough or we will lose

their credibility to deter. that is the difference. it is not ok. it is something we haven't able to work through. >> if you look at the number, this is today. it is not ok. this is what i want your navy to do. perhaps it is manageable. we're talking about reducing this. we have to be a whole force able to me.

what area of the world did not want to be m that -- to be in? the risk to not bei in those areas is the risk we must understand. thank you. >> and give you one example. this is vitally important to maintain the readiness of the platform. >> which are below 80% on their required funding pa. incremental cuts will come out of the council of weapon systems support. we have to have armed forces.

this is a vital part of that. it is just marginal as affecting the accounts of are not major programs. it would reduce our readiness. >> another example. we designed the marine corps did come down. he told the marine corps i want 80 take risk in high end missions. that means major combat. we did. we build a marine corps using the lessons of 10 years of war and incorporated it in there.

this is a one major contingency operation. the marines will go and come home and it's over. only jobs another five dozen, we are on the process of working free. we're at risk for being able to take your marine corps and deploy it. you go beyond. it'll come down. there'll be the ability to respond. >> thank you perr.

and there is a strategic review that is concurrent with trying to observe this. and wonder if you can share with us where you think the strategic review is. will we see that publicly? i will leave it at that. it is being invested -- vetted. i think that it is likely we will have that product available by the end of the year. >> in terms of programs you are

grappling with right now, one is the c-27. there has been a delay in terms of an august milestone. is that tied to a strategic review? >> that is not final. it is tied oto the prioritization. it is painful for m.e

i made a committment that i would not make -- do this dewal and then back out. that was two years ago. i have personal skin in this game. if it turns out that way, it will be painful. the logic is the reductions require us to take out assets, not a few here and there, but to bring out all the infrastructure and logistics. that is the only way for us to do what we have to do. we have purchased them. there are 17 more to go.

what the department will do will be clear. i want to assure you that the united states will s upport our army or die trying. >> i believe it. is this strees being driven by the 465 reduction or the uncertainty about what will happen next? >> it is the former more than the latter. welcome. i wanted to as you in terms of the review that is ongoing, there are reports that asia is where the whole orgqanization will be shifting focus. had you an comment? that is where you see the navy's

priority and focus looking out at the change or review. >> you have that right. i think he testified to that recently. this is where we are today. the defense treaties are in there. this is with the communications are at their highest. i think you have a right. >> you referred to the libyan operations. want to finish the thought. they will be offline in about 10

years. we have to keep that rate. the point. >> thank you. >> he just commented that the air force will be there to support them. i know the patriotism. perform ayou to mission you will do it or die trying. your history. nea do you have any historical background can offer your history?

do you know woman tried to make those cuts on the security situation was unsettled as it is today decks any of you, are like to hear your thoughts. >> i remember a little antidote. i want to this. we are about to get under way. we get on board. we but get the ball caps. there are people from several squadrons. we had a display there. they were being told when you see this let me know. we had valves a different color. we got under way today -- two

days later. this is for a major deployment. this is drug exempt. i used drugs. you are exempt. he could get out of the submarine force. this is a focus of the people. they must build around this. >> i which is echoed those comments in 70's, post- vietnam'. modernization of and standards. i would also point out where we believe that we would not have

any significant amount of operations following that. we cut the army by a significant amount of individuals. we reduce our modernization program. , and we found ourselves engaged in more operations during the 1990's than any other time. that brings us to what the secretary has talked about. it is about us being able to develop a strategy focused on the asia-pacific. our ability to respond to unforeseen contingencies. that gets to readiness. the mistakes we have made in the past is we have allowed our readiness to slip and reduce our ability to deploy. it has always cost lives in the end when we do this. the way we ran down our army in

the 1990's let huge holes and our leadership because of the way we went about reducing our forces. it is critical we do this right. that means it has to be constant over time with consistent ramp that allows us to maintain our leaders as we go through this process. that will allow us to sustain our readiness and allow us to expand if we have to come out more quickly. it might be required if we have an unforeseen instance. >> i would ask you to recall the american hostage rescue attempt in a run. that is the classic example -- in iran. that is the classic example of what could happen if we do not do this right. >> we have talked the 1970's,

that was a different international landscape than we have today. we all share the same -- in those days, we did not classify it because we were the tenants. we did not understand what a hollow force was. we were putting wings on different airplanes so we could fly them. the significant of that as i look back -- it is embarrassing. the international landscape in the 1970's is different than it is now. this is a dangerous next two decades. that is the difference. >> none of us would pretend to have your heroism. we will not go quietly in the night in trying to preserve and make for you never go in there again. we may have lost that battle, we do not intend to lose the second one. thank you for being here.

i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your service and your thoughtful attempt to answer our questions. as i have been listening, i am hearing of the reasons in general why we cannot do any cuts. i have not heard specifics. in each of your organizations you are doing serious planning about what cuts really mean. it seems important to know precisely what you are planning at various levels of cuts. we know we have $465 billion, it may go to over one trillion. what does that mean? it may mean something -- it does

nothing to inform me what a precise cut is. to try to understand what cuts might be, i have asked my staff to find out what others are saying. we have gone to the far right think tanks and the far left think tanks and put together a matrix about cuts. ranging up to one trillion and over one trillion dollars including a senator who thinks you can cut that. it is interesting the way they match up. i will share that with you. i would appreciate a specific response from you. is it possible? what does it mean? that gives me some information. i appreciate the tone of this hearing. i understand that we need to do a lot of things. one of the things that is going to be done is some serious cuts.

what can be cut? do we need 5300 nuclear weapons? does the marine corps need the new expeditionary vehicle? can we get by without a marine corps vertical takeoff f-35 version? those are serious. those are the real things. the generalities are nice to hear. we are getting close to some specifics. what exactly is going to happen? this committee needs to know. i need to know. i will share the matrix with you. if any of you would like to respond with specificity i would be interested. >> i am sure all of us would be happy to respond to that. the reality is we all operate under certain limitations in the executive branch in that we can

be frustrated, this is the way it is. it is not real until it is the budget. nonetheless, we will do ellen best to respond. i can tell you that in my case we are talking about hundreds of aircraft. we are talking about thousands of people. >> i understand of the generalities. which aircraft that's what people? what basis? -- bases? this committee is looking at less than a month and a half where some decisions are going to be made by the united states congress. at this point, we do not have much information other than that things will happen. -- than bad things will happen.

what is going to be on the table? >> we will share in the i told the secretary the same thing. -- we will share -- >> i told the secretary the same thing. >> i would like to thank you for being here today. i appreciate your service. we have the best military in the world. i have three sons currently serving in the army, in the national guard. i have a son who is in the navy. i have a nephew in the air force. my late father-in-law and brother-in-law were very, marines. we are a joint service family. i would like to thank you for what you do in bringing to the attention of the danger of the level of these cuts to the security of our country. last week, i had the privilege of being with the general at the

dinner to honor military families. general, i want to thank you for your family's extraordinary service. you drew the exemplify what is best about our country. i appreciate everything you have done, the briefings i had when i visited with you in baghdad, they were on a point. i want to point out we have the secretary of the army who is a former member of the committee. he has written a thoughtful op ed. it backs up what secretary panetta has said. he concludes -- if you could comment on this -- just as we did not predict pearl harbor, we cannot predict the future. we can, however, remember the lessons of history. no major conflict has been won

without boots on the ground. you've been a military historian, could you comment on this? >> we must have the ability to protect our on land. it is critical to whatever we do. as we talk about mobile, we talk about how we have access. the global commons is used by others to influence populations, to improve their ways or dominant a population. what we need to do is -- we may be asked to solve that problem on land. we must be prepared to do that. we only want to do that as a last resort. it is never something we want to do. it is something we must do. it is important we have the capacity to be able to do that. we will deter people from

causing us to go conduct significant land operations. we must have the kid ability to deter. that should always be a significant part of any strategy. >> peace through strength, that is how we can reduce conflict. general, you hit on a series of specifics. people need to understand the addition of military forces or reduction of military forces, it has a negative impact. it cannot be done overnight. it, i wouldssed like to hear from your colleagues on hal -- this is real world, and in our ability to respond. -- threatening our ability to

respond. >> we have a hardened, battle- tested force. one that has known 10 years of combat. one where we have leaders that have grown up with nothing but combat capability and experience. with us to move forward we must be able to sustain these individuals who are capable and understand warfare. to understand the future. who can think what we might face in the future. what of the capabilities and capacities the need. we have asked these individuals -- many of them have been deployed three or four times. they believe what we have done is important, that we must sustain this over time. my concern is if we start to whittle away at our capacity to an extent -- they could get frustrated. if they get frustrated, they might decide to leave the force.

it would then cause us to have a significant role in our force. leadership can solve any problem if it is the right type of leadership. >> this has a direct affect on military families. we want military families to be supportive of their loved ones who are serving. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for your leadership. i want to follow up on a personal question or two. i am wondering -- the serious situation we are looking at, we are focusing on short-term sequestration. in the long term, could you help me out with a discussion of

what reforms in the personnel system we should be looking at. should we address the military retirement issue? we know the defense business board has done that. the other issue is joined in this in terms of health care. we know that while there are growing pains in a realignment, we could be seen how well that work. we know san antonio has done that. where are we in that issue? could we be thinking about those reforms? perhaps there are others you would like to suggest. part of the question the super committee is looking at is 10 years out. where are we on those reforms that's how seriously are you looking at those? >> i would say that we cannot

look at one piece of the overall compensation package. it includes aid and benefits. it includes medical care and retirement. a concern that we all share, that i have, is that we look at and we makemaieal forces without connecting the dots. if we proceed with reform or change, we need to address this, have an intelligent discussion, we should not do this piece by piece. if we are going to do an adjustment, we should do it all in a comprehensive, one-time fashion so our internal

audience can take this on and a just and move on. what we do not need is incremental change in this respect. with regards -- there are some aspects of what the business board suggested that are interesting. one thing they did not do, i know you believe this, there is nothing about recruiting. what this package is about his recruiting and retention. to make suggestions and blow off recruiting and retention was not a solid approach. >> if i could add on to the reforms, i echo the comments. i would add to that that this is not something we can rush into. it has to be studied because of the affects it can have on our ability to sustain an all-

volunteer force. the impacts -- people overlook the sacrifice that is made by soldiers and the families themselves and what they have given up. -- so their shoulders -- soldiers can perform their duties. all of this plays a role. i think we are taking a very quick look at it. it has to be something much deeper. we have to understand the overall impacts it would have in the future of the force in all services. >> if i may, there is a piece -- i completely agree. there is another piece. at the conclusion that there will be a reaction by the force. we will need to recruit. where we can use help is the authority to do the right thing.

in my view, and diversity is a big thing for the future. the skills out there to make our force relevant are such that we need to open in diversity. that and the ability to shape the force correctly to be able to have a discussion as to why we meet -- may need to ship it. -- shape it. we may need to lay people off. >> sorry. >> thank you. gentlemen, thank you for your service. the two things on display are policymakers and implement force. -- implementors. each one of you used the word strategic in trying to figure out how we go about squeezing the needs of the nation into a

smaller pie, so to speak. as a policy maker, we would love to be able to have a clearer information that says, all right, the nation has these risks. if you do not want to protect the nation, we can save money here and there. there is a construct you operate under that has a variety of things the nation says it ought to be able to do. should all of this encompass a review board a redo -- or a redo of that construct that says we are only going to do this and those other things, we are not going to do them. of those policy makers understand there are risks. can you give us some comments about what the overall backed up

of what you plan to do should we change that first -- backdrop of what you plan to do -- should we change that first? >> i think, first off, it is about determining where our priorities are. it comes down to what is the capacity? the construct will have to be looked at. it will have to be changed. with the reductions that we are looking at, the air force and navy have taken some already, the army is going to take force reduction, we are going to have to look at the constructs we have. we have to be honest about what we can do and what we cannot do. there are going to be things we can no longer do. i think we have learned some things over the last 10 years about what we thought we could do. as we get into these deeper cuts, we are going to have to define and explain to our

planning factors -- what we are able to do and not. it has to be part of what we are doing. >> for me, for the navy, it is where do you not think we need to be? the chart, that is where we are today. what geographic commander do we have to have a conversation with and get more innovative or describe where the structure can deploy to? we cannot deploy quicker. we are at limit ride them. -- right now. >> when there is an effort -- as the general said, it will find its way here to congress. that effort is informed by a security environment.

what do the next two decades portray. what does it tell us the threats are? we talked about that is moaning -- morning. based on that, what do we need to do to mitigate that that's how much can we afford? it becomes to mitigate that? how much can we afford it? we are in that process right now. the national threat -- we are doing the work. it is a process we are all a part of. i want to give you the confidence this is being done the right way. we are not ready to say what we are not able to do. there will be some things we will not be able to do. that will have applications. -- implication. >> thank you. i was at the national

intelligence until yesterday. some of the things they are considering -- some of the funding going away, they were able to say here is the capacity. they were very clear. that is the capacity we really need. it is easy to do that on a small-scale like their versus across the entire department of defense. i do think our nation needs to understand that with these cuts, even the room $465 billion, there are risks we will have to face. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. thank you for being here today, for your testimony, your service to our nation.

obviously, diplomacy -- information on military power, these are all important to our national security. that makes the fiscal solvency issue.nation's security sacrificing could teach it needs to pay the bills, we have to make smarter decisions about how we spend our money. two areas i have continuously focused on, the strategic expense of our nation in the nuclear arena and cyber- security -- with its particular challenges there. we have not got in our arms around what those challenges are and how we guard against that threat. we faced threats from pierre

competitors -- peer competitors and asymmetric actors. both are threatened by the current budget situation. let me ask you this, a nuclear deterrent must remain credible well we are looking to components -- while we are looking to components where we can save revenue and continues market investments -- continue smarter investment. a defensive systems and other strategic systems, we still have a long way to go. on both these points, where can we be making more efficient investments in nuclear and cyber in order to soften a larger program impacts from

constraining budgets? >> cyber maybe the only area in the department portfolio that may grow. it means it will come from other places in the broader portfolio. we have cyber command, in each of us have component commands and expertise that offends our nets and operates a potentially in a more offensive manner, that is maturing and it need to continue to support. with respect to the nuclear area, i will make a personal appeal, that this committee needs to influence the thinking of another jurisdiction of

energy and water in respect to the renovation of the b-61. that weapon is the item that is paired with our bombers. it needs to be updated, life cycle improvement effort, that needs committee support and likewise from energy and water since it is nsa that would perform that function. >> thank you. >> i think the general had it right on cyber. we could look at the construct we are putting together. there may be deficiencies in that regard. the criticality for the capability, there is no question. it will probably grow. with regard to strategic nuclear, how many replacements

we need can be studied. what is the right number of structure you need to deliver the affect you need? that is under deliberation as we speak. the need to have credible and reliable and one that provides deterrence is unmistakable. that has to be held. >> with that, i want to thank you all for your testimony. i have some questions for the record. if i could mention, i had the other committee -- i had the opportunity to see the incredible work being done. maybe we could talk about some of my thoughts about that. a great experience when i went out to visit our chairman out there. next week and traveling to

texas to visit the 24th air force. i will get a close look at what is happening out there. thank you all. >> i look forward to it, sir. >> thank you. someone needs to be that of a clock 30. and counting the number of members -- someone needs to leave at 12:30. >> thank you for your service. i want to begin by noting that everyone who serves is special. they volunteer to defend this nation. we have an elite force of ammon, marines, soldiers, and sailors that serve this country every day, some challenging roles as we place them around the world in that their missions.

i look at how we challenge them. you look at afghanistan. we use them in more roles. they are going to be their past 2014. we see a mission in central africa. as we watch and we see the history of what has happened there, we see some friends that ought to concern us. last month, a 29-year-old sergeant in the 75th ranger regiment was killed on his 14th deployment in the last nine years. 14 times he boarded a plane knowing he was going in harm's way. in a situation where 12 times we are short -- they continued to be placed in the most challenging conditions anywhere on the face of the earth. to their benefit, they serve this nation. to our benefit, they serve this nation. they continue to make sure they

perform in enmarbled way under trying conditions. -- in an admirable way under trying conditions. looking at the challenge we have going forward with resources, how are we going to continue to attract the quality we need across the armed forces in an all volunteer force? as we look to recruit the best but to retain the best, how are we going to make short the mission kitts -- capability stays -- make sure the mission could ability stays where it needs to be? downsizing the day of our men and women, their future benefits, and their family's welfare. all of those things are concerned. how do we meet those challenges. i can tell you, i am sure you all did the same question. i get questions on a daily

basis. we track the communications that come into our office. on the top of the list have been service members and their families questions about what is happening with my pay and benefits and what are you going to do to support military families? i will turn it over to you. >> first and foremost, as we go through this process of budget reductions, the first thing we think about our soldiers and their families and the impact it will have on them. whatever programs we develop in the future will inshore that we maintain programs that are good enough and allow them to want to continue to serve. we are focused on this. we are absolutely focused on this. i think what we have to do as we look at this, it is about leader

development, it is about people understanding the importance of what we do. it is about fair and balanced benefits and pay, retirement, medical care, that they can be assured that they will be taken care of and their families will be taken care of based on what we ask them to do. i know i am being general here, i want to tell you we are absolutely focused on this in the leadership. it is so important to our men and women. it is fundamental to the all volunteer army and force. if we miss this, it will do irreparable damage to our capabilities. i probably did not answer you specifically. we look at this carefully every day. >> we have a term called -- we are fencing family readiness

programs. whatever mission may be reduced, the problem is not reduced. we need to -- the kids are tired. they come home and their families are tied. that has to be done up front. i think we need -- retain the covenant we have. they join for a reason. there was a contract we had. we have to own up to that contract. >> i would just say that it is an example, we have said we are not going to cut school liaison. we are not going to cut family member programs or child care. we will go other places. we understand that more than ever, service in any in -- in any of the armed services is a team sport.

>> you pointed the term of breaking faith or keeping faith, the opposite of breaking faith. we talked about compensation's this morning. we did not get to -- at what point is there a need were compensations began to have an effect on the all volunteer force. there are several principles. the key ones, he always goes back to, is keeping faith. that can mean a lot of different things. for us it means, the institution, the families that are out there, they look at us as an institution, the leadership. those that with his uniform and those that cross the potomac in congress. we have their best interest at

heart. even though they understand there will probably be some adjustments in allowances and that type of thing, we have their best interest and we are not breaking faith. that is nebulous. that is a sense. the minute we lose that, we will have a difficult time retaining them. we will have a difficult time bringing people back in in the first place. that is the first point. there is another side which is interesting which concerns me. there is a sense of fulfillment and the young men and women that joined the marine corps today. they are getting to do what we advertised when we recruit them. there is a fulfillment. amy of -- they may be on their fourth or fifth of plymouth. i am not saying that is easy or we should continue to do this. there is a sense of feeling good

about what they are doing for our nation. as i look at it, i look at coming up of afghanistan, -- out of afghanistan, how are we going to address that need of fulfillment, of doing something important for our nation? i remember the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's, when it was bleak. we were trying to seek missions. that is going to have an effect on the retention. all the things we have talked about, there is the sense we will need that. it is not that we are buying people off. we are going to satisfy their needs. keep our arms around them. they are going to know we are keeping faith. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would like to thank each of you gentlemen for what you have

done for our country. i am hearing of two. of consensus -- hearing two points of consensus. the first is that a great country cannot live on borrowed money forever. it cannot have a huge deficit and debt. the second point is the sequestration is still thought out -- is ill thought out because it is backward. you should not say, here is the number, let's figure out what we should do. you should say, what do we need to do for our country and how much money do we need to come up with. this is meant for my college. i think we can have a third point of consensus. we can have a deficit reduction

plan that is three-quarters benin cuts -- spending cuts. the military cuts would not go beyond the first audit. if we had a trillion dollars in revenue from the top 5% of people in the country, we could have a deal. we ought to get one. on to the issue of what the sequestration would mean. backint about let's not into a decision on this. i heard several people said there is a strategic review under way. that will be shared when it is complete. do we have some sense of when that would be available? >> i think at the end of the year. >> the end of the calendar year? >> yes. >> thank you.

let me ask another question. if you exclude the overseas operations and look only at the remaining defense budget, and you compare what we are spending in 2011 versus what we spent in 2001, in real dollars, the core defense budget is 40% higher than it was in 2001. power and strength is essentially the same period the number of ships and planes is the same. -- the same period the number of ships and planes is the same. -- the same. the number of ships and planes is the same. where does the other 75% of that code? we have increased the defense budget by 30% over what it was in 2001, excluding the iraq and afghanistan and excluding

personnel increases. where is that 30%? where is the money? >> one place where the money is, we had $35 a barrel oil in 2001. >> i know our fuel costs are high. they would be lower if we had independent energy sources. >> for our shipbuilding and repair, the labor costs increased. materials have also exceeded those indices we have used for when we read your. >> the order of magnitude of that excess that's what i would have to follow up on that. -- that excess? >> i would have to follow up on that included ther. there is a noted different.

>> one thing that concerns me, if you looked at our rdt and e, i will take on one, when it was originally looked at it was going to be $1 billion. it is now going to be four billion dollars. do you have any suggestions about how we might get a better grip on that phase? >> if i could -- a couple things we need to do. i think as we go through the process of procurement, we have to look at competition and how we increase competition, contractors in private industries, the use of their r&d. we are starting to figure that of. -- out. are we doing redundant and overlapping testing? do we need to take a review of

our testing requirements? sometimes we have to test that are done by the private industry and we redo the test because we have to make regulations and requirements. those are areas that could reduce it cost reduce those costs. >> i see my time has -- could reduce those costs. >> i see my time has expired. >> thank you. thank you for your service and the time you spend. we were over at the marine corps birthday at the library of congress, the general did a great job of filling in for you. i would like to talk about the family. my family was at delmar beach, it was not too tough for them. that is the upside of being a marine. playing into the previous question, i like to mention a couple of things. where is the money?

there are a lot of examples. what is disturbing common ground systems. the marine is using the system di. a lot of organizations are using the system because it is cheap. it comes up of paypal. the army insists the big cloud is going to work. it will be just like everybody else. the army came into our office and said here is what we got. the problem is they never get there. when you come with an off-the- shelf product that would be $25 million, it is going to be two billion dollars out. you have examples like that that

i think any of us could find. the lcs. the navy owns a ship in san diego. it is a carbon fiber ship that uses air travel and technology. it is totally still out. -- stealthed out. the lcs is not. it is a fast friaggate. the navy does not have a lcs. they have two models of a fast frigate. it is not stealthy. my point is, it is time to privatize. i think one of the reasons we are here is because for predecessors, they did not mislead us, they said we are ok.

we can do more with less. we will be fined. we can get the job done. we can do what we need to do. the reality is, we are not going to be able to do the job. you are not going to be able to do the job with what you are given any more. we are going to need to double or triple numbers in the marine corps. we are going to have to be more expeditionary. we still seem bogged down in the old ways of doing things. if it is not being made by lockheed martin, boeing, we are not going to do it. we are not going to look at it because it is not being done by one of those guys who has a lobbyist who was a former general who was a friend of somebody. that is how it works. my question is to everybody, how do we move forward and i was and

get a of the same old ways of things that are not the tried and true? it has gotten us to where we are. we keep spending money and we are not getting the bang for the buck. the money is going somewhere and it is not going into for the ring current technology or this of and better technology. how -- into for the ring current technology for discovering better technology. >> let me give you one example. you are familiar with it, we started this week, it is our second one, our net would experiment down in texas. we have a unit where and a contractor can come in, provide a product that they think will meet our needs for the future, the contested. they can try it out. soldiers are using it. it is on their own dollar to

bring it in. after we do this, we will choose the best of breed across the variety of small and large contractors of what might be the best system for us to use. as fast as our networks change bell the technology continues to move, it will allow us to upgrade. these are the kinds of things we have to do. for competitiveness which drives better products, cheaper product. i would advise you to come up and take a look at that. i am encouraged by what is going on out there. those types of things we have to do. as we look at what we are developing with the marine corps. we are having competitors coming in who are developing their own products. four or five different competitors. not one of the large defense contractors. they are providing us options that i think will be more fundamental and much more of a

resource as we move forward. those are the type of things we are looking to. as we review how we want to do acquisitions within the army. >> there is a little bit of goodness that happens when you get pressurized fiscally. one of the things, we have 40,000 vehicles in the marine corps, that is thanks, rav's, humvees. as we build that marine corps to come down to 186,000, we took the total vehicles and the marine corps down to about 30,000. of that, 23,000 are humvees. as we look at the army, as we look at replacing round strategy, we have had to go back

and say what is good enough? what is it that over the next 10 years will be good enough? how much money toization the you need? there is a piece and a slice that we need to replace utility vehicles. do we need to replace all 20,000? do we need 20,000 in the first place? the answer is no. we are doing that internally. we have the numbers. we have built an affordable plan on brown vehicles that is built on what is good enough. we have done the same thing as we looked at aviation which is a high dollar cost item. you looked at f-18's, harriers, b-42's, what is good enough and how long will this last? the final point is in your district, you seem to benefit

from the energy efforts the marine corps is doing at mcrd, with the methane plant, we are beginning to save a lot of money on energy. we are going to do the same in the expeditionary field. the first prototype to carry this expeditionary energy -- grenoble energy. we are on that big time. that is another way we can say. that is the good news that comes out of pressurizing our budget. >> thank you. >> our remaining witnesses can respond for the record. this is an important issue. we now proceed. >> thank you. general, following up on mr.

hunter's question, the arm'ys intelligence program is years behind schedule and less effective than private-sector alternatives used by the marine corps. the army is slated to spend billions on this program. will you pledge to take a hard look at this program as a possible source of savings? >> i am looking at everyone of our modernization programs to see where we can get savings. i will take a look at this. i will provide your feedback as we go do this. >> thank you. also, do you foresee that the

army could potentially find savings by reducing the footprint of our ground forces on the european continent where our allies are capable of defending their own territory? >> this will be part of the strategy we do, where we decide to put forces. based on that strategy, if it is determined we can reduce our commitment to europe, we will work carefully with our allies to look at that. >> thank you. at merrill. -- admiral, how can the navy developed better partnerships with the chinese navy to develop cooperative relationships in maintaining international security? is that a naive question? >> it is not naive. we need to find those areas of

security where we have common brown. we are working on that. convert i receive -- counter- piracy, the chinese contribute to that. they are not part of the coalition. there are many nations that are not part of the coalition. they come in, they check in. we have a liaison officer that swaps the tangible part of that. there is search and rescue. we need to look for those areas which are of common interest, develop those, that will give us to build relations. these things have a fixed part because we are part of the results of the political aspects of the relationships of our nations. there are opportunities and we must continue to develop them

to limit the escalation. that is the main concern we would have. -- them to limit miscalculation. that is the main concern we would have. >> what with the marine corps f- 35 fleet contribute to a major conflict? is the f-35 and is such a program to our national security? is it on pace? >> i will start from the back. it is on pace. in fact, it is ahead of schedule. it is ahead of performance on tests, test flights, test points. the five engineering issues they had a year ago have been resolved through engineering we design -- redesign.

in some cases they are already installed. in some cases, the changes are approved. the pieces have been fixed. the airplane just came back from a successful. of about two weeks, 2 f-35b's flying all their short takeoff and vertical landing. there are reports on that. i went out to sea. the airplane performed fabulously. what you get it out of that airplane for our nation is the capability to have, instead of just 11 carriers doing our nation's bidding, you will have 22. will be flying off the smaller carrier. much like what is being operated

off the coast of yemen and off the coast of libya in the early days. without that, our nation produces its capability to interact around the world by 50%. >> let me ask you this. the question about those trials. what was the effect of the f- 35b's jet blast on the ships surface? i apologize for interrupting you. i wanted to get an answer for that. >> it was negligible. the expectations were it would be significant. it was shockingly negligible to the point that report, i was on for the ship, reports were it was insignificant. >> thank you.

>> thank you gentlemen for being here today. our panel, patriot act and distinguished careers, we all appreciate the great work you are doing. let me say first of all, i get what you are saying. $465 billion in cuts you are barely able to swallow and now we are talking about increasing that to a full co in dollars. that takes it from a high risk to a full trillion dollars. that takes it from -- to a full killian dollars. that takes it from a high risk level. i knew we would be here today talking about these problems. my first question is for you general. we've got a number of times. -- we have talked a number of

times. i know there is a decision to not certify the new long-range bomb striker for nuclear operations. air combat command -- not global strike command, which is new, will be the lead major command on the program. can you please explain the rationale behind these two decisions? obviously, i am concerned about the emphasis on the nuclear role. let me kind of ad in that with all these risks involved, that makes this world a more dangerous place. the one area where there is no tolerance for risk is in nuclear weapons. explain that and give us an idea about that rationale. >> we agreed that there is no tolerance for error in that business. there are two aspects to this. one is that the airplane will be

dual capable. it will be both nuclear capable and it will be a conventional long-range strike platform as well. the logic is to design and build the airplane to perform nuclear missions. this will not be back in later. this will be done in the design and build process. not to certify immediately, the reason is we are trying to control costs. part of that is controlling how to leverage your test process is. we are going to phase this in a way that will introduce conventional capability that is easier to test, less costly to test, then as we get closer to test, then as we get closer to the time when the b-52 and b-2