mr. chairman. mr. dodaro, let me go to page 202 of your report where you talk about the drugging shortages. want to pick up on some of the things that the chairman was asking you about. you know, we did some preliminary research and looked into this drug shortages, and drugs that were life saving drugs, chemotherapy drugs, one of the things that we found in our research was that we had a gray market going on out there where a drug might start out from the manufacturer costing $7 a bottle, and by the end of the week because of the gray market maybe selling for $700 a vial. we also had an opportunity to talk to doctors from all over the country, as a matter of fact, one doctor from south carolina, i'll never forget it. she came in, and she at -- she t a major medical facility. and she said, sadly, we are performing medicine like we're in a third world country because of the shortages. so it is a major, major area. and i notice europe comments, but -- your comment, but i'm just wondering, did you go, did y

mr. chairman. i'm sorry. >> finally -- as drafted, this -- the proposed rule's change sun workable since the committee does not formerly receive the nomination -- formally receive the nomination on any of the related forms, we cannot -- [inaudible] confirmation hearing rules on such a nominee. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> mr. chairman, if i could respond briefly and maybe suggest a middle ground. first of all, i do think a formal rules change is appropriate because of dodd-frank and the enormous significance of the treasury secretary to matters under the direct jurisdiction of this committee. and that's a permanent change. but be that as it may, i would be happy to withdraw this amendment if the chairman would invite mr. lu to testify for -- before his confirmation vote. >> the president is already moving but will ensure the senator that i will invite him as soon as the confirmation is complete. >> ok. i'll take that as a no but i'd love a vote on my amendment. >> if there's no

mr. chairman. >> thank you, ranking member. you are reminded opening statements may be submitted for the record. we're pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses on this topic. the honorable jim gilmore is chairman of the congressional advisory panel peer capabilities for terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. the commonwealth of virginia from 1998 to 2002. he served the united states county. thank you for the service commissary. in 2009, became president and ceo free congress foundation. mr. shawn reese is an expert at the congressional research service. he has written numerous reports on local human security issues. he has testified before the house and the homeland security advisory system, the house homeland security committee of federal counterterrorism programs. prior is the opposite of the united states army for 10 years, thank you for your service commissary. currently a senior at the center for strategic and international studies. in september 2009 after retiring from the united states navy. thank you for y

mr. chairman, you are a good chairman. this committee will get over this aberration and get back to doing business and find common ground regarding sequestration, i hope. the reason i am voting against the nomination is that there are very few people with his voting record when it comes to iran and israel. very few people who have been this wrong about so many different things. i cannot in good conscience support this nomination because i think he is sending the worst possible signal to our friends and our enemies alike. >> thank you, senator gramm. senator can. >> thank you, senator. as i think about this to my approach it as if we are doing a hiring exercise. we are not -- the president, of course, makes the nomination, but we are acting in partial capacity. when i hire somebody the first thing of the kendis experience. as i mentioned at the hearing, i think the senator's experience as an enlisted man is importance . a lot of there's a possibility of the defense department will be dealing with people returning from comba

mr. chairman, mr. is critical to allow the joint chiefs to write their franken offices have meant that impact to the services. lots of capabilities and readiness in the mismatch between resources and strategies, we're going to have to work together to ensure the american people understand how serious this is. last week led by senator ayotte, senators mccain, graham and i introduced a bill to mitigate the impact of sequestration to the end of the year and provides a department with flexibility it desperately needs to operate under a continuing resolution. it's not a preferred solution, but it's better than doing nothing. there's a growing concern the president will not negotiate with congress on a compromise to sequestration until after it takes is march 1st. each member of congress hears from the pain effect did to their constituents. but the real pain will be felt by the men and women serving our country who will see the resources they need to defend the nation arbitrarily. so anyway, that's what this

mr. chairman. i want to thank, thank you general austin, general rodriguez, for your service to the nation and to your families for everything you have done. and you may want to take them for a valentine's day lunch to the senate cafeteria. and then you may not. general austin, as we heard the president say the other night, he is looking to withdraw 34,000 troops from afghanistan and my question is, can that be done in a way that does not leave afghanistan less stable? >> thank you, sir. whereas i was not a part of the process that helped to generate the proposals for the numbers of troops to be drawn down and the rate at which they should be drawn down i can tell you that from having been a part of that process before, the things that the types of things that commanders consider going into those recommendations really account for whether or not they can accomplish the assigned objectives and missions. so i would assume that general allen and general maddis as they went through that process provided

mr. chairman. to other members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be heard today to discuss the cbs outlook for the budget and economy over the next 10 years. our analysis shows the country continues to face very large, economic and budget challenges. let me discuss the economy first and then i'll turn to the budget. we anticipate economic growth will remain slow this year because the gradual improvement we see an underlying economic factors will be offset by tightening the federal fiscal policies scheduled under current law. .. the cuts in federal spending scheduled to take effect next month lemine reduce spending by households in the government. we protect inflation-adjusted gdp will increase by about 1.5% in 2013 but it would increase roughly 1.5 percentage points faster were it not for the fiscal tightening. under current law then, we expect the unemployment rate will stay above 7.5% through next year. that would make 2014 the sixth consecutive year with unemployment so high, the

mr. chairman. ony. we begin questions. i'll ask to put five minutes on the clock for each member. chairman bernanke, what is your assessment, please elaborate, of the sequester's impact in the short term if congress did nothing, and what would be the impact if congress manufactures another crisis with a fight over the cr? >> mr. chairman, as i mentioned in my remarks, with respect to the sequester, the cbo estimates it would cost about .6% of growth in this year and 750,000 jobs. it would be a drag on near term economic recovery. more broadly, all of the actions taken this year, according to the cbo, would be a drag of about 1.5 percentage points, which is quite significant. so in that respect, i think an appropriate balance would be to introduce these cuts more gradually, and to compensate with larger and more sustained cuts in the longer run to address our long-run fiscal issues. as you note, there are a couple of other issues this year, including the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling. ag

mr. chairman? my understanding is that we're each ing to take 15 minutes' time which would allow you a minute and a half and our side would take a minute and i have no onether than mysf to close. that's my understanding, mr. chairman. mr. van hollen: mr. airman, let me make a couple of comments which are 100% accurate, just so people watching this can understand what we're all talking about, since there's a lot of confusion. the president is going to submit audget. he's submitted a budget every year of his four terms, four years. our republican colleagues don't like the budgets that he smits, but they're free to look -- submits, but they're free to look at them, they're transparent, they're on the internet. the president is late because we tried to work an agreement on january 2 and you need to know what your revenues are going to be before you put together a budget, number one. number two, the house can take whatever action it wants on the president's budget. you can tell the people you don't like

mr. chairman.however, i believe that a limited and carefully calibrated judicial role would be permissible as a matter of policy. how could this be the case? we need to bear in mind that there are two distinct scenarios that arise when the government uses the force and the targeted manner. it becomes part of our own conflict, it requires an instant judgment as to whether someone is an enemy, whether a shot should be taken very judicial involvement would of course be grossly impractical, and effects relatively common ground. unlike the classic scenario, this scenario is a two-stage process with different targets at different points in time. it has given us a fair sense of how this process actually unfolds currently. at stage one, the question is whether the available intelligence to establish the nominated individual is notionally within the scope of the governments asserting target authority. it is so opening the door should that person be located. stage to a rise if the target is located. the pers

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. lew i welcome you and your family and i welcome my opportunity to vote for you. i'm -- the chairman of this committee once called me utterly predictable and he is utterly correct. i have a focus mission in life and i stick by it and you are one of the people who could help me make progress. i have never really understood why it is that the republicans are so adamant about -- against raising revenues because it does make sense. i don't know if it is grover norquist or a wednesday breakfast meeting they have every week to make sure they -- i don't understand it. if you want to get things done in this country, you have to have revenue. you just have to have rch. one, i would like to know that you're on that side and you would encourage in the development of the budget and tax proposals that there be more revenue. >> senator, i very much believe that we need to have a balanced approach to get out out of the fiscal hole we're in. nobody likes to raise taxes but the choice is always between

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cruz. as i've mentioned before, my answer to the letter on this subject is now part of the record. first point that you raised, i said the following with regard to -- disclose all compensation over $5000. he has received over the past five years. instead financial disclosure form in which the committee requires all nominees to provide calls to provide, calls for the disclosure from which the nominee has received compensation in excess of $5000. and during the previous two years. now, you may want to change the committee's questions, standard questions. we can take it up at any appropriate time, but it's not going to be a separate role for senator hagel than it is for all the other nominees. a two-year disclosure requirement has been consistently applied by the committee is established in section 102 of the ethics in government act. it applies only to all nominees for senate confirmed positions, but also to all candidates in federal elected office. my comment abou

mr. chairman. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, let me make a couple of comments which are 100% accurate, just so people watching this can understand what we're all talking about, since there's a lot of confusion. the president is going to submit a budget. he's submitted a budget every year of his four terms, four years. our republican colleagues don't like the budgets that he smits, but they're free to look -- submits, but they're free to look at them, they're transparent, they're on the internet. the president is late because we tried to work an agreement on january 2 and you need to know what your revenues are going to be before you put together a budget, number one. number two, the house can take whatever action it wants on the president's budget. you can tell the people you don't like it and you can have your own alternative. but he's going to submit a budget that's transparent, which is why we shouldn't be wasting time talking about this on the floor of the house when in less than one month we're going to see these a

mr. chairman. i understand we are going to have to balance. if you let me know when seven minutes is up, have a few more questions. >> we will move right into the second round. >> this is one of the most important hearings we've had in probably a very long time and that is saying a lot given the hearings we've had in recent time. i know you well, appreciate our families and general osten, here is my dilemma. i'm not so sure, and i maybe wrong but she cannot tell us what she recommended about troop levels. i have to think about that. i don't know if you have the right to do that quite frankly. i note he told me. you told me on the tarmac in baghdad that we neededsomewhere between 18 and 20,000. i said that may be more than the market can bear. he said that the numbers and i note your recommendations were somewhere in the mid-15,000, 16,000. i think the bottom line for most people was 10 and i've got an exchange between me and general dempsey about how the numbers i'm from 19,000 on th way down to fiv

mr. chairman. >> senator schumer? >> thank you mr. chairman. first i want to welcome senator crapo as our new ranking member and look forward to, whoing with you on the commit -- to working with you on the committee. to the other members of the committee, welcome. it is a great committee. i hope we will have a good productive time under the chairman's leadership. my first few questions are about sequestration and i want to talk a little bit about italy. estimates suggest that letting sequester take effect could reduce the gdp by as much as half a point over the remainder of the year. i first want to know if -- i'm going to ask you a series and you can answer them. is that a fair estimate? instead of stopping sequestration, some have suggested letting the full amount of cuts take effect. but rearranging the cuts rather than imposing them across the board. in your opinion, would this reshuffling mitigate the negative effect of gdp growth in any meaningful way this year or next? or would the net effect on short-term gdp be more or less the same si

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> excuse me. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin. >> i do have time constraints and do i believe that i've been overlooked. >> the gentlelady is up following mr. rens ay. >> oh, is he -- how many republicans -- >> we've gone back and forth. republican and democrat. >> ok. i'm so sorry. >> that's all right. the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr., for being here. i just want to go back to my colleague's question on social security. because did i have a question on it. but the c.b.o. baseline shows, and you previously mentioned, that social security will run a cash deficit of $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. is that a true statement? >> i don't have that number in front of me, i'm afraid. >> ok. going back to some of the discussions that have occurred, it's been an interesting day for me, i've been a businessman most of my life, only been here a couple of years. when i look at the business of the federal government as to how it's going and how my

mr. chairman. what is your opinion of authorizing personnel other than police officers to bear arms in schools? mr. bond, what do you think? >> i think overall it would be detrimental. >> many okay. >> i just want to be brief because -- mr. canady, what do you think? >> our association took a strong stance on that from the beginning, we would not favor the wholesale arming of teachers. we realize there are unique situations. >> mr. pompei? >> absolutely disdegree with that. >> mr. bontrager? >> i'm a security expert, i'm not an expert on gun control, and what we focus on is how to. if schools decide that that's where they want to go, how do we make it as safe as possible. >> i understand. mr. osher? >> one of my expertise is implicit bias from social psychology. it's a very dangerous, risky proposition. >> mr. ellis? >> i would agree with that. i think it's a very risky proposition, and i would not be in favor of it. >> mr. pompei, the national association of school counselors has a recommended rati

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. secretary carter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator inhofe, all of the members of the committee. i'm going to be brief. i think what you'd like to get to and we'd like to get to the specific of the impact of the two budget circumstances that we face. first of all, sequestration and the second the possibility of the continued resolution going on for the entire year. i thank you for this hearing, i mean that from the bottom of my heart. we welcome an opportunity to describe these impacts. secretary panetta and i have been using the word devastating for sixteen months now. and i testified last august to the consequences of sequestration if it was to occur. now it's at the door. you, who know us, who understand us, and know national security inside and out by virtue of your service on this committee are critical because i'm hoping when we describe what the consequences of these things are for national defense as we see and give you the information that you

mr. chairman. >> secretary panetta. >> mr. chairman, senator inhofe, i appreciate being here to discuss the facility attacks in benghazi on september 11, threlf. before i go into -- 2012. before i go into my testimony, let me say my deepest thanks for all of you for your support and friendship that i've had with all of you on both sliles. i have -- both sides of the aisle. i have had in many ways to live the american dream as a son of italian immigrants in the various capacities that i've had to serve this country. the greatest privilege i think i've had is to serve as an elected member in the house and had the opportunity to work with many of you in that capacity, and then as member of the executive branch, had the opportunity to work with you as well. i thank you for your dedication to the country and i thank you for your willingness to serve the united states. on that tragic day, as always, the department of defense was prepared for a wide range of contingencies. just remind you that the nctc in the six months prior to that

mr. chairman. >> thank you. this time mr. cohen, subcommittee chairman. >> thank you, chairman. it's the commercial and antitrust law. we used to call it cow. i thank chairman bacchus for choosing the topic of the merger for a first hearing and i want to say i look forward whey hope and know will be a working relationship. the third saturday in october is not the only time alabama and tennessee get together. as an initial matter, i note unlike previous mergers the union represent workers at both of the airlines have expressed strong report. that's encouraging. some news account suggest that the unions were instrumental in agree together move. mr. chairman, i ask consent that the final joint release between the different unions be entered with the record. >> without objection. >> also i ask unanimous consent of a letter president of the association for professional flight attendant in the statement chairman of the pilots association expressing support be entered to the record. thank you. i understand why labor supports this it employs that both carriers forced to get a better dea

mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> mr. lew, welcome. i want to come back to an area where i think there is room for republicans and emma christ to talk about -- tax reform. -- democrats to talk about -- taxi from. -- tax reform. i think you are familiar with these documents. contrast that with the paper the white house put out which is 25 pages. it is a corporate tax reform proposal. give ministration is going to have to do a better job of leading on the issue of tax reform if we are going to get something done on this issue. this goes along with the myriad issues we deal with a in the tax code. the president talked about tax reform last night but as i give us any details. he says he supports a lowering rates for businesses in accra a drop in america. does the president when he says that agreed to -- agree the rates need to be lowered across the board for all taxpayers? a lot of small businesses file on individual tax forms and pay individual tax rates. should tax reform include a lowering of rates on individual taxpayers as well as the

mr. chairman. >> mr. granger. >> mr. chairman, topic of today's hearing as deities fiscal challenges that we agree is the reason is to provide resources not only for equipment, but for people needed to defend this great nation. today we discussed burger challenges and i were to focus on veterans to more fighters because they should be our top priority and how we fund for critical services for soldiers when they return from the battlefield. we must not balance needs to sacrifice our military. at her directly that the health service we provide for wounded warriors has at times been inadequate. when i hear soldiers had rather go back to iraq any day, it causes me great concern. general odierno, many come from army soldiers and the pastor record from 30 soldiers and make a straight blade instead of receiving a day to assist you ptsd or tbi, they were diagnosed with medical conditions unrelated to service that allowed the army to discharge them. soldiers tell me their command disciplinary action if the soldiers questioned diag

mr. chairman come you're absolutely right. we spent some time in the red zone, but america expects us to get in the end zone. i do believe and i was listening to you, senator coburn this morning on morning joe. i said to myself, we have to get this done with a reasonable guy like senator coburn and i believe we will. i really do. you know i'm also pleased to be here with my friend and colleague, chairman and he said in the postal service is a vital link that binds our nation together, delivering mail to more than 150 million addresses in operating 32,000 post offices nationwide for postal service connects families, friends and businesses across the vast distances of our great country. last year however the postal service reported losses of approximately $16 million. at last onebut $3 billion in the most recent quater. it is friday for a 50 alien dollars. it is authorized to borrow from the treasury and continues to this approximately $25 million a day. it also faces a burden not required of any other agency or business in this

mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be with all of you here on this valentine's day. i just want to make two points in these oral remarks. first, i hope 2013 will be the beginning of the end of the major rule makings implementing dodd/frank and strengthening capital rules. the rule making process has been very time consuming, in some cases running beyond the deadline set by congress though there have been some good reasons for that. joint rule making just takes a lot of time. and for many of the rules, that process involves three to five independent agencies representing between 12 and 22 individuals who have votes at those agencies. also, some of the rules involve subjects that are complicated, controversial, or both. i think there was wide agreement that it was incumbent on the regulators to take the time to understand the issues. and to give full consideration to the many thousands of comments that were submitted on some of the proposals. but it's also important to get to the point where we can prov

mr. chairman.and excited for the opportunity to work with you. i want to compliment you for your leadership in calling this hearing today. i hope it won't surprise you on this issue i will be at going a lot of your same comments in your opening statement very articulate. aggressive efforts regarding integration of unmanned aircraft systems or uas is a serious issue at present daunting challenges. possible economic opportunity and also potential threats to civil liberties and safety. i know firsthand what a complicated issue that is to present an unmanned aerial vehicle unit operates out of my district at air national guard base on the military side. while commonly referred to as drones, it goes far beyond what the word implies. there's a human element to unmanned flight just as an increasing limit demand play. tremendous potential risk in public concerns associated degrading into the national airs his and my constituents expressed concerns on a daily basis. these aircraft represent an emerging tech

mr. chairman. >> senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. heaphy, thank you for your service as a u.s. attorney in for being here today. want to join the other members of the committee in expressing my gratitude to the family members who are here today who have lost a loved one as a result of an act of violence. i believe we owe it to you not to engage in tokenism or symbolic acts, but rather, to try the best we can to address the causes and to come up with solutions, and at the same time respect the rights of law- abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is protected by the second amendment. i believe is possible for us to do that. but i also believe it is important for us to look at the laws already on the books. there is already some discussion on this, and mr. heaphy, forgive me if i repeat it. in 2008, congress passed a provision that required that the states included in the background check database, people who were adjudicated mentally ill -- you are familiar with that law, are you, sir? >> senator, i believe that is voluntary. we stron

mr. chairman.first of all, i would like to echo your remarks about secretary panetta and the work he has done. i don't see him here today, but i do recall that when he was first nominated, i was probably one of the first phone calls to him, and i have enjoyed working with him and a mccain, the same way, i continue to depend on his counsel. you and i have worked very well together in the past. mr. chairman, before i continue the opening statement, i would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. senator hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered over the past five years. yet his initials the mission was -- initial submission was for only four speeches, even though, as was noticed by senator cruz, he had 12 speeches but submitted four speeches. well, we received some more, but only late last night i think it would have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before that. i hope we will be able to get that infor

mr. chairman and ben bernanke, mr. chairman, i want to walk through the proposed exit strategy that i think was put forward in june of 2011 and see if you foresee taking different steps and i believe in that exit strategy, you said you would cease reinventing payments of principles, principles on securities holdings as they matured. the second part was raising fed funds while adjusting the excess reserves and levels of reserves in the banking system to kind of bring those funds towards a target rate. the third part of that was selling of the fed securities and for the first increase in the target for the federal funds rate. so according to the most recent fomc minutes released a number of participants discuss a possibility of providing monetary accommodation by holding securities for a longer period of time than was originally envisioned by the committee's exit principles either to supplement or replace for other asset purchases. this suggests a deviation from the coarse put forward in 2011 and i would suspect there may

mr. chairman. there are 16 days remaining between today and march 1. 16 days that will define our military strength. secretary of defense announced he has indefinitely delayed the truman carrier strike in the middle east, denying the two carrier force presence that our commander has requested over long period of time. i'm going to run through this quick. the admiral made a statement "i know of no other time in history that we have come this far, this fast in the defense budget. there could be for the first time in my career, incidents where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot do it. " the secretary of defense in the hearing that took place the other day on ben began city made it clear -- benghazi that we don't have the resources to product and defend and offer security to our people. that is not acceptable. the department of defense has absorbed almost $600 billion. we're looking at up to over this period of 10 years, a $1 trillion cut and it can't take pla

mr. chairman. myra, with myra, by the way is her superintendent ernie >> thank you and we appreciate her being recognized. this was a violent crime. and she was instrumental in helping the young lady and it's nice to know that other young ladis that may feel in that same predicament know there are people out there willing to help them and we're proud to have her at green division and she is a great person. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for recognizing me for doing this. this is something that i do on a daily basis. if i see anyone in trouble or what have you, i'm helping them. whether it constitutes me calling central control or not, i'm helping them. it's just nice to be recognized for something that i do on a daily basis. thank you. >> thank you on behalf of the board and the entire agency for your outstanding service. we really appreciate it. [ applause ] >> this is angela johnson. >> good afternoon miss johnson and congratulations and thank you for your great service to the agency and

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for doggedly working on postal reform over the last few years. but especially last year. and you and senator lieberman, senator collins, and senator brown for the postal reform bill. thank you for your hard work. i'm assuming that mr. donahoe, you would agree if the house had taken up the senate bill or passed a similar bill to that and got it to the president you would not have recently made this announcement on the saturday delivery, that the bill that the senate had passed had provisions in there to make sure this wouldn't happen, at least for a couple years, do you agree with that? >> we need to move as quickly as we can to close the $20 billion gap, and that includes changing the delivery schedule. i think sometimes people think that's not a lot of money, but to us it's a substantial amount. the volume's not there and we need to move on. package delivery is what people are looking for and that's what we are proposing. >> i don't want to bring up a tou

mr. chairman. i was watching the hearing and appreciate the work that was done by the mta, by bart, and i also appreciate some of the questions -- actually, all of the questions that were asked by my colleagues. and i know that this has been something that we have been working on for quite sometime. and you know, as i said when we first had this item come before the board, you know, we want something that is fair and reasonable for both agencies. and i appreciate the fact that, that both agencies have been working, you know, to get to that point. i'm not really sure, to be honest, if we're necessarily there and that's not, you know, because of a lack of trying. but i wanted to just point out a couple of things that to me are sort of interesting and certainly raise some concerns. i do have a question about why, you know, when we -- when we sent these items back, there was an idea that if we have an agreement where we're paying bart and we have an agreement where bart is paying us, that there be some

mr. chairman. i would like to ask you about something that is maybe not as glamorous, maybe not as outfront, and that is the maintenance part of this equation. i have heard you all talk about maintenance and operations in men and women in all of these very important things. things like maintenance is something that is always kind of in the background. whether its planes or tanks, there is no area that will be exempt from that. the general talked about a hollow military. it seems like that is the first that to holler out the military. neglecting maintenance. it has happened from time to time in our history. i know in my district, they decided to cancel about $200 million worth of maintenance contracts. i believe what the navy has said, if we go along with the sequester and the continuing resolution build, i think that one of the reasons that happens, as i have read, it is less visible, and also considered to be the most reversible. in other words, you can skip the maintenance because you can always

mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to echo your remarks about secretary panetta and the work he has done. i don't see him here today, but i do recall that when he was first nominated, i was probably one of the first phone calls to him, and i have enjoyed working with him and a mccain, the same way, i continue to depend on his counsel. you and i have worked very well together in the past. mr. chairman, before i continue the opening statement, i would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. senator hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered over the past five years. yet his initials the mission was -- initial submission was for only four speeches, even though, as was noticed by senator cruz, he had 12 speeches but submitted four speeches. well, we received some more, but only late last night i think it would have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before that. i hope we will be able to get that info

mr. chairman. there will be no report today. >> okay. >> public comment, this is an opportunity for members of the public to address matters that are within the jurisdiction of the sfmta board of directors, but not on today's calendar. you have two people who, three people who have expressed interest and start with herbert wiener followed by mark gruber. >> good afternoon, mr. wiener. >>> herbert wiener. i note that mayor lee wants a task force to do a report on muni. and i think it can be agreed by everyone service on muni is a an all-time low. it's very bad and i haven't seen this since the days of emelio cruz. i believe in the task force but i don't think it should be a whitewash or cover up. i don't think it should be self-congratulatetry. i don't think all the friends of mta should be servinging on the board. you need critics on the board. otherwise what's going to happen is they'll have a whitewash and thing will go on as before. you do not need this. if you do have a whitewash and things go

mr. chairman, if there are any actions on the proposed amendments

mr. chairman. mr. secretary i would like to begin by thanking you this morning and for your extended service. i will say, secretary, i regret you and i haven't had the opportunity to work together since signing a member of the committee but to have earned a reputation for being reminded, looking for a bipartisan compromise and looking for solutions. i will pass on a comment made by a senior republican on the committee which are characterized as a straight shooter which as you know in washington as both a rare compliment and a very high complement so i want to thank you for your principal the dedication to this country and for your long service and i want to thank you, general, for your service and your decades defending the nation and passionate commitment standing with the men and women of the military and protecting the interest of the united states. it is my hope that this hearing can be a hopeful moment in terms of learning productive lessons learned from the tragic attack of benghazi. what i would

mr. chairman. mrs. secretary, thank you for your service to this country. we are so many in your debt for time after time answering the call. thank you very, very were and general dempsey. thank you for everything so you done for our forces and for our country. and i want to express my condolences to all of the families who have suffered losses in this tragedy, and we will do everything we can to make sure it never happens again. earlier in the hearing, mrs. secretary, you said that it is not the department of defense's job to be 9-1-1, and so the question that struck me is, so when this happens and it happened so fast, and so quick, that when you responded in an hour, it may already be over by that time. are we relyingings on the home country -- relying on the home country to be 9-1-1? if so, as you go through what they're providing to us, you mentioned some are not up to our -- are not up to the quality of others at this time. how are you making that decision that we have people in harm's way and

mr. chairman, mr. ranking member barber, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to address this important issue 10 years on after 9/11, the 9/11 attack. the pre--- free congress at the center for national instant to address many of the big picture is for strategic issues but not the least of which is homeland security issues. as the chairman said i chair the national congressional advisory panel on homeland security. for three years before the 9/11 attack and for two years thereafter. while i was the governor of virginia, i was doing that work at the beginning. 10 years on we are in a position to do so assessment, the colleaguecollegewere here with e certainly experts in this field. i would like to address very quickly some of the strategic issues for just a moment. the fundamental question i think for the committee, the subcommittee and the full committee is, do you really have a strategic plan to safeguard the nation? and is homeland security structure to really carry out that? how ca

mr. chairman. >> senator main. >> thank you mr. airman and thank you to the witnesses and their wonderful wives for their service to o country. we are very proud to have you certainly in such positions of responsibility. general austin and general rodriguez, general rodriguez he recently served in afghanistan as a commander of the international joint command with isaf and i will ask you both the same question. the president has announced 34,000 troops more than half of our force will return home by the end of the year. was this recommendation via the chairman of the joint chiefs? was this a recommendation by the military? >> senor, i don't know what the specific recommendation was. as i understand it -- >> no one has told you or general rodriguez? >> no sir i was not a part of that process. studies so you are excluded from knowing the recommendations of the military? given the new responsibilities you have? >> i was not included in that process. >> did either of you recommend this option? >> no sir. >> in your best professional mili

mr. chairman. mr.ke, the fed is monetary its near zero interest rate policy and how it could result in risk-taking and threaten the financial stability of the united states. what specific metrics have you used to evaluate whether these are increasing? >> we have greatly expanded our resources that we use in the monitoring process. we have created an office for financial stability. we are working with an oversight council. in the amount of effort we have into this has greatly increased. our internal monitors report regularly to the board. our discussion on the monetary policy includes discussions of financial stability issues. the kind of metrics that are used on things like leverage our people who are invested in leverage. interest rate risk or other kinds of rkisks that are concentrated. the fed is anxious. we have spent a lot of effort looking to banks and other financial institutions trying to ensure that they have appropriate capital or liquidity and are managing their risks. there is a wide range

mr. chairman. >> senator mccain. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses and their wonderful wives for their service to our country. we are very proud to have you certainly in such positions of responsibility. general austin and general rodriguez, general rodriguez he recently served in afghanistan as a commander of the international joint command with isaf and i will ask you both the same question. the president has announced 34,000 troops more than half of our force will return home by the end of the year. was this recommendation via the chairman of the joint chiefs? was this a recommendation by the military? >> senator, i don't know what the specific recommendation was. as i understand it -- >> no one has told you or general rodriguez? >> no sir i was not a part of that process. studies so you are excluded from knowing the recommendations of the military? given the new responsibilities you have? >> i was not included in that process. >> did either of you recommend this option? >> no sir. >> in your best professiona

mr. chairman. cinematical for your testimony. i guess i disagree with sure your essay showing the doj announced his essay on we save significant grounds, but they don't say they can't go beyond that or that there's going to be more otherwise. do you all agree with the fact that they based their analysis not simply on the survey, the basically article to in article li authority that if he didn't have the aumf authority we can engage overseas? >> the administration would overstate the position that it has authority under article li to defend the country against an imminent threat. that leaves open the question, but to the extent tomorrow, hezbollah presents an imminent threat, though it's totally outside the aumf, the administration would start you assert the authority as a matter of article li and a domestic level under articles two to counter that. >> if it was an imminent threat such as libya, no congressional authorization to get engaged in libya. and some of the things that aumf is important. wo

mr. chairman. let me say it is a particular honor to serve as ranking member on this committee with you and a particularly high honor to serve on the committee with two former ranking members and chairman of this committee, senator cornyn and senator hatch, as well as the ranking member of the entire committee, senator grassley. all of us were rightly horrified by the tragedy in newtown, connecticut. to see young children senselessly murdered takes your breath away. let me say to each of you who has come here today that are the victims of crimes of violence, my heart goes out to you. thank you for coming, thank you for standing for your lost loved ones. i will tell you that i have spent personally much of my professional career working in a law enforcement to, number one, prevent these horrible crimes of violence, and number two, to ensure that anyone who carries them out is subject to the very strict as punishments. i am hopeful that the fervor that we see on this judiciary committee hearing for s

mr. chairman, we have this kind of implementation we're not going to fulfill the goal what we said when we laboriously put together. >> and the affordable is based on the cost of the workers individual coverage not the cost of family coverage, so we're going to have millions of spouses and dependents in a kind of regulatory no-man's land. >> are you artificially raising the cost to all taxpayers by trying to lure people on to the exchange as opposed to giving them this option that is mandated by federal law implemented in 2014? >> no. >> you're sure of that? >> yes. >> so if this committee asked

mr. chairman and chairman bernanke.ged near zero interest rate policy could result in excessive risk taking and threaten the financial stability of the united states. i'm interested in what specific metrics you use to evaluate whether these risks are increasing. >> well, first, senator, we have greatly expanded our resources that we use in the monitoring process. we have created a new office for financial stability. we're working very intensively with financial stability oversight council. the amount of effort we have put into this is greatly increased. our internal monitors in turn report regularly to the board and they report to the federal open market committee. so our discussions of monetary policy include extensive discussions of financial stability issues. the kind of metrics that are used include things like leverage, our people who are investing taking on too much leverage, our asset valuations out of line, according to standard metrics, is interest rate risk or other kinds of risk, too concentrated. as you know

mr. chairman. i guess, yes. that would be a yes. and you are talking about the compensation. you probably heard my comment earlier about the return on investment, in terms of loan forgiveness for primary-care physicians. what would that look like? in other words, i know we do some loan forgiveness. we do it for people serving in underserved communities. what would that look like? how could you compute that in terms of the value that you would get back over the course of a physician's career? if you said, if you go into -- if you are a gp, $100,000 off of your loan. have studies been done to do that? >> to my knowledge, there is no systematic review of that specific question. i know in my home state of idaho, which is a neighbor to wyoming and exceptionally rural, we have programs to help offset debt related to medical education. those have been somewhat successful. i would defer to the panelists to my left, dr. reinhardt. >> as a medical economist, may i ask you that? >> microphone, please. >> if y

mr. chairman. members of the subcommittee, i am very honored to be here today to discuss this important subject matter and share my thoughts with you. i am especially humbled to be, to the emotional testimony we have from the victims of senseless violence, and it makes it difficult to return to drive legal subject matters, but that is my task. supreme court's recent decisions in heller and mcdonald provide authoritative guidance for interpreting and applying the second amendment. so it is important first to identify the pertinent principles established by those decisions. first, the second amendment protects an individual right that belongs to all americans. indeed the court repeatedly emphasize in both heller and donald that the inherent and pre-existing right to self-defense is the core and essential component of the second amendment right itself. second, the fundamental second amendment right to arms is entitled to no less respect than other fundamental rights protected by the bill of rights as