omb re al omb re. he just finished a film called latie on youth. he is a father and his 2 children are here. daniel and elma and his daughter in law and megan m burns and suggested we contact him. we are so happy to have you here and look forward to hearing your address. >> good morning ladies and gentlemen. you know i got to share this with you. i know how to drive a tractor. don't forget what you come from. culture cures. it's like coming back to our mom. i want to first and formost jeff adachi, thank you for the opportunity. patty lee. and sury to all the students. can i see the hands of the high school students? you know what i like about that? mihose means my children. look where you are sitting. in the front. i did a presentation for 2 thousand students and they were 25 hundred chairs. where do you think they sat? it breaks my heart. they sat in the back. i had all the ushers remove the first 5 hundred chairs and we started getting closer. how does it feel to be in the front? if you see yourself at second best, how do you think people are goi

dollars indny defense as when panetta was director of omb. the real thing to watch around town is whether panetta is the instrument of the reducing in dod once again, and what role he plays and in bringing dod's budget down in a significant way over the next couple of years. this has the defense industry very concerned, this has a lot of people around town concerned. he is a very thoughtful guy, and we will see how it all plays out. >> next call for our guest, michael swetnam, comes from pennsylvania. >> i would really love to have a general petraeus drafted to run for president, as we did it general eisenhower . he would unite our country to stand up for freedom and truth, which we don't have now. i wish that the tea party people and club for growth would support him like i do. i did it would be a waste -- to waste -- i think it would be a waste to put all his good qualities on the cia. host: is there a political calculation to moving general petraeus to the cia? guest: it leaves the option open, particularly since general petraeus has decid

salido le arrebato el titulo peso pluma de la omb...! ///// ----nos vamos a la ultima pausa del noticiero que los latinos prefieren en la bahia ! take vo ---- jessica carrillo, en dos minutos, nos lleva a conocer rio, por partida doble ! ----ya le diremos por que, enseguida !!!! segment ends cu / cesar ---- nuestra querida companera jessica carrillo estuvo en rio ! ---y ademas, nos dice que precisamente, "rio", fue la preferida del publico este fin de semana .... ---hablamos de lo mismo o de dos cosas diferentes? ----mira la nota: te vas a enterar .... take pkg acceso total hola que tal... es un gusto saludarles... el pasado viernes se llevo a cabo la premier de la cinta fast five, en rio de janeiro. las estrellas de esta pelicula se reunieron en este lugar para ver disfrutar de la pelicula... no solo lucieron sus mejores galas, sino que llegaron en los autos, que veremos en la cinta... las chicas llegaron con un look fresco, pero elegante... mientras que entre los hombres hubo de todo un poco, el look de traje tipico, y el look mas cas

>> we're told by omb and treasury that it takes a change in the law. >> and that's it? >> well -- >> mr. chairman, we can help solve this problem, change that law. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman, and i trust that in the president's budget somewhere hidden, i didn't see it, he considered that but like i say, i missed that. now the gentlelady from new york for five minutes. >> thank you very much, and i would like to ask the postmaster general, mr. donahoe, questions on the wage rates in comparison to competitors. and i know that some of your private sector competitors are nonunion. but it is also my understanding that the wage rate of the postal service is roughly equivalent to the private sector competitors. and as the postal magazine studies show that postal service letter carries start at $15.85 an hour, while the starting pay for a ups driver and a fedex carrier are roughly $16.14 respectively. and i'd like to ask you, does the fact that the usps as required by statute to deliver universal service and to do a six day a week drive up, that their compensation cost

normally the white house and omb wins these arguments, but what we have been told is that they want to take money from other things. i think that is the right way to do it. i think you can do that. we could have cut another $5 billion out of defense without doing any damage to anything. there are so many things that are pots of money that they have that they simply cannot -- they do not utilize. and then they use it for reprogramming. that is why they want to have it replaced. so they can then use it for reprogramming. just like we did on this intelligence surveillance reconnaissance fact that we just sent to afghanistan. my view is that gates is still fighting a back channel fight to try to get some of that money replaced, but i do not think that will happen. >> on the fight you just mentioned, is that from the defense bill you are doing in december? is that what you're saying? >> 515 is the number that i use. obama 1530. we went down to 515. i think we could have gone another five -- >> is the you were pushing in these negotiations? >> no, i am with my chairman, but i'm just saying,

and bill clinton took him from omb making him the chief of staff in the white house.think the panettas and clintons are extremely close in ideology and publicly political disposition. panettas i would say not disparaging anybody, but he's quite a bit more of a washington operator and manager than i think the clintons are 6789 he's a hands-on guy. >> host: if he gets into dod and hillary clinton is state, is that an important relationship? >> guest: oh, yes, absolutely. i would exact that on most national security issues, they would be aligned, and whenever you have the top two cap innocent members, top two members of the national security counsel aligning on issues, that's hard for other people in the national security apparatus to contend with, so they certainly will form on issues they agree on, they will form a block that will be formidable in a national security context and hard for the president to ignore their advice. >> host: what's the patomi institute for studies? >> guest: policy analysis for the agencies around town. we like to think that we come out of the

and omb scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that. if there's one thing this administration could fix is the policy issue regarding scoring of energy -- renewable energy products on military installations to allow the military to lead like the energy leadership here in this room -- they're all here. they will do it. and the industry is ready to come back and help do it. but you've got to get rid of this impediment or it can't be done. we just can't do it. we could power the government just by burning the federal laws, regulations and executive orders for at least a year. [laughter] >> on energy. so last but not least, mr. podesta, if you come down to charleston, south carolina, you'll get to see the largest thin film solar on boeing's new 787 plant that will provide most of the power for the plant. thank you. >> i'll take that as an invitation. bill, i think a question for you? >> let me say a couple things. if you can solve for me the two issues you mentioned in the omb scoring and i think the other was congressional restrictions on

i mean, you can ride, somebody from cbo or omb, they basically still scored going by stagecoach.government this trip requires 14 days in phrase stages. they say we are fine. i guess it is a theoretical approach. we are not sure if i'd will be around very long. we don't want to score. socialistic, go ask cbo and omb to score, postponing alzheimer's by five years. they can't do it. i've got a note from david the other day, which last year senator lemole introduced the concept of going after fraud. we have evidence from ibm, evidence from american express, with evidence from these at the american express is .03 of 1% fraud rate. as a taxpayer in your 330 times, 33000% more likely to be a crook through cms than your as a cardholder of the american express. the proposal was going by cbo is costing money. now, this is maniacally stupid. at cbo and omb defined the debate in the city and a major impediments maintaining the stupidity of current policy. they should be challenged head-on. they should be forced to score breakthroughs. and say okay, this project it works would lead to this. a

needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after. >> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016. i am ho

here before the congress and my personal view -- i haven't coordinated this with the white house or omb but i think we ought to be able to find a way to deal with this in the framework of that bill without adding to the top line number of that bill. i would add, though, just in terms of my interests as secretary of defense and keeping this operation limited is, is the strain we have on our mi military and one of the things people haven't talked much about, we have 19 ships and about 18,000 men and women in uniform helping on the japanese relief. there are going to be some costs associated with that, also, that are going to have to be taken care of. between these two operations, i would just make a final pitch for those who are contemplating deep cuts in the defense budget looking around the world at the commitments and the challenges we have. i think it bears a very careful consideration. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your work. >> thank you. mr. jones? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. secretary, admiral mullen. i must tell you from th

it is easy to critique omb and cbo. they're not perfect. the relevant question is the specific, credible alternative to the system we have in place and that i have not seen. if the consumer direct approach has limited benefits and some harm in terms of overall cost if you believe the most recent congressional budget office assessment what are we left with? fundamentally we are left with a provider value approach in which we recognize that those high-cost cases, 25% of beneficiaries are where the money is and we recognize in those cases to a first approximation the health care delivered for most americans is what the provider is recommending. if you combine those two observations the only way you will contain health-care costs over the long term is by affecting what providers are recommending and what is that? that entails two reenforcing things. the first is a much better information flow. over the next decade, next five to ten years we have a significantly expanded health technology backbone in the united states. that hold backbone will cr

the omb says it costs $1.25 billion in '95 when newt gingrich led a government shutdown. those furloughed workers go home. they don't get paychecks. but you do. >> well republicans are moving legislation on the floor that would change that and say members of the house and senate not be paid in the event of a government shutdown. we'll address that. i just think most americans know that we're facing a fiscal crisis, a sea of red ink of unprecedented proportions. and it's important when we finish the budgets work this year that we find at least -- we take one small step in the direction of fiscal discipline. $61 billion when you're facing a $1.65 trillion deficit this year is really just a down payment on fiscal discipline. and house republicans are determined to fight for it. >> i think you're right. i think the vast majority of americans will agree that financially speaking something has got to be done. i just think that where we stand is the big disagreement on how it gets done and what should be done. congressman, i really appreciate your time today. thank you. >>> so w

i mean, you can ride, somebody from cbo or omb, they basically still scored going by stagecoach. so while they're on the 747, you realize the government this trip requires 14 days in phrase stages. they say we are fine. i guess it is a theoretical approach. we are not sure if i'd will be around very long. we don't want to score. socialistic, go ask cbo and omb to score, postponing alzheimer's by five years. they can't do it. i've got a note from david the other day, which last year senator lemole introduced the concept of going after fraud. we have evidence from ibm, evidence from american express, with evidence from these at the american express is .03 of 1% fraud rate. as a taxpayer in your 330 times, 33000% more likely to be a crook through cms than your as a cardholder of the american express. the proposal was going by cbo is costing money. now, this is maniacally stupid. at cbo and omb defined the debate in the city and a major impediments maintaining the stupidity of current policy. they should be challenged head-on. they should be forced to score breakthroughs. and say oka

>> there is -- right now i am in discussions with both the white house and omb about how to do this. i think it will come from within defense resources, but whether it's just exactly how we do that, we haven't established yet. >> so we're not looking at a new appropriation, but rather a reassignment of money that has already been appropriated to the defense department? >> i think that's likely, yes, sir. >> i thank you and areciate the detail when you have it. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i know we have agreement to end in five minutes, but we have two more members. would you be willing to take theiquestion? >> i thank you. mr. scott? >> thank you, mr. secretary. and i want to say this with as much respect as possible, i want to -- if i could just repeat some of the things that i've heard you say over the last few days. success is removal of gadhafi. the goal is not regime change. e dod's job to make it where it is easier for the secretary of state to do that. is that where we are? >> what i've been trying to make clear is the difference between a political objec

the recommendations is establishment and dual headed official one person dead will have it who has an omb function to insure all of the relevant resources are provided in the contingency context of which obviously the development is a big part and that person would play a role at the national security council to ensure the function. do you have any thoughts about that recommendation? >> i think i would want to reserve judgment and look at that in more detail and there's been a lot of recommendations about the various entities we should construct in the u.s. government. i think there's one floating around in the house side. we just in terms of the role in terms of the complexion, it provides a safe space for these organizations, the entities but he was committed on government to come together. we don't the conflict among themselves and it's a very important role and should be kept and preserved. i'd like each of you to submit for the record your views on that particular recommendation, it is recommendation 11 in the last report. a couple of questions for you, ms. cole this is neither here

in terms of how to pay for this , we are in discussions with the white house now and with omb. i share your view that it would be difficult for the department to eat this cost out of the base budget. there is an overseas contingency operations bill before the congress. my personal view is that we ought to be able to find a way to deal with this in the framework of that bill without adding to the top line number of the bill. in terms of my interest as secretary of defense in keeping imited, that isltd. the strain on our military. we have 19 ships and about 18,000 men and women in uniform helping on the japanese relief. there are going to be costs associated with that also they're going to have to be taken care of. between these two operations, i would make a final pitch for those contemplating deep cuts in the defense budget. looking around the world of the commitments we have and the potential challenges we have, i think it bears careful consideration. consideration. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your work. >> thank you. mr. jones? >>

i think it is easy to critique omb and cbo. they are not perfect but the relevant question is what's the alternative? what is the specific credible alternative to the system we have in place? and that i have not seen. okay so if the consumer-directed approach has a vast limited benefits and maybe actually some harm in terms of overall costs if you believe the most recent congressional budget analysis, what are we left with? fundamentally we are left with a provider-value approach in which we recognize that those high-cost cases, the top 25% of beneficiaries are where the money is and we also recognize that in those cases to a first approximation the health care delivered for most americans is what the provider is recommending. therefore, if you combine those two observations, the only way you're going to contain health care costs over the long term is by affecting what the providers are recommending and what does that then entail? i think entails two reinforcing things. the first is much better information flow. over the next d

i think it is easy to critique omb and cbo. they are not perfect but the relevant question is what's the alternative? what is the specific credible alternative to the system we have in place? and that i have not seen. okay so if the consumer-directed approach has a vast limited benefits and maybe actually some harm in terms of overall costs if you believe the most recent congressional budget analysis, what are we left with? fundamentally we are left with a provider-value approach in which we recognize that those high-cost cases, the top 25% of beneficiaries are where the money is and we also recognize that in those cases to a first approximation the health care delivered for most americans is what the provider is recommending. therefore, if you combine those two observations, the only way you're going to contain health care costs over the long term is by affecting what the providers are recommending and what does that then entail? i think entails two reinforcing things. the first is much better information flow. over the next d

here before the congress and my personal view -- i haven't coordinated this with the white house or omb but i think we ought to be able to find a way to deal with this in the framework of that bill without adding to the top line number of that bill. i would add, though, just in terms of my interests as secretary of defense and keeping this operati limited is, is the strain we have on our mi military and one of the things people haven't talked much about, we have 19 ships and about 18,000 men and women in uniform helping on the japanese relief. there are going to be some costs associated with that, also, that are going to have to be taken care of. between these two operations, i would just make a final pitch for those who are contemplating deep cuts in the defense budget looking around the world at the commitments and the challenges we have. i think it bears a very careful consideration. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your work. >> thank you. mr. jones? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. secretary, admiral mullen. i must tell you from the

that omb's attempt to define inherently governmental was inept. it was essentially -- basically, what it says something is inherently governmental if contractors shouldn't do it and i also agree with you, which further proves to me that i'm not reflextively anticontractor in those instances where it could not be asserted but can be proved that contractors can perform a given function cheaper effectively or more effectively than the government should perform that service but to me all that begs the question here and the question is, what in your view -- what functions should be inherently governmental? what function should only government perform? now, we have some notions among ourselves about that but i'd be interested in your views on this and i'd be interested in your views. >> clearly, it's the management. it's the oversight. it's the decision-making. it's the budgeting. it's the contracting. >> have you seen examples of all that being performed by contractors over the course -- >> no. >> i've seen examples of contractors in support of those f

we needed to hear truly what is needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after. >> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016. i am ho

as a former omb director, he will make sure that we will make tough budget decisions, maintain our military organs, and keep our military the very best in the world. leon, i know that you have been looking forward to returning home to sylvia in your beautiful monterey. i thank you for taking on another assignment for our country. i hope you do not have a clock. [laughter] i am also very pleased that his work at the cia will be carried on by one of our leading strategic thinkers and one of the finest military officers of our time, and general david petraeus. this is the second time in a year that i have asked general petraeus to take on a demanding assignment. i know this one carries a special sacrifice for him and his wife holly. after nearly four years in uniform, including leading americans and coalition forces in some the most challenging missions since 9/11, general petraeus will retire from the army that he loves to become the cia director. effective -- that will be effective early september pending congressional confirmation. he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate, and ac

he was the director of the omb.nown as a very effective a no-nonsense manager and a good political year -- ear. when he was appointed to the cia, there was a lot of skepticism about his qualifications and his intelligence background. those questions will be raised also were he to be named secretary of defense. he has, by most accounts, done quite a strong effective job that the cia in both managing it well and getting the support and confidence of the staff there, which is critical. host: skills and abilities transferable between the two positions? guest: there not the same. gates was the director of the cia in earlier times under bush 41 and four gates and has it turned out that it is transferable. host: another name mentioned recently in is -- guest: former governor of mississippi and a moderate democrat. they have confidence in him. he has less high level management than panetta. but as secretary of the navy, more hands-on experience with leadership of the military. host: as far as the president's choice to come

we needed to hear truly what is needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need

if you consult for me the issues you mentioned -- omb scoring and congressional restrictions on what you are allowed to do in the power industry, that would be terrific. it would ease our lives. what we are trying to do is put in a mix of centralized funding and component-level funding so that for instance we have funded and centralized the installation energy test bed to test out these various technologies, because no individual component is going to make the multi-tier investment that it takes to develop these technologies and test them. but once you have them, the return comes quite quickly. so the incentives for the component to be more energy efficient in its installations and its buildings pays back very quickly. what we are trying to do is get the centralized funding, get it in a position where it primes the pump for the components, and then utilize those technologies to reduce their costs, reduce their energy consumption. the broader issues you mentioned are substantial, and they have to be tackled. but it is beyond one department to do that. >> other comments? we will close

cbo, a founding director, omb director, served on the fed among other positions.e a political will up there on capitol hill to do some of the things that your commission has proposed? guest: up until now there has not been, but we are in a very different situation. we are facing an economic disaster, and i believe republicans and democrats are beginning to realize this, and to realize they have to work together to solve it. there is nothing like a crisis to focus the mind. we are really facing a apiary serious problem if we do not get the debt under control. -- we are really facing a serious problem if we do not get the debt under control. people around the world will not keep lending us money at low interest rates, so we'll be in trouble if we do not fix this. host: alex rivlin was our guest. -- alice rivlin was our guest. on monday we looked at discretionary spending. tuesday we looked at medicare and medicaid spending. guest today defense and security spending. today we l look at the tax >> most smart people i know are not listening to nancy pelosi for their wo

cbo, a founding director, omb director, served on the fed among other positions. is there a political will up there on capitol hill to do some of the things that your commission has proposed? guest: up until now there has not been, but we are in a very different situation. we are facing an economic disaster, and i believe republicans and democrats are beginning to realize this, and to realize they have to work together to solve it. there is nothing like a crisis to focus the mind. we are really facing a apiary serious problem if we do not get the debt under control. -- we are really facing a serious problem if we do not get the debt under control. people around the world will not keep lending us money at low interest rates, so we'll be in trouble if we do not fix this. host: alex rivlin was our guest. -- alice rivlin was our guest. on monday we looked at discretionary spending. tuesday we looked at medicare and medicaid spending. guest today defense and security spending. today we look at the tax overhaul provisions. tomorrow we will talk about social security iss

was a continued focus on engagement resources throughout the decade from the department of commerce, ombnd congress to help ensure the 2020 cents fulfills the promise of better technology, methods and operations. that concludes my summary, mr. chairman. i'd be happy to answer any questions you are the member's house. >> dr. groves, when the questions come to me. we ask you to sort of walk through the list of recommendations for mr. zinser. just be prepared to comment on those. mr. goldenkoff, please proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking member brown, are they to thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss lessons learned in the 2010 census and initiatives that show promise for enumeration and 2020. 2010 census is an operational success in the census bureau generally completed its peak data collection activities can disable the plan an early city is to apportion redistrict congress on the days ahead of legally mandated deadlines. nevertheless, enduring up for the enumeration, the bureau had to overcome a series of hurdles such a basic complete account. first, internal issues including

beginning the transitions in afghanistan, we have to be unwaivers against al-qaeda, and as a former omb director, eel ensure as we make tough budget decisions, we'll keep our military the very best in the world. leon, i know you've been looking forward to returning home to your wife, so i thank you for taking on yet another assignment for our country, and i hope you don't have a clock. [laughter] >> i'm also pleased that leon's work at the cia will be carried on by one of our leading strategic thinkers and one of the finest military officers of our time, general david petraeus. this is the second time in a year that i've asked general petraeus to take on a demanding assignment, and i know this carries a special sacrifice for he and his wife, holy. after 40 years in uniform leading american and coalition forces in the most challenging military missions since 9/11, he's retiring from the army that he loves to become the next cia director. effective early september pending senate confirmation. as a lifelong consumer of intelligence, he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate, and

. >> [inaudible] in the early 60's to 1970 which is an omb. to what moment was the apollo?well, i don't know. >> the excess r&d spending in the post period to follow. one thing you can do is -- >> not nearly as cool a thing to say for mr. obama and secretary chu's speech writers that have said, used the term sputnik moment. the spur to the innovation of the investment was safe guard gary and moment. the u.s. reaction as embodied in kennedy's apollo decisions. eisenhower put very little new money in science and engineering. there was the national defense education act that cannot of the sputnik reaction but there wasn't a big infusion of money -- >> [inaudible] >> most of the apollo money went from engineering. it didn't -- but even a little bit of a lot of money went a long way back then. >> i'm going to take the privilege of the chair and ask one last question of all the panelists, which is what does this experience mean for the future, for the program, for anything else we might want to do in space particularly human space flight. >> let's let paul start actually carry it

omb has made up -- sometimes volume gets away from us. when they gain in volume, then the government can lose control over that function. i think that is the hardest area. you may be able to make some good decisions in individual cases, but if it grows too much in a contracted area, one could argue that the government has given away too much. >> on page 12 it your testimony, you raise a couple of examples. a congressional budget office report from 2005 and a gao report from march 2010 for the assertion of the clan that contractors can perform certain functions more cheaply than government. those are two examples. is that always the case, dr. gansler? >> those were independent studies. non-inherently governmental functions. we have even found when we found government people doing non-governmental functions today, even when the government wins a and sometimes they often do, there are huge cost savings as a result of the presence of competition. i believe that is the american way. will we find on the competitions, over 30% cost savings and i

among the recommendation is astonishing a dual headed offical one person but dual headed who has an omb function to ensure the relevant resources are provided in the contingency context of which obviously development is a part and that person would play a role of the national security council to ensure coordinating function. do you have thoughts about that recommendation? >> i think i would want to reserve judgment and look at the report in more detail and there's been a lot of recommendations about various interviews that we should construct in the u.s. government and i think there is one floating around introduced on the house side so they should be looked at individually. in terms of the tecum function, it provides a safe space for these organizations, the entities in the u.s. government and non-government to come together. we don't the conflict among themselves and i think it is a very important role that should be kept and preserved. as to make anybody else have any quick comments? if not i would like each of you to submit for the record your views on that recommendation. its recom

>> we haven't gone there yet. 1234is a discussion i just said we're having with omb in. white house. >> i don't want you to take this as hostile at all. i'm new to this. i just know we in iraq, afghanistan, no one talked about the money. now it's trillions of dollars that hurt your budget, hurt the v.a.'s budget. i know everyone wants to talk about, as we just heard on the ac-130s and a-10s, i appreciate, admiral your comments. our coalitions have the capacity, maybe not at superior but doing the job we need them to do based on nato. that's great. but all of this costs money, and my issue is, what's the trade-off, understanding that ga doff hey to go. he is a bad character. i can make you ten other bad characters in the world we should be taking out, but we are where we are, and the issue i have, i'm trying to figure this out. for example, if i heard right, i mean, our allies, nato, the arab league, my personal opinion, the arab league, needs to pony up money to help offset these costs. but that's me. and we cannot shoulder these costs with a downward turn on our dollars

on thursday, we will be joined by a former omb member to look at tax policies. we wrap up the week talking about social security. >> a few months ago, i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties found common ground. now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest gain a spending cut in history. >> four of the events for the budget debates from capitol hill and the house and senate floors, to the white house, and around washington online with the c- span a video library. everything we have covered since 1987. >> as the u.s. gets closer to withdrawing forces from afghanistan, the u.s. and pakistan have disagreed about the role and size of the pakistan military in securing the region and. the joint chiefs chairman and the delegation will head to pakistan. the institute of peace hosted a discussion on the pakistan military including its structure, history, and a role in governing. this is just over one hour and 45 minutes. >> banking wall very much for coming. i am the director of the center for secu

that funding is reliant on the ability that he wants sign long-term contracts with the military and omb scoring issues prohibit the military from doing that. and if there's one thing that this administration could fix, it's the policy issue regarding scoring of energy, renubble energy products on military installations that he wants allow the military that he wants lead. like the energy leadership here in this room dr. robine, sharonburg, richard kid, dr. sharon guise, they're all here. they will do it. and the industry is ready that he wants come back and help do it. but you've got that he wants get rid of this impedment or it captain be done. we just can't do it. we could power the government just by burning the federal laws regulations and executive orders for at least a year. on energy. so last but not least mr. poddesta if you come down that he wants charleston, senator kerry south carolina you will get that he wants the 12 -- solar 787 plant that will provide most of the power for the plant. >> i will take that as an invitation. >> let me say, a couple of things. if you can solve

i want to point out in particular device shepherded through the omb's convoluted process, the epa national human exposure assessment survey probably almost 20 years ago now at the time was the biggest attempt to get real world of representative data and environmental exposure, and i'm very proud to have shepherded through. at least 40 papers have been published because of this project. i'm happy to have played a small role in that. with that small introduction, i want to raise a couple of questions. am i written testimony covers a number of scientific and technical issues but i wish to focus on them right now. first, how was the term disease defined? without a clear definition of disease, almost anything could be included within that. we have experience with this problem, the term adverse health effect is used hundreds of times in the federal law. but it's defined circulate or it's not defined at all. this creates a number of problems for us in attempting to be responsive. s 76 does not include a definition of disease either. it uses the term adverse affect but like existing law the doesn'

we needed to hear truly what is needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after. >> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016. i am ho

among the recommendations establishing a dual headed, official one person, but dual headed to have an ombfunction to have the sources provided of which obviously development is a big part, and also that persons plays a role at the security counsel. do you have any thoughts about that recommendation? >> i think i would want to reserve judgment and look at that report in more detail, and there's been a lot of recommendations about various entities that we should construct in the u.s. government. i think there's one floating around to be introduced on the house side, so i think each one should be looked at individually. we -- just in terms of the role, in terms of decon knicks, usip provides a safe space for the both entities to come together. we don't deconflict, but they do monk themselves. >> sure. >> i think it's a very, very important role to be kept and preserved. >> fair enough. anybody else have quick comments on that particular recommendation? if not, please submit for the record your views on recommendation 11 in our last interim report. third, questions to you, ms. cole. this is n