Transcripts For CSPAN2 Today In Washington 20100202

>> and i think the members of the administration for their commitment to addressing our most pressing issues. at that meeting we saw the first of many action steps that need to be taken. president obama's directive to every cabinet agency to provide him with a detailed plan to improve tribal consultation. since that meeting, we've been working with federal agencies to strengthen the nation to nation relationship. because we understand that sovereignty is not a one-way street. we come as participants and fellow players in american civic life. indian nation have a record of achievement. in spied of disparities for indian programs, there are pioneering practices for telemedicine and the treatment of diabetes and have creating a groundbreaking program to deliver dental care to promote areas, a program that could serve as a model for the rest of the country. though because of our distinct and spiritual relationships with our land, indian peoples are affected by climate change and environmental degradation. we're innovators in the field of natural resource management. and we offer our natural knowledge to the toolbox of solutions to climate change. our environmental stewardship has led to achievements such as the red lake walleye recovery the largest freshwater species in modern day america. when indian nations and america in partnership we succeed. indian nations have delivered healthcare on the edge of the arctic circle, expanded the fishing economy in the puget sound through diving and technology. restoring the transportation infrastructure for timber and much more. the recovery act is a good example of congress' partnership with indian tribes. through early engagement tribes were able to recommend provisions that would yield the highest job creation and infrastructure abilities. and tribes received more than $3 billion in direct funding. as well as new opportunities for economic development financing. nci is producing a report with case studies and analysis of job creation and other economic benefits that federal investments have brought to our communities. the bottom line is that when tribes govern themselves in much the same way as states and communities do, the benefits accrue not only to indian country but to all americans. indian country was alson÷ includ from the beginning in drafting national healthcare reform legislation to ensure that whatever reforms are passed will enhance and protect our indian healthcare system. congressional leadership has recognized that when national policies with significant impact on tribes are considered, indian country must be at the table. we are -- [applause] >> thank you. thank you. we're welcomed into the policymaking process early. and it makes a big difference. we're able to propose solutions that work best for the unique circumstances of indian country rather than trying to adapt policies that did not take our needs into consideration and never work. we wholeheartedly thank the leadership for working with indian country to develop policies that strengthen tribal communities and our ability to contribute to the economy and vitality of america. the fy2011 indian country budget request that we are releasing today provides an agenda for additional work that we can partner together to achieve. through this great change and the resulting progress, we will direct new strength toward the chronic problems our people face. i want to bring your attention to one of the most egregious and underreported crises in indian country. day after day we hear about america's unemployment crisis. particularly after the jobless rate has skyrocketed above 10%. i agree. it is a crisis. i know that because on indian reservations and in alaskan native villages, unemployment is above 50%. and that's not just due to this recession. the indian unemployment rate on reservations has been at or above 50% for decades. in some parts of indian country, it's even worse. in 2005 when the national unemployment rate was only 5%, the pure of indian affairs reported reservation unemployment in the states of arizona, utah and nevada at 63%. in the northern rocks, 67%. in the northern plains, 77%. put simply, unemployment crisis that has afflicted our communities for generations. for most americans going up to 10% unemployment has become a crisis of historic proportions. for indians coming down to 10% would be a recovery of historic proportions. imagine men and women who have tried and failed to find work year after year. imagine wanting something better for your children knowing that the dropout rate for high school is higher among native american communities than any other minority group in the country. imagine that the place that you live has the lowest college graduation rate in the united states. what encouragement does a child have to study and prepare for meaningful work when their parents can't find a job for years. wouldn't your hope run out? that's what 50% unemployment rate means in indian country. the effect is like dominos falling. indian country suffers from higher rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, suicide and teen births than the rest of the country. a high rate of mental health issues, a greater concentration of conditions such as diabetes and obesity. our indarceration rates are well above the national average. our needs are just like yours. we want a normal daily life with meaningful opportunities. yet, for decades tribal peoples have been denied these opportunities. they experience daily circumstances that most americans would never tolerate. the jobs bill is an important vehicle to address the severe and median employment problem in indian country. we applaud the efforts of congressional leadership in carefully considering the needs of indian country. and solutions with the greatest impact on our communities. our people are suffering but our spirit is not broken. we've endured centuries -- [applause] >> we've endured centuries of neglect and abuse. yet, we remain steadfast in our journey toward self-reliance. sovereignty is the path to solutions. sovereignty matched by the resources we need. we're very appreciative that we have a place at the table with this administration. and we intend to use it to create jobs and improve the quality of life for our people. respect for sovereignty leads to cooperation, which is what we all seek in this growing government to government relationship. but tribes have been around for a long time and we've heard a lot of promises. and we've been to a lot of meetings. now is the time to convert good intentions into immediate actions. in this spirit -- [applause] >> thank you. there are seven things that could be accomplished for indian nations right now. they're not everything, but they're a good start. these actions will create jobs, expand healthcare, improve education, address crime and more. all it requires action by the administration. and i call on the administration to act on these matters in the next 12 months. first, take action to restore tribal lands and allow us to use your lands as we see fit. the vast majority of indian reservations are heavily affected by land loss and the most significant obstacle that indian tribes face in restoring and consolidating their land is simply inaction and delay at the department of the interior. many tribes have had land to trust applications pending for over a decade. and the vast majority are on reservation and are not controversy in any way. restoration of the tribal land base is critical to build economic development. but even the lands we have are often underutilized. their development is often undermind by excessive bureaucratic hurdles. tribal lands contain 10% of the nation's traditional and clean energy resources. the wind potential on the black feet reservation in montana is estimated to be up to 54 million megawatts hours per year. that's enough energy if fully developed and supported by adequate transmission and other infrastructure to heat and light up to 5 million homes. indian tribes have nearly a quarter of american onshore oil and gas station reserves and one-third of america's low sulfur coal. yet production from tribal lands represents less than 5% of current onshore oil, gas and coal production. when they want to do something with their land especially economic development we have to go through as many as seven times the number of federal approval processes as similar lands outside reservation boundaries. approvals on tribal lands drag on literally for years placing tribal economic initiatives as severe if not fatal competitive disadvantages. no one can run a business that way. the administration could fix that by reforming the federal trust system for land at the bureau of indian affairs. this would streamline a past to jobs, new business and economic growth. second -- [applause] >> thank you. second is to address law enforcement. there's already some movement on this with attorney general holder's recent announcement of reforms. but that's not everything. the interior department needs to address its policing role in indian country especially given the disproportionately high rates of drug trafficking, domestic violation and sexual assault that occur on indian lands our reservations have become a target and a haven for drug trafficking. the problem is a fewer of coordination and a lack of funding. the administration has the power to fix both of those. third, is guarantee equal treatment under the law by granting tribal governments the same treatment as state and local governments on tax and finance matters. compared to tribal governments, state and local governments get preferential treatment on tax-exempt bonds, pension plans, benefits and other financial instruments. indian nation deserves the same financial advantages. we need this so tribal governments can attract businesses and create jobs, which is what governments are supposed to do. fourth, is an investment in our children so that they may grow into healthy youth and become the next generation of tribal leaders, community members, and business leaders. our youth are a valuable resource. however, too often the investment made in indian youth is at the back end when intervention services are needed. they address only the symptoms of poverty and lack of opportunity and fail to harness the inherent potential of our children and teenagers. young people have a capacity for creating and leading positive community change. we need support for a youth-led wellness initiative that addresses their needs for safety, education, healthcare and job-skill development with coordination across the systems and departments through which these services are delivered. fifth is to ensure effective distribution of funds to tribal governments. at a moment where the administration and congress have raised collaboration with tribal governments to a historic and promising new level, now is not the time to shrink back from investments that can transform our communities. indian nations have the primary role in administering healthcare, education, law enforcement, transportation and many other services for our citizens. making the promise of government to government a reality will require ongoing funding for tribal governments as well as actions by the administration to both minimize the administrative burden and maximize tribal ability to compete in directionary programs. specific solutions could include exempting funding for tribal governmental services from discretionary spending freezes. and rescissions. and eliminating match requirements, dedicating set-aside funding for specifically tribal support government programs. and ensuring selection criteria and performance measures are appropriate for tribal governance. we applaud the administration's acknowledgement áatq0v1e0s10=50 for example, 12% of tribal homes lack access to safe drinking water or basic sanitation compared to less than 1% nationwide. we can plan and administer as tribal governments but we need a federal commitment across common programs to work on an interagency basis and collaborate with tribes as being demonstrated by the inner agency task force on water and infrastructure. such efforts have already proven effective. for example, public law 102477 created a program that allows tribes to combine funds for up to 12 related employment and training programs within three federal agencies. it yields tangible results as streamlining programs, reduces administrative burdens and increases the efficient use of funds for dramatically underfunded programs. time and money are focused on implementing solutions. finally, we need the administration to support a legislative fix for last year's decision by the supreme court. this touches on a lot of issues but especially the ability of tribal governments to carry out land development. we need clear and fair rules on our legal status and our ability to pursue contracts and loans so we can carry out economic development. these seven actions will have a real and immediate effect on improving life in indian communities. at this time next year i hope to report on seven clear successes. i'll close with three points. first, to be sovereign is to exercise the right to govern and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of tribal citizens. we seek a growing government to government relationship with washington. we come as participants, contributors and fellow players. and we aim to be competitors and leaders. sovereignty is indeed a net plus for america. second, self-determination is the path to economic revitalization and cultural diversity. to overcome employment, declining education, crime and other challenges. finally, we ask the administration to address seven clear and important matters as a way to further strengthen our nation to nation relationship. and improve life in indian country. as we continue to exercise our sovereignty, indian nations will receive the respect we long deserved and we can further engage into a government to government partnership to transform communities. that is our most basic goal and it will benefit for all generations to come. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, president keel. at this point we're open for any questions. so if anybody has any questions, we'll be glad to entertain them. if you could, please, say your name and who you represent, we'd appreciate that. if i don't see you -- yes. >> john danner choctaw, oklahoma. and i wanted to check -- our research shows that tribes could be generating $100 to $500 billion in energy. and that the new long lines with the smart grid would make remote areas a way to be able to power urban areas. and that indeed that makes the missing link on the economics for green and energy that obama is looking for. those same areas to clear those lines could also be used for telecommunications which would then set up in terms of to be able to be the new landowners. where do we stand and what can we do to accomplish that? >> thank you for that question. you know, there are many tribes that are already engaged in development. there are many tribes who have their grid with many ways to improve that coordination. but i think the energy bill will clarify a lot of that. i'm going to ask jackie to comment on specifics of that bill. >> thank you. thank you, john, for being here today. as you know energy is really important. new economic opportunity in indian country. we've been working currently with the senate committee of indian affairs and senator dorgan's staff to put together an energy bill proposal that is yet to be introduced. but in that energy bill proposal, we're dealing with not only access to the transmission lines but also dealing with the economic and financial tools that we need to be able to create the kind of incentives that make energy development feasible in indian country. and so we are looking very forward to this bill being introduced early in this session. and we're working -- looking hard and strong for good bipartisan support. other questions? >> ron ellinger in washington state. what does nci advocating with the department of justice to advance the public safety interests of our communities? >> thank you, chairman. you know, we on a number of fronts we've been working with the department of justice. department of justice has really stepped up to be a player. several years ago we had reports that came to congress around the numbers, the amnesty report that came about, the extreme numbers of women against violence. and we got a great coalition. for addressing the women against violence issue. it's not about that. but it's what president keel talked about in the speech about the gangs and the gang violence that's affecting our communities and the drug dealers who have come because we don't have as many law enforcement officers as we have. in the way that indian public safety is delivered in indian country, we rely upon a good cooperative relationship between the department of interior and department of justice. and we need both of them stepping to the table and collaborating together. the administration has announced that there is more indian police officers and police officers going to indian country. they have plans for putting together the training that's needed around sexual violence and drug enforcement. what we need from the department of justice and under the current leadership in the department of justice, they are looking for how do they streamline their process for grant making for tribes so that we could build up the detention centers that we need in our communities, the holding places, the preinvestigation, tools and resources. but also the needed monies that are to address -- the needed monies to address strengthening our tribal court system. we are looking for congress to support -- to help department of justice and the department of interior and their work by passing the tribal law and order act. a bill that is pending in both the house and the senate. it's critical in dealing with the jurisdictional issues in indian country and we are looking for bipartisan support in getting that bill moved, too. any other questions? yes. >> i'm victor moreno. you mentioned, mr. keel, some of the successes with the recovery and reinvestment act. are you basically saying that the stimulus package is truly working for indian country? and i have a follow-up. >> absolutely. the tribes were able to access recovery dollars allows tribes to retain those individuals who ordinarily might not have been able to stay employed. so it allows tribes to access funding for those specific purposes. but also to invest in the future. you know, a lot of those dollars have not been -- they've been allocated but they've not been spent yet. you know, the tribes are still -- they went through a grant process to receive those dollars. they are just not getting that funding. so it's going to take some time to really look and see what the true measures are in terms of success. but it can't hurt. there's no way that they can be used in a negative way. because it does allow tribes to use them to revitalize their own economies. >> if i could follow up there and say. a good example, first a lot of the recovery dollars were targeted to the huge backlog that was in the agency's programs. transportation dollars, healthcare facility dollars that were needed in indian country. so those were early whens. we had them on the drawing board for a long time so the planning around those was ready to go. but then there was new things in the funds that were important to indian country. for the first time to be able to deal with tax empty bond financing. those are the kinds of things that will be long-lasting if we're able to make them lost and have them tax-exempt bond funds and you had a follow-up question. >> and, in fact, to that point, when things began, of course, indian country was way over here so no matter how much money you got, a sizeable amount, you still have an incredible backlog and catching up to do. the president has just said that there's going to be a reduction in cuts and discretionary spending beyond defense and other entities. are you concerned since the other shoe is the budget and other monies that that funding will be cut and, therefore, could penalize incomes? >> absolutely we're concerned. anytime the mention of freezes or, you know, rescissions are mentioned, that always represents a fear in indian country because we've never been funded at an adequate level. indian country has never received adequate funding for its programs through any administration. so when there's a freeze, automatically it does raise our alarms. however, we don't know what that those are until the budget is released and that won't be until monday. we do look forward working with congress and working with the other staff and congressional staff and our friends in congress to make sure that we protect the gains that we made. >> on that note if i could just a little bit what the indian country is looking for and looking to in the budget. indian country that rallied around things that are important for us. the support cost when the tribes provide a service that the federal government was responsible for providing they should get paid the same as any other contractor for those services. and then our tribal priority allocation, the tpa dollars, which allows to make sure that we have the administrative functions necessary for our tribes. but the -- there were four areas that tribes have really highlighted as priority areas for them and not in any particular order. one, of course, is education. healthcare, natural resources including economic development and public safety services. those are all real priorities for the tribal leaders. and we've been working and urging the administration to help us in those areas. we did get great improvements last year particularly in law enforcement and healthcare. we're hoping that we'll be able to sustain that and we're hoping to be able to work through whatever those freeze or freeze requirements may have. but we're also looking as, you know, president keel mentioned when the tribes partner with the administration around the programs and the delivery of those programs, the self-reliance of the tribes and the value of the tribes bring to the table actually helps those become more efficient programs. and we think that by partnering together we can make those dollars be stronger. in your packet you have a copy of ncia's budget request but you also have some information about how the dollars were spent. and we believe we're a good federal investment. >> good morning. lance gums. at the beginning of your speech you brought up the federal recognition process. we are a tribe that has been waiting for 31 years and we just got our preliminary decision on december 15th which was a good decision. we're still holding our breath for the final decision. but i'd like to know what ncia is going to do to move forward this year to help to fix this broken process which i think everyone has admitted over the last 31 years is broken. so i'd just like to know what ncia's position is on that and where we're going to go? >> well, the national congress of american indians is an inclusive organization. and it represents indian people around -- across the country. those tribes that are struggling to retain or regain federal recognition -- it is a broken system. it's a system that needs immediate care. the national congress of american indians will continue to advocate on behalf of those tribal governments to get a fair and timely review process. the review process is very -- is very difficult. you and i have visited in great detail about that. and so i'm aware of the struggles. but i can tell you the national congress of american indians will continue to advocate on behalf of all indian people across the country. >> thank you. and thank you for your comments today. they're very dear to all of us. my name is bill martin and i'm part of the indian tribes in alaska. and during the stimulus package funding, and paw of the alaskan native corporation director we're landless and so we missed out on many opportunities because of that. and yet alaskan tribes still have the same needs as the needs of the 48. and he lost out on funding simply because we're landless and we don't of that capacity. i hope that nci will work with us -- with the alaska tribes much more 40% of the tribes in the united states. so we hope nci will work with us. of any future stimulus money to be cognizant of the fact that reservations don't exist in alaska. and that wording and the verbiage of that effect should not be in stimulus packages. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your comment. and john? >> there is money that is available for training young people in front communications, especially, in journalism. i met with arne duncan and he holds more money than anybody else for education. and when i told him and asked him what he's doing for indian education, he almost teared up when he talked about going out to lane deer and saying he was really sad. he didn't know how to be able to help. i said there's a lot of ways. nci has got a few ideas about that. so the opportunity to be able to place -- we can help place young people -- we just had a meeting here at the press club with several of these news reporters. helen thomas was there probably the oldest one sitting on the front. but we need to have a native american, strong, independent and being able to ask all the questions 'cause unasked they won't address it in front of the world and in front of the press in front of all the people. our issues need to be brought up. there's money available for it. and if any tribe has young people who want to be able to get into reporting and journalism then the national press club has scholarships and i would ask that you contact ncai give those names because we have positions going unfilled. >> thank you. next. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on education just as i might, you know, this year -- we've been looking forward to the no child left behind reauthorization for the discussion that we need to have with indian countries recommendations. and yesterday we were lucky enough to be able to have some conversation with some of the staffers from the hill and we're looking forward to having a listening session around education to see what we can do to not only address the current conditions of the rehabilitation needs that our schools are desperately in need of. the new schools that are out there the tribal colleges of the expansion programs that they need to be able to train our work force for the future. but also to be able to get indian country to really think about our place in the world. as the world market changes, how are we setting up ourselves to be able to be players in a global marketplace. and so we're looking forward to those -- the continued dialog as we get ready to bring on the discussion around the reauthorization. other questions? yes. [inaudible] >> i just wanted to ask -- it's a twofold question. one is that -- the sacred sites bill that we worked on years ago needs to come back. and as we pursue a greater relationship with the digital divide and the infrastructure of technology in cyberspace we become more and more threatened when we experience wildfires and floods and our sacred sites are exposed. we need to revisit that in terms of having a partnership -- i know that the corps of engineers has not been the greatest ally so i'm asking that if we can champion, whether it be pulling together people in the field or using our human cultural resource group to lead that, but we need to reconnect those dots of protecting our sites, our religion and those concerns. but we need to be the leaders. and i'm hoping that you, along with the staff, not that you have too much to do, but that you would consider revisiting this. it's a momentous thing to come back to. and connecting that with cyberspace is trying to get some tribes who aren't having access to that gain access to that. >> thank you. that's an excellent point. and, you know, our historic and sacred sites, you're absolutely right are extreme importance. they are very dear to all tribal people around the country. i know that there's an effort -- the national historic preservation officers -- there are a number of agencies that are working in conjunction that work with tribes to talk about those issues and there's an ongoing efforts across the country to protect those sites. but i know that ncia is doing some significant work on that. i'm going to ask jackie to comment on that. >> great. thank you. first of all, i want to recognize those because they are a leader in helping bring this issue to the table particularly around cell tower placement. when across the country corporations were wanting to place their cell towers and many times at the highest mountain or in certain places that were very historically significant to indian country. and through this processçsi of recognizing the value of consultation with tribes and the tribes working with -- through the fcc, we were able to come up with a process that made sense. it was a process that recognized the expeditious manner that the corporations needed to have some solution. but that still respected the tribes had, you know, significant concerns in certain places. and also that there could be a whole swarm of applications that could come through and tribes didn't have the capacity or the staffing at home to look through those -- you know, all of the reviews that were necessary. so we were able to come up with a process that allowed tribes to determine what places that they were concerned about up front. the corporations could then look at this inventory and say no this is not inappropriate and there are time restraints. and it's something that helps us protect our sacred sites but allows for economic development to still flourish. other questions? any questions? yes. >> first of all, ron allen from washington state. i neglected to compliment you, mr. president, that was an outstanding summary of the state of indian nations across america. and we deeply appreciate that. a second issue -- you raised the concern of healthy economies and jobs in indian country and they are hinged very closely to financing. what is ncia advocating with the department of treasury or the federal reserve with regard to enhancing our economies and creating jobs in our communities? >> i think this is one that we're very excited about having a conversation about. for a long time we've been advocating for the same economic tools that could be very valuable to us like tax empty bond financing that other government have access to. other government are able to use taxes and bottom financing to do -- to put together economic development in a way that tribes are restricted from doing so. so we've been urging conversations not only with congress but also with the administration in addressing those. in addition to that, we're asking for things such as we have an employment tax credit, an accelerated depreciated tax credit. those are two good tools for indian country but the problem is and the challenge is they aren't authorized to go beyond a very limited time frame. and so they don't bring any value to the table when we're negotiating business deals or when we're trying to pencil out what works. so we're asking for, you know, an extension of that time frame to 10 years to be able to make those tools become a real reality for us. but if you look at indian country and the access to capital has been a challenge for us, we have very, very few financial institutions that are actually located on our reservations or in our communities. most of them financial institutions are off-reservation or outside of our community. and so in-community investment is not the same. we've been very supportive for a number of years on the cdfi, the community development financial institutions because it's a vehicle for us creating financial institutions in our own communities. but it doesn't bring us the kind of capital that we need to be able to get that small business moving, that entrepreneurial community revenue in our areas. we don't have access to that. you know, up to 50,000, you know, dollars in our communities to be able to do what we need to do to get some of those moving. so we're looking for some expansion. we've asked in the financial reforms bill that we have the native american bank. and what we would like to have is the ability of that bank to be able to go to other communities, other tribal communities and reservations without having to go through a state approval process that's limiting when this is a national indian bank and we worked on our reservations. a slight change in that language would allow us to expand and branch out so that we would have native american bank branches on our tribal reservations and that's another solution. we have a whole list of solutions but that just kind of gives you some of the things that we've been looking forward to. once again with energy development. oh, another one i want to bring up that's been a real problem for us in development period whether it be energy development and construction is surety bonding. it's really difficult for tribes to get the surety bonding that they need because we're a tribal government with a tribal institution and not everybody quite understands that. you know, there's only a few national surety bonding issues out there but it's difficult for them to understand the structure of a tribal government and we're hoping to get a surety bonding program has similar to the sba program. those are some of the tools that we're proposing. other questions? yes. >> and this is concerning the tuition waiver of fort lewis college and what will nci do to ensure that our native students can continue to get a free education? >> i'm glad you brought that up. the tuition waiver of fort lewis college. i'll give you what i know as the latest information. p by the way, my children went to fort lewis institution and that's a great college. we had a caravan of 13 cars the first year my daughter went there. all driving down together. i was the single adult. but we reached out to find out more about that information. i understand this is an effort in the state. but i understand that that effort has been tabled. and it's no longer moving forward. and that was there was an apology of the understanding of how this would penalize indian students from attending a land grant college. and so i think that issue has been resolved. and the last question, anyone? last question. >> one of the past secretaries of energy had approached me about the discussion of parking of federal money into indian banks so those secretaries have millions of dollars that they are putting in native banks. they had millions of dollars and now with all of these billions of dollars of surplus, then that could be an extraordinary amount they could be parked there. and the other part is $35,000 of guaranteed funds or loan are available immediately with sba and they will be glad to help any of the small businesses like they've been doing for years. >> i know that we're running out of time. i wanted to make one last comment. it has to do with education of our young people. our young people today are creative. they're innovative and they're eager to go to college to become the next generation of leaders for this country. we're excited to see our young people now coming back from law school and medical school serving our people so anything we could do to help in that want to do that. thank you again for being here. >> thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you for listening and being part of our annual state of indian nations address. and on behalf of the national congress of american indians we'd like to thank once again native voice one, native american calling and all the public and local radio stations, tribal radio stations across the country. if you want -- we have many, many viewers that are on ncia.org. a copy of this webcast will be posted within an hour of our website. thank you again for covering this event. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talks about president obama's proposed budget request for fiscal year 2011. from the senate floor, this is 5 minutes. >> the republican leader. >> mr. president, this morning we received the administration's budget for the next fiscal year. while there are plenty of issues raised. the fundamentals is clear. this budget is more of the same, more spending, more taxes and more debt. i think everyone can agree that last year's budget spent too much. with a trillion dollars stimulus bill and the massive increases in optional spending, the administration the democrats in congress simply spent too much and took us into record territory. but the administration assured us that it was an anomaly. that we just needed to get through that year and then we'd get serious about spending in 2010. fiscal hawks on the other side of the aisle told us the same thing every time we raised the issue. but now they produced yet another massive budget filled with even more spending than last year's record totals. the president proposes to increase spending by another $100 billion despite having already increased the size of the federal government to unprecedented levels. even though the administration claimed that the current funding was unique due to the economic crisis, they show no signs of slowing spending. and while spending is going up, taxes are going up even faster. taxes on americans will increase by over $400 billion, nearly 20% next year alone with no improvement in sight. does anyone truly believe this is a good time to raise taxes on job creators or for that matter on anyone else? this budget provides a startling figure that should stop us all in our tracks. according to the administration's budget, the interest on the federal debt is expected to be nearly $6 trillion over the next decade. $6 trillion over the next decade. we've all heard about interest-only loans. but this is the equivalent of average of $600 billion of interest every year. that's a truly astonishing number. in fact, in just four years, the administration predicts the government will have to spend more just to pay interest on the federal debt. than it spends on the departments of agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, hud, interior, justice, labor, state, treasury and the corps of engineers, the environmental protection agency, gsa, nasa, and national science foundation, small business administration and the social security administration combined. combined. in just four years the interest that the government will have to pay on our federal debt will be more than it spends on the departments of agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, hud, interior, justice, labor, state, treasury and the corps of engineers, the environmental protection agency, gsa, nsa, national science foundation, small business administration and the social security administration. combined. the nat will have an opportunity to write a new budget this year. our leader on the issue, senator gregg on the matter and we need to get our budget in order. i'll have much more to say on the individual pieces of this blueprint including the administration's priorities on our national and homeland security. but now it's crystal clear that this budget is more spending, more taxes, and more debt. more spending, more taxes and more debt. anyone listening to the american people knows this isn't what they support. it's not what our country needs. and it's not the way to grow good jobs. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> now to the pentagon for a briefing on president obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the defense department. you'll hear first from defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen. they'll be followed by an overview with the quaudreniel defense review. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> first of all, let me say the full text of both my and the chairman's statements will be available immediately after the briefing. the statements are kind of long. and so just put your minds at ease, we'll have about 25 minutes for questions after the statements. and i would ask that you confine your statements to the qdr in the budget as we get toward the end of the 25 minutes, if we've got time, i'll be happy to take one or two questions on other subjects. today this department is submitting the fiscal year 2011 defense budget request along with two important strategy documents. the 2010 quadrennial and ballistic missile defense review and from my opening statement and the chairman's and our questions you will hear from the undersecretary of defense for policy, who will discuss the qdr in more depth and then our controller robert hale will provide for detail in the three budget requests. that's the fy11 of $548 billion. the fy11 overseas contingency operations request of 159.3 billion which will fund military operations in iraq and afghanistan next year. and the fy10 supplemental request of $33 billion which covers the additional estimated costs of the president's new strategy for afghanistan. to make sure we have the resources we need to support our troops and deploying to the theater, i will be asking the congress to enact the supplemental by spring. for the next few minutes i would like to place into a wider context the base budget request which reflects the department's institutional priorities plus the associated strategy reviews. last year we began the process of reshaping america's defense establishment and reforming this department's priorities procedures and institutional culture. the objectives were to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, to rebalance our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies. and reform how and what we buy. meaning, a fundamental overall of our approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting. to those ends the fy10 budget increased funding for programs that directly support those fighting america's wars and their families. and created an institutional home for war fighter by shifting many of these programs into the base budget so they would acquire a bureaucratic constituency and steady long-term funding. the fy10 budget proposal cut, curtailed or ended a number of programs that were either pm poorly or in excess of real world needs. these programs, had they been pursued to completion, would have cost the american taxpayer approximately $330 billion. conversely, future-oriented programs for the u.s. was relatively underinvested or accelerated or received more funding. the fy11 request builds on the reforms begun in last year's budget, changes that were broadened and deepened by the analysis and conclusions contained in the qdr. these budget submissions and strategies have two major themes. fendly changing the way this department does business, the priorities we set, we programs we fund the weapons we buy and how we buy them. the budget and the reviews are also shaped by a bracing dose of realism. realism with regard to risk. realism with regard to resources. we have in a sober and clear-eyed way assessed risk, set priorities, made tradeoffs and identified requirements based on plausible, real world threats, scenarios and potential adversaries. just one example. for years u.s. defense planning and requirements were based on preparing to fight two major conventional wars at the same time. a construct that persisted long after it was overtaken by events. the department's leadership now recognizes that we must prepare for a much broader range of security challenges on the horizon. they range from the use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace to the threat posed by nonstate groups developing more cunning and destructive means to attack and terrorize. scenarios that transcend the contingencies after the cold war. we have learned through painful experience that the wars we fight are seldom the wars we planned. as a result the united states needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum.wch ... >> the fy-11 budget takes steps aimed at filling persistent shortfalls that have plagued recent military efforts, especially in afghanistan. they include surveillance and reconnaissance capacity, including a 75% increase in the number of combat air patrols by the most advanced uavs. increasing the availability of helicopters by procuring more aircraft, around $9 billion worth, of all kinds and adding two army combat aviation brigades. and growing special operations systems and personnel with nearly 2800 people added to the u.s. special operations command in fy-2011. the second major objective is to prevent and deter conflict by integrating all elements of international power and cooperation. and should those fail, by possessing superior military capabilities and the means and will to use them. to help prevent the conditions from arising that lead to crises or conflicts, we strongly support the increased funding for diplomacy and development provided for in the president's international affairs budget request. and in a world where arguably the most likely threats will emanate from failed or fractured states, building the security capacity of partner thes has emerged as a key capability for this department. one that reduces the need for direct u.s. military intervention with all its attendant political, financial and human costs. to provide more resources, predictability and agility to this important mission, the department will seek an increase in the global equip and train authority, authority that has now been extended to coalition activity thes. that increase will be from 350 million to $500 million. furthermore, the department will continue to work with allies and partners to stem the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, and we will maintain a reliable and credible nuclear retent which will be laid out in the upcoming nuclear posture review. deterring adversaries requires us to prepare for a wide range of contingencies, including the high-tech capabilities being developed by other nations. to meet the threat to deter aggression and come to the aid of allies and partners, the qdr places more focus on and investment in a new air/sea battle concept, long-range strike capabilities, space and cyber space. the fy-11 budget requests include nearly $11 billion for the f-35 joint strike fighter along with the strategy to stabilize its cost and schedule and a 43 aircraft and possibly more depending on contractor performance. more than $25 billion to support a realistic, sustainable ship-building program. more than $3 billion to modernize ground forces by applying mature technologies to current forces quickly, including development in the new ground combat vehicle. nearly $10 billion to support the development of a flexible, scaleable and adaptive missile defense that work, our cost effective and address the real and growing threat to the united states and our allies. and some $4 pl for a number of long range strike programs to include the development of a conventional global strike capability and the upgrade and modernization of the bomber fleet. our fourth major objective is to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force the, america's single greatest strategic asset. for programs like these that direct cannily support our soldiers and their families, we have continued to shift funding from war appropriations to the base budget. this will help insure these critical programs receive an institutional home and long-term support. recognizing the strain that post-9/11 wars have put on so many troops and their families, the department will spend more than $2 billion for wounded warrior initiatives with a special focus on the signature ailments of current conflicts such as ptsd and traumatic brain injury. we will enlarge the pool of medical professionals, we'll broaden electronic information sharing between the department dos of defense and veterans affairs for wounded warriors making the transition out of military service. we'll increase the time spent between deployment with the goal of achieving a 2 to 1 ratio for the active unit and 5 to 1 for reserve. pursue more innovative and flexible ways to retain quality personnel, and finally, we will expand assistance counseling, childcare and education to support military families, some $8.8 billion total in the base budget and overseas contingency operations request. to achieve these objectives, the department must continue to reform the way it does business from developing and buying major weapons programs to managing our work force. building on the reform thes in the fy-10 budget when a number of excess or poorly-performing programs were canceled, the qdr proposed additional steps reflected in the fy-11 budget submission. they include terminating the epx intelligence aircraft, ending the third generation infrared surveillance program, canceling the next generation cdx cruiser, ending the defense-integrated military human resources system due to cost overruns and performance concerns, completing the c-17 program and closing the production line. as multiple studies in recent years show that the air force already has more of these aircraft than it needs, and ending the alternate engine for the f-35 joint strike fighter. as whatever benefits might accrue are more than offset by excess costs, complexity and associated risks. i'm fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the c-17 and proceed with an alternate the engine for the f-35, so let me be clear. i will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs. reforming how and what we buy continues to be an urgent priority. as the qdr says, the department and the nation can no longer afford the quixotic pursuit of unacceptable costs and risks, nor can the department afford to chase requirements that shift or continue to increase throughout a program's life cycle. fundamentally changing these practices requires enough full-time professionals with the right skills and training. the department's budget plan includes an increase of more than 20,000 such positions to supervise or replace contractors by 2015. fundamentally reforming acquisitions above all calls on us to foster a culture of practice and accountability. accountability with regard to industry and within the walls of this building as well. this is especially important when dealing with our most costly and critically important programs. programs such as the f-35 joint strike fighter. as i mentioned earlier, we have restructured the f-35 program and believe it is the on track to become the backbone of u.s. air superiority for the next generation. nonetheless, the progress and performance of the f-35 over the past two years has not been what it should. as a number of key goals and benchmarks were not met. as a result, i will withhold $614 million in performance fees from the lead contractor since the taxpayer should not have to bear the entire burden of getting the jsf program back on track. this step is being taken with the agreement of the contractor, and i appreciate their responsiveness and commitment to finding the best solution. accountability is not just about holding contractors responsible. the department of defense also bears responsibility for the jsf's troubling performance record. accordingaccordingly, i have dit canned a change in the leadership of the joint fighter strike office. in addition, begin the importance to the future of aviation, i am elevating the level of the program manager to that of a three-star officer. in summary, cumulative the effect of this and last year's budgets along with the recommendations of the qdr is to make sure that this department is doing everything we can and more to prevail in the wars we are in while preparing our military to confront the most likely and lethal threats of the future. in closing, as i said last year we must remember that every defense dollar spent on a program excessed to real world military needs is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. that is a risk the president and i are not prepared to take. making these tough decisions and trade-offs is especially important in the constrained budget environment we face today and almost certainly will face in the future. like to thank the members of the department both military and civilian along with our interagency and international partners for their hard work over the past year on these important documents. admiral? >> thank you, mr. secretary. good afternoon. let me state up front that the chiefs and i fully support the president's budget submission and the recommendations of the qdr and the ballistic missile defense review. i'd also add we support and greatly appreciate the process through which the secretary derived these documents. he pro sided over a comprehensive and collaborative process includive of all the uniformed leadership. every service chief and every combatant commander had a hand in the result you see before you, and every one of them share my enthusiasm for the way ahead. secretary's already walked you through the context of the budget and the qdr. i would like only to reiterate that these submissions represent, in my view, the right balance of capabilities to deal with the threats to our national security across a broad spectrum of potential military operations. i've said it before, but we must be ready for challenges big and small, near and far. for the wars we may need to fight in the future even as we win the fights we're in right now. i applaud the secretary's desire to fund the current operations through the base budget, and we're getting there. but because this year and next we're still looking at some measure of contingency funding, i would like to direct my attention to those specific allocations. in short, i'm comfortable that the fiscal year '10 supplemental and the fiscal year '11 overseas contingency operations requests provide our troops what they'll need to complete a responsible drawdown in iraq and execute the president's strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. by the end of this year, the remaining ten combat brigades in iraq will be reduced to six advisory and assist brigades, and all troops will be drawn by december, 2011. a key element is to sustain iraqi security forces. while the government of iraq is funding a significant part of this effort, falling oil prices and budget constraints make reestablishing the iraqi security fund a priority. $1 billion in fiscal year '10 and $2 billion in fiscal year '11 will provide general odierno the resources he has requested to assist the iraqis in establishing a security structure that supports responsible drawdown and allows us to transition both to our civilian side as well as to the iraqi security forces. in afghanistan, likewise, a key focus is the development of competent afghan national security forces. and our requests also make that a reality. accelerating asnf and afghan the police growth, infrastructure, training and equipment. as for our own infrastructure and equipment, i'm delighted to see that we have kept faith with the secretary's desire to place a premium on force protection by procuring and fielding more mrap vehicles. the fiscal year '10 supplemental calls for more than $1 billion to complete the program. and the fiscal year '11 requests include $3.4 billion to sustain it. as we've seen firsthand through eight year cans of war, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets are absolutely critical enablers for the war fighter. with this funding, we will increase the unmanned predator and reaper orbits from 37 to 65 while enhanceing our process to the disseminate intelligence gathered by this game-changing technology. in as much as they give our troops more flexibility to truly make things happen for the local populace wherever we are. as one junior officer noted in a counterinsurgency fight, these dollars are more precise and impactful than bullets. our request for this year and next will devote more than a billion dollars to the serp program, the majority of which is to be spent in afghanistan. frankly, i'd like to see more flexibility in the rules governing the use of these funds. proper accountability remains a must, of course, but i've seen with my own eyes the huge difference serp can make when it is applied with the greatest speed. in a similar fashion, our coalition support funding empowers our partners and builds their capacity, ultimately giving them the tools they need to help us all defeat common enemies around the world. these funds account for the $the 2 billion of the fiscal year '11 requests and could possibly be some of the most important expenditures we will make. let me convey my continued thoughts and con doll lenses for the people of haiti. in partnership with the united nations and the international community, we will continue to do all that is required to alleviate suffering there. as usaid and ngo reconstruction projects evolve, i think we can all expect there will be over time less need for the united states military. indeed, u.s. southern command is continuously assessing and redeploying their assets accordingly. just this morning general frazier released the carrier and other units. that said, we will remain in haiti just as long as we are needed, and i couldn't be more proud of the way in which our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen have stepped up. they and their colleagues prove every day the great strength of our nation and the great flexibility of her armed forces. thank you. >> tony, i don't know how you can possibly have any unanswered questions, but -- [laughter] >> are you abandoning, jettisoning or deep sixing the two-war construct or simply de-emphasizing it in favor of a broader outlook, and i have a follow up on the bomb shell you just dropped on the fighter. >> i think that what we have -- if i gave one, well, one of the atmospheres i gave to the folks working on the qdr was that i felt for some time the two major theater of operations construct was out of date. that we are already in two major operations, what if we should have a homeland disaster? what if we should have another encounter? what if we have a haiti? the world is very much more complex than when the two nco concept came together in the early '90s, and what i wanted to convey was a much more complex environment in which you may have to do not just two major conflicts, but a broad range of other things as well. or perhaps in the future, one of those conflicts and then a number of other contingencies. so i just felt that that construct was too confining. and did not represent the real world that our country and our military forces are going to the face in the future. >> august 30th you were down in fort worth, and you give a relatively sanguine estimate of the fighter program based on what you knew at the time. what's happened today to take this relatively drastic movement of basically slapping lockheed and the pentagon's management around? >> well, first of all, during the interval of the last several months the undersecretary for at and l, dr. carter, has immersed himself in this program. we've had a couple of joint estimating teams look at the program. it was clear that there were more problems than we were aware of when i visited fort worth. and i think the restructuring program that dr. carter has put in place will work. it is realistic. the cost estimates are now in accord with what the joint estimating teams are predicting rather that what the -- than what the program is predicting. i would say there are no insurmountable problems, technological or other with the f-35. the measures that dr. carter is taking, i think, will mitigate some of the more pessimistic conclusions of the jets, the joint estimating teams. so i believe that we are, we are in a position to now move forward with this program in a realistic way, but by the same token one cannot absorb the additional costs that we have in this program, and the delays without people being held accountable. and i think if i've set one tone here at the department of defense, it is that when things go wrong, people will be held accountable. >> mr. secretary? >> mr. secretary, qdr you talk about countering weapons of mass destruction with emphasis on terrorists or failed states, you talk about positioning forces to monitor and track lethal agents and more relevant, defeating the agents themselves. walk us through what you hope to see the force look like in the future on this issue, and are you talking about, you know, commando teams similar to the nuclear emergency support teams? >> i think in a lot of areas, in many ways what we're talking about is support for the president's program proposals in terms of a global lockdown of nuclear material and whatever we can do to support that program. a lot of it is technological in terms of markers and being able to track things. some of it is better intelligence. so it's, i would say it's a broad array of policy, intelligence and technologies rather than necessarily new capabilities. i don't know if you want to add. >> [inaudible] >> the qdr says that china's rise and that if india's going to continue to reshape the international system, china said this weekend that it's reducing contact military to mail tear with the united states over the taiwan arms sales. does this affect your plans to go to china this year, and more generally, how do you respond to china's complaint over the arms sale? >> well, first of all, i don't know whether i'll be going or not. i have not heard anything, and so my current plan is to continue to plan on that trip. the united states, as you're well aware, the taiwan relations act commits the united states to providing a certain level of support to taiwan so it is able to defend itself. we went through this kind of a downturn in the last year of the bush administration when there was an arms sale to taiwan, and we saw a reduction in military to military relationships. they have clearly announced that they intend to reduce those contacts now again. i will say that one of the points that i made to general hsu when he was, the vice chairman of the military commission, b was that i hope ised in the future we could -- hoped in the future we could shield the military-to-military relationship from the political ups and downs in the relationship. i think that we have a lot to learn from each other, i think that stability is enhanced by contact between our military and a greater understanding of each other's strategies. so i hope that if there is a down turn, that it will be a temporary one and that we can get back to strengthening this relationship. >> what's your response to the chinese threat to sanction u.s. companies involved in taiwan arms sale? >> well, we'll just have to wait and see. >> mr. secretary, the follow up on tom's question about wmd. in the qdr it calls for the establishment of a joint task force headquarters to, as i recall, train, plan for and execute operations to eliminate wmd. what does that refer to, and why now is there a need to establish this kind of headquarters? >> well, i think that's one of the recommendations, obviously, of the qdr. it is a recommendation i think we'll take it under advisement and see whether we follow through on that or not. >> secretary? >> mr. speaker, completing the mrap program, are you planning on buying more atvs for afghanistan, and if so, how many? >> yes. we now have a little over 15,000 regular mraps in afghanistan, iraq, in the cent come aor. d centcom aor. the additional requirement leveed by centcom is for about 10,600 more mraps. 6600 of those would be mrap atvs, the all-terrain vehicle version of the mrap. and they've asked for about 4,000 of the original mraps in various forms. so we have the funding for that, and we will try to be responsive to that requirement. >> mr. secretary, two years ago when you eshooed the national defense strategy, you asked the service chief to accept risk in their conventional capabilities in order to make investments in regular capabilities and also to deal with high-end asymmetric threats. how far does this qd can r go towards move anything the direction that you wanted, and how close are the services now to being in balance as you a year ago said you wanted to -- >> well, let me answer that and then turn to the chairman. first of all, i think, again, it's important to keep this rebalancing in perspective. as was the case last year of our research and development and procurement budget, roughly half of it goes for conventional modernization. unrelated to the current wars. so 50%. this year roughly speaking the current war, fight funding if you will of transferring programs or funding programs represents somewhere between 7-10% of the budget. and then dual capable capabilities such as the c-17 and various other kinds of equipment can account for about 40%. so it's important to keep in perspective that when we're talking about rebalancing as i said at the very beginning of this process, my problem when i arrived here was those fighting the current war had no seat at the current budget table at all. and, for example, most of special operations command funding has been in supplementals and now these ocos. my goal is to move those capabilities which we need long term into the base budget. same thing with caring for our military families, caring for our wounded, helicopters, all these other things. but relative to the entire defense budget, half of it is still going for the modernization. so i would say in terms of risk a year and a half ago or two years ago our level of highest risk was actually in the current fight. not in terms of our future capabilities. i believe that we have now by taking a little risk on the high end capabilities have significantly reduced the risk in the current fight. let me ask the admiral. >> this budget is 1.8% real growth, and i can tell you and if you've been through the details, you can see in particular the services, each of the services budget has grown. and i'll just pick one area of great focus for us for these last several year, and that's helicopters, and i think the number in this budget is on the order of 117 helicopters which certainly have what i would call dual use across that, what the secretary just described. as i've said for a long time, it is about rebalancing, the ability to swing the pendulum hard in the other direction. if we continue to move it to seek that balance and, in fact, funding these wars as the secretary's described as a priority has become a top priority in my view as it should be, and i also think that that is a significantly important investment for the future as well. it does both things because these kinds of capabilities, let's say the special forces, the isr piece, they're going to be with us in the future no matter what the fights or the engagements are. so we're move anything that direction, and the risk shift is absolutely minimal with respect to where the services are. >> [inaudible] question on japan for you in the qdr. this year says with japan we'll continue to implement the bilateral and realignment road map agreement. slightly different from previous language, it says we'll continue working with japan to implement the bilateral agreement. so why is it different, and does that mean that -- [inaudible] is the only way forward with japan? >> i think you'd have to be a criminalnologist to find significant differences in those two. we are still committed to the agreement we have reached with the japanese. we understand they are reviewing it. i am comfortable with that. we have a new government in japan. they have some very high priority thes they're trying to deal with. and so i would say that right now i think the watch word for us is patience. >> but you will continue working with japan? >> sure. but let's not, let's not misunderstand, we just celebrated the 50th anniversary of our alliance with the japanese. that alliance is are important to both japan and the united states. >> i wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the isr, the predators and reapers in this budget? you mentioned the number of combat patrols going up from 37 to 65. what, what -- talk a little pit more about the purpose of the shift to the reapers and what the sort of how quickly you expect to see gains or advantages in afghanistan. >> i think, again, we can both answer this, but i think we've already seen what the gain is, and the reaper clearly has some capabilities that the predator does not. they both are useful. we are, we are buying both. but we are buying as many reapers as we possibly can. and to the chairman's point a minute ago, we have to a considerable extent stripped the other combatant commands of much of their isr capability to put it into the fight in iraq and afghanistan. the reality is there is huge demand all over the world for these capabilities. in the drug fight here in this hemisphere, in a variety of places around the world. they're useful in natural disasters and, obviously, in a combat situation like we face, they also carry armaments. so this is a capability where i think that we will continue to see, continue to see significant growth for some years into the future even as the wars in iraq and afghanistan eventually wind down because the more we have used them, in a way the more we have identified their potential in a broader and broader set of circumstances. so i think everybody who's had anything to do with this sees this as a, as a terrific capability. >> starting in the early 2000s, 2001, 2002, we talked about -- many of us talked about having the characteristic of persistence over a target or in an area, and there's no platform in the world that gives us better persistence, longer staying time than these platforms. and to speak to the needs and the desires of using them very specifically in haiti to look at the population migration and to do it realtime. so we -- and back to 2000, 2001. while we knew what constituted isr, we really didn't understand it very well. we have in these fights learned a lot about what the requirement is, how many of the platforms we need, the centers we need, and what to do with it. and that speaks volumes about our ability to succeed in these wars, but also how we will use them in the future. so the 37 to 65 is a, is a best estimate right now, but i would suspect it will continue to grow. >> and i would just add when i was directer of central intelligence in 1992, i tried to interest this building in uavs. [laughter] and was unsuccessful. [laughter] >> secretary, as you mentioned, this budget will include war funding for fiscal year '11. and if i'm not mistaken, that's the first time that a budget will institutionalize war fund anything that regard. >> actually, the war funding itself will be in the '11 overseas contingency operations fund, so the '11 oco will have -- but, yeah, it is submitted together. >> right. and i think you used the word institutionalizing. one of the concerns in the past about war funding is that this building has not been rigorous enough in setting aside what truly is war funding directly related to the fight the and what, maybe, is on the margins. what is your direction going forward in the next few years for making sure that the war funding is, indeed, directly related to the costs of fighting the wars and the building doesn't have an opportunity to throw other things in there, perhaps, that they wouldn't before? >> i would say one of the changes that came about with the advent of the obama administration was a much more rigorous approach by omb as to what was allow bl in these ocos. and so, in fact, both in the '10 budget and can -- in this budget there have been several billion dollars of things that we submitted as part of the ocos that we have ended up absorbing into the base budget. so the guidelines have become much more rigorous in this administration to get at just the problem you, you described. >> mr. mr. secretary, you mentid several months back you wanted to find a more humane way of implementing the don't ask, don't tell policy. does this budget in any way address that policy or a way forward, an alternative? >> the budget doesn't address it, stay tuned until tomorrow. >> sir, can i go back to the fighter? did you have concerns that cost overruns potentially might trigger -- [inaudible] and do you think it's too premature to not continue on with the s-22 production as a hedge for future jsf -- >> no, i don't think there's any need to go on with the f-22, and i think that -- i'm not sure about mccurty. >> mr. secretary, you're asking for $57 billion -- [inaudible] i wonder if you could discuss the amount of money, the growing fund of money on your defense budget. are you asking congress to increase co-pays? how do you hope to try to contain those costs in the future? >> i'm glad you asked me that question. [laughter] there has not been an increase in the premium for tricare since the program was founded in 1995. i ask anybody to point me to a health insurance program that has not had a premium increase in 15 years. the benefits are generous, as they should be, for our men and women in uniform the. but the reality is for a family of three the out-of-pocket costs per year who are under the federal employees' health care program is about $3300. we see a lot of people coming back into tricare pause the benefits -- because the benefits are so good and the, and the costs are so low. for two or three, at least two or three fiscal years running, we proposed a very modest increase can in the premium. each of those years, the, that was voted down in the congress. both for fy' 10 and this year we have fully funded health care rather than leaving the assumption about the premium increase. but we certainly would like to work with the congress in figuring out a way to try and bring some modest control to this program. this program, the military health care program in 2001 was $19 billion. in 2010 it's $50.7 billion. it's going to go, it's only going to go up, and it is, it is absorbing an increasing percentage of our budget. we absolutely want to take care of our men and women in uniform and our retirees. but at some point there has to be some reasonable trade-off between reasonable cost increases or premium increases or co-pays or something and the cost of the program. >> mr. secretary, in your opening statement you made reference to building security passes, the capacity of partners. i wonder how much that relates to the iran threat. and we've heard a lot of talk in recent days about what the u.s. is doing to help allies in the region with iran, and i'm wondering if that's a change in strategy at all. >> well, it's, i mean, part of it is in that region, but a good example of building partner capacity is yemen where we have worked with them on counterterrorism capabilities, on building their border security capabilities and so on. and, obviously, i mean, it's obvious to us at least, helping them build their own capabilities in lieu of eventually perhaps having to have u.s. forces present on the ground in substantial numbers or doing this ourselves is clearly much cheaper and much better for us. we see a lot of opportunity here around the world, and it's an opportunity for a whole of government effort because when you improve the indigenous security capabilities, you're also dealing with aid and the state department in terms of governance and so on. so i think that both we and state see this as an area of real opportunity to try and prevent wars from happening rather than have to deal with them once they, once they've are started. mike, you want to add anything? >> i just echo strongly what the secretary said as this kind of investment and partnership with state, usaid and others is absolutely critical. and the example he used is one so that we have a relationship that is long standing, long before we get to a point where any kind of conflict breaks out and enabling, giving capacity to other countries to take care of their own prop problems is absolutely critical. and some of the programs that have been ongoing in the middle east and persian gulf have been ongoing for several years. this isn't something that came up just the other day. we've actually invested in that substantially over a period of time. >> yes, ma'am. >> can i ask about the space posture review? you talked briefly about the qdr, we seem to have embargoed information on the ballistic missile defense, and i was told the nrc was not pleased with the stature. what's the status? >> to be honest, i'm not certain, but michelle flournoy's going to be up here, and she can tell you straight out. >> quick follow up, who is the new pm? >> i don't think we've announced it yet, but it should be out within a day or two. >> can you say that with the departure of the vinson, does this mark the beginning of the end of u.s. military involvement in haiti, and to what extent does iraq and afghanistan help define what you're able to do still in haiti for the long term? >> again, this is one we'll both take a crack at. i think the answer to the first question is, no, it does not mean the beginning of the end of our engagement. one of the principle assets that the vinson brought was helicopters. nearly all of those helicopters are remaining in haiti. i think as the chairman indicated in his opening statement we anticipate being in haiti for as long as we're needed and as long as the president wants us to be there and the haitians want us to be there. what we're getting into now is what balance of assets makes most sense for that period, and i would say, i would say that at this point the operations in haiti have had really virtually no impact. on the force flow to afghanistan or on our forces in afghanistan or iraq. >> and as i look after the future, i don't see that becoming a significant problem. i think that vinson really is a reflection of reality on the ground that we just, she's done great work, she had a big impact early, the helo capability is still there, and this operation goes into phases. and that she and one or two other ships are no longer required, and we want to release them. as i look out to the future for the other units that are there, i just don't see it having a big impact on afghanistan or iraq. >> last question. >> mr. secretary, you sounded like you'd come up with a very hard recommendation for a veto. last year there seemed to be a caveat that you did not want the program to be disrupted. if it were, then you would recommend a veto. is there a difference this year? will you, again, have that caveat on disruption on the alternate engine? >> i, i was very concerned about the program last year, and that was the reason that the veto threat was focused on disruption of the program. we think that the level of costs is such now that -- and the fact that this is unnecessary, that it's important to take a final stand. thank you all very much. >> the first slide was supposed to put these strategic reviews in context. okay, there we go. the qdr and the bmdr are just two of four departmental reviews we have underway. this is the fourth congressionally-mandated qdr and the department's first ballistic missile defense review. together with the npdr, these documents offer the department a strategic agenda for the next several years of we've also been working very closely and collaboratively with other u.s. government agencies on their reviews as well as the white house on our national security strategy. and all of these are really based on a common vision. the result is that both our internal department reviews and our government-wide reviews on national security are more integrated than ever before. before going into the details of each of our reviews, let me just give you a couple of highlights of each one. next slide. the qdr has its roots in the president's and the secretary's common vision of our need to both rebalance our defense capabilities and also reform how the department operates. this qdr were to have a bumper sticker, it would be rebalance and reform. you saw this vision first expressed in the fy '10 budget. the qdr builds on momentum from that period and at the same time the provides a strategic framework for dealing with today's wars and possible future challenges. as the secretary highlighted, we put top priority on prevailing in today's conflicts. we owe our people in harm's way nothing less. we also stress the importance of prevention and deterrence and of preparing for a wider range of future challenges as pillars of our strategy. this qdr also elevates the need to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force to a strategic imperative. this is arguably the most important pillar of america's defense the. rebalancing our forces in support of these strategic priorities means that u.s. forces must be flexible and adaptable to confront the full range of possible challenges. one of the most critical insights from our force planning in the qdr was to underwrite this flexibility in the near to midterm, we need more and better enabling capabilities, things that the secretary mentioned like intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, rotary-wing aircraft, language skills and so forth. improvements in these and other enablers will expand our ability to prevent and prepare in the future if. so i'll now speak to the other bullets later in the briefing. before i turn to the details of the qdr, let me give you a few highlights from the bmdr. we conducted this review to evaluate ballistic missile defense policies, strategies, plans and programs. the bmd review aligns our missile defense posture with near-term regional missile threats while sustaining and enhancing our ability to defend the american homeland against limited long-range missile attack. this review identified six major priorities that will shape our missile defense approach. these are, first the, to sustain and enhance our ability to the defend the homeland against limited ballistic missile attack. second, to defend against growing regional attacks. third, to insure effectiveness. fourth, to develop new capabilities that are fiscally sustainable over time. fifth, to develop flexible capabilities that can adapt as threats voaf. and finally, to lead expanded international cooperation on missile defense. we believe this approach will provide reassurance to our allies that the united states will stand by our security commitments to them, will help to negate the coercive potential of regional actors attempting to limit u.s. influence and actions in key regions and help strengthen regional deterrence architectures against states through acquiring weapons of mass destruction. through strengthened international cooperation with allies and partners in europe, east asia and the middle east, the united states seeks to create an environment in which the development, acquisition, deployment and use of ballistic missiles by regional adversaries can be deterred. in addition to strengthening and expanding regional cooperation in this area, the united states will also be seeking to engage russia and china on missile defense and in strategic dialogue. next slide, please. i'd like to step back, now, and describe the security environment that we assessed going into both of these reviews and really provides a foundation. our view of the security environment begins with the wars that we're in, in which we see not as aberrations, but really as harbingers of a dynamic and complex future landscape. the rise of new powers, the growing influence of non-state actors, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and a series of global trends continue to pose profound challenges to international security. and these strategic trends will create can a very challenging operating environment for the u.s. military. first, as the secretary alluded, warfare is becoming increasingly difficult to cat graze a-- categorize. innovative methods to offset our traditional strengths. this could involve proxy force thes, terrorism, cyber attacks, antiaccess capabilities and new operational concepts. second, recent security trends the highlight the need for international cooperation to maintain stability and access throughout the global commons. the global commons are really the connective tissue of the international system, and they're challenged today by things like piracy, the development of anti-satellite capabilities, cyber attacks and so on. third, as we've seen all too clearly over the past decade, state weakness can create as many challenges for our forces as state strengths. weak states heighten the risk of sectarian strife, terrorist sanctuary, regional tensions and humanitarian crises. next slide. this qdr explicitly linked the priority objectives of the defense strategy to forced planning, and forced planning is really the process we use to determine the overall size and mix of capabilities for the force. the bottom line of our force-planning approach is this: just as our forces today are operating in iraq, afghanistan and haiti and elsewhere around the world, we must be ready and able to project power in multiple regions of the world at the same time using a range of air, land, sea, cyber and space capabilities. as a necessity, this qdr focused on present conflicts as well as potential future needs. necessity was, in this case, the mother of invention, forcing the department to belatedly break from the post-cold war focus on conventional wars which describe only a part of the likely threat spectrum and develop a much more flexible force-sizing approach better suited to a much more complex and rapidly changing environment. this qdr underscores the importance, as the secretary said, of maximum versatility across the spectrum of conflict. our forces, to be sure, will still be able to fight and win two large-scale regional conflicts, but they will also be sized and shaped to succeed in combinations of other, of operations other than major theater wars. in the near term, our force plan emphasizes prevailing today, and even today we strife to insure our preparedness to defend the homeland and defeat potential aggressors while reducing the strain on our forces. over time as the operational environment allows, we expect to have more forces available to underwrite prevention. the examples provided under the prepare bullet of the slide simply demonstrate the range of plausible futures against which we tested our forces in the qdr. our force planning also highlighted the need to return our forces to more sustainable rotation the rates in the mid to longer term. next slide. the six missionaries that are on this slide certainly do not encompass the totality of the ways in which our armed forces serve, but they do serve as particular areas of focus both today and into the the future. and in each of these areas, we've tried to connect the dots between strategy, program and resources. taking initiatives to improve our capability in these critical areas. for example, in building a homeland response force in each of the ten fema regions, we're going to be able to provide a much more flexible and responsible type of support to civilian authorities in the event of a homeland defense crisis. similarly, increasing the availability of our rotary-wing assets and unmanned systems for isr and improving counteried capabilities will inprove our counter-- improve our counterterrorism capabilities. linguistic, regional and cultural expertise will help prevent conflict and reduce the demands on u.s. forces long term. and developing a joint sea/air battle concept will help insure our projection even in the face of anti-access challenges. insuring access to space and our use of space assets will remain a critical area as will our abilities to prevent and counter wmd proliferation. next slide. turning to the bmdr and how it shapes the force, as i said, the key objectives are to maintain defense of the homeland against limited ballistic missile attack while refocusing our efforts to counter immediate regional threats. concerning defense of the home land, we're currently protected against a limited ballistic missile attack and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. we will continue to informs in this capability -- invest in this capability and to hedge against the possibility of new threats emerging. it's important to note that u.s. homeland missile defense efforts are focused on regional actors such as north korea and iran and are not intended to affect the strategic balance with russia or china. with regard to rapidly-expanding regional ballistic missile threats, the united states will place increased focus on regional missile defenses. we've made progress in developing and fueling short and medium-range nuclear missile capabilities, but these capabilities currently exist only in modest numbers. with this reality in mind, it's important to think strategically about how we develop and deploy missile defense capabilities, so we plan to work with allies and partners to strengthen infrastructures built on appropriate burden sharing. we plan to pursue a phased adaptive approach that's tailored to threats and circumstances unique to each region. and consistent with the qdr, we're going to insure that our missile defenses remain flexible and adaptable so they can confront the full range of threats wherever they emerge. next slide. the qdr also lays out an important reform agenda the, and i know under secretary hill we'll go -- undersecretary hill will go into more detail on this, but let me emphasize first and foremost among these efforts is taking care of our people. over time we must reduce deployment time and increase time at home. the forces remain incredibly resilient over eight years of war, we must sustain that resiliency with targeted investments for service members and their families, and again, bob hale will talk you through some of this. close collaboration with key partners at home and abroad, overseas we will build on our existing network of alliances and partnerships and expand cooperation across the board. we'll also refine our approach to global posture tailoring our mix of forces stationed and rotationally deployed and our military to military relationships to the dynamics of each region. at home we'll require, we require a strong and fully-resourced cadre of national security professionals and this department fully supports initiatives to strengthen the capabilities of state, usaid, department of homeland security and others. reforming our internal processes is probably the most difficult challenge, even as operations require greater agility and innovation in the our force, our processes and institutions have often lagged behind. rebalancing our capabilities can only achieve so much without further reforms to our processes. these are, there are many important reform issues, and they're worthy of an entire review unto themselves, but in the interest of time, i'd like to highlight a couple of these. first is security assistance reform. despite an increased emphasis on the capacity build being mission of the past few years, our efforts remain constrained by a complex patchwork of authorities, shortfalls in resources, unwieldy processes and limited ability to sustain such undertakings beyond a short period of time. dod will certainly make internal adjustments to make the process of implementing foreign military sales more efficient and insure that our security cooperation manning reflengts these requirements. we'll also be with looking to work with our interagency partners and members of congress to develop new and innovative approaches to reforming how we

Related Keywords

Haiti ,Montana ,United States ,Japan ,Nevada ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Alaska ,Fort Lewis ,Washington ,Gas ,Ninawáz ,Iraq ,China ,Russia ,District Of Columbia ,Taiwan ,Pakistan ,Oklahoma ,Arizona ,India ,North Korea ,Yemen ,Utah ,Americans ,America ,Afghan ,Chinese ,Iraqi ,Haitians ,Alaskan ,Iraqis ,Japanese ,American ,Mike Mullen ,Bob Hale ,Robert Hale ,Arne Duncan ,Michelle Flournoy ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Victor Moreno ,Ron Allen ,Helen Thomas ,