It appears to me that we lost 10,000 soldiers, real boots on the ground, at a time we had stop-loss orders in effect.

If you could provide me a more specific written response----

The most remarkable thing about this budget is what it leaves out, not what it includes.

If this supplemental is delayed past September 30, say the end of November, or even delayed until the following year, which is customary nowadays, you will burn out all the money that is appropriated?

Then why do you not propose a budget that reflects accurately all the costs that you anticipate over the next year for Afghanistan and Iraq?

All these costs do not seem to be properly included within the budget going forward.

I just want your view, Mr. Secretary.

Do you think that is the right approach, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Secretary, we both understand that supplementals are used to cover unanticipated costs that arise after the budget documents are presented.

I do not believe I insisted on that; did I?

Why can you not include those costs today in your budget, so that we can make appropriate decisions about offsets, about priorities?

You have the obligation to come before us with a detailed estimate of the cost and what you propose to do in the way of covering those costs.

So it's good news. But in context, we've got such a long way to go to rebuild employment, that we're not over the hump yet by any stretch of the imagination, even by Secretary Snow's calculations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, and I want to thank Mr. Brickell.

A third way to get at, maybe not directly this problem, but to respond to some of the discussions.

we have to go back to the first point, which is accurate transparent disclosure of the fees.

The Rule that you are proposing would rectify this.

The current system does not provide that transparency.