This transition is to be completed by 2014, when the ASF will have assumed the security lead throughout the country.

The success of transition will depend in large part on the success of the international coalition in training and supporting the Afghan security forces through 2014.

This morning's hearing continues the committee's review of the fiscal year 2013 defense budget request and the Future Years Defense Program.

We are working on a new set of limits for synthetic credit and the current CS01 will be replaced by something more sensible and granular.

I share very much in that frustration and look forward to that meeting this afternoon.

the cost estimates for the Future Combat System, according to GAO, grew to $300 billion of the taxpayers' money, a scandal of proportions that if most taxpayers knew about it, they would share the outrage that a lot of us feel.

We really feel that this is a very good investment of dollars, and it is a heck of a lot better than having a larger number of American troops there.

One of the keys to success in Afghanistan is building the size and capacity of the Afghan Security Forces.

Yesterday, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham, and I sent a letter to President Obama stating our concerns about these proposed reductions in the Afghan security forces.

Future instances of what Mr. Kendall has labeled 'acquisition malpractice' are unaffordable and unacceptable especially with the budget cuts that we are facing.

Such leadership has been lacking in articulating the policies that will enable the Services fairly and without sacrificing readiness to achieve a drawdown of over 100,000 Active and Reserve troops.

the President also committed to modernization of the nuclear weapons complex. That commitment has been undercut in the fiscal year 2013 budget request which seriously underfunds the weapons complex modernization plan.

We believe that is the wrong approach. It is just too early to decide that conditions 2 or 3 years from now will allow a one-third reduction in the size of the Afghan security forces.

I would argue that we should have the debate that you have put on the table.

I am amazed at your reluctance to say yes to the most obvious question.

We are not talking illegality here. We are talking tax avoidance.

How do we give a green light to the use of them to qualify this kind of investment under our Tax Code?

So a Cayman corporation is not subject to U.S. tax or any other corporate income tax, so they can accumulate and invest money more quickly than corporations which do pay taxes.

But you do agree that if they violated those income restrictions in that Tax Code Section 851, they would then have to pay the corporate income tax?

The reason that these are set up in these offshore locations is so that they can avoid that impact of that section of the Tax Code.

Will you check out that doctrine?

What troubles me is why there is any doubt in your mind as to what the purpose is.

That runs inconsistent with your effort to pierce those shell corporations.

I think your statement here today is very important and hopefully will be relied upon and counted on as being factually accurate.

That proves that tax avoidance is their purpose, which is exactly our point.