That is a shortfall in the report, maybe.

And you recommended that the Social Security Administration investigate all of those 1,500 cases?

The greatest responsibility does not lie at the Social Security Administration for the problems that we see. They lie right here with Congress.

We thank you very much, and if you can, also give us your oral testimony in no more than 7 minutes.

Send us recommendations.

I think it has been a very useful hearing.

I think the reason we find this study--and you mentioned it--is because we have failed to do our job.

We should restrict funding to the top cities that face the threats.

We have $150 million in unobligated funds from the 2009 budget.

The program gets funded year after year without anyone having an idea if these dollars are being used effectively.

We must not allow enthusiasm for quantitative nuclear reductions to degrade the flexibility and resilience of our forces.

It is a very good airplane. When do we have enough of them?

the Centers of Excellence were intended to be joint DOD-VA ventures.

I would hope that we would treat these kind of unilateral declarations the same with the current administration, as was the case with the first President Bush.

Is it correct that the plan for the PAA to missile defense in Europe includes all four phases?

It's not a limitation on us; it's a possible addition to the capability of our anti-ballistic missile system.

Russia made a unilateral statement concerning missile defense to accompany the New START.

I believe that the New START treaty is focused on the strategic forces of both sides.

The July 2010 Compliance Report states that the United States is unable to ascertain whether Russia's CWC declaration is complete.

The New START that is before us today is an important treaty that will, as Admiral Mullen said earlier this month, make our Nation more secure and advance our core national security interests.

The Preamble of the treaty contains a statement acknowledging the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms.

I also very much support a long-term relationship with Afghanistan, both security relationship and economic and political relationship.

The reason why both the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) reduced the $1.1 billion to $800 million in Afghanistan was because you're on track in Afghanistan to spend only $200 million for…

If the Afghan Government and people demonstrate a willingness to fight and assume increasing responsibility for their security and affairs, then the American people will be steadfast partners in that endeavor.

I believe that deeply. I think that's an inherent part of counterinsurgency that that happen, and the support of the ANA by the Afghan people is there and it is going to make a huge difference in terms of success.