small start compared to the big challenge we have ahead of us, it is a patway to -- pathway to start changing business as usual in washington and fulfill the promise we made on november 2 to the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. mcclintock of california. the chair recognizes mr. mcclintock for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to express my hope that historians will look back on the 112th congress', the session that restored american prosperity, and express my strong agreement with the new leaders of this house who declared that every action of this body must be measured against this goal. we speak of jobs, jobs, jobs duct to staff activities that could and should bend discontinued. as a result of the reviews conducted since august several components are moving ahead with

a significant reductions in contractor support.ugh the fr for example the osd policynd division and acquisition technology logistics office between them will cut nearly tor hundred 70 contractors, defense tricare agency more than 780 anp missile defense agency more than 360.on? overall we will cut the size of the staff support contractor cadre by ten per cent per yearle for three years and realize nearly $6 billion in total savings. third, since the beginning of this fiscal year which beganalue october 1st we've been operating under a freeze in the number of. positions with very limited exceptions such as the acquisition work force. within the office of the. secretary defense, the defense agency and field activities and the combatant command. these entities were also directed to conduct a clean sheet review to rebalanced resources, staff and functions ithin and across the components to reflect the department's most

pressing priorities. resulting review produced a dege number of opportunitiess, to trm the size of the workforcek, yielding more than $4 billion in savings over the next fivehese years. i will recommend to theces the u president that wee hold to thesh limits seemed over all dod staf. evels for the next three years. while new requirements may emerge that require furthers noy faff support those should be met by siftingai personnel from other less important activities within the organization. freedo fourth and consultation with the director of national to res intelligence, we extoamine the o defensere department sprawling intelligence apparatus. choi since september 11th the u.s. government has seen atet of proliferation of the new intelligence organizations manys that are excess and duplicative. many voters spread out among th different services, agencies, oask forces of various kinds ant combatant commands. kesed on this review i have approved a number of changes. wt they include downsizing the newr intelligence organizations thati have grownnd up around a memberf the combatant commands in recenl

years most of which are not directly engaged in the post-9/11 conflict. in place of having a largeg permanent organic apparatus must on the wartime level, the deep delete requirement to comee surge intelligence support as of needed from the defense of the intelligence agency.n the review also found many intelligence organizations across the department and among military services focus onnment counterterrorism and terrorism finance. theil consolidate the various redundant programs into two taso forces located within the dia.e. ofth, i aitpproved the elimination of more than 100 idneral officer and a flag officer procession's out of the 900 currently on the books. of those 28 were created after 9/11 primarily for the war in al iraq and afghanistan and they will be reduced as appropriate as major troop deployments wind down. hoov, more than 80 general flag officers in the osd and

combatant command will be g.dinated or downgraded. additionally i have directed the elimination are downgrading of nearly 200 civilian senior executive positions orovernmensw equivalent positions andss muste executives. the monetary savings from thesdn reductions in senior personnel will bple relatively modest andi mostly consist of the extraacts staff and immunities that by tradition follow high rank.u hap the primary purpose behind this is to create fewer flatteredssu more agile and more effective organizations.ro six and related pewe look at the organizational role,, command structures posture and base of arrangements. as announced in august the office of the assistanteds secretary defense for network te intelligence and information the business transformation agency and a joint force command are in the process of being eliminatedr or disestablished. for the reduced number of the most essential functions transferred to otherd

organizations.ribed on our in the case we have identifiedc thel number of missions since te ereof.announcement that should be retained in the north suffolk virginia area. we aree still refining the details but expect roughly 50% of the capabilities will be kept and assigned to other organizations. the other area focuses european command. based on the review is clear we have excess structure in europe. we are looking closely alternative courses of action, but none would be implemented before 2015 or without consulting with our allies. it is also no longer necessary to retain four-star service component headquarters for the army, navy and air force in european command. each ofkn which is too large and politica senior given the number ofeater, troops the lead and the militare operations they oversee. he commands will be reduced to the three-star level with concord and streamlining in headquarters and personal staff.

the change to the u.s. navy europe will take place over a longer period because of that command unique role in the nato transformation effort. eighth, we are eliminating nearly 400 internally generated reportsea that over the years he consumed vast amounts of staff timean and energy often to prodh documents that are questionable relevance can't tell you in many cases have been rarely read.tun nearly one-third of the totalepe wporting requirements are originatedhole decades ago and n some cases date back to theonsta 1950's. overall, this reduction in theru amentsorting internalle reportg burden about 60% of all non-statutory reports coupled with reduction and funding for studies reinpresents an estimatd $1.2 billion coin savings over e next five years. i'm also instructing in april the requirement for any internal report with the commissioning date prior to 2006 will be canceled.ro furthermore, starting in

february, every report mustgly include the cost of thisthat production. for all of these dod initiatives a major objective beyond creating monetary savings is to make the department less cumbersome, less top-heavy and more agile and effective in the execution of its responsibilityt my hope and expectation is as al result of the changes over time with had been a culture of in the less money the cost is really a consideration willey ap become a culture of savings andu restraints i will now turn to some of the sycophant program decisions included in the $100 billion identified by the service for reinvestment. they will be incorporated in the fy 12th budget request. given the variety and complexity of the threat america faces we need a first-time military capability that can be produced on af reasonable schedule and n sufficient quantities. at the same time the servicesap

are digging deep for excess hea overhead they are also taking al hard look at the modernization portfolios for weapons period mr. having major development problems, unsustainable cost growth or have grown lessly get relevant to real world needs. as a result the army has decided to cancel procurement of the surface-to-air missile. the army leadership also recommends the terminating on line of sight launch system, the next generation missile launcher were conceived as futureco comb system. the joint strike fighter program received special scrutiny giveni itsors substantial cost ongoin development issues and itsr and central place in the future of u.s. military aviation. in short, two of the variants,h the air force version and the navy carrier based version are proceeding satisfactorily. by comparison, the marine corps short takeoff and vertical landing variant is experiencing

significant testing problems. these issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft structure and proportion of the changes that could add moreit sa weight and cost to in aircraft that has little capacity to weserve more of either.hat as a result i am placing a variant on equivalent of a two-year probation. if we cannot fix this very and during this timeframe and get it back on track in terms of e rformance, cost and schedule,b then i believe there should be cancelled. we will also move the desolate of the marine variant to the back of the overall jss production sequence and to fill the gap created from the slip in jsf schedule will buy more medit f-18. today i also announcing my reement with the admit tre are recommendation of the secretary of the navy and, of of the marine corps to cancel the expeditionary fighting vehicl. this program is of great thterest to the marine

communities like like to explain the reasons behind what i know will be a controversial decision the regressive requirement list as resulted in an 80,000-pound armored vehicle that skims the surface of the ocean for longan distances at high speeds before transitioning to combat operations on land.re meeting these demands has over the years late to sycophanto is technology problems, developed at the lay and cost increases. the originally conceived during the reagan and administration has already consumed more than $3 billion to develop and willl cost another $12 billion to build. all for a fleet with the capacity to put 4,000 troops abroad. if fully executed the cost farrd more to operate and maintainto than its60 predecessor werellin essentially swallow the entire marine vehicle budget and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future.

to be sure, the efp would complete without regard to timer cost be an enormously capablesl, vehicle. however recent analysis by the navy and marine corps suggests the most plausible scenariotogeh requiring power production from the sea could be handled throug a mix of existing air and seaan systems, and played in new ways along with new vehicles scenarios that do not require s the exquisite features. as with several other high-end programs, canceled in recent years the mounting costs ofittl acquiring specialist keep the body must be judged againsthi otherng i priorities. let me be clear this decision doesn't call into questions the marines amphibious assault mission. we will but the fund necessary to develop a more affordable and sustainable tractor to providee the marines a ship to shore capability intot the future. the budget will also propose funds to the update beagle fleet with new engines, electronics

and armaments to ensure the marines will be ablean to condut ship to shore missions until the next generation is brought onalt line. finally for some time i've spokenip about the department'sn affordable health costs and inee particular the benefits provided to working age retirees under the tricare program.ed t manywo of these beneficiaries ae in employed full-time while full pensions andthat i now often forgo their employers' health plans to remain with tricare. this shouldn't come as a con surprise given the current tricare enrollment fee was set in 1995 with ordered $60 a year for the basic family planning and hasn't been raised since. during this time insurance premiums paid by private sector and other government workers have risen dramatically. for example, the fees for a comparable health insurance aga program for federal workers cost roughly $5,000 a year. accordingly with the fiscal year

2012 budget, we will propose the area of military health care to better manage medical cost growth and better align the department with the pe rest of the country. these linwood initiatives to become more efficient as well as modest increases to tricare fees' for working area, working age retirees with fees indexed adjust for medical inflatio. potential savings from thesetu w initiatives could amount to nearly $7 billion over the next five years. so now let me turn to the areas as identified $100 billion in savings on the surface is what we turn to the areas where they are not going to invest those savings come over here and weak programs. to recap approximately $100 billion was identified by the services through sheddingwh excess overhead and improving business practices or troublede programs. another 54 billion in savings was generated by dod over his

efficiencies and freezes in civilian positions in salaries. of the $100 billion id dentified by the military departments, approximately 20 billion will be used over the next five years by the army, air force, navy and marine corps to deal with tighter than expected operating costs. these costs include health care pay and housing allowances,zone system of weapons systems,g abor maintenance corn-based support, flight hours and other trading.u frankly,th using the savings inh this waye was not my of originl intent or preference.that'sht but we have little. choice but o deal with these so-called must playbills and better to confront them honestly now than through rating investment accountsn froa later. nonetheless, the military iver service reform efforts have left them more than $70 billion from overhead and program savings toe spend on high priority military capabilities. funds that wouldn't otherwise b. available. i will now summarize some of these new areas of investment.

for the air force, this process made it possible to buy more of the most advanced uav and move the intelligence reconnaissance programs from the temporary budget to the permanent base budget.portantle need going forward, advanced strike and reconnaissance capabilities must become an integrated part of the air force regularme institutional force structure.s theamer air force one chris procurement of the fall of expendable launch vehicle to ensure military and other government agencies while sustaining our r bord industrial base. the air force will modernize th radar of the f-15 to keep the ki fighter liable willing to the future and it will also buy more some leaders for the joint strike fighter air training. th finally, a major area of new investment for the air forcett will be a new long-range nuclear capable penetrating bomber.year this aircraft which will have the option of being remotelyghtt

piloted will be designed and developed using proven technologies and an approache that should make it possible tot deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity. r. is important that we began this project now to ensure that the new bomber can be pretty pa before the current aging fleet goes out of surface. the follow on bomber represents a key component of a joint portfolio of conventional deep strike capabilities and area that should be a high priority r for future defense investment given the antiaccess to knowledge is our military faces. the army intends to use its savings first to provide improved so was i. prevention and substance abuse counseling for soldiers the second to modernize its battle fleet of abrams tanks fighting vehicles and the stryker wheeled vehicle itd to accelerate the soldier level the army's new tactical communications network. the demand from the ground commanders for intelligencethe

surveillance and reconnaissance assets continues to exceed the military supply.zed. in response the army will buy more reconnaissance aircraft,jom exarate procurement of the philie most of the at the ernst and begin development of a new vertical unmanned air system to support the army in the future. the department of the navy as a result of the efficiencies savings is proposing toh for accelerate the development of a new generation of electronic jammers to improve the navy ability to fight and survive in an antiaccess environment. i hat they will increase of repairinge the refurbishment of marine equipment used in iraq andthe pn afghanistan.oes they will develop a new generation of an mant strike and surveillance aircraft, they wilo buy more of the latest model rvice lifextend the se of the 150 of these aircraft as a hedge against more delay and f the deployment of the jointthisa strike fighter. finally, the navy will purchase additional ships over the next

five years and putting a destroyer, little combat ship, motion surveillance vessel andh fleet oil. in the area of missile defense s and proposing more funding for long-range defense interceptors that will support the at bat chi approach in europe and extend that level of protection to theg continental united states. in order to improve theater missile defense, we will also purchase additional advanced radar systems that have been requested by competent commanders in europe and the to middle east. now let me close with the discussion of the future budgeth projections. meeting the real world requirements and doing right by our people reducing excess, the th trre efficient, squeezing costsn setting priorities and sticking to them, making tough choices, these are all things we should do is a department and the military regardless of the time and circumstance.

but they're more important than ever at the times extreme fisca arrest and budget pressures and scrutiny fall on all areas of government including defense. when every dollar spent on excess overhead or unneeded programs such as the extra engine is a doll were not available reto support our troos and prepare for threats on her a eyes and. which brings me to thesment president's defense budget outlook. the president's base budget request for fiscal year 2012 will be approximately bill $553 billion. this is some $13 billion less than we expected for fy 12 inr r last year's five-year budget plan. but it represents about 3% of real growth over the funding the department will receive an fy 11 under the current continuing resolution, and about 1.5% real growth over the appropriationsoe committee's defense bills for fy 11.

the proposed budget plan will reduce real growth in the department's top line and fy 13 and fy 14 and then provide zero real growth in fy 15 and 16. in all this budget proposalnatea anticipates a total reduction of roughly $70 billion to the five-year defense plan submitte last year. even with its top one reductioni we were able to adhere to the original intent of the reformle, initiatives and permit the, military service to keep and reinvest the roughly 100 billion ntified for savings where we come up with the top line reduction? first the approximately 54 billion in the dod overhead reductions and sufficiency i moscribed earlier in thesey: i i statement which include a freeze on all government civilian.his second roughly 14 billion eflecting a shift in economic

assumptions five-year defense plan. gerguson will decreases in thenn inflation rate and projected pay raises.itical they come up $4 billion in savings to the joint strike fighter program to reflect repricing and more realistic production schedules given recent development delay. fourth, more than $6 billion wat saved by the decision to reduce the size of the active army and marine corps starting in fy goig 2015. under this plan,o the u.s. army permanent end to and strength would decline by 27,000 troops while the marine corps wouldbout decline by some of between 15 to 20,000 depending on the outcome f the structure review. these projected reductions are based on the assumption that america's ground combat commitment in a afghanistan woud be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the president's strategy. ever since taking this post nowr more than four years ago called takprotecting the force

structure and maintaining our modest but real growth in the defense topline over the long term.1, i would prefer this continue to be the case. but this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat itty i poses to american influence and credibility in of the world will only get worse unless the u.s. government takes its finances in order. and as the biggest part of the discretionary federal budget, accountagon cannot presume to xm itself from the scrutiny and pressure faced by the rest of the government. no doubt the budget forecasts and related program decisions will provoke criticism on two fronts. that we are either goodingt defense or we haven't cut nearly enough. as to the former, someton perspective and we have the check or in order. even after the projected reductions and the active army beginning in 2015, the service is permanent and strength will failur continue to be larger by nearly 40,000 soldiers than it was when

i became defense secretary fourr years ago. and as i described in previous speeches when it comes to the global reach and striking power between tonnes u.s. military and the rest of the world, including our biggest potential rivals th, will continue to be fast and some key areas will grow evenwe wider. we must come to realize that not every defense program as necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred and well spent, and the more of nearly everything is not sustainable.ig under the proposed budget plan, the defense department willre on continue to see real albeit steadily diminishing growth for ey the next three fiscal years.cury before flattening out in the e tiban id fifth year. what is important is to have aae budget baseline with a steady sustainable and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys in defense spending that can be enormously harmful to readiness, planning and financial management. gro

ake budget proposal was such att plan.en it represents a reasonable responsible and sustainable, level of defense spending for the next five years. but only with the continued reform of business practices, reduction in overhead and smarter acquisitions can we execute this plan and realize the savings for reinvestment without increasing risk to america's security or hauling our military.hat's this plan represents in my view the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary givee the complex and predictable array of security challenges the united states faces a lot of the globe. networks,errorist rising military powers, nuclear armed groups states and much, much more. in recent weeks there have been calls from greg skordas for major reductions and defense spending to include substantial cuts in modernization, force structure, troop levels and overseas bases. i consider such proposals christieunce at best and potenty

calamitous.007, for more than 60 years the mr. united states backed up by the , strength, reach and unquestione. superiority of our military hase been the underwriter of security for most of the free world. the benefits in terms of stability, prosperity and steadn expansion of political freedom and economic growth have accrued over theto our allies and partners, but above all come to the american people. we shrink from our global security responsibilities thesp apparel. as the retrenchment brought about by short-sighted cuts could lead to costly and more oh tragic consequences later.rnmeng indeed, as they always have in e the past. surely we should learn from our experience sincee world war i drastic reductions in the size and strength of ther u.s. military make armed goo frn conflict all the more likely ann . acceptably high cost in american blood and treasure. to maintain the kind of military

needed for america's leadershipo role requires not only adequate levels of funding but also etndamentally ckehanging the hor defense establishment spends money and does business.rojec thatti is why it is still, important to follow through on the program of reform and overhead reduction that i have spoken about today.and the this department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and blackd attitudes toward cot are increasingly divorced from $1e real threats of today. the growing perils of tomorrow and the nation's grim financial what look.el these times demand all of ourn e nation's leadensrs risee abovee politics and provoking the some yed to th too often pla the considerations of thee s s tion's defense. whether from inside the pentagon, from industry and interest groups and from one enf of penfnsylvania avenue to thebe other. i look forward to working dhrough the next phaslie of the

president's defense effort with the congress in the weeks and months ahead to do what's right onr our armed forces and to doip what's right for our country. thanks for your patience.at's a >> i want to thank you for your patience.cerplane fli i know we've got 20, 25 minutes and that's actually the length of my remarks. [laughter] sens i will be brief.ut doing liben only at the chief and i are in complete support of these decisions the we helped the pproacary make and i applaud process. this is the second time we'vecut ien with the secretary on this, review and a more inclusive fact detailed, d teliberate and of thoughtful way and he deeper guidance. we helped craft the specifics and these are our decisions, to make. euphony service chief myself thd way it typically works is you get large bills of the and the

rocess of forces that decision and it offers absolutely no fro maneuvering room. that was not the case here. it was avoided because the upfront work by the psychiatryhe and by the services and the wnership that we took with respect to the efficiency initiatives. i believe it is ever dhaka in ex the military to eliminate security threats as best we cant and these reforms and budgetd es proposals helpless to exactlytat that.ing cuts the secretary is right we can't hold ourselves exempt from the g beltet tightening neither can wa allow ourselves to contribute th the debt that puts our long-term security at risk. this isn't about just cutting o, saving it is about readiness. fm not only do reforms preserved ha essential capabilities, which im the highest priority of the process, butin i believe we will actually improve our readiness

and be able to do thingsded w smarter, more efficiently, and more in line with the challengeo we face in the fiscal environment that we are in. the services have been able to reinvest seeking significantly in the programs and capabilitiey the most, meet their needs as w see in the future. thiore tookly, i want to strongly support the recommendation totrm nominate general mardy dempsey. i don't feel theamre's anybody moret qualified, more in step with the challenges andy opportunities facing our army and our military. he's an extraordinary leadere on with whom i have worked closely and have great confidence in hi, and i lo tohek forward to workig with him throughout the confirmation process. thanka you. >> for both of you, the cuts that you propose in the later years seem to presume the you will need fewer troops overseas total and that you can end of so

war in afghanistan on time.ut given that that war and the one. in iraq or not something you planned for ahead of time and given the rise of places like yemen, somalia, the persian gulf, what assurances can yound give that your successors won'te come back in a few years' timei. and say we were wrong and we need more money? >> i think that when you are croning out five years, you have ,o accept the reality that conditions around the world could change. the fact is these are relativel' modest reductions in the case of the marine corps both general pb connolly and general amos havehs talked for some time about the need of their view that the 'trine corps is too large nowhon eat they are out of iraq and so on andls e'the talked for some n about getting back to some point

between 175 -- between where they were before i increased th the marine corps to 175,000 the addition of thee ar 27,000 that brought them to 220,000, so i think the -- theye see this as more of an organic process within the marine corps in terms of their priorities and their needs. in the case of the army this is. a situation where the army is ecgrey: re of this decision. i think it is a product that support derives from of rstanding the importance cleague their other priorities as well. and again, i would emphasize both of these services will be larger after these cuts than bil they were when i consider it. the army almost 40,000 troops larger and the marine corps anywhere from seven to 12 pell such trips larger, so we think

it's important to keep some perspective here as well. >> i would have the risk. e looked at the risk and i think to your point predicting fud the future is very difficult. iy but high blood echo the secretary said in terms of these are modest changes and ones that we think are well within their risk envelope as we understand right now particularly given where we think we will be with respect to afghanistan in 2015ig when the structure changes start to kick in and with the world of persistent conflict that we talked about and the need to 11% have the force is to be able to engage an understanding of the outal force all services will bw required to do that, so the ris. of certainly some risk but we

discussis acceptable right now. >> oneon of your primary goals p to grow thepr modernization and research accounts by two to 3%y dal growth over the future defense plan.ngo was it accomplished not? it doesn't seem to be given that there is no growth it looks liky in the budget. >> let's be clear when i talked at the $100 billion last year, it was in the racket is in that the overall defense budget was not going to grow two to 3% per year, so the objective was by cutting overhead to ensure thehe investment accounts structure and taking care of our people that part of the budget would is kct grow two to 3%.vernmentthas i think with the transfer oful $100 billion to that we have accomplished that objective.avee >> the f 35 is getting special scrutiny. how close to the come to balan

cancellation and how much of the $4 billion of savings comes from delaying purchases beyond 2016? cut 122 aircraft in the current five-year plan. is therere more coming?lly membf >> first of all the plan is what we will do in 2012 to keep the r d oduction rate at the sameonsue level as fy 11, 32 aircraft, so a year further into the development before we reallyinge began to ramp up production. in terms of the internal me. process, you know, all of theses things were everything i've talked about has been debated for hours over the last numbern of months. a i think the marine corps made a. compelling case that the need some time to try to get thingsag right and we will give them that opportunity to respect you theya

regard the cuts for the next five years.deficit ending hell [inaudible] the first shoe to drop.oach ts >> welcome you have to into thea debate aves i suggested in my m remarks. those who feel we have already gone too far and those who feelr like we haven't gone nearly far enough. a my viegawin is that we've got i about right and there will clearly be a lot of debate on, the hill about this, but let me be very clear about something when we start to talk.member a lot of the stories last year wne about how i was cutting the defense budget by $100 billion. m.as nos t cutting the defense wdget by $100 billion. i was moving $100 billion from g what i thought was waste and of

unnecessary spending to higher,k priority issues. we are talking about over the, next five years is a decline in the rate of growth and zero x real growth means we get inflation. in. so the reality is every year for the next five years according to our plan because of inflation and the modest growth rate for the first three years the defense budget in absolutegoing dollars will be bigger than the ouar before. so my message to both our allies and to our friends and in light of what some of our closest allies have had to do in terms of their own military capabilities is that this president understands and accepts global responsibilities and we will continue to invest in the defense capabilities that are necessaryin to sustain our military strength and meet our global responsibilities. so - and as you write your story

is that the focus here is on a reduction and the rate of growth as opposed to absolute cuts. >> the meeting i would add to that is one of the points on your question is i believe we are pretty close to the limit ip terms of what we can do toes, sustain our structured overall and that any significant from additional budget cuts can almost only be met keeping usesl whole, not calling us out can only be met through at substantial reductions and force structure and that's against the national secure the requirements we will see the world we're living in. we think this budget and future and capability is about right.ee >> general? >> i want you to talk a little bit more about the army cut.

you talked as you mentioned before you cautioned against drastic declines in the defense budgetsy after the war. but it looks like here is after the afghanistan war scheduled to wind down we will have a dramatic force cut.es againstlli whyes is that not a taking oa peace dividend, and number two, a lot of the problem as you confronted of the course of the defense secretary had to do wit anre overstretched army suicidei extended towards all of which had to be solved in part by growing army. why don't -- how can you beons. confident we are not going to need an army decides that we've had because he views of your army that you had simply isn't as a peace dividend and why aren't we inviting more? >> well, first of all, over the

ast year and a half, we have brought 120,000 soldiers of iraq and the same period of time we have increased the number of soldiers in afghanistan by about half that number and we will begin b a process of conditions based gradual drawdowns in afghanistan beginning in thisal coming july. as i say, i think perspectiveann here is important. yorstyb of all, the numbers we talking about are relatively small and the army is still lef significantly larger than it was four years ago and, you know, we have had several increments in the increase in army strength

partly to deal with the dwellyo time problem and get rid of stop-loss. in addition to the 65,000ve increase in the army that i approved in 2007i approved lasto year an additional 22,000.ctive the 22,000 was temporary and the army itself acknowledged thatyou will begin coming out andg basically be gone in 2013. gl so the army is planning forenda these things. let's be realistic. 20%. depent'sive years into the future the chairman referred to his and i referred to it also looking five years into the future through a pretty cloudy crystal ball, and any number of these decisions could be reversed or changed in some respects if the situation around the world were to change in some dramatic way beyond what we see

right now. we are the only place inmake it- government i think that plans of a five-year basis, but obviously . the further out in that five years the you go the moredi uncertain thingssa become, but u still have to do some planning along these lines. but because we are still engaged in iraq, because we are still is afghanistan that's why we are not even going to begin this process in our plan until 2015. that's a long time from now. >> on the tax exempt itself from its happening across theain. government and on the other hanl as to emphasize again and again some are fairly modest cuts in the armye and the corydon when you took office for an instant. how do you square those? of the pentagon can't exempt itself why not make bigger cuts? the deficit-reduction commission

is e serious people making somef these recommendations and thepo recommendations were for much deeper cuts than what you've outlined and you talked before about the structure and theing british obviously have gone through a very similar view and their conclusions were quite different. they felt they could cut more. why is there a difference in strategic and understanding between us and between the costs? >> first we are having to tighten. member the fy 12 budget will bere $13 billion smaller than we thought it would be a year ago and overall defense spending for the next five years that top line will be a total of $70 billion smaller. now 13 by the way is included in the 70's, so it's not added. an so we are tightening but we als

have to realize we are still engaged in a reactive war in afghanistan and still havere are 50,000 troops in iraq. we confront the problems that we have in iran and north korea. we obviously have very ambitiou military programs in both china and russia modernization programs.copriati so ions think the defense also needs to be looked at, and i obviously have a very parochial view, okay? the defense of the republic ise one very on and gives responsibility of the federal government and we face a very al complex world. we think we have tightened up a good bit. we think this is a sustainablep budget, but i would say --

again, i would go back to remind the last year we cut programs that had they gone to completion over a period of years, it would have cost the taxpayers aboutgog $350 billion, so it's not like we haven't been trying to be responsible in the management of this process.gues. in terms of the recommendationse for much deeper cuts i would respond the same way that i did a few weeks ago. as far as i'm concerned thathat math, not strategy. >> with respect to our allies who've cut the defense budget significantly before this, i would just pick up on what the secretary said in his remarks which is this budget and not just this year or that of budget but as we look out the next fou

or five years just reaffirms the responsibility, the global responsibility and the security environment that the united as p states has for a.j significant period of time. we are also at a time where we do this with our allies.r's ma there's nnuo question whether is iraq toward afghanistan orthe or operating in other parts of the world we do routinely certainlya cognizant of that that the united states leads in this and in powers i think the security environment globally in waysin ' have for the last 60 years and the we will continue to do this. and in one other comment i would make, and you talked about peace dividend and to use the term t drastic and we think it's modes and i understand trying to freea mant -- frame it, but the budget has basically doubled in the last decade, and my own experience here is in that bubbling we have lost our

ability to prioritize, to make our decisions, to do tough analysis, to make trade. we are now waiting in a very good environment in the building because of this effort to do exactly that and that is the else put that you see this this budget that meets national security needs and at the same time recognize is that fiscal reality this country is in and i aink we can do both.sted >> the thing to stress and isheh mentioned in the prepared remarks is that the only way that we can realize the savings for reinvestment is by the execution of the efficiencies and the changes in doingose business. the two are linked. there will be any more moneyrmi coming from the outside to feed those programs. we are going to have to do it a ourselves.equa we think we can do it but we have to execute this program.

>> does this budget mean you plan to stay through the budget process and can you give assurances that you plan to star longer to theth end of the year, to next year, to the end of the term? >> no. of laughter chris bernanke briefed the cong cress this onen your initiatives.od can we ask what your reactions were and how much is the total o u're presenting that hinges ot congressional support potentially weapons programs could come back, how much will impact your total? term he 1986would say that's first of all i don't want to speak to them but i think the amount of information we communicated in relatively short period of timed wasri a little overwhelming and they are clearly going to need to take some time and look at

our proposals in detail and i told them was we would be prepared the president authorized me to go forward wit these changes obviously there's a great deal more toos do with e a little budget than i talked about here today and getting into those details we await the finalization of the budget and at a presentation to the congress and the aspects i talked about today, the service ac in the department that are vepared to go with thebe a mr. briefing the committee'so b next week so we will begin toth. have greater understanding of the details. some details probably won't be h nailed down until the budget itself is finalized and a couple weeksan or so. l but we will go up there and i would say that i think it fairs.

characterization of the meeting is that there were a number ofra questions but very little editorial comment. everything having to do with tha fy 2012 llbudget will go through the regular process, so a lot of the program changes that i talked about will have to go through that. spec anything has proceeded since then given the look. >> our goal is to move as quickly andbb responsible i see this as a three step process to finalize changes in regulations, policies, get a clear definition on benefits, the second phase is

to then prepare the trainingmy n materials used first of all experts if you will, personal people come chaplains, judge advocate general's and the second leaders commanders and third the troops, so there is a policy piece, training preparation peace and actual training. we are trying totion get the fit two phases of that process as quickly as possible and my hopee is it can bs e done within a matter of very few weeks so we , can then move on to what is the real challenge which is providing training to the 2.2 million people, and we will do that as expeditiously as we

can, but to use a term thetalk chairman used there is a certain element of physics associated with the number of peopleding h involved in this process. itutwe are moving it and i havet asked undersecretary stanley to accelerate the first two phases of this process as much as heuno possibly can so that we can get on with the training process. i was very struck by one of the chief comments that it's better to do this sooner rather thanot later so we are kind of approaching it with that philosophy in mind. t the other thing i would addee ishi to remind that the law hasn changed and won't until it is certified and the certification so nowde is not from my perspective now was not the time to come out if you will. we will get through this and do it deliberately. we certainly are focused on this

and we won't bottle. own budget >> thank you mr. secretary. the first is to china. what are your expectations and ete key messages will betheir an delivering to your counterparts after such a rocky year withry china?dollar bts a >> i would say two things i am eager to explore for the development and deep in a dialogue on a number of issues of mutual concern and where wetn have -- where we both have interests. north korea is an obvious and simple, but iran and a number of other areas where we are engaged with the chinese and where there are security issues involved i

think expanding that dialogue is really important. the second is to explore areas where we might be able to do more and a military sense t together as partners whether it's in training and exercising for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, counter piracyh there are a was variety of areas where our interests coincide and i think we can explore working together as equal partners and develop the relationship. >> [inaudible] >> to more questions. >> just curious with regard to whatrograms i'm curious has to happen in the next two years to avoid termination and you still expect them to be ready for the international release in 2014 for allies and finally, there is to pressures here. you have the pressure to reduce the cost but you might be

pushing the production back which will increase near-termm per unit cost so how do youadmie square that? >> first of all, i think that we manage the costs i think we've been able to -- the fourth production package we were very negotiating cost reductions, and so i think undersecretary carter is doing a really good job in atat respect and better to get it right at the front and i think we will end up saving money by getting it right at the front end rather than having to go back and refit things that have already been produced as we consti learn things in the tudevelopmei and test program. as far as questions, i will have to ask blonden or somebody to get back to you i just don't know the answer.ke a busins >> mr. secretary, you talked about growth worse the continuingsh resolution. someho

what would you say to those the argufy 53 and fy 12 come 553 billion what in fact be the cut versus the plan and program baseline? they argue that's less than 1% growthso over what you asked for an fy 11 and less than 1% can keep ups with inflation. >> well, you know, one of thent things that i have learned ino this job is you in gup -- how you answer a question like thate begins with a number to start with and n i've got four number. so the first number islk $530 billion. that is continuing resolution. that's an 18 billion-dollar cut below what our request, the president'sth request was.shut that will be a disaster. we will have real problems. ectingcond number is the appropriations committee marked to and let me go back from the

continuing resolution numbers of 530 to the 553 use 3% real growth.ange if you start with thed appropriations mark which was i the omnibus which is 538 to 553 that is a 1.5% growth. if you go from the originaler budget request of 548 to 553 gn's actually i think a little less, and then you've got the 566 which is where we were lasth year.use ma'sy, we' my point here is we are notown n exempt from scrutiny and from reli being asked to figure out what we are doing with less dollars. nobody has come to us and said

stop doing something. so the only way we can continuec tour do what we are doing in teg of modernization and in terms of our forces and force structurean is to takd e money out of overhd and to provide the two to 3% real growth in the part of the executing our mission and that is the forces and keep the peace. so iye would argue overall pressure on the defense budget absolutely and that's not a to anybody and it sure shouldn't be.building there are those on the hill inag both parties saying the defense budget ought to be cut more, an so my view is we have come down i think in a pretty good place in terms of responsibly dealing with less money than we thought we would have, but figuring outy a way to move money from

overhead to the business end ofs the department of defense which to satobility to fight our capabilities. differen my point is we're going to seeaa all kinds of conclusions about these numbers because it will all depend on whereth you start. my view these as i said and as the chairman endorsed if we cann get this budget we believe we can do what we wanted to do which is protect our force structure, our modernizationindn investments and take care of our people and we think we've been o pretty responsible in figuring out how to do that and to ensur in those three categories we have a rate of growth that is where it matters. >> is the only correct to look a bit when you say verses the continued resolution or the other prospective also valid?

>> as i put in here in my prepared remarks the you willto see if you look at it from a standpoint of the appropriations committee marked it is a percent and a half of real growth. thank you.li in >> [inaudible] amol conversations federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will be on capitol hill tomorrow morning testifying about recent ..w/?

>> former top communications adviser to senate majority

leader, harry reid, argued for changes to the senate filibuster: the workings of the chamber quote, dysfunctional. jim manley's remarks came to students with the academic seminars. he recently stepped down from his post and senator reid's office after six years on the job. this is an hour. [inaudible] >> well, this next speaker is for me presents a real special occasion. i first met jim manley on my first sabbatical when i left the meaningless title is: resident in the office of the majority leader. they just had great experience, working with john, watching him

prepare senator reid, the majority leader press conference for questions. i was thinking probably true the mind of every communications for where the press secretary for every member in capitol hill. this phrase must go through their minds constantly. they say, did my boss really say that? and one of the things of course that the direct result communications have to do sometimes is the direct result of miscommunication, which is basically clarify which of accidents that. robert gibbs, search and identify. but jim manley did more than media for senator reid. he was also responsible for knowing what was going on on the floor and the unbelievably complex and arcane world of the united states senate and

someone. and of course, one of the things that has become and usually does become periodically a big issue, of course, is the filibuster. and something jim has thought a lot about. and he's here to clarify some of the things about the filibuster that's likely to change if anything on that front. and i think it's a real privilege for me and i was just really very happy when i heard that jim had accepted the invitation to speak he appeared such a man like him communications director for majority leader of the senate, senator harry reid who previously worked for senator ted kennedy, senator george mitchell. he picked only the best. jim manley. [applause] >> hello, everyone.

thanks. delighted to be here. as rob said, my name is jim manley. and to clarify shortly, up until last friday, i was the senior communications adviser and spokesman for senator reid. i am now -- i have now joined the ranks of the unemployed while i try and figure out my new options in life. as rob suggested, i have worked on capitol hill for 20 years. i started off as a press assistant for then majority leader, george mitchell, whereas one of my greatest claims to fame is putting together clips every morning. i then worked for senator kennedy, first of all is his press assistant for a year or two. but in 1995 i guess i became his press secretary for the health education committee where ross suggests i have a chance to work on both politics and policy.

six years ago, one of the first thing senator reid did after he became democratic leader was to hire me to set up his so-called war room and i was the first -- i was the first after rector for his communications operations. and quite frankly at some point i realized if i do make a choice between managing an office in dealing with the press court in and out in the thrusting out of politics, the spokesman battery. for the last couple years i served as, again, the court fight title of senior truncation of thylacine advisor and/or spokesman for the majority leader of the senate, harry reid, an honor which i will -- which was unbelievable. and then again as i indicated, beginning my remarks, and quite frankly unemployed right now and looking for different options. after 20 years on capitol hill, having the chance to meet presidents, prime ministers, rock stars and movie act this is

not yours and having a chance to work on the whole wide range of issues, i decided that the time is right for me to try and pursue different options. i think probably what i'm going to do is spend a little time trying to reflect on some of the changes in the senate and talk a little about why i believe there is a need for filibuster reform in light of, you know, that, you know, a conversation that is front and center in the body politic beasties. first of all, i think i'll probably start out with a couple stats to explain why i think that there needs to be some changes. i'm not quite sure i have changes. i'm not quite sure i have the answers to what needs to be done, but i do firmly believe after what i've seen for the

last two years and quite frankly after seeing what my bias, then by senator reid had to put up with the last two years, while i reluctantly come to the decision there'll have to be some changes made. for instance, there were as many filibusters in the last two congresses as they were in the first six decades or so since the current cloture rules existed. that is, they were nearly as many filibusters just in the last couple of years as there were in the 1920's, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and half of the 1970s all combined as we saw in the last couple years. in the entire century, the senate saw fewer than 12 filibusters. if one doesn't filibusters. now we can see that in a single month. senator reid made a remark a

couple years ago in a private meeting that somehow got out to the media, but i think, you know, quite captures the current situation. i mean, it was a little sharp, but happen to be true. i mean, oftentimes, you know, he needs permission for the senate to schedule a bathroom break. and often times it takes senator mcconnell 24 hours to get back to him. so before an agreement such a simple routine as that. so i mean, so again, in light of what i've outlined some of the stuff i'm about to talk about, i think there needs to be some changes. in what was the result of this unprecedented obstructionism. oftentimes the nominees that were blocked, that we had to file a cloture on eventually

confirmed, save 95 to one. to do with the legislation that was being hauled up, oftentimes been passed in the invite 86 to six or something like that, which gets me to the first point that i want to try and make. and this is something that ross and i talked about before as a matter of fact. and that is that, you know, the importance in the power that the calendar has on the ability of the majority leader to schedule legislation. it's one thing for my friends and loved for instance to argue, why don't you just, you know, make a filibuster any particular nominee despite the fact we have 50 or 60 nominees pending. or why don't you make a filibuster piece of legislation? will again come as something to talk about in the abstract. it's a whole other thing when you've got to pencil to paper and try and sketch out how it

works. you know, i'm sure you bought know this but let's go through the cloture process, shall we? was just pretend to make it easier for everyone that will do the first one on a nominee. so again, we can talk about the presidential prerogatives, about the president having the right to have his nominees in place. leaving that aside because these abuses on both sides in the past. on a nominee, senator reid would have defied cloture on a monday to have a vote on a nominee on wednesday. that's three days time. on a piece of legislation, controversial or not, oftentimes in this day and age you have to file cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill, simply to proceed to a bill. a single file cloture on monday for a cloture vote on a motion to proceed on wednesday. the courses do on others 30 hours of debate post-cloture.

again, simply on the motion to proceed to the bill before you have a chance to even begin debating. so you're already on friday and of course you can't possibly have votes on friday. and of course you can't possibly have votes on monday until after 5:30 and that's a bipartisan thing by the way. and so, you are filing cloture on a bill on thursday night or friday morning, setting up a vote on monday night or tuesday, just on the bill at self and we haven't even gotten to the amendment process. and so what does that all mean? it means that, you know, that is an easy two weeks -- easily two weeks gone. well again, my friends on the left would say well, what's two weeks? well, actions have consequences. i mean, there's only so many days in a month. all of a sudden this stuff starts piling up and, you know, you've got a long list of things you want to deal with. but you know, there's only so

many weekends you can work and holidays you can work to try and finish up the stuff. and then, in my republican friend's defense, will point out quickly that, you know, they're not filibustering anything. you know, senator reid as majority leader has the right to bring in any particular nominee to the floor whenever he wants to any particular piece of legislation. and it's senator reed's fault for not bringing a legibly controversial department nominee to the floor. well again, give me a break. as i've just outlined, it's not quite that easy. and again, there's not enough days in the week for us to be a well-to-do all of the things that they were sent to do.

so i guess -- i think i'll probably finish up by saying -- before getting to the q&a, you know, i understand it's popular to talk about the cost to touche in these days. i think actually probably as we speak, the house republicans are going through the motions agreed in the constitution on the house floor. it sounds good to me. i myself have my copy of the constitution signed by senator byrd, though i will admit i don't carry it around all the time. but i guess i wanted to point out that, you know, there's deep views on both sides and it shouldn't be a republican or democratic issue. you know, egd out recently wrote, you know, an examination -- an examination of the cost to touche in that views

it as something other than a book of genesis or leviticus would be a good thing for the country. and obviously that sounds good to me. you know, again, you know, the only thing constant, yet now, and democracy is change. and you know, after all we did have a few amendments in the cost duchenne over the years. you know, the rules that govern the senate over the years about carefully necessity but again based on my pants, i think probably the time is now. the time is ripe for another look at the changes. you know, professor baker knows better than i. you know, it's been a very careful process over the years, starting back at the league in

1915 when we first began looking at the rules of cloture, which died so much in the senate. but at such a time when 60 votes guide to everything, all but most 13 pieces of the legislation, i think it's fair and right that we take a look at it. now in senator mcconnell's defense, he's made his -- he made his views very clear. i mean, in this now legendary, and, where he said that, you know, he was there to try and make sure that the president was a one term president. so at least he's honest about his views. there simply there to try and score cheap political points.

and i think i'll probably just leave it at that and take your questions. [applause] >> -- master of ceremonies to as the first question, which is sort of -- i've been thinking about. is that possible simultaneously to say that congress is dysfunctional the same time it's what you like it or not, the 111th congress in his regular session has a huge amount of important legislation in the blink that conjures while expectations also took care of repealing "don't ask, don't tell," s.t.a.r.t. treaty and so on. is there a disconnect they are? >> i'm not so sure if there is a disconnect, but this is definitely a time where to put on a spinning shoes for one because there is a fairly sharp

contract between the two views. i do happen to believe with all conviction that this was a landmark congress. senator reid, in particular, has done what no majority leader has ever done. i managed to get comprehensive health care reform passed. but again, looking a the totality of the situation, my humble opinion is the place is somewhat dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. yes, we great successes, but it was often done at great cost and great expense and through a lot of unnecessary political maneuvers. senator reid, when he started at the last congress two years ago pledged to open up displays and

allow republicans more amendments because he is an institutional at heart has a great respect or reverence for the senate and does believe there's a proper proper role for debate in the senate floor. and so, one of the first pieces of legislation he took to the floor, the piece of legislation he has extraordinary part of switzerland or piece of legislation, setting up a whole bunch of national parks. it took us about a month probably to finish a piece of legislation that should've been done in the matter of a day or so. and not before we have engaged in the debate about guns in national parks. now, and senator coburn's defense i guess it was somewhat related to the issue at hand, though i'm hard pressed to imagine how. but a couple weeks later we took another piece of the legislation to the floor. i can't remember what it was.

and we were soon debating guns on amtrak trains. so we quickly began to suggest that there's a pattern there and that despite their desire, the state's desire for a more open amendment process, they are simply there to try and score cheap political points. so, again, there is a dynamic. i hate knowledge that. but all i can say is that again went through all sorts of hoops and hurdles that i honestly don't believe the founding fathers ever thought of when deciding -- when designing the house and the senate. so anyway, i'm not sure that's quite an answer, but that's the best i got for you.

>> okay, university of san diego. i'm actually from nevada, so i can probably ask two days. i actually was -- i followed this election, the last election really closely. and i was wondering, what do you think made the voters in nevada turn to vote for harry reid instead of what they were showing? and what do you think was the turning point? >> sure. what i mean again, speaking in all candor, he said, as you probably know and probably most people miss her and on c-span cameras now he's traditionally had very tough races and hasn't exactly pulled very well in the last couple years. are you always ascribe that to the fact that, you know, he served proudly as a spear

carrier against, you know, i believe the fatally flawed policies of the bush administration. and so he became much more of a partisan figure. that's not really who he is. i mean, his skills as they meander and a legislator and a compromiser. but from my tenure as democratic leader, he became much more of a partisan figure. so that's the one reason why he described his difficulty. why did he win? quite frankly, he had one of the best campaigns in the business, run by a series of highly skilled individuals who hide one goal in mind and that is to get senator reid reelect it. and obviously, no discussion about this can occur without talking about the two candidates , one of his original

opponent, sue landed and then obviously the woman he eventually ran against, sharing angle. so what the bottom-line reason? i think the people in nevada in the end realized were far too extreme and out of the mainstream. that's the long and the short of it. yep, go ahead. >> i mind from the university of st. thomas. i was wondering if you're unemployed by choice or something happen? >> no, no, no, it's all good. like i said, i've spent 20 years on capitol hill. i was oftentimes spoken up. maybe team concluded oftentimes been woken up to do a morning show at 6:45. my my day off in times times ended with panicked phone calls at 10:00 tonight or at the

11:00 at night. the black. , which still have was permanently attached to my hip. at a well-deserved reputation i believe is being quicken response. but i -- quite frankly at age 49, i decided that it some point i needed to see what other options were out there. i have had an amazing experience. i matter, when i began this, i had the wildest idea that i can pull this off. again, as ross suggested they work for three senators, then majority leader, george mitchell, senator kennedy and then sixers for senator reid. the funny of back story about all of this because i started out 20 years ago as a press assistant for senator mitchell

and literally the same office i came back to 14 years later to run as the communications office for senator mitchell. i mean, for senator reid rather. so with its sweeping views of the mall crowds and the crystal chandelier, albeit i got a little better position -- a little better off is the second time around than the first time around. so, i realized that change is good. again, i worked for senator kennedy for 11 years. it was all sorts of ethnic legislative battles when i left 10 -- left his office with his encouragement. i thought, he's never going to be able to survive without me. well, i mean, no one is irrepressible. there's always someone available. change is good and i've never looked back.

so that's my pep talk on that one. >> and cheese from the university of san diego. you mentioned that there is a need for reform in filibuster. i'm wondering if there's anything of which reforms read is likely to oppose and if they're likely to actually get passed. >> two very good questions. right there i should begin by saying that i've been out of the loop a little bit for the last couple weeks. my father died, so i was back in minneapolis for the last couple weeks. i only got back to d.c. tonight to go. i haven't had a chance to talk to his policy staff about what the latest is. so i'm simply going that they publish press report. and what i know to be his views. i mean, this is something that senator reid has come to after some soul-searching, i believe. i mean, he is an institutional

asset. he is a great respect and reverence or the senate an institution. you know, he is a firm believer in the proper role of senate. he is after all someone who once famously said, you know, i don't work for a president obama. i work with president obama, talking about the proper role and differences between the executive branch and legislative branch. said the easy answer to the questions is there for a number of easy ideas out there. he began meeting with the caucus several years ago trying to gather ideas. there is the caucus a couple weeks ago devoted specifically to believe to this issue and he is trying to work out a consensus within his caucus about how to proceed. there are some that take the long view and are arguing that what comes around goes around and that republicans, you know,

what comes around goes around and you have to be careful to take the long view. but again, as they try to sketch out in my opening remarks, there aren't many feel an light of i said and the statistics i cited, many think there will be changes. and whether it can get done remains to be seen. there is an option available. it's been used before in the past from 1975 that we can get this done by a simple majority vote. whether that is going to be exercised or not, i don't know. we're going to have a wait-and-see. but the decisions are going to be made for a couple weeks. >> i'm trying to figure out what was the filibuster look right after these reforms and what other ideas are there? >> yeah, well, options of senator harkin, for instance, has a fighting scale reports

about 60 votes on the motion to proceed, subsequent cloture vote, you know, would have a lesser threshold for instance. others are suggesting you do away with the motions to proceed, a cloture vote on the motion of receipt and allow a a bill to go to the floor and up to two a minute after that. also, in its rubric of reform are proposals to do away with so-called secret holds. you know, one of the issues we saw in the last two years is that senator reid had to file cloture on a motion to proceed to ago. again, it oftentimes had been 8066 albeit a couple weeks later and i are to describe to you a little bit about what that answer for the calendar and for timing. so, yes we got it done, but oftentimes going through unnecessary procedural hoops.

>> good morning i'm from the university of san diego and my question deals with kind of what a senator's is compared to that of the house long-term eyes. is that the purpose of the senate want to slow down the legislative process and to be more methodical about creating my, where senators are often thought of at least in my thinking our understanding is more deliberative senior members not to be so quick to act or react to as the lead times associated with the house of representatives. when you open up your discussion today are your lecture, if you like you were alluding to the filibusters are just to many roadblocks. i agree in some regards. but the purpose of the senate is to not be so react to it. >> yeah, i found very little to

disagree with. i just -- after having seen what has gone on for the last two years, i do believe there's a need for change. i mean, there's that famous saying which i blow every time, the faster the coolest -- cool fatigue. that is exactly correct. that is why senators are elected to a six-year term. but after starting off the last two -- after we started off the senate two years ago, i remember a time when the economy was in a bad shape. unemployment was rising. there were demands that need to be done, you know, to help fix

the economy and the senate republican leadership settled on a calculated strategy to find the senate to the hall for two years as they made a play for, you know, the 2010 elections. i just think that they've taken it a step too far. and again, you know, i've seen real filibusters before. i was there as a press assistant in george mitchell's office denied that alphonse d'amato spent 24 hours on the senate floor, wailing against i believe the cloture of a typewriter plant in new york. so i've seen real filibusters and they've seen real debate. but what we've seen for the last couple of years, i don't think has not quite exactly with what the founding fathers were thinking of. so again, i'll be honest.

i don't claim to have all the answers today. i do know that having said that, you know, there need to be changes. anna the risk of putting someone's magazine, if you find -- there should be an article out in the "atlantic monthly" by josh green, you know, that outlines senator mcconnell's strategy for the last two years as he tries to come at you know cummock europe for the auctions. >> a quick follow-up. do you see a possibility of the propensity to go too far and open up more of a floodgate and allow too many -- relax too much? >> well, of course the change will be in the eye of the beholder. but there are still strong institutional biases on both sides to making overly dramatic

changes. so i honestly don't see that happening. but again, let's remember, i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't point out under bill thrift, you know, there was all this talk about the majority figure bill thrift, a so-called constitutional law -- option, so-called nuclear -- so-called nuclear option. he too was looking at ways to change the senate rules. cooler heads eventually prevailed. so i don't think the republicans have the moral high ground on this debate. but again, i do come back to the fact that i believe that in this day and age, with the united states as a preeminent supervisor and an economic powerhouse, that there needs to be at least some modifications of the senate.

>> thank you, sir. >> francesco baraka from wesley college. >> i think you're supposed to tell closer to the microphone for c-span. >> hi, i'm just a bronco from wesley college in dover, delaware. a couple days ago we had former congressman bob carr here and he said the filibuster is the tyranny of small states. as i go to school in delaware, obviously one of the smaller ccd and we also see our vice president is from the smaller states. you think that will pose a problem? >> yeah, that's part of the institutional bias i referred to in my previous comments. they are strong -- strong reasons for protect you in the right of both large and small ways. that's in part why the senate was set up, to take a broader view.

again, i just continue to go back to the fact that in light of what we've seen for the last couple years there need to be changes. but yes, that's very much a part of what's at play, along with, like i said, the longer view about careful what you wish for because you may be down today, but you're going to be up again in a couple years. and -- as part of parcel of what's going on here. it's going to have to be done very delicately. whether anything gets done remains to be seen. i am heartened at least by the focus by this debate on the senate right now. >> hi, my name is gerry from the university of san diego. i was wondering a recursive filibuster if you could clarify some team. he keeps saying in the past two years things have gotten particularly bad in the senate. is it really because of the policies that the senate has or is it because of particularly

intense party politics? because it seems like the system has been the same for quite a while and are only starting to see problems arise now. but if you look at what's been going on the past two years, there's been some very large issues that both sides feel very strongly about. it seems like what's really going on is the fact that parties can't come to some sort agreement neither side is like to give as opposed to something particularly wrong with the senate. i mean, is there anything -- >> sure come a couple things. number one, i will begin by agreeing that the senate is a much more partisan plays these days than it was when i started as a young press assistant 20 years ago. there is something to be said for the joke that the senate is becoming a little bit more like the house. we can talk about why that is if

you want, but it is becoming again a much more partisan plays and of course the might of the elections, i successfully suggest it will become more partisan than the next couple of years. i mean, senator mcconnell is going to have to manage, and juggle between at least two factions. number one, one group that just wants to totally shut the place down for the next two years. and then another group that wants to all but shut the place down and maybe pass one or two pieces of legislation. so again, it's going to become a partisan spot -- plays. i don't have the stats in front of me, but a cursory examination of them will suggest that

there's been an increase in partisanship over the last eight to 10 years, more the voting has become more in lockstep with the leadership. there's been, as i suggested, a corresponding rise in the number of cloture votes filed, once relatively routine motion has been filed with frequency. all i can do is give you my view. and i have a habit of speaking sometimes bluntly. but what i saw was a republican leadership two years ago, again as they suggested with the economy in shambles, that may be cynical and calculated decision to try and do everything --

everything they could to try and grab this place to a halt for political reasons. after we pass health care, senator mcconnell indicated that that would be the last thing we would do for the year. wasn't quite true. we passed a small business bill, for instance and of course there is the success of the lame-duck, small business bill, by the way, everybody profess to sport a candidate taking the peaks to pass. and then of course, there was the republican leaders comment postelection work and his view is that this call was to make sure that president obama was a one term president. i don't have any problem with that. you know, politics is a blood sport. any team bag. but it's nice to, you know, have his views out in the open.

and so, i think my discussion of the filibuster is guided in part by the attack pics i saw in the views i saw expressed by not only the republican leadership, but the republican caucus. >> thank you. >> i have jim manley in my clutches and i'm not going to let the opportunity get away. jim, one of the things that speaker boehner said upon taking office was that he wanted to restore what he called regular order in the house of representatives. and by that, i take it to mean that he wanted to have more decision-making at the committee level. the accusation is made about the senate, that leadership also plays a very dominant role in the legislative process, that basically sidestepping committees are taking important decisions away from senate committees and having the final verdict basically shaped.

could you comment on that? >> i'm not so sure. you had me until the last part. i think senator reed's -- one of senator reed's strength since he's he's empowered senate chairman. he's a big lever in the committee process that was in contest with then majority leader tom daschle, who oftentimes passed workgroups to do with controversial issues. one of the first decisions senator reid made when he became a democratic leader and then majority leader again was his pledge or vow to again do everything he can to support the committee process. he believes that i believe correctly that the only way you're going to get things done this with the input of the committees and the best way to get stuff through the committees is to empower the committees --

the committee chairman, excuse me, to the extent possible and to signal that they have the full faith -- is full faith. now, that is sometimes been a controversial issue within the caucus. i can't deny that. but again, in the end, i think for instance of the health care debate, the fact that we got it done to demonstrate his decision to go to the finance committee was the right thing to do. but like i said, a view not shared by everyone. >> i have a follow-up. >> i should've said in a perfect world i have a lot of notes, some of which i can't read quite frankly for my opening speech. i was going to try and play the box a little bit. but that's already. before you smx question, i should let you know that i can't

really say that if operated in anonymity for the last several years. i had a pretty high-profile. usually i insisted that may close when the record. i'm not a big fan of background quotes. if you're going to say something, you know, have the temerity for the good face gets to sit on the record. obviously he did enough background briefing, especially in strategy. the point of this as i am much more comfortable talking to reporters albeit on the telephone or even sometimes, you know, when i walked in the hallways and surrendered a 30 or 40 reporters and do a little tango. this is a little bit more comfortable for that. but anyways, i hope i've done okay. >> could you generally care to raise the relationship between senator reid and speaker pelosi during the 111th congress? >> the relationship is rock

solid. they are consummate professionals. however, both understand but in the end, it is their duty to do whatever they need to do to get a bill out of their particular body and leave the other to deal with the attendant problems. and then, which is why you see as my house frenzel quickly tommy, 433 pieces of legislation were sent over to the senate in the last two years only to a slow painful death on our side. again, it's anything i haven't said before publicly, so i'll say it again. i mean, the speaker off or have the luxury of knowing that every day when he woke up she did the 218 votes necessary to get it done. but now i don't want to diminish the problems you face and often

times it took a lot of handholding, but that's a fact. senator reid rarely if ever have the 60 votes, even when we briefly had it, it really wasn't there. and so, in a senate where a party are it takes 60 votes to get all but the most routine piece of legislation done, he had his own challenges to face. so the speaker would send over it though. we take up another bill, do whatever we need to take to get it out of the senate amendment two would set down and hash it out again as to professionals and they usually ended up meeting -- the usually ended up finding the sweet spot the nieman to get the respective conference reports out of their respective bodies. so it was a strong relationship.

it was a productive relationship. but again, both always understood that their goal first and foremost was to represent their respective bodies and, you know, they had to do what they have to do to get a bill out of their respective chambers and goes out to the other guy to figure out how to get something similar out of their body. >> this is on a more personal level. what do senators want in a leader? do they want him to be an eloquent spokesman for principles? to be wanting to be a legislative mechanic? within their minds when they choose the leader? >> sure. i'll preface that by saying that again as i indicated i had a chance to work both for senator kennedy and senator reid. i found out quickly that there was a wide difference between a

legislature, which senator kennedy was, i believe the greatest in the century or any other, right up there at with webster and calhoun and being a leader. i always thought that the two kind of the same thing. i found out quickly that being a leader is far different from being a legislature, even if you are a natural type ashamed of senator kennedy. the strength of senator reid and the reason why he was like the guinness jory leader of his caucus obviously was not because he was in his word not a silver tongued devil, who could speak eloquently at great length. but he knows how he understands the rhythms of the process. she knows almost intuitively what the members of his caucus are thinking about the lot and

he also worked like no other to deliver on those wants and desires. i believe that the reason why -- among the reasons why he was like that again was, you know, he does a great job looking out for caucus as a whole. now you know, the firebrands of course within the caucus comes from the last. now, positions with all due respect, my friend senator harkin, for instance, the views are articulated by the liberal senator from iowa, don't necessarily play well and save the state of nebraska for instance. and senator reid understands that. he understands that the senator's job, first and foremost is to look out for their constituents, which is

why, you know, there's an instance in the past were under pressure again from those on the left, for instance a secret tradition -- take richard grecian or go after state senator nelson, senator lieberman. no surprise there is always flat out rejected it, recognizing that the end, they vote within the majority of the time in g in the end, their democratic senators frankly elected by their constituents. i think that in the end is the reason why she's been such a success. i mean, what does it take to be a leader? a well developed patient muscle. what does it take to be a leader? you need to be a good listener. you need to talk less and listen more, which happens to read to a t. anyways. you need to be either too i think one reason why he got

along with roms so well and gets along so well with the president is his bottom line. i mean, the transaction is like what do you need to do to get something done? i mean, he believes -- he believes in the senate as an institution. he believes that compromise is not a dirty word. we set the bar high, then you try and get the best deal you can. and he believes he was the heir to legislate. >> and key token from niklas college in massachusetts. i was wondering, what is your greatest moment to stand with senator kennedy. >> there is a heck of a question. i mean, i'm on my claims to fame was the day that the photographer is cockney walking the dogs. there was his hotshot folks then. we were in the capital for a

meeting and he had his beloved portuguese water dog was sent, at the end of which he was going to ask me to take his dogs back -- take it starts back -- take his dogs back to the russell building. and in those five minutes it took, a bunch of for a handful of republican staffers saw me and they quickly called up the gossip sheets and they said i just saw jim manley walking his dogs through the halls of the capital, suppose a pretty good one. no, i'm a more serious note, it's the legislative -- it's somewhat -- i've got a wall full of legislation that he and the two, that he hoped an act, all signed by him, but i will treasure never forget it.

individuals with disabilities in education and. job-training legislation, no child left behind, which you work done with now speaker john boehner. the chance to talk to him every once in a while about his family . what was -- boy, that's a good question. one of the most -- one of the funnest time saver had with them was when taylor branch, the author taylor branch, did a multipart series on martin luther king has to come in and interview senator kennedy for

the latest chapter of his book. there have been some resistance within the office. no one thought he would sit down and talk with his brother bobby, bob as he called him. but i managed to get it scheduled. we sat down in his conference room and the first thing that taylor branch did was to take out an original letter to martin luther king for bobby kennedy had never been published before, seen before. and mr. branch asked senator kennedy if he thought this was the original letter. he looked at the signature and said the asset her signature. and i'm just sitting in the corner. and then he spent like an hour and a half telling tales about his brother, the president and

bobby kennedy and their involvement with the civil rights era and with martin luther king. and it was a fascinating insight into the kennedy family. i was senator kennedy's most public and visible person and he never let me forget it. and oftentimes did so publicly. he -- he always -- when i got too big for my britches he always thought they got size, especially in public. there's so many things. i mean, the thing with taylor branch is one of them. the legislation that helped on the communications with, watching them negotiate no child left behind but john boehner, judd gregg and george miller. the meetings for president bush in the white house.

the campaigning needed for al gore and john kerry for some of the things that come to mind. >> hi, my name is andy card from yale university. ever a question regarding the communication and things you did. yesterday was her up on capitol hill were very impressed with how point of a lot of the alleys where and how very almost practiced their responses for what they said and they didn't even bother touching on basically because they felt like they did note they were talking about and i would rather not comment because i'm not a professional. i'm wondering if you could speak a little bit on the offices you for time and how they transpacific people all the way up to your job and to anybody else. >> there was training? i didn't get no stinking training. i was hired 20 years ago in george mitchell's office for my

ability to work long hours and work well together. so i didn't get no stinking training. but on a more serious note, again, recognizing that my role as the communications process will do it one other time. in kennedy's office, in senator kennedy's office, he was smart enough to realize the only way he would give good press that the communications officer knew what was going on. so i had, going back to the previous question, i sat in on most briefings i had, but most meetings he had, where i had a chance to learn the issues. senator kennedy in particular is famous for not being afraid to look outside and asked the outside expert to come in and briefed them on labor policy, welfare reform, health care

reform. you know, you can go through to foreign policy, the war in iraq. we used to meet with general solid time. and so fret not, i had a chance to study and learn the policies. in senator reid stott has come a little bit different. it's a very quick moving operation. and i just oftentimes had to find that delicate balance between telling what i know in doing what i believe is the rate being, versus not airing our dirty laundry in public if you will. but that's still not a good answer to your question. i mean, in my particular situation, what i did was i studied my briefing book. i read the memos, i read the tones by all of the various

think tanks in town. i can't staff about it and that's how i studied the issues and that's why think quite frankly managed to survive all these years because reporters understood that i can do both politics and policy. but still not a good answer to your question, but is that at least help? >> i guess is if all up, are there certain things are encouraged not to discuss or comment as was not your position, but other positions. if you're in l.a., are you encouraged to speak on your candidates position on education or something else? >> no, more reverse order. i don't think so. again, not my area of expertise, but i don't -- i think probably the alleys are encouraged to largely stick to the issue areas. over in the house of coors i think probably staffers handle

the great majority more issues than they do in the senate. but in the senate they have relatively smaller portfolio. but they're talking about huge changes in the tax code, for instance. so i can still struggling trying answer that question. i don't know what the caution is. i mean, wow, that's it. what was your first question? i'm sorry, the first part of it. >> was there anything you are encouraged not think country and speak out? >> that's an interesting question. rule number one is never lie. if you're in a situation where you can't say something, you either dance around it or one or two q. when the out of the door. i should explain that i have an open door policy in my office so

reporters could come in and where courage to come in at any particular time. so if there were one or two occasions in six years when things are really heating up and people are trying to track me down and being the courageous solo was i walked out of my office and went downstairs to the majority leader's office and head out there and have read in its decision, knowing reporters could never track them down there. so the only thing is i live and die -- it survived by my reputation. i take it very seriously. i worked hard over the years to become versed in both politics and policy. i'm an honest -- i believe they have a reputation of an honest and straight straight shooter i never wanted to do anything to have that tarnished. i got dinged up a little bit. i mean, played in the big leagues for a long time. so you know, you can't survive without taking a few hits, but i think i managed to pull it off. thank you.

>> thank you. is that at? [applause] ..

the most senior officer in the british military to the spoken before about how his country's military is dealing

with budget cuts. the atlantic council hosted the c. finton washington, d.c.. it's just under an hour. >> hello and happy new year to everyone. what a great way to start the new year. i'm president and ceo of the land to counsel and i would like to welcome you to the first public event of the deer, commander serious discussion with britain chief of defence staff general sir david richards. this is the type of person for which launched this series. people who have done real jobs have gone dangerous jobs. people who have also had to apply their mind strategically to the most challenging issues of the day. the london times said of him he's a seat of the pence soldier, quote, noeth and fisher he believes interest surgeons and actions and making things happen. he's a field soldier brought by his men, journalists, eight workers and most importantly on

the ground. i also read from times he's outspoken as duped and cyril leone journalists nicknamed him debbie richards. there are many faces in the audience who attended several if not most commanders events in recent years. welcome back. it's one of our flag ships serious we've had supreme allied commander europe admiral, commander transformation stefan gabriel u.s. pacific command admiral tim and most recently the chief of the british royal air force air chief marshal stephen baldwin and all we have posted 16 senior military leaders from the united states and friends and allies under the banner of the series so we are proud, general rickards grumet to add you to the list of impressive commanders.

none of this would be of course possible without the generous support of north america and its president ceo and member of the board. i'm sorry he couldn't be here today, but i do want to thank another board member of ours. thank you so much for your support of what has been one of our most successful ventures. it is of special the importance to us because we advocate strong transatlantic relations to tackle global challenges of the strongest security relation historically has been that of the u.s. and the u.k.. the u.k. strategic security defense review and with that the washington defense and security community has been very focused on outcomes and what it means for british defense policy.

we are also pleased to appeal to host to talk about not only these issues but some of these little issues that play a role here and there. your royal artillery in 2001 since then you commanded units all love of the british army. you take contingence of 99, sierra leone in 2000 and trying operations and difficult environments commander of nato international security assistance force in afghanistan, 2006 and 2007 which as i believe when we first ran across each other and appointed commander in chief of u.k. land forces 2008 and chief of general staff in 2009 and you to cut your current duties and meet october of last year. just one last thing, before you decided on a military career you do interesting people believe research of people who spoke here you were considering

becoming a woodworker, race car driver or journalist so i think fed defines a person with a wide range of interest. also you are the first general we've had here who is also an admiral of a club. so general richards, the shift is yours. thank you for being with us today. [applause] >> thank you free much. i say to the first when discussing maritime affairs good to see you. ayman admiral, too and [inaudible] i'm not sure about the gabby richards, but it was the case in nasiriyah leone we had to use a media to get messages to london

because the inconvenient. kroyt military and civilian between me that it would commander and 20 blair were preventing me from doing what i thought was right, so why did use the media a lot of that time but i've become more cautious a little anyway. but anyway, thank you very much, and i have to say having the international relations and things like that the university i was aware even then of the council and its importance and it's a great treat for me to be here today. it's the 50th anniversary of the atlantic council, and i hope i'm right in saying i'm not the first chief of defence staff to speak in the last 50 years, and i probably won't be the last and the great reason for that you don't become the british without

a very healthy respect for this country and what we can achieve when we work together and on previous visits we go to arlington and pay homage to fill marshall and that era of the close cooperation something that we should rediscover that close affinity and understanding and personalities do matter, and as it happens i had an extremely good lunch yesterday with admiral mullen not good in the british sense but it was a very good conversation but i think that relationship between him and me now for a while is extremely important because it allows you to cut through a lot of bureaucracies in a way that is almost unique in its power

and if you don't have that sort of relationship then invariably there is the cause for confusion given the present digital age you just can't afford that so to people to pick up the phone and will get people is really, really important. you actually know each other and have some empathy for each other during the course of my career i've set alongside the u.s. military most notably when i was commanding the mission in 2006 and 2007 and i will come back to afghanistan leader but first i wanted to talk about some of the changes in the british defense and what they mean for our pre-- secure defense relationship with the united states as well as our unique network of partnerships as a member of nato and obviously as a permanent member of the u.n. security council.

now has for it said, during the course of 2010, a strategic defense security review which result in the biggest changes of a decade to defense and defense treaties and france which are designed to make our armed forces more interoperable and these decisions were responsive to the challenges facing all nations a dynamic global threat environment and the need to increase, sorry, decrease the cost and increase the efficiency with which the government provides also where it may not be right to view the security service in that respect i do include security to its population and these challenges have direct relevance to the united states and for the rest of nato. others will make their own judgments, but i would like to explain why briefly we have made ours. the decisions taken were taken

on the basis of what i consider to be the analysis in the national security strategy. this looks beyond the immediate five years of the range of the nation it faces. the national security strategy has not been given as much prominence in the u.k. as the sv s. r and i think it should be given more. it's quite an impressive piece of work by military and civilian from several government apartments and as the prime minister said the defense review quote strategic thinking of britain's place in the world about the threats we face and how we can bring all of the government together to try to deal with military language of the mss is what we might call lubber commanders. it points to the themes that wife lisa the part of the national security, not just in the threat nuclear proliferation

but also left recognize issues advances in technology, biological science, climate change, social and space change taken into account for example. the national security strategy lifts the threats facing the u.k. and it's worth remembering the most pressing the range from international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, espionage, dissident northern irish groups threats to security through the cyberattack on the economy. crucially, we judge one of the threats we face are at a definitive tipping point. all of the terrorists to the security but none yet of such magnitude as to be the focus of all the national resources we might have to accommodate a wide spectrum of the threats and to other factors also came into play when determining our

defense posture. first, the nephritis determined that the u.k. should continue to play a leading role in the world. i'm reminded of the foreign secretary's words that this is not a time for strategic shrinkage. in britain we've never shook international responsibilities by our economic and military strength and second, the need to reduce britain's defense budget for the top political priorities of the government the government is part of the strategic context. our economic strength underpins our military strength and they must therefore be a primary consideration of any reviews. if you need an example of the government's failing to get the formula right place just because the fate of the soviet union. moscow's attempt to match the u.s. defense spending contributed to bankruptcy spaight pecos date. it's not a pleasant take into

account resources available. it's a wish list. no general work is based plan on wishful flanking. clearly the chief of staff didn't go to the review of being the reductions in the defense budget, but the government is prioritized spending and some departments including defense have served undoubtably better than others. more importantly along with the real term increase the prime minister has spoken of post 2015 we have enough to take us towards the robust future which enables the u.k. to play a prominent role in its national security affairs. the government decision to keep the defense spending above 2% to gdp reflects its appreciation of the importance of the armed forces and the importance we place around the world including alongside u.s. forces. looking at the range of threats the u.k. resource and ever ambitions we concluded that 2010

was not a moment strategic realignment what we needed was a balanced strategy to deal with a wide range of diverse threats and that's why we decided what we would call the adaptable force to conduct a full range of missions. adoptable was just a word because it encapsulates the vigilance, flexible the covers elegance and agility we will seek to maintain it also speaks to the termination of both morally and physically to ensure that even when we may not know the future we will structure our armed forces with the ability to read it. i would like to emphasize that but if i may. critics accuse the government of failing to conduct a strategy review. this in my judgment couldn't be further from the truth. the government couldn't draw the same conclusions that some have lobbied for a lot because there's not a lack of strategic detection but the reverse they

have maintained the freedom of maneuver. we could reconfigure the case that it is in the armed forces towards the defense of europe and the media environment. recovery continue towards peacekeeping rather than war fighting but that choice, to mechem is rejected we could have domestic security we've rejected that choice. but these options and other scenarios were rejected because they were not supported by the analyst underpinning the national security strategy and wouldn't enable the u.k. to handle the range of threats we identified. the adoptable posture pertains to the a devotee of the u.k. to act at distance independently where required and across the domain. parts the capacity for the prevention, deterrents conventional and nuclear

conversion and the connection and these are rational extensions of the national security strategy. my reading of the u.s. for the general review is the taken a similar view of its own circumstances. and the strategic concept is also based on the need to deal with a wide range of threats than before. where we've gone further is that the changes to the fore structure to prepare ourselves to deal with a wide range of circumstances and that were lost major defense review that this no surprise. i would like to spend the next few moments what we intend our future force capable of doing to the we targeted the future force 2020. the domestic nist cooperhead lines were dominated by stories of cuts and to be sure we had some difficult choices to make and expect our armed forces to be smaller than the future. but we are planning to generate

recognizing the changing character of conflict and the threats we face now and in the future. the defense of the longer-term transformation teacher 2020 will be if we get it half right formidable and powerful organizations. jointly and within each service. like the personal with the other instruments of power to play with the development and assistance in ensuring interoperability with allies and long term strategic partners. what is absolutely necessary to having one's arm may well not be so vital in the future and understanding this dynamic is absolutely essential it is any one thing more difficult than getting the new ideas into the military mind and that is getting an old one out. if we stay as we are, we would not be successful in 2020 and

beyond and i am absolutely convinced we have turned the corner, and i would actually argue we have further to go in configuring for the future warfare and if i were in the armed forces in 1930, i would have preferred to be fighting from an aircraft or tank than from a horse. those in the armed forces in 2020 and beyond will i have no doubt be grateful for the investment today and intelligence cyber operations and remote technology. will be something of a quantum leap. future first 2020 will also maintain traditional significance high-tech or more high-tech fighting capabilities across all three services. the typhoon, joint strike fighter and updated strategic lift are examples of the royal air force career strike us to fight 45 and soon after 2020 the tight 26 global combat to the

poor old navy and the army will retain the manning equipment in humans killed but i believe will remain so important in modern warfare and this will be complemented with the investment in education which is vital to maximize our 21st century capabilities and ever-increasing ability to operate jointly with our allies. my name is for my successor is not to face the challenges we face today with aging devotees across all the services that are difficult to maintain to sustain and to play the force configured for a full range of missions and on the one of basis the u.k. will continue to be able to fully formed division into the fight. that is a substantial fighting force which few others can match we have taken true that we must maintain the ability to command fierce levels with many forces leaving germany, some argued we

should give up the rapid reaction call but that would mean a reduction to be about to leave major nato operations. i would be neither britain nor nato's interest that we will continue to be able to command multinational operations at the level reflecting a different but real threat they are also demanding the formation of the u.k. defense cyber operations group. this is going to continue to develop. all told, the u.k.'s investing around an extra 1 billion pounds in cyber across government, and i have got to be just come here today from a visit to the nsa. the detailed structure of the operations group is yet to be determined but it will be a fundamental part of a raw strategic operations and will be able to put into other securities foundation's outside most importantly the chief and we are working very closely with the department of defense to

develop with the cyber u.k. u.s. defense relationship. the first moving digital age information is a major part of conflict in some respects it has been due to the weapon in its own right. reflecting this in our organization training and tactics is our next task. the review also contains a deterrent based on the submarine. we will make some programmatic changes the policy continuous deterrence remains. in an uncertain will the government saw no case for giving up hour ultimate guarantor of the u.k. sovereignty. we went into the review aiming to remain a full spectrum military of did it for the longer term and i have contained this is where we have come out. delivering the future force within the available resources will not be easy and now that it is complete, one of the big challenges what we call in the

defense reform review taking a very long hard look at how we will organize. it's too early to say what the results will be the effect is all about prioritizing the resources including strategic planning and command structures. future for 2020 is only available with big savings in other parts of the defense. the u.k. i know is not alone in doing this. when resources are tied it's incumbent upon all of us to squeeze every last drop of military capabilities from the taxpayers' money. i know in exercise like that has been underway for some months now and reporting it this afternoon and hearing about the results. looking ahead, i actually expect the defense reform to be a major challenge to both of our allies come with us and our allies in the year ahead. soon after the review, and i mentioned this with a minister

and president sarkozy to defense treaties with france one on the joint lead is a living nuclear technologies and another on why the defense cooperation and these are ambitious documents. what we are trying to do will make arguably the most capable european nations much more interoperable to the national defense programs should become better aligned to deliver more capabilities than nato and around and i go in a few weeks' time to see with my french counterpart to meet in this activity. we have agreed to give an ability to form a combined trade expeditionary force by the early 2020 s to develop the ability to deploy the u.k. france integrated strike group to cooperate on developing technologies with the next generation of nuclear attack submarines jointly working on the next generation of the uav

and to cooperate on the cybersecurity and counterterrorism. in some cases this new work is a big deal. in other ways, an american audience should find not remarkable. we do this with cooperation and far more with the u.s. armed forces every day of the year. it's because of the success of the arrangements in the u.s. we recognize the potential closest neighbor and this is an objective of both the u.k. and france at different times for many years but the stars are aligned to make the treaties are possible now. they will take hard work on both sides of the english channel or should i learn to say [inaudible] to turn the mission into reality. but i am confident as a next result and markedly than nato than we would have without these treaties and perhaps the will pave the way for others to take a look at what they can deliver collectively as well as individually the always caught

the imagination of the u.k. i would like to remind this audience with a set about the u.s.. it describes the u.k. do this relationship is deeply rooted strategically important and mutually supported and in some ways this means so optimistic that it goes without saying that it is important and we don't take the relationship for granted. both the u.k. and the u.s. know that it must continue to be dictated for the time. that is why within the defense planning to do more as i said on cyber, ct and capacity building, more on the count of proliferation and arms control and i personally like to see how as part of the more integrated strategy we should work more synergistic and aggressively to prevent future conflict. upstream operation as britain describe it and face the zero operations as i know is the term that is captured on here.

for all of these reasons it is essential the force 2020 is compatible with similar forced to submit outcomes here in the united states. finally a few words on afghanistan. of course one of the reasons people might take our future relationship with the u.s. a little bit for granted is because we obviously operate so closely together today. nowhere is that more apparent than in afghanistan. as the prime minister said that the nato summit in lisbon in november, and helmand the british troops and to this marines working hand-in-hand side by side fighting incredibly effectively letting the americans respect that the british forces are forces capable of taking the fight of the enemy of closing with the evidence colorful combat camano caveat and equally as effective as any troops anywhere in the world. throughout the defense review, one thing was always clear, afghanistan is and always will

remain the main effort for defense as long as it is necessary. all of the decisions we took were tested for the intertek of afghanistan. the review is about preparing for the future that we must prioritize the today's operation. it's no good being ready for tomorrow if at risk losing the battle is fighting today. some changes to the army structures will happen towards the end of the decade after the combat role in afghanistan is over. and some equipment decisions were deferred for the same reason. the government couldn't have been clearer. our mission in afghanistan is vital to the short and long term national security of the country. the forces are ultimately to keep the public safe come safe from the failure in afghanistan, safe from the violent extremists who would make the region the base and safe from the operations to reservists with chang for and plan from those

patients. dozens of other governments have reached the same conclusions that this white together before the collision with 39 countries, 36 when i was there to bring civility to afghanistan. prevented the terrorists to attack. i've been in afghanistan twice in the last couple of months the change from what i commanded in 2006 couldn't be more apparent. today and helmand, the governor, provincial governor is driving around helmand and officials are traveling kalona from there is strict spirit i talk to people in the heart of the district overlooking the busy road with people and traffic. in 2006 the was quite literally unmatchable. the right force with the right to come across isaf are delivering what we knew then was the right strategy but seemed unattainable.

general petraeus achieved so much by focusing on the people and the political settlements. we were under no illusions of that fact. there is genuine cause for cautious optimism which i think is a good term to use. we are now operating from a position of increasing strength while the position of the insurgency of the tactical level has begun to deteriorate. in pakistan safe havens are being squeezed by the pakistani security forces though we must all do more to understand and incentivize the pakistanis. the insurgency is under unprecedented pressure and has lost significant ground in the southern heartland including in the key population centers. we have been successfully targeting the networks and command structure. as the senior leadership is isolated the trading is becoming deficient and the supplies disrupted.

the afghan national security forces being developed by a very good friend of mine like most of these american generals are have grown by over one-third this year, far exceeding the every the targets. the year increasingly effective from the lead operations, which along with the political outreach is key for the transition to the honduran security. i am of course well aware that the u.s. is just conducted its annual review of the mission i don't intend to get involved in the domestic debates but i would observe that we in the u.k. share virtually all of the same judgment. as agreed, the vital nato conference in lisbon and according to the wish of the afghan government, the ansf will take the lead on the security from the end of 2014. this is why as the prime minister david cameron said the troops will not be in combat role from 2015. of course we intend the u.k. relationship with afghanistan will continue for many years to

come including an enduring highly supportive defense relationship. issues that we have absolutely with the u.s. essentially come as no surprise that we have a common strategy. i left a page there i'm sure was important so i must not do that. let me be clear what i mean by some of that. with india, pakistan and bangladesh and in some point is actually, we now have enduring partnerships of equal we help trim officials its change information and provide the development assistance. british trainers and mentors will stay in afghanistan and efforts will continue alongside those obviously of aid workers and diplomats and these diplomatic defense underpinned

partnership and we look forward to deepening them over the years ahead. afghanistan will i'm confident contribute to the network of partners and allies in the u.k. has developed over the centuries and having a longer-term perspective very important result. that will also be true of the u.s., nato and many of the other isf nations as with so many of the security issues we have really important common interests with your countries and should come as no surprise we have a common strategy. i will be made clear today common interests extend far beyond afghanistan. both of the strategic reviews show the nation's face the same threat and demand should solutions, the shared perspective means we would continue to approach the challenges that threaten the global stability in a similar way. in the u.k. can't addition to

the shared security will be balanced against the economic constraints the nation is facing. but under the illusion britain's b5 armed forces continue to be the most robust well-trained and effective ally the u.s. could hope for and would continue to share the interest over the coming decades. they do very much for listening and i look forward to your questions. [applause] [inaudible] i get questions scribbled down for myself. you have a hard departure at noon, so we've got about 18 minutes or so, 20 minutes or so to take some questions and let me go straight to the audience. i know that the general, former

supreme allied commander transformation, vice joint chief chairman -- please come in and wait for a microphone. >> welcome to washington again and it's good to see you. thank you for taking on this very serious dillinger had a tough time here in the u.k. and around the world and economically. i don't envy your task every day, though i also respect what he's done. let me ask a quick question. this is not at the strategic level but with these force reductions and other things coming up, where do you see the u.k. exchange in pavement, nato staffing and the rest? i don't know if you have gotten into this, but you have a very sizeable amount of u.k.

personnel working with u.s. forces today in the united states and four were deployed. i'm talking about the day-to-day staff positions where we get such an integrated effort have you thought much about that and could you give us a few comments? >> [inaudible] the guinea pig so audio -- i know much of this to you. it's a very important issue and the defense attache and i were talking about it today. we are going to go through a period the next five years undoubtably what we call for

2020. we are going to go through a challenging time before we get in particular that 2016 real terms up in defense spending i've always admired with the german army did in 1920 to be the ticket to the intellectuals playing and i included [inaudible] they did by the late 1930's. therefore, there may be a case for reducing even further force structure to keep those things going which otherwise would be over focused on the frontline. we will actually lose and probably never get that back. so i am very alert to the issue is a very important one and we

are going to have to try to find a way through it but we will all make the case. >> admiral, the heavy hitters from the board showed up. >> [inaudible] on your interoperable the efforts with fruits -- with france. how to use the asset yourself if you are going as you pointed out? >> at the moment it is not integrated capability that we are looking at except potentially in the case of the carriers' strike, but there will be british aircraft carrier and from 70 to 75%, maybe more if we get this right we won't have to borrow each other if you like. there is that period where and invariably we have still got to

work through working through the right convictions are up and vice versa is the sort of work i am getting done in detail with the french counterpart later this month. so again, we are alert to the risk. what we should look at all the counterstrike we have to carriers for the pride of one and there is that 35% we have to find a way through that. in other respects there is no replacement of each other's of capability in the case of the navy and air force the do this any way and in the case of the army partly because they are afghanistan we haven't done a lot of it and as we gear up for

that post 2015 period we need to get the procedures and process in place. what we did many in the cold war we did naturally in the post cold war period [inaudible] so would be my response the we share counterstrike, we've got property the rest is doing what we would have been doing anyway. >> thanks. it's a great privilege to be associated in the atlantic council and to sponsor this event. i listened to you today at the national public radio this morning and i had the same impression now that you are saying about afghanistan. being a nautic i noticed the

research to the covered secretary of defense wasn't there in november of last year and he said something which pleased the native simmons lee, which meant that britain would like to see some strategic partnership with denmark and norway and that would enhance the national security of great britain and these countries and expand on this. >> since we are in afghanistan with a loaded question on that. it was a relative picture and cautious optimism obviously but never the less compared to some assessments rosy. what part of this concerns you? we just had an assassination of you talk a lot about a afghanistan and pakistan is right there. as you get the picture even in the improved situation which gives you the greatest concern?

>> actually your question is more on scandinavia so i can't answer that. >> the secretary of state hasn't done a lot of work to shut with the secretary of state before we took over that identifies the high north has an era but we wouldn't talk about becoming an era of conflict but one that we need to focus more on as if the climate change results in the ice ted moving for example and the possibility of going from eight to be all of these things standing on a better dialogue and the first thing that we identify we should do is have that dialogue for which motive is a motive so that was the background and the nations are central to that and probably

more directly interested than others and i think the secretary of state felt that he might have some catalytic role in generating understanding of the debate. he's very proud of the fact he is the first british secretary of the state in 23 years which says a bit about our relationship and important notions. the admiral of the british yacht club [inaudible] on afghanistan, i suppose people who really understand afghanistan and talk about pakistan and then if they really understand that [inaudible] you to place it in the context of the region particularly in the is a factor in this, and i

think for too long we've looked at for the prospective on afghanistan itself. so why all i think things are going well as the tactical level they really are going well. i don't want to be accused of spectacles, but having been involved for some time now, i am probably better qualified than the exceptions in the u.s. armed forces than anyone to tell you that things are better on the ground. people come and talk to you and will never possible and it wasn't the case particularly secure environments, and i remember carl eikenberry used to say you've got to look at this from a one-year, two-year, three-year imprisonment and a promise over five years is a big difference. i only wish what dave petraeus

got today was available to me in 2006. he would be the first to acknowledge the thinking has moved on to read you can dress it up a bit. we call them afghan developments and today they call them security ball loose and we were going to link the developments. we just couldn't do it. if only we had been able to do it. so there are longer-term lessons about how you do this and i think one of the risks is that people will think you can't do these things. i don't actually buy that. the idea that we have rewritten history is complete rubbish. i think we will be required to do these things again in the future and the key is that we learned a lesson and move on quickly next time rather than just think that's not possible and, you know, i just can't contemplate that we would allow

rwanda to happen again and would be a shame from what we've done in the afghanistan because we took a long time to get the formula right, i think we are now pleading catch-up but at the tactical level the real issue is repeatedly can the non-military dimensions of what we are doing their now match with the military is starting to do. things like governments, justice, creating an afghan government is an extremely important part of that and i think abstract is now back there alongside president karzai and clear lockhart who knows more about this is sitting over there. [inaudible] and i didn't know that.

on would say things aren't quite as easy one might think that in the case of both afghanistan and pakistan we've got horrendous problems and we need to empathize a bit. it's too easy to criticize. i was a rather cheeky at a point in the press conference when i was there a few weeks ago when i was asked about this and i made this point of view of president karzai trying to balance the pressure which we don't understand what you think about it or not that radical and then he began to realize how difficult this is and i did say indeed even if cameron mcdevitt

problem being the president and he said deride and i think pakistan is the same. pakistan really worries me. it's too easy for the nonmilitary and even some of the military should know better to say i could do more and should do more. one of the things they could do more i couldn't tell you having been over there had spoken with them it is one hell of a problem to get one man on the order requires just ensuring. in the most hospitable terrain and then you have to control your own base because the insurgents are now operating against them. i would suggest we all need to be a lot more understanding of the difficulty and pressure [inaudible] and there is obviously more to it. >> we are down to the last four minutes, going to ask -- i have

seen two or three other people with questions but if you can keep them to 30 seconds each and no wonder then we will have a couple minutes for general richards to either answer all of them or cherry pick one depending on the time. please come in and identify yourself. >> i am walter. my background is foreign service and i was our cds 1979. you know without the national guard and reserve it wouldn't have been possible to do the types of things that we have been able to accomplish in both iraq and afghanistan. i wonder -- my question is i wonder how seriously you are working with the british equivalent of the national guard. how are you using them and what kind of resources are you putting into them?

>> thank you so much. my question is with witnessing the coast. you mentioned the initiative. do you anticipate vehicles cutting a new deal to increase efficiency with this cost? >> thank you for being said this plan with your question. [inaudible] last question please. >> the nation's are essentially going through what britain went through with and with the united states went through. my question is how can we be certain that the the end of the force reductions and budget cuts we won't have major gaps in the capability. much of this is being done of the national level without regard what others are doing.

what does this do with the alliance little? >> our equivalent of the national guard and the naval air force is a very good point. we actually did take them out over all but the detail we got is by far the biggest of the reserve forces and is again separate at the moment. i think there is no doubt that what we aimed for is a single integrated force so that people -- i mean, we can talk about one army to read and actually wasn't one army. there were two armies and we wanted an integrated force where you can more in the way you do dial in to reservists under

certain conditions in the contracts for the activity and in particular claim very keen on using the tools in the context prevention activities for the simple huge amounts that we can do but it's ongoing and the potential value in terms of efficiency can be cheaper is well recognized. the other thing i would quickly say is they are appropriate for everything because some of what we do today is demanding in terms of training and there is no way that a reservist can hope to cope with those areas and when you deploy the operations to do we have a duty of care which the lawyer is monitoring that means we've to put a whole lot of training and to them and

it is often cheaper to use a regular soldier but the duke of westminster is watching closely. the defense reform unit aims to do everything in your question. i think it is going to be a neat trick delivering -- delivering that guidance and the promise to lift the test taken interest that we must be genuinely radical and how that will translate into being able to tackle some very traditional structures are not yet certain we have to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the

bathwater to achieve it the the lot of emphasis is being placed on it and it'll be a close run to achieve the loveless efficiency while assuring we are properly ready. ferc sample i'm very keen [inaudible] where do you get the resources for that within a manila envelope? that means you have to dig deep somewhere else that is a very good question i must say and it concerns me a lot and it's something the chiefs of defense will be talking about in brussels later this month. as i said i had a very good month with admiral mullen yesterday and we talked about it. you could argue for the nato perspective we now have reached that point we have to go to the specialization. i don't see a great appetite for

that yet but most of the nation's new political leaders but it could be the military have to be very wise and force the pace otherwise the truck he readily identify but all i can tell you is we've got the issue and s was said in your opening comment it's probably not a good time to be the chief of defense. >> that seems to be a nice note to close on. general richards, this has been a terrific opportunity. it is an honor to have you with us. we wish you the best of your assignment and we will support you however best we can. things also we know it is a tight schedule. rauf to the pentagon now and you have worked as a to the schedule. it's great at the atlantic council as well. let me thank you for taking the time. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

mitch mcconnell said the upcoming debate on raising the federal government borrowing limit is an opportunity to come from the national debt as a whole. he also said one of republicans are opposed to changing senate filibuster rules discussions with democrats on that issue are continuing to read this is about 15 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. as you know we finished our annual meeting at the library of congress and i'm going to ask or conference chair senator alexander to make some observations about what we were discussing today and then we are going to call on one of our freshmen, one of the new members, senator kelly to make some observations and then throwing up for questions. one of the things we talked about today, secretary of treasury called me and speaker

boehner about the debt ceiling issue we are obviously familiar with it that the challenge that will be lying ahead of us the next couple months and i think there is a widespread feeling that it's an opportunity for us to come together and make some significance riots for beginning to reduce our spending and debt which we know in addition to the issue of joblessness is the single biggest thing on the mind of the american people. are we going to begin to get our house in order after the spending spree that we have been on the last couple of years so we had a lot of discussion about the debt ceiling about this er that will expire and the opportunity to get her voice both sides to step up and do something significant to begin to address the most significant issues addressing the country. with that but we call on senator