people involved because it was born on the back of the active component with little reliance on the guard and reserve, and so we built a structure that not only allows for the unitlyization of the guard and reserve, but it makes it absolutely necessary. the question is not will we use the guard reserve because fully a third of the capabilities necessary at any given time to do anything lie in the guard and reserve. we are committed to it. what we found is we relearned lessons, made significant investments, and the guard and reserve and ac -- active component have never been closer. as we go forward and demand and budget goes down, that puts strain on that relationship. you've seen some of that already, but i can tell you that each service has a plan in terms of the rotational readiness of

its formations, that they will include the guard and reserve in that rotation, so the entire guard will never be operational anymore than the entire guard is operational. i think you can feel secure in the knowledge that we understand and we'll work towards this goal in a rotational readiness cycle. >> i appreciate that. as we look forward this year, i know that the air force is going to be making some initial decisions on where to base the new kc-46 tankers, and i would hope that the air force and dod will take a look and ensure that at least some of those aircraft are based at guard bases around the country. i have one particular in mind, but i'll let you draw your own conclusions, so -- but, can i ask you is there a commitment on the part of dod to base some of those new tankers at guard

facilities? >> i think the air force is looking at a whole set of options in order to make sure that we mitigate we mitigate whatever cuts have been made and make use of the facilities out there with the national guard and reserve. i can assure you they will be in consideration. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i would also like to go back to brac which a number of my colleagues have addressed and i share many of the concerns that have been expressed. i know, secretary panetta, you have seen just about every side of the brac process. can you commit to providing us with a comprehensive assessment from the savings of the 2005 round? and also, to, i assume, if you're looking at 2013 and 2015 that you also have estimates of savings in

those two round and we would also see those as we're looking at a decision about what to do about the next brac round? >> i'll be happy to give you what information we have with regards to the past brac round and obviously some ideas about what we would do in terms of future round. you know, look, as i said, i have been through the process. frankly i don't wish the process on anybody having been through it because it is tough. 25% of my local economy was hit by virtue of a brac closure but we did use it as opportunity to develop a college university campus there and has proven very successful as a reuse. the issue is it did cost a lot more than anybody anticipated but the fact in the long run we're achieving significant savings as a result. that is number one.

number two, i don't know any other way of getting infrastructure savings without reducing force without going through that process. it is the most effective way of addressing that issue. >> in new hampshire we've seen the both side of the issue. piece air force base was the first base closed. fortunately doing very well now. the portsmouth naval shipyard on the border of new hampshire and maine was removed from the last round by the commission because of their effectiveness. one concern i have as we look going forward, particularly with respect to our public shipyards there is a real backlog of projects and that need to be done at those shipyards obviously. the portsmouth shipyard is not alone in that and they have been producing, i think

very well despite that backlog. they just delivered the uss san juan attack submarine eight days ahead of schedule despite some of the challenges with that. i hope that, as senator collins and senator ayote and i had an amendment in last year's defense authorization bill that asked the department to produce a shipyard modernization plan to address these shortfalls, i hope that the department will take that very seriously and produce that because, as we're looking at our security going forward those public shipyards are a critical part of that. >> senator, as i stated before and i'll say again we absolutely have to maintain the industrial base we have and the shipyards, shipyards in your area, the other shipyards we deal with are extremely important to our

ability to respond to the needs that we have. and so we're going to do everything possible to work with you, not only to increase obviously the competitive nature of trying to achieve savings but also to try to do what we can to provide those upgrades. >> thank you. a final question, one of the concerns that we've heard in a number of reports over recent years has been the challenge of attracting people with the backgrounds that we're going to need with science and math, the s.t.e.m. subjects to be able to continue to do the jobs that are critical to our defense establishment and i wonder if either you or general dempsey could address what strategy we have for trying to attract those young professionals when the private sector is

offering them so many more attractive monetary rewards? >> you know, it's something, initially i shared the same concern but when i went out to nsa and, and when i look at the people involved in that area not only at my past agency but other agencies as well i have to tell you we are attracting some very bright, capable, young people to those jobs and they're very interested, they're very capable and i have, with the investment we're making in cyber i'm absolutely convinced we'll attract the talent to make that work. >> i think our challenge as a nation, excuse me, general dempsey, is to get enough young people engaged in those subjects so we're training the people we need. >> i think the service chiefs will have a view on this as well and it's, it's actually exacerbated by the fact, i think you and i

actually have had this conversation, about one out of every four young american men and women can qualify to get into the military based on education or physical issues or issues making really stupid facebook posts in their youth or something. we're all competing as you say. academia, corporate america and the military are all competing for the same 25% of the population. so the answer has got to be to get after education in this country as well it seems to me. >> i totally agree and, general dempsey, i was very disappointed to hear you mention the giants. you're fortunate all the other new england members of this committee have gone. >> my condolences, ma'am. >> thank you. >> senator, thank you, senator shaheen. senator blumenthal. >> in fairness, general dempsey, as a new englander, i interpreted your remark more as expression of

battlefield admiration than endorsement. i think you're still on fairground. i want to thank all of you for your extraordinarily effective and persuasive explanation of the president's budget and, thank you for your patience in answering your questions so effectively and i want to begin with a subject that the president certainly emphasized, which is undersea warfare capability and note the flipping, postponing, delaying, whatever the correct term is of a submarine construction, one submarine from 2014 to 2018. i have heard from both lech trek boat and indeed within the navy about the cost savings that can be realized if we stay on schedule and build two submarines every year. i wonder if there is a

possibility for considering and perhaps your hearing our views on that issue, secretary panetta? >> this is all about, obviously having to reduce the budget by half a trillion dollars. we have to look really closely at affordability and cost efficiencies and, if anybody comes forward with a better idea how to save money i'm more than open to listen to it. >> i think we may come forward if you would be willing to consider it, i would appreciate it. >> absolutely. >> let me go to what you have really very convincingly said is the military's greatest asset which is its people and you've been discussing it very movingly and inspiringly, most recently to senator shaheen, talking about keeping faith and providing many of the men and women,

our warfighters who will be coming back from iraq and afghanistan with jobs and transition assistance which has been expanded under the most recent legislation on veterans to be approved by this congress and an amendment that i offered in a separate bill. i want to focus on what can be done to aid those veterans before they leave the service, to more effectively transition into civilian employment because as they come back, if they enter the guard or national reserve, to have an employment rate which is vastly higher, it is right now in connecticut, double the generate in connecticut, 15.5%, compared to 8.2%. will simply be a profound deterrent to anyone going into the armed services if that is going to be the kind of hurdle they face coming out of the service, it will

defeat your best efforts to recruit the brightest and most capable. >> senator, this is a problem that i worry about a great deal. frankly it is one of the risks involved as we reduce the budget by this level is how to insure that we take care of those that are returning. we already have a backlog and we're going to be pumping anywhere from 12 to 14,000 a year as we go through these drawdowns. i think it is extremely important that we be able to provide the services as they, as these men and women come back, to really be able to counsel them, gather them, to make sure they're aware of the job opportunities. make sure they're aware of the education opportunities. to make sure they're aware of funds available to help

them transition. to make sure their families are cared for as well as we make that transition. this has to be a package approach. each service now does it in their own way. they do it pretty effectively but i think we've got to make very clear that, that nobody should fall through the cracks. >> i know the marine corps has been doing it more effectively. i talked to general amos. >> they do a great job. >> i wonder if, you may already be doing it, some service wide approach building on best models and best practices would be the best approach. >> we're looking at that. >> if i could add, senator, there are more initiatives on this issue than we possibly have time to discuss and as the secretary mentioned earlier we're trying to team ever more closely with the veterans administration to do this. we're starting to take a view that transition begins when you enter the service, not in the last section

weeks before you leave. but the other thing i want to mention here is some of this can be legislated, some of this can be made a matter of policy but this is one of those issues that will be best solved from the bottom up when corporate america reaches out to embrace the returning veterans. by the way, a lot of them are. i can't tell you how many times i will go to some conference or something and someone will tell me they have a new initiative to hire 10,000 veterans. it is merging what can be done at the governmental level but also what needs to be done at the grassroots level to help this out. >> i agree with you, general dempsey, that corporate america is stepping forward more often and more effectively but i don't believe i'm telling you anything you haven't heard before in saying that there is still a lot of employers who look at somebody who is in the national guard or reserve and who say, not explicitly but think to themselves, this person is

going to be gone for a year or more if he or she is deployed. better to hire someone i know i can count on to be on the job without interruption. that is discrimination. it is illegal if it can be proved but has to be surmounted in matter of practice implicit in some of the employers. and i believe that we need more effective measures or enforcement to counter that approach because it will undermind your best efforts which i admire to attract the best and most capable to the guard and reserve. so i'm not asking for your comment but i hope perhaps we can work together on the initiatives we don't have time to discuss here. and just one last question. the ieds that all too often are maiming and killing our warfighters, i wonder whether there are new initiatives there that

perhaps we can discuss, if not here, at some period of time point because i have been interested in it and appreciate it, secretary carter's very important work in accelerating delivery of the so-called, biker shorts and groin protective gear and also work i hope is being done to discourage pakistanis from permitting the fertilizer and ammonium calcium nitrate crossing the border and going into these roadside bombs. >> thank you, senator. and i know your time is short on this round but i just assure you, we are seized with this. our relations with pakistan as you know have been somewhat challenged. they're improving. this is one of the points of friction between us we have to get at. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your answers to my question. i want to associate my remarks made by senator

gillibrand and your remarks about the problem of sexual assault within the military but also issue of suicides which we will not have time to discuss today. perhaps i can follow up with you on. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator man shen. i want to a lot of questions have been up to the on. but i want to go over a few things if i may. the most defining moment in my senate career when admiral mullins sat there and asked him what is the greatest threat the united states faces. i thought i would hear some type of military response. whether it was al qaeda, whether it was north after, china building up military. he didn't hardly hesitate. he said the deficit and debt of this nation is greatest security. i know you take that seriously and with we talked

about it, mr. secretary. i'm doing everything i can to cross over the aisle in a bipartisan way how we make this financial where with alls that we have financially but also get our financial house in order. we talked about cutting back. i don't know about anybody in here, democrat or republican that does not support a strong military but everybody is afraid of the political ramification if they say one thing. i can only say this to you, with the growth of contractors in the military, when i look at the period of time, maybe 10 years and support of contractors, i'm not talking about the manufacturing base of contracting and i wanted to maybe mention if you would, as i get done with this question about buy american, how we can do more in america to make sure we're supporting the manufacturing base. but with that being said, i, simplistic way i believe we could strengthen the military or men and women in uniform by reducing the contractors who are doing the same.

i hear awful lot of them that tell me that, i see them in the airports and i ask everyone of them that are private contractors going back to afghanistan. i stop and i talk to them. i introduce myself. were most of you all previous military? yes. would you have stayed in the military if not for the large paychecks that you might be able to get from the contractors? yes, we would have if this option wasn't there. so, i can't figure this one out. and then it will dovetail into the whole thing i'm going to talk to which i know everybody has talked about. how do we best use our national guard? we're all extremely proud but i can give you examples we say but first of all the purpose of contracting, can't we cut the amount of contractors that we have that are doing the same jobs as military without facing political ramifications of, you're cutting the military? i'm not going to vote to cut the military but i will cut the contractors,

>> senator, this is an area we're paying attention to in the efficiencies that we're looking at which are going to be about $60 billion. this is one of the areas we are looking at, contract services, number of contracts that are provided in order to determine where we can achieve savings. and any ideas you have, recommendations along these lines we're more than happy to listen to. this is a big job going after $487 in savings. i'm willing to look at any saves necessary. >> mr. secretary, 12 million dollars a day in past 10 years in iraq and afghanistan has been wasted, misspent, whatever, by contractors. that report was given to you all. there are many areas but i'm saying wherever a uniform person can do it, i know we're cutting 100,000 troops that concerns me. if anything i would rather cut 200,000 contractors and

keep 100,000 uniformed and use support of our national guard. i will say this. the, they touched on the veterans, all of us. i can't, to me in the private sector you do the best job of providing the training for a military person. they're disciplined. they come out and they can do it. why is our unemployment so high and what are we doing wrong and maybe not -- we started a caucus. i started with senator kirk and it's hire a vet. i have two vets in my office. we're looking for more good vets. we always do. how do we do this to prepare to get back in that? i know the senator from new york touched on that quickly. >> i think, i will let the general expand upon this but, we really are, look, part of the problem is the economy, the overall economy. these kids are coming back and they go back home and, you know, most of these local economies are having tough economic times and, you know, you suddenly, pour some of these young men and

women back into their communities and there aren't jobs for the people that are there, much less for these young people that are coming back. having said that, we really have had some impressive efforts by the private sector because of the reasons you suggested. these are kids who are disciplined. they usually have a capability and a talent that is extraordinary that can be used. and most of the private sector people i talk to really want to have these kind of individuals as part of their workforce. we are, more and more of these individuals are now coming forward. we have set up a, a website where we list the jobs that are available in the private sector. most of these private sector individuals are committing themselves to hire these vets when they come back. there is an important university going forward but a lot of it depends upon a economy that has too grow as

well. >> we just started to hire a vet caucus and we would like to expand on that wigs you. if we would know who is cycling out and what skillsets we could network better we think there are ways we can improve on this and work together. i appreciate that. general dempsey, my final question would be to you. we talked about the national guard. in west virginia, we've been very breast blessed having a high rated national guard. a lot of people get training and we're proud of them. we saved the d od2 $7 million alien in small town facilities. we're fully tasked. dod would save, if we can do that we think we can save 250 million a year. we're talking about things basically, refurbishing generators, the humvees, tents, tire assemblies. these are things we have been able to do at tremendous cost savings. i'm sure other guards are doing them also.

is there a way to network more of that to use our guard? we've proven savings in a couple of our little facilities was quite substantial. i don't know how we can expand on that. >> i don't either sitting here today with you, senator but certainly we all, to include the service chiefs who really are the leaders of their particular guard. you will have general, i'm not throwing him under the bus here, you will have general odierno later in the week. i think we would be eager to understand that and see if we can take advantage of it. clearly anything we can do to insource, i mean active guard and reserve, is effort well-spent. >> the other thing gives training to the person we're trying to cycle back into the private sector so it has a two-fold purpose. i think you all realize the sensitivity what we're dealing with here. trying to make sure we give you what is needed to keep this country safe and free. on the other hand the responsibility of, and

general mull linls said our greatest threat is basically our own finances. so we're taking all that serious. we need your help. we think contracting, if we can downsize the contracting, reinforce the military and people in uniform, i think you will have us all on both sides, you might bridge the gap that we can't bridge. >> senator, if i can just comment. look, i think the defense department has stepped up to the plate and what we proposed here is real. it's well-thought out. we've done a strategy to back up our decisions and that, all of that is contained in our recommendations but i really would urge you and others to engage in the broader discussion that has to take place with regards to how we reduce the deficit and that has to include a number about areas unfortunately have not been on the table that have to be on the table if we're ever going to confront the debt crisis that faces this country. this can't just fall on the backs of defense. it has to be, other areas

have to be considered if we're going to be able to effectively reduce the deficit. >> a group of us in bipartisan efforts are looking at ways. we know it takes everything. getting money we're not receiving that should be paid in revenues. maybe sure we get fraud, waste and abuse and run more efficiently. i think you will find quite a few on both sides willing to meet with you, sir. we appreciate y'alls service. >> senator manchin, as i mentioned before i hope all of us look at the proposals in the budget in front of us to raise additional raise $3 trillion in deficit reduction. it came in the budget yesterday. seems a lot of us are not aware of that. half of that is upper income tax increases, restoring their bracket. the millionaires tax, a number of other revenue

measures are in this budget request. and i, was kind of surprised that so many of our colleagues here today talking about the need for deficit reduction and, the importance of avoiding sequestration, which i think by the way is a bipartisan goal. are unaware of the fact because i don't think the administration frankly has done a good job of focusing on what is in their own budget in terms of defecit reduction. it meets the 1.5 or 1.2 trillion dollar goal. >> mr. chairman, we've had this discussion and i, we can raise the revenues without raising taxes by closing the loopholes. >> exactly right. >> changing corporate laws. making sure there is fairness. if the american people think we're putting fairness to the system i guaranty they're behind us 1,000 percent. >> they are. it is amazing look at public opinion polls they said we have to include revenues in

deficit reduction. we can do it without raising taxes on middle income americans. >> we can cut spending too, sir. >> we can cut spending too. the balance in this budget given to us yesterday is 50% additional cuts and 50% additional revenues. frankly i don't think the administration in its roll out yesterday yesterday focused on the fact this would avoid sequestration. this budget, if we adopted it avoids sequestration. it does it finally talking about additional revenues. they talked about it in the administration. now they put in their budget. we had republican colleagues today talking about avoiding sequestration. when i pointed out this budget that was given to us avoids sequestration, because there is additional revenues in it, they were saying, well they hope they can vote on it. my answer to that is, we also ought to have a republican alternative if there is one so we can see exactly what the options are

in that regard. we have had silence on the revenue side from our republican colleagues. it is that so i lens which needs to be corrected by the administration, frankly and i would hope that there would be greater focus on what's in the budget relative to the revenues which will help us avoid sequestration. we all want to avoid sequestration. i think that you all are interested in having a bite to eat. we thank you. very, very much. we thank your staffs and we will stand adjourned. >> defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs martin dempsey returned to

capitol hill to talk about the 2013 defense budget. watch live coverage of the armeds services committee on our website, c-span.org t begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. . .

>> now online at the c-span video libraries, speeches from last weekend's conservative last weekend conservative political action conference. >> we must outsmart the liberals. we must outsmart the stupid people that are trying to ruin america. >> it's about one country united under god. we are not read americans. we are not blue americans. we are red, white and blue, and president obama, we are through with you. >> around the last table, they can get along and come at our throat as long as we're foolish enough to raise taxes and throw money in the center of the table and they can get along like a scene in the movie after the bank robbery, one for you, one for you and they're all happy. >> you can click videos and share them at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> canadian air force general charles bouchard was commander of nato operations in libya. seven months of airstrikes

against pro-gadhafi forces ended on october 31 with rebel groups assuming control of the country. general bouchard spoke at the atlantic council in washington. this is an hour and a half. >> greetings and welcome to all be. i'm fred kempe him a president and ceo of the atlantic council. we were just sitting briefly with general bouchard, decided the title of this event should be liberating libya commanders perspective. there were more colorful titles we came up with but they essentially encapsulated the difficulty, a leading complicated alliance operation of this sort, and ultimately the success in working that through.

we are happy to have lieutenant governor -- excuse me. i already, i was already looking to your next career. lieutenant general charles bouchard, who served as commander of nato military operations in libya. it's a great honor to have you with us. you did play a very important role in the recent history of the alliance. it was last february when the u.n. security council condemned the use of lethal force by moammar gadhafi against protesters in libya. on march 25, 2011, general bouchard assume the role of commander combined joint task force operation unified protector. if you just think of the time that was involved from the beginning, u.n. security council resolution actual execution, i'm not sure who keeps records in these things, general, but i think a lot of records were set in just the expedient of it all.

i do want to thank sob north america who are partners in commander series, one of the most popular series, speaker series speaker series we have the atlantic council. and board members, the president of stop the north american. what we will be hearing i think our thoughts on the future, not just of what happened but also if not the formal remarks, certainly in the q&a, discussion of what this all means for future operations, nato partnerships with the backdrop of significant fiscal constraints. after general bouchard tomorrow, the director of the international security program here, which will be relaunched as the brent scowcroft and on international security this september, will moderate a discussion with the general. berry has joined us from a long

interesting was career in the pentagon in the white house. i just wants a couple of things about general bouchard. because his career has been a long and distinguished ones leading up to the operation, he was in tactical aviation within the canadian forces air command which include applying positions and several squadrons, demand