reverseability i mplies that there will be a cost. in taking down the cuts they said that they will protect the midlevel officers, and that is smart, if the you need to rebuild your forces quickly, those are the people that you need to train people coming in. it not without a cost, those personnel are more expensive than junior personnel, so now your mix of personnel will be changing so that your cost per person, average cost will be a little higher because you are keeping more of the middle ranked people, same is true with the defense industrial base, you can cut programs and then make some investments that mitigate, you know of course the downside to the industrial base, but often what will happen is your unit costs will go up and you'll be paying money, in some cases, to support overhead and infrastructure and capacity in the industrial base and skills

in the industrial base that you are not actively using, and you know, there are good reasons to could that, but it gets hard to defend that in front of congress, year after year. so, there are risks involved in the doing it. >> just a brief word on that, i would not pay too much attention to the word itself, this is a case of thesaurus inflation, we used to hedge against that and when you turn to the joint world, we used to sync things now it's scinergy, and now it'sa different word that gives more weight than it really does. >> thank you, todd. i have two questions. >> a quick comment for todd

although he is gone. his comment about the midlevel officers, during the post-world war i period, when the german army did not exist, they kept, really kept their midlevel officers, and guess what? they expanded really quickly, quickly after that, because they kept their core. >> yes, bill with "computer sciences corporation," last july the defense business board recommended that if they followed corporate downsizing pauses it could save 5% to 15% without effecting readiness, is there any sign that they took that recommendation on board or rejected it or any of the new data in the release yesterday suggestive that that defense

business board recommendation is being pursued? >> you know, are there any signs that it been rejected? no, no explicit rejection that i'm aware of, none of us can speak for the defense business bor board, i think some of the language that was used in the mou announcement yesterday, i saw the phrase for the first time in a long time, reduction in over head, that is intriguing to me, because there's nothing called overhead, so it's hard to verify that such reductions have taken lace. nonetheless, the potential is there and i hold out some hope for a recognition that one of the ways in which you reduce the budget is actually to figure out things that you are doing that are not adding a lot of value and simply stop doing them. but, we will see whether that actually occurs when it comes forward. got a question down here in

front. >> thank you, i wanted to ask clark a question about the comment you made on a grand bargain that would be necessary at some point to fix a deficit. i mean, if hypothetically that were to happen, what kind of cuts would you foresee for defense that would be on the table potentially would be politically acceptable and do you have a number in mind for that? >> people pull grand bargain out of the hat to describe any really serious problem that if you are going to solve it you have to bring in a lot more into the picture. for the first time with respect to this was last july and august, when president obama and

speaker boehner were talking about a deal that was much bigger than 1.2 to 1.5, they were talking a deal twice as big, how do you get there? well have you a grand bargain, what determines what that looks like? we are trying to think through, it the fw it's the beginning of the process, and it will be relevant after the election, you cannot have a grand bargain until you know who your bargainers are, and we will not know that until of after the election. i think that sort of is behind the scenes and any new president and administration knows that if they don't address this at that level, we will have another four years that looks like the last two and i don't think that anyone wants that, so to me a grand bargain just means how do you generate a combination of spending reductions, and tax

increases that add up to a total of about $4 billion, that is a lot of money. projected over how many years i don't know. and that is why i think the defense department and the actions they have just taken is a recognition that they are one of the big stakes in this bargain. because they represent 40% plus of discretionary spending, there's no way you have a grand bargain without avoiding more of it. one of the reasons i think you did not see big cuts in the first round, they know there's a second round, they know at minimum there's a second round to avoid a cut, but everyone knows there's a grand bargain out there. that we all hope addresses the fiscal crisis that this country faces, and i think there's an awful lot of jockeying going on

now as to what it is. as to my personal thoughts, stay tuned another six months i hope to have them. >> i'll bring the microphone to the middle and to the back and then down forward, while the mike is moving forward shs raise your hand higher, thanks. while the mike is moving that way, let me point out that we have been talking this morning as if the debate on capitol hill over the fiscal year '13 defense budget will be whether to fund the cuts that the president makes or cut it further. that is not the debate that will occur, the debate that will occur is whether to add money back, all right? so the fundamental underlying reality which is somewhere lower, is not going to be reflected particularly in the house when the debate is over are whether the defense department cut too much and it

ought to be added back, the disconnects between the grand bargain and the realities that we face today will be amplified by a debate that is largely irrelevant to those long-term reductions but very relevant to the programs and cuts that are im bedded in that budget in the first place. with that, howie? >> that is, this question is commenting about what you said, regarding contingancy for overseas, the model has been that the conflicts the war fighters go in and companies in this room get hired to support them is there anything else talked about in the budget regarding future conflict other than just production from the afghanistan account? >> what i found remarkable yesterday is finding the word

contractor somewhere. anywhere, it was impossible. a so, what this means to me is that it either something they don't want to talk about, and they have been reluctant to talk about reliance on contractors for base operator support and other support they received in afghanistan, and to be honest in so many other places around the world. i think this is a debate that really does need to happen. i would not be surprised if the authorizing committees take it up as part of the okay, you are cutting end strength and you'll not be doing stability operation on a pro longed basis but we need to be involved so how are we going to do it and contractors will come up. and so, from my perspective, i thinks as we move forward, just watch this space. i find it remarkable that you can have an entire press conference and not really talk

about it when it's been such a topic over the last few years. from my perspective, it's a conversation that we need to have in the next few weeks not months. >> i would like to add something to that. dod put out a sheet on this, we used to project in terms of out years, and then 50 billion and 50 billion and 50 billion. they don't do that, it's $88 billion in fy '13, why? because that is what they will ask for and then there's tbd, to be determined. they are not making predictions of what future out years will look like. because they don't know what future out years will look like. >> let's take a question down here in row four and then i

believe there might be one further back. >> thank you, david, unaffiliated. stephanie in your opening remarks, you talked with ground forces and possible future requirements, if you look at the discussion we have had here, it seems to me that the army that the budget numbers that came out going down to four and 90 k will be unrealistic. can you talk about strategy, ground fors and your ideas of that? >> absolutely. thank you for that question. it's a concern when you look at the glide path for the end strength, you are really talking about 490,000 army soldiers in 2017. so we are not talking about 2013 at this point, we are talking over the next few years. but from a strategy perspective

i think of what kind of situations are we expecting them to operate in in the future, hopefully they will not be iraq and afghanistan type situations. but certainly you cannot rely on scarce operation forces to take care of all the training and advising and assisting that he will with be expected to do. 490, i think, by 2017 may be real iist realistic, but it depends on what we see going forward. if you have a strategy that requiresed a justment every year, what kind of strategy is that. we are not going to be large scale stability operations going forward. i could not see that. i think we will be in places in the world and the alternative is having friends and partners who

are willing to do things that we are not going to do and i'm not sure those conversations have happened. >> i think there's a parallel question which is, even if stephanie is right, and we will be engaged in a host of such operations around the world and even if those operations require, as they will contractor support, from a budget point of view, does it drive the force structure or can you absorb it within the structure that you have is th have? i think that tis the question that they answered in the abstract but not in the sp specific. any more questions? i think this will be our last question and we will allow you to go out and take advantage of the fact that the rain will be diminishing. >> thanks, "defense news," i'm

curious, there was mention of the industrial base and the fact that secretary panetta mentioned the need to protect the industrial base moving forward, do we know where that threshold is with slipping ships and the jsf being pushed off a bit, when you do start to risk threatening those subcontractors that provide specialized parts and if we do have a sense of that, how far are we from really risking those subcontractors as we have the potential for further slips moving forward? >> zach, that's a complex question in terms of do we know? no we don't know, but what we suspect is that there are three elements to what the penitentiary gone has to do to do a better job in think background the industrial base going forward. that is awareness, there's a habit or has been historically

the last couple of decades to focus on the contractors, bigra contractors share to maybe 30 or 40% today with the rest being sustained by contractors and a prime on one project is a sub on others. the first question is does the pentagon have better information? yes, they have spent the last year with the sector by sector analysis. i suspect a number of you in this room have spent considerable amount of time and engine and cost filling out surveys and the second is how to they use that information in the decision? we have statements that they have done so, we cannot validate

instances, and the third is whether or not they actually did the right thing when they made the considerations, if you will, because ultimately what this is, is a judgment call of how close to the edge of the cliff we will allow the industrial base to go before it a history says pretty darn close, because we have got a very good idea that we have a good supply of parachutes and we know how to give them to them when they are falling off. that is a scary instance for those in the process. this is a fourth question and this is important. jamarca tell what pa-- you need description of what -- going forward, the strategic guidance that was issued on january 5th

begins to answer of what the signals are being sent to industry and quite says don't invest as much in ground forces look more at air and sea and innovation technology that you can put on the shelf and call rever reverseability none of that is enough to tell a company where to spend their money in investment today. that will be determined by the debate as it plays out over the rest of the calendar year to the election and beyond. with that, i want to thank you all for joining us, we intend here at csis to continue probing all of these issues on a regular and perhaps too frequent basis but i think that the reality of the situation is that it's changing so fast, that we have got to work pretty hard just to

stay on top of what the dynamics are, we will have numerous opportunities to revisit some of the questions as this fact sheet becomes less speculation and more fact going forward. thank you all very much for your attendan attendance. [ applause ]

c-span's road to the white house coverage continues today from florida. former massachusetts governor mitt romney is supposed to speak to the hispanic leadership network today at about 12:20 eastern. also former house speaker newt gingrich is set to address the same group at this hour. you can see both speeches live on our companion network c-span. later it's former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. he'll be speaking to the latin builders association at 1:30 p.m. eastern also live on c-span and all is an advance of next tuesday's primary elections. following florida the focus shifts to the nevada caucuses on february 4th. maine also begins think caucuses on the 4th and then february

7th, the colorado caucuses, the minnesota caucuses and the missouri primary. c-span's road to the white house coverage take us live to the events in florida through the weekend leading up to tuesday's gop primary. >> by the end of my second term. [ applause ] we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be american. and by the end of 2020, we will have the first continuous propulsion system in space capable of getting to mars in a remarkably short time, because i am sick ever being told we have to be timid and sick of being told we have to be limited to text knowledges that are 50 years old. >> when the founders said the creator endowed us with sen

unaleeb rights among them life and liberty and pursuit of happiness they led out a path that says in america we can pursue happiness as we choose. we do not need a. >> guest: to tell us what kind of car to get what kind of light bulb we can have, we do not need a government to tell us what kind of health care we're going to have. >> see what the candidates are posting on social media along with political viewers like you. c-span campaign 2012. the u.s. conference of mayors recently focused on military personnel and their families. one of the featured speaker, the white house's joining forces initiator said with the iraq war over and afghanistan war beginning to wind down, more u.s. troopless be facing great challenges as they come home. this lasts about an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the u.s. mayors' task

force on military relation. i know we just broke from our plenary session, so hopefully people will be coming in and out but with a tight schedule i wanted to introduce myself. i'm mayor joy cooper one of the co-chairs of this task force and we are here today to address some very critical issues concerning our communities and our partners with our veterans as well as all the agencies with our federal government and how we can bring resources to our returning veterans. we often get involved in the u.s. conference of mayors with brac and military operations but today with returning military vets we understand on the grass roots level that the men and women returning back home will need resource, will be looking for jobs and have a different type of critical needs that we hopefully can partner with social services, jobs and making sure their transition back home

goes smoothly. we are very, very welcomed and lucky today, fortunate to have a distinguished group of speakers from the white house. the department of defense, and the justice for veterans who will discuss various groups of services that they've been working on to assist our military families, men and women, with job training, job placement, and a number of supportive services for veteran treatment courts. so i want to welcome you all. i want to also welcome my colleague mayors, and i'm really excited about not just talking about bricks and mortar and infrastructure today, but actually our most, greatest resource, our citizens and our veterans. and with that i'd like to introduce my co-chair, mayor, a few words if you wonchts i'm joe mcal vi fraaal maaal mcelveen.

we're talking about something extremely important to me as it is any mayor who has a military facility, because at the end of the day, it's the people that are our neighbors that we worry so much about and appreciate so much, and moving right along, our first speaker this morning is captain brad cooper, he is the executive director of adjoining force as broad outreach office of the white house, first lady, michelle obama to assist military women and their families. a graduate of the united states military academy, fe hhe finishn '9. i thought he was about 20 years when i looked at him. he's a little older than that. when you look at brad's history as an officer in the navy, it emphasize what's we're doing today. he was explaining to me we have six combat areas

or regions, and in his career he served in every one of them. and if you look at the places where he has served, and in the interests of time i'm not going to read all of them, though it really emphasize what's we try to do as mayors when we have military press innocence our community, whether it's a base, veterans, retiree, whatever. he started in "desert shield" and "desert storm" and has actually served in afghanistan more than once. he's had deployment -- he's been all over the world and it's been in every hot spot that our military and our country has had since he's been serving, and, brad, we are proud to have you today because of your service, and we're also very interested in hearing what you have to say about the first lady's program and how we can participate. >> well, thank you so much, mr. mayor, and ma'am, thank you, and

for the group, we appreciate you joining today, and thank you for the kind words. one small clarification, consistent with my corps beliefs i went to the naval academy, not the united states military academy. important, because -- after ten years of football wins, this is something you have to really bring to attention at any meeting in any group, and, of course, the good thing about streak sthas when they go on they're good. when they stop it's a tough year and hope they won't stop. but thank you so much, sir, i really appreciate and it as a citadel graduate yourself, we certainly appreciate your service as well. i've had the great privilege working directly for the first lady the last six months. in her campaign along with dr. jill biden's campaign called "joining forces." this is their effort that you've seen probably in both public and more private venues to recognize, honor and really support our nation's veterans service members and their

families and give them the support that we believe they have earned, and i think most believe they've earned it after more than ten years at war. we're doing it in a way to energize action above and beyond that which is already going on with the federal government. so this is really an engagement effort with the private sector. energizing action from individuals, businesses, communities, faith-based institutions and nonprofits and asking each of them to honor and recognize and support the 1% of american whose have served and their families overen years. not well known throughout the country, that's the case, but literally less than 1% who have carried this fight if you will, for ten years and us a might imagine and other dpofolks can k to this, the challenges of being at war for ten years have long since arisen, but you can have several concrete examples.

a couple months ago the president awarded the medal of honor to an army ranger who earned that medal on his seventh deployment. he also has four kids. so you can appreciate the fact that seven deployments means seven deployments for him and seven deployments for his family. really, an unprecedented ask, just in the last couple of months we had another army soldier killed who was on his 14th deployment. almost incomprehensible that we would have soldiers, marines, airmen and folks from the navy deployed that often. but that's where we are. that's where we are. we all know that we've begun, we're out of iraq, from a military standpoint. begun the trajectory to come out of afghanistan, but we're not out yet. if you saw the news today, six americans killed yesterday in afghanistan. of course, i think we're going to see that's going to continue. so now the question then becomes, what can we do