said will be open. >> i appreciate each of you holding these meetings for each of the respectives ises and i will play a role in helping to assemble some of my colleagues. so thank you very much. >> i yield book. >> general dempsey, i really respect you, and you're the right person with the job at the right time. i want to talk to you a little bit about the role of the national guard and some of the decisions that you made. you said in your opening statement that we rely on a strong reserve, a national guard and i agree with you, completely. as we draw down potentially in the middle east, we're going to rely a little bit more on the guard and reserve units and that will increase.

i was made aware of a letter that the national association, i don't know if you're aware of the letter or not, but they are concerned about this same approach with the cuts to the guard. could you talk a little bit about that, because in their letter, they have mentioned that the air guard provides 4 -- they also mention in the letter that we must oppose a proposaproposa. and approximately six times the per capita personnel reductions. >> sure, sure. >> the main thing that we did want to maintain in a strong guard and a strong world. we are going to be maintaining

the guard at current levels or going to be maintaining the reserves at the same level. with regard to the air guard that the -- they have made cuts with regard to the active duty force itself, in terms of planes, they did not focus on the reserves and the guard operation. they decided to look at those, particularly with regard to planes tlik a-10s. are these planes multimission? can they perform the kind of role that we need with a new agility that we have as part of our strategy? and their determination were that these were basically single mission aircraft and those are the ones we need to gradually reduce. we'll still retain a large -- in the governor's letter.

having said that, when i have asked the secretary of the air force to do, is to do everything possible to try to mitigate the impact of those reductions with regards to some of those planes to see what we can do. there are areas we can increase. we're going to do more isr. are there ways to try to mitigate some of this. >> i represent ft. wayne and we have 810s there. my feeling is that we could utilize the guard even more t n than -- the families of nose

soldiers who have lost their life? >> yes. >> from afghanistan. i have served on this committee for nine years.

the year you're anticipating when it's up and running. he's the one who deals with the auditing. >> it's just a profession in the law. we have overpromised and underdelivered. >> this is the private industry and the ceo is over there. we don't know where all the money has been going to.

that ceo present company accepted would be out. >> we have never had a ceo that actually paid attention -- when i found out this was the case, it's unacceptable.

you were talking about official cities. that's all sounds great, but what i'm wondering is, can you really articulate, can you really document that? >> yes, i have asked the same question. >> coming from the department wide perspective, not from an individual perspective. you say in this area over here we have got it. >> we can. >> you can? >> yes, we can. >> how do you do that without a department-wide audit. >> we were supposed to do $150 billion in efficiency savings and i asked this guy next to me, what are we doing to achieve those savings and they have laid out most of the areas where they're achieving savings. >> where you spend the money, bated on what you appropriated. they are not -- they need to be, but they're not. so that's what we can't do. we do know where we're spending the money, when you appropriate

funds, i can track it. >> so just a couple of things, you also said that the example that he raised here, it sounds like an abuse of the system, that people making too much money and what have you under these cases, and i don't know what the underlying facts are. that doesn't sound like an abuse necessarily by the contractor. it seems more like -- from the procurement side of the equation that -- the department has developed a military requirement proposal in 2008 and your own business board produced several proposals this last summer. the question on this is why are we looking at another reform commission, when you already have reforms that are out there. and i'll close with that. >> you mean on retirement? >> yes. >> i for one suggested that that

committee that people entirely with civilian businessmen should be reopened and include the participation of military and noncommissioned officers. i'm not getting ready to sign up for a retirement plan that treats uniformed military who have moved 20 times in two years, i'm not going to put their retirement plan in the civilian sector. and what we got was an civilian sector proposal. >> point take on. a couple of points on -- to put all this in perspective, i have heard that you mentioned the number you've got that was given to you is because of the law the congress passed. i would simply point out that the fire wall in the bca is there in 2012 and 2013. so this was a number you were given by omb, not by congress.

put that in perspective, the savings is $917 billon we took last year's obama line, the gates line, $78 billion off of the nit up. and agreed to that number. i clearly understand some of my colleagues don't like what we did, we also saved far more than that in mandatory spending because as you mentioned, that's 2/3 of the budget. the point i would simply say is, i heard you mentioned you were given the chore of coming up with $500 billion in budget reduction. you've done a wonderful job. what you were given as a job to do, you have done your job exceptionally well. i really mean that. i just think you were given a job to do heavy lifting for other parts of the budget that

no of responsibility placed upon them. your other cab threinet secreta other marts of the government. there's a net deficit reduction of $400 billion. so you're carrying the weight of a 5 -- all of the government for the next ten years, than's a deficit reduction of 410 billion dlrsz. a budget that has a net spending increase of $1.5 billion. the tax increase is $1.9 trillion. so it's about priorities 68 it's about what is the priority of the federal government, what is the responsibility of the federal government, and are we applying the kind of discipline that you clearly have emphasized in the rest of government. and we would simply argue that the administration's not. you are, but the

administration's not, and as a result, this is why we still make the case that this is not a strategy driven budget, but a budget driven strategy. i don't want to always have the last word. >> i appreciate that, thank you, mr. secretary, general dempsey, comptroller undersecretary hail, thank you all for your testimony. a few words in response to the chairman and i think as the secretary has indicated, we all open we can find a bipartisan way. we must find a bipartisan way. to undo the equation, with what i hope will be a balanced approach. with respect to the president's budget, what the president did was to take the bca, budget

control act, december cessionary levels that will acted on a bipartisan level. the fire walls were here, but if you project those forward, you save within the defense budget the amount that's being proposed in this budget. i also want to reiterate the in fact that when it came to the sequester, and how it was designed, there was a discussion about whether or not we would reach that deficit target in part by closing a lot of fax loopholes, getting rid of some tax subsidies and asking people at the high end of the income scale to help pay for our deficit in a balanced way, and the response was no, we prefer to put this defense spending as part of the sequester mechanism.

to his credit t chairman of the armed services committee said at one point if he were forced to choose between those two, he would close the tax loophole. but as we go forward, let's look at the kind of bipartisan, balanced frame work that other bipartisan committees have take on the this task. >> we should just do our job, we know that savings should be taken from this budget, everybody agrees with the question is our debt. we don't want to give it to sequesters anymore. we want to do our job. ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you for indulging us all this time and this meeting is adjourned.

"today" the senate voted 53 ---the amendment was spons sponsored by senator boyd blount of missouri. this is a little under 15 minutes. >> today is really an important historic stay. it's march 1 and it's the beginning of women's history month. today on the floor of the senate, we defeated an amendment that would have historically

taken away something that women in this country have counted on for decades and that's the ability to make their own health care choices in the ploorivacy their own homes. this is a time in our country when we ought to ben the committee, on creating jobs, making sure we get our families back on their feat. everywhere in this country talked about how they were going to pay their mortgage or send their kids to school or be able to be self-sufficient in the coming months. they were shocked to hear what we were focused on because of a republican amendment and that is the right of women in this country and families to make their own personal health care choices without an interference

of an employer. this was a important step today, and an important step that we in the democratic caucus will stand up to fight for their rights as we always have. we know this is just an attempt in a series of attempts that we saw starting a year ago. we heard from senator blount that they're going to continue to move forward, to go after taking away the ability of women to make their own health care choices particularly when it comes to contraceptives. we're going to stand up, fight back and we at the democratic caucus are going to focus on what the american people want us to focus on. i want to thank our supporters. >> i want to personally thank senator murray and senator boxer

and so many ores of our colleagues have led this -- their speeches out the choice the senate had today. president obama struck the right balance. a balance which said that religious institutions, universities, hospital, charities could zion their own not to offer certain provisions of preventative care which is otherwise required under the law but he added this important provision, individual women and men for that matter have the right under their own conscience, under their own initiative to seek those protections that are guaranteed by law. that strikes the right balance between respecting religious institution and belief but also respecting the rights of men and women and their own personal conscience. the vote today by senator blunt bringing this amendment to the floor was an attempt to bring the culture wars of this republican presidential primary to the floor of the united

states senate. i can tell you that the vote today should be a clear message to those who are following that if we take extreme positions from that social agenda that we hear so often in these republican primaries and bring them to a vote, common sense and majority feeling in america will prevail. today on behalf of not only women but men and fliacss ameri great victory. >> thank you and first let me thank senator murray for her great leadership on this issue. we've been working on this for several weeks now. and under pat chip'suntr learnes amendment was. and i think that helped lead to our victory. now the closest -- the closeness of this vote shows how high the stakes are for women this year. a republican led senate might pass this bill.

a republican president like mitt romney would definitely sign it. if republicans keep this up they are going to drive away independent voters, women and men just as they are driving moderates out of their caucus. senator blunt said on the floor earlier today that this issue of not going away. he may be more correct than he realizes. what we will make sure that women across the country are aware of what the republicans in the senate propose to do, they want to force women to surrender their health decisions to their employers deny women access to contraception. some of the wiser republicans seemed already to regret forcing this issue to the vod for it w teeth. but, they were unwilling to stand up to the far right-wing of their party that cares more about an extreme social agenda

than focus on jobs. where is where americans want us to be focused. i don't envy the rank-and-file republicans who walk the plank on this vote. i think it's going to be awfully hard to defend it back home, especially in places england. >> senator, i have to comment o own cheering section atts bne y here. ink too much, but, okay. we talk about numbers, and do t. but understand these are human beings we're talking about. in the state of nevada we have almost 200,000 women who if this

passed would lose access to contraception coverage and other health services that are so essential to their health. so we're talking about real people, millions of people. i appreciate very much the support that patty and barbara boxer and o so hard on this issue have received from this caucus. it's extremely important that we let the american people know where we stand. but also everyone here accept this as a truth. we're trying to pass a bill that will save about 1.8 million jobs and produce about 700,000 more jobs. that's what this is about. we moved to this bill on

february 7th, when out of nowhere on this bipartisan bill, bipartisan bill, barbara boxer one of the more progressive members of the senate, one of the more conservative members came to an agreement that we should do a highway bill, keeping in mind the reason this started was because of president eisenhower. this legislation that is trying to be sabotaged with this bill. in the state of nevada we don't want a highway construction to come to an end. we have programs now that are waiting to start and some that are already in full force that will be wiped out if we don't get this bill passed. i can't imagine why they are willing to do this.

now, you would think after getting rid of this controversial amendment we could move on and do the bill. oh, i wish that were true. i wish that were true. but they have filed over 100 amendments and they are still coming in, folks. 90% of these amendments have nothing to do with a highway bill. they want to relitigate keystone. they want to relitigate this boiler map thing. they want to do foreign policy on this bill dealing with the middle east. as volatile as that is we have an issue we haven't disposed of here dealing with the middle east. has nothing to do with this bill. nothing to do with the jobs that we need so much in our country. i'm wondering do the republicans wish for failure? do they want the economy not to

continue to do as well as it is? because not passing this bill is not going to help the economy. so i'll continue to work and be as patient as i can to come up with a pay forward on this bill but right now i don't see it. [ inaudible ] >> well not because we're going to bring it back. but they are not is going to let it go. this is something that appeals as all three of my senators have said here. it appeals to the social agenda of a small, very vocal part of the republican party. and i would suggest, as i've said before, about this republican congress that we have

here. members of the republican house and senate. mainstream republicans don't agree with this. they don't agree with this. but this tea party driven house and senate are trying to go to the base that doesn't exist. yes. [ inaudible ] i don't know what you're talking about the house republican jobs act. i'm not going to talk about what went on with the president yesterday. that was a private meeting. that was a private meeting. and if the president wants to do something i'm sure that he'll let us know. [ inaudible ] i don't know what you're talking about. i don't know what the republican jobs bill is. i hope it's something that's good. it is i'll be happy to take a look at it. yes. [ inaudible ]

let's try to do the math here a little bit, okay. let's try to do the math. let's see. 53 and we lost three. 47 and they lost 46. they lost 46. so i have the greatest respect for senator ben nelson did, what bob casey did and what joe mansion did. that's their privilege. we don't demand everyone vote the same way. we did what the american people wanted us tobyverwlming margin of democrats we turned down this ill-fated piece of legislation only standing in the way of jobs for america. thanks.