it all he wants. i'm going to stay focused on what the american people want to stay focused on and that's jobs. >> mr. speaker, a couple of your colleagues now passed at committee level a ban on gay weddings as militaries and there are some restrictions now in the bill coming forward tonight on spending on doma. are there other steps to take and do you support the steps taken so far? >> we have a lot of members who have ideas of what's important to them and you see those items advance here every day. the american people are concerned about our economy. they're concerned about jobs. that's why if you've seen us focused over the last year and a half on jobs and cutting spending, because our debt and our deficit are like a wet blanket hanging over our economy. so we're going to continue to stay focused on what the american people want us to stay focused on.

>> now that congressman has been accused of orchestrating -- the federal election committee. do you think he should be relieved of his vice chairm chairmanship of the -- >> i'm not familiar with the accusation you mentioned against him. i know they're continuing to look at this. i don't know anymore. >> this morning a big plan to make the american campaign issues and that they're also going to push for a constitutional amendment to gay marriage. do you agree with that? >> i'm going to stay focused on jobs. thanks. here's a live look at the pentagon briefing room where we're expect defense secretary leon panetta and join chiefs of staff martin dempsey. this is expected to get under way momentarily and we'll have

it for you live here on c-span3. also, jicht so you know, a little later today at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3 we'll have a conversation on u.s./russia relations. president obama shoefting a g-8 suchlt at camp david and russia's newly sworn-in president vladimir putin is skipping the meeting busy stabilizing his new captain and is sending medvedev in his place. the center for strategic and international studies will begin live here on c-span3 at 5:00 p.m. eastern.

and while we wait for the pentagon briefing to get under way, another capitol hill briefing from house minority leader nancy pelosi. this morning she sent president obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, filled my heart with joy and doesn't think it will hurt democrats in november. good morning.

yesterday was quite historic. all of us, america's children and families and workers saw history being made right before their very eyes. the president of the united states advancing civil rights in our country. with his statement. his statement was spoke to the values of our family, the values of our faith and the values of our country. it was moving. it was historic, and it was a great day for our country. it honors the ideal of kuwaitqu which is the hope and the heritage of our country. today on the floor of the house we will see a debate on the budget, which clearly defines

the values and vision of the democratic party and the republican party. i wish that this were a statement that we could come together on, on what our priorities are for the education of our children, job creation for our workers, retirement and health security for our seniors, safety in our neighborhoods and our the air our children breathe and security for our country, all done in fiscal sound way, not partisan or political about that. instead except of finding that we find two different paths in this p these budgets. one that says we choose millionaires over the middle class. the republican budget. one that undermines our children's education, health, job security of their families. i'm very proud of our house democratic budget that we are putting forth today and commend

chris van hollen and the members of the democratic members of the budget committee for the fight that they made. any of you up 5:00 a.m. in the morning would have seen them the other day fighting for the medicare guarantee for our seniors. the republican budgch budget see guarantee and pay more to get less. at the same time, it gives a tax cut of about $400,000 to people making $1 million a year. or more. i don't think that's a statement of our national values. and so we have that debate going on. at the same time, we see it in the context of obstruction, once again, on the part, largely, of the house republicans. the house -- on the transportation bill, the senate has had bipartisan agreement, in

the opening statements on the conference the other day, even the ranking member of the senate committee took the house republicans to task for not agreeing to the bipartisan senate transportation bill. we -- the violence against women act that was marked up this week in judiciary where you see the republicans in the house rolling back the violence against women act, instead of accepting the strong bipartisan bill that passed in the united states senate. and whatever they want to say about student loans that they want to solve the problem in the bill on the floor today. the republicans in the house have the 6.8% increase -- from 3.4% to 6.8% increase still in the bill. we still haven't been able to come to terms in order to make

college more affordable. and this is indicative of something even bigger than the interests, although the interest is important to students with their loans and their families. this is also in the context of making college more affordable for america's working families. and what they do in terms of pell grants and the rest that may put up obstacles to more students having the opportunity to attend college. it's really a problem for our country, because investing in the education of our children is the best investment a family can make in its children and its family. it's the best investment a country can make in its people. so with that, i would just hope that we can go into a phase whereas the president is speaking out about what he would like to see congress do between now and the election, his to-do list to create jobs to help

small businesses, support homeowners, invest in clean energy, put veterans to work. i hope that we can address those issues. the legislation is there to be debated, amended, whatever, but to go forward. the american people want solutions. they want us to be problem-solvers. the problems that they have in their lives. instead of obstructionists. so we hope we can have some level of cooperation as a visibility on this relatively modest agenda of the to-do list as port forth. i'll be pleased to take any questions. yes? >> -- same-sex marriage but also pushing to become speaker again. are you concerned about how this issue will play out in the red districts that you need to take back, take mack a majority? >> first of all, i've never pushed to be speaker. i've pushed for the democrats to win. whatever happens after that is

incidental. what's important is for the democrats to have the majority. the statement that the president made yesterday was something that was the right thing to do for our country. filled me heart with joy. we've come here to do a job for the american people. not to hold a job. and i think what he did was to advance the cause of civil rights in such a personal as well as presidential way that it's -- it's more important than any political consequences. >> madam speaker if i could follow up on that, please. >> yes. >> you spoke about the values of faith. and i know you don't have a crystal ball, but there are large pockets within the african-american community, evangelicals, who are absolutely against gay marriage. do the leaders have concerns about whether or not this voting block will turn out for the president and for democrats just because of this issue?

>> this is an issue that i brought with me to the congress, and that i care about very much, and so it's really -- the day after the president made a statement that was so historic, so important for who we are as americans, it's hard for me to adjust to a place we're going to win over these votes, really. i mean, i meant as a -- shall we say, i love campaigns and i love politics and don't want to see them removed from it, but this is why we come to office, to do some good things, and so we can't say, well, we would have done a good thing, but we can't do it, because, well, we'll lose votes if we do. i think the president knows what president lincoln said. public sentiment is everything. and that's why i think the manner in which he presented his decision is important, that he said it from the standpoint of his family, his children, his

faith, his idea about america, and that's a conversation that we can now have more fully, because the president of the united states has spoken out on it. live now from the pentagon, defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin demps ey. this is live coverage. good afternoon. let me -- let me begin with some comments on the defense budget. i've spent much of this week including two hours this morning on capitol hill, dinner last night here at the pentagon reaching out to members of congress and to senators to talk about where things stand as congress begins to debate a markup and consider the defense

budget in earnest. my message to congressional leaders remains the same. congress passed the budget control act. it requires a reduction of defense spending of $487 billion over the next ten years. as i've said, we do not have to choose between national security and fiscal security. but that does not mean that we do not have to make tough choices. we do. and defense should not be exempt from doing its share to reduce the deficit. what that means is, we have to make very difficult decisions. difficult decisions that are tied to a strategy that achieves necessary and real savings, and

at the same time, protects the strongest military in the world. as you know, the military and civilian leaders of this department service as secretaries, serve as chiefs and combatant commanders, spent months developing a new defense strategy to meet our national security priorities and address our future security challenges. we then crafted a balanced plan that met the requirements of that strategy. as well as met the spending caps imposed by the budget control act. my concern is that if congress now tries to reverse many of the tough decisions that we reached by adding several billion dollars to the president's budget request, then they risk

not only potential gridlock, because it's not likely that the senate will go along with what the house did. and if they did, they could force the kind of trade-offs that could jeopardize our national defense. the department of defense, and i believe the administration, are not going to support additional funds that come at the expense of other critical national security priorities. and if members try to restore their favorite programs without regard to an overall strategy, the cuts will have to come from areas that could impact overall readiness. there's no free lunch here. there is no free lunch here. every dollar that is added will

have to be offset by cuts in national security. and if for some reason they do not want to comply with the budget control act, then they would certainly be adding to the deficit. which only puts our national security further at risk. when congress restores funds to protect certain constituencies, that may not be critical to our national defense capabilities, and they risk upending the kind of careful balance that we've worked very lard to achieve hard to achieve, and it could harm our ability to pursue the high priority investments that we think are essential to the force that we need for the 21st centu century.

some examples, i mean, if we're prevented from retiring aging ships, and aircraft, that no longer fit strategic requirements, and congress would be forcing us to have to look elsewhere for these areas like reducing modernization investments and burdening the services with excess force structure that would risk hollowing out the force. if we're restricted from gradually drawing down the size of the ground forces in the years beyond 2013, congress would be forcing us to reduce readiness. we would have to cut training. we'd have to cut equipment. all of that very needed to support the force. and, again, it would guarantee a hollow force. if we're limit fed in our abili to put health care costs on a sustainable track, then congress would be making all this more difficult to invest in new

technologies that we believe are critical to the force we need for the future. i don't think any of us in the administration or on capitol hill want these outcomes. therefore, i would strongly urge the congress to work with us to reach a consensus about our defense priorities, recognizing the budget realities that we face, not the ones that some would like to pretend are not there. i understand from my own experience that congress has the right to question some of our decisions and to make changes. that right is inherent in the legislative process. the congress also has a responsibility to make sure that we protect a strong, national defense. the bottom line is, we cannot cut a half a trillion dollars

from the defense budget and not cause some pain. but the price for that pain should be a 21st century force that can effectively defend our country. in what remains a very dangerous world. we can do this, but we have to do this together. let me say another word about sequestration. again, i'm grateful to the house for recognizing the importance of stopping sequestration. but by taking these funds from the poor, middle-class americans, homeowners and other vulnerable parts of our american constituencies, the guaranteed results will be confrontation, gridlock and a greater likelihood of sequester.

again, the key is to work together. each side can stake out its political position. i understand that. but the fact is, that nothing will happen without compromise from both sides. before wrapping up, let me just take a moment to announce that the president has nominated general mark welsh to succeed air force chief of staff schwartz upon his retirement this summer. general welsh is presently the commander of u.s. air forces in europe, where he is responsible for air force activities covering almost 1/5 of the globe, encompassing 51 countries and the atlantic and arctic oceans. he's a command pilot who's flown more than 3,400 hours during the course of his career, and he's

got a distinguished record that includes multiple combat missions during "operation desert storm." i had the opportunity to work closely with general welsh when i served as director of the cia and he served as associate director of the cia for military affairs. the position where he functioned is a critical link between the military and intelligence communities. over the course of our time working together i developed a deep appreciation for his wisdom and his counsel. a former air force academy commandant, i believe that he has the right leadership qualities and distinguished background to follow his extraordinary predecessor, general schwartz. i'll have the opportunity in the coming months to pay a full and proper tribute to general schwartz, but let me just say that i believe norty has been a transformative leader in his nearly four years as air force chief of staff.

he came into the role at a very challenging time, but because of his leadership, the air force, i think, is much stronger today. under his watch the air force has reinvigorated its steward shcht nuclear enterprise, made important investments and capabilities needed for the future and excelled in a wide range of missions. from the operations over libya to supporting our ground forces in afghanistan, we've closed air support and isr. i greatly appreciate his counsel, his guidance, his friendship, and his dedication to the air force and to the united states of america. >> thanks, mr. secretary. >> good afternoon, everyone. on this day in 1775, a small force of green mountain boys led by ethan allen and benedict arnold successfully attacked the british garrison at a fort in new york. at the same time the second continental congress was assembled in philadelphia.

their task was daunting. field and fund an army for a war that was already underway. as we sit here today, the 112th congress has its own daunting task. debate and decide on a defense budget with a war under way and with increasingly complex security challenges ahead. i appreciate the difficulty of the decisions they face. secretary panetta and i face them as well, and so do the service chiefs and the combatant commanders. we came together to prepare and submit a budget that we firmly believe is a responsible investment in america's security. now we stand ready and willing to work with congress to make sure our armed forces have what they need and no more than what we need to keep america immune from coercion nap means working together to preserve the balance that we built into the budget. keep in mind, this is a budget for a joint force. it should not be thought of as

just a set of separate service budgets but a comprehensive and carefully devised set of choices. choices that reflect the right mex among fore structured modernization, readiness, pay and benefits. different choices will produce a different balance. so before giving us weapons we don't need or giving up on reforms that we do need, i would only ask to make sure it's the right choice, not just for our armed forces but for the nation. we all know that america's strength rests as much on the industry and the diversity of its people and economy as it does on the might of its military. speaking of the right choice for the nation, i'm pleased to join secretary panetta of mark welsh to be the 20th joint chiefs of staff are the united states air force. i know mark well, about his courage in combat, acquisition and passion for developing future leaders. mark is ready to join the ranks of renowned airman like carl spatz, curtis lame and david

jobes and also his immediate predecessor nordy schwartz. nordsy the elder statementsman of our group of join chiefs. i've been privileged to know him as a joint chief and now the chairman. in both positions counted on his wise counsel. more importantly, the air force counted on his leadership at a critical juncture. he delivered. as a consequence, the air force delivers for the country. there's much more to say about nordy and the days ahead, but for today i will simply say, thank you. thanks to him for being a trustworthy wing man. thank him for being our nation's flight lead. with that, i think secretary panetta is prepared to take all of your questions. [ laughter ] >> mr. secretary, with your announcement, the department's announcement the other day military trainers are being returned to yemen what is the prospect of even deeper u.s. military involvement in yemen in

coming months, whether it be air power or ground forces? and if i may ask general dempsey, what are we to make of these latest revelations of anti-islamic cross-teachings of the joint forces staff college? does it in some way reflect current of thinking among some in the military that the u.s. is or ought to be at war with islam? >> with regards to the yemen question, as i've said time and time again that we will go after al qaeda wherever they are and wherever they try to hide. and one of the places that they clearly are located is yemen. we've obviously, the united states, both military and intelligence communities, have

gone after al qaeda, and we continue to go after al qaeda. the recent threat that concerned all americans about the possibility of another effort to take down an american airliner has come out of yemen, and it's for that reason that we will continue to take all of the steps necessary to try to go after those who would threaten our country and threaten our, the safety of american people. we have operations there. the yemenese have actually been very cooperative in the operations that we have conducted there. and we will continue to work with them to go after the enemies that threaten the united states. >> would you rule out using ground forces in yemen at some point? >> yeah. there's no consideration of that. our operations now are directed with the yemenese going after al qaeda.

>> if i could contribute to that part of the question, or that question as well. you know, we've will a decades-long relationship, security cooperation relationship with yemen. we suspended it during a period of their civil unrest, and as president hadi began to restore constitutional order to the situation, we're re-appearing in terms of our building partner capacity, but it is very much as the secretary described. trying to build their capacity, not use our own. to your question about the issue at the joint forces staff college. as you know, i've made an inquiry into a particular course that was brought to my attention by one of the opportunitistuden he was concerned it was objectional and counter to our values, our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural aware inside and the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. it's totally objectionable. and so we are looking at how

that course was approved, what motivated the individual to adopt that -- it was an elective, but what motivated that elective for being part of the curriculum, and we are looking across the institutions that provide our professional military education to make sure there's nothing like that out there. it was totally objectionable against our values and it wasn't academically sound. this wasn't about, you know, we're pushing back on liberal thought. this was just objectionable, academically irresponsible. >> another question. i want you to reconcile an apparent contradiction in some of your remarks. for, since you've been in office you said defense cannot bear the sole burned of fiscal reductions. deficit reductions. you've said domestic discretionary spending has to take part of the burden. right on the floor today they're debating that very point. democrats are complaining about