one way to do it is at the national level. it is a huge challenge just because of the money we will have to devote to it. >> mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining >> i want to follow up on ship building. back in 2006, the ship building plants at 313 ships and we have heard that number year after year. we find ourselves with 286 ships and an aging class of frigates that will -- we will be phasing out. we have submarines that are 30 years or older. we find ourselves in an environment with a very high ops tempo of boarding ships to sea, pushing maintenance schedules, pushing life cycle

capabilities, management elements. is it anywhere in the spectrum that we will have a 313-ship navy. if so, how will we integrate these older ships coming to the end of their service lives and make sure we are building and a pace where we are building more ships and what we are retiring? we are retiring more ships than we are bringing into the fleet. >> this budget which is 10 ships and $15 billion is not insignificant compared to where we were a few years ago. secondly, i believe we have to get shipped to their service life. that is an easy thing to say and it is hard to do because you have to make that investment over the course of ships service life and oftentimes, the navy has not done that specifically. what gets lost in the discussion about the number of ships that we have, and i did the analysis

that created the minimum level for the navy of 330 ships, it was my belief back then that we were supposed to get to 240 because it was out of control going down because of the cost and many other things. it is not at 313 but it has grown and i think we have to keep heading in that direction. there are a number of ways to do that. as the secretary as spoken and we have spoken about this many times, as the worst wind down, we will have to depend more and more on our air force and navy in the world we are living in. how could we make those investments? what gets lost in the discussion is there ops tempo has been up.

the navy was not sitting back. we are aware and we have to focus on those modernization programs. they provide an enormous strategic capability for us given the world we are living in. we have to invest in those as well. >> are you in the position to make a recommendation that you are doing everything including the inspection programs to make sure they are robust and the financial commitment to make sure these ships get to the yard on time? is the commitment there to make sure we will get to the end of the service life of the ships to make sure we have some chance of getting to 313? >> if we end up with a year-long continuing resolution, the ships will not make a bid to maintenance. -- will not make it into maintenance. >> we worked for years to get to

two submarines per year and you will not get that back in this budget. this is a discussion better had by admiral roughead specifically. the navy has invested more in terms of its maintenance to get to extended lights. he has made a decision to decommission some ships before the so he can invest in some ships he needs for the future. >> we talk about the qdr being issued. in their current projections, do they keep in mind we're in strength may be with your projections about reducing in strength for the marine corps and the army in how the qdr estimates that? >> yes, they do. >> i yield back. >> we have a very strong

agreement on the cr. we have a very strong disagreement on the second engine. in my district, it does not matter. i don't have a parochial interest in this but i have a strong opinion. you both said this is your last hearing. i can probably say with great certainty that none of the three of us will be here in tenures. how long will we be buying the engine for the f 35? >> i would say two-three decades. >> 10 years from now, if we have decided on one engine, for whatever reason, if the company comes to us and says i have to raise my costs substantially, what do you do? >> you are getting at the

competition peace and i understand. >> i am. >> you get break and savings by production level. >> do we have a fixed cost on this or will they, being the sole source engine, be able to raise their prices tend years out? >> with the production line, i think they will come down. we hope. , sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you both for your testimony and your very far responses to our many diverse questions. i would like to come back to the issue of sexual assault to the military. this is one that is much in the news today, but has been a longstanding issue. as representative turner mentioned, this is something

this committee has worked hard to deal with and find a way forward. despite that, and we have heard testimony from the various services as to all their efforts, despite that, in 2010, there were 3230 reported sexual assaults in the military. by the pentagon's own estimate, as few as 10% of sexual assaults were reported werethe va estimates that one in three female service women experience sexual trauma. this is one of the dominant issues that have to be dealt with. the 2011 defense authorization act requires that the park looks into the feasibility of providing the military lawyer to all victims of sexual assault.

this is a good first step, i was disappointed that provision would guarantee all victims the right to legal counsel and protect the confidentiality of conversations between victims and victims' advocates were not included in the final version of the 2011 ndaa though they were in the house version. we would be shocked to conversations between their clients or advocate were not privileged in the civilian world. similar rights must be afforded to service members who may be the victim of a crime. why would the department resist such a common-sense measure? i ask this of secretary date. y gates. >> i did not realize the department resisted it. along with mr. turner's comments, these things sound to me like reasonable actions.

i will take out of this. ring the charge whether to look into why we opposed them and why we should not go forward on our own even without legislation. >> i would appreciate what to do that of getting back to me and some form so that i and others who felt this was important. one thing we have them is that despite all the good efforts on the part of the services, the follow-up procedures do not support -- they undermine the efforts you have made around preventing this in the first place, provided access to medical care. if the fall legal processes do not sufficiently protect the victim and make them comfortable in coming forward, this

undermines all the good work you have done. they become suspect of the entire process and feel very much at risk. this was one very common-sense way going forward in the legal process a loan that we felt we could better protect victims as they try to assert their rights better of this is one of the reasons why we have invested almost $2 million in training our prosecutors. >> when i started looking into this several years ago, we found that the defendants hire lawyers who are specialized in this area and our prosecutors tended to not have that special day. it is complex law and it is difficult to prosecute successfully. particularly if you don't have the right trading. that is one reason why we have undertaken that and we have expanded the victim advocate

program dramatically from about 300-3000 around the world over the last few years in every base and installation. i will press on the question of why we cannot assure confidentiality. >> the other issue is all the services have dealt with this have done this in their own with reflective of their culture. that becomes very difficult to oversee as a member of congress. in the defense authorization bill, we guess for a comprehensive approach across all the services and i know the defense department is working on that and we look forward to what you come up with. thank you both. >> mr. kaufman. >> thank you. thank you so much for the great job at both of you have done on behalf of our country. let me first thank you for standing firm on the issue about

the second engine for the f-35. we have to make some tough decisions with limited resources and that is one of them that i think is wasteful that i certainly support you on. in your position on the combined forces command, the joint forces command, i certainly support you. in the effort. i am concerned about the top- heavy nature of the department of defense. i have noted that right now i think we have to under 68 chips, if that's the proper number -- 268 ships, if that's the proper number. we have almost one admiral per ship. the navy is authorized to go to hundred 83 admirals'. can you tell me and give me more visibility as to what can be done to try to streamline the

military? >> one of the things we have done as part of the efficiencies effort is we have eliminated out of 900 flag rank officers in the military, we will eliminate 100 general officer positions over the next couple of years. that includes admirals'. . we also will be eliminated somewhere over 200 senior civilian and executive positions. i was asked earlier about $11 billion for re-base lending osd and that is where those positions are coming from. we are not only eliminate positions, we are downgrading a number. the component commanders in europe will be downgraded from four stars to 3 stars. there is a native connection on the navy sides of that will take

longer. -- there is a nato connection on the navy side so that will take longer. given passage of history and can get rid of these positions, we have done on civilian and uniformed side. >> thank you. >> this is inside baseball but is one of the things i told the secretary when we started to review this. when budgets get tight, people start taking shots at how many admirals and generals we have. that is historic. the secretary had a very fair review and the services did this. what level for what the job, and that will continue to go on. over the course of the last 15 years over which i have been an admiral, there is a growing

complexity that require some level of senior and civilian and uniformed leadership in the world we are living in. i am all for the reductions that makes sense, but too often, it is often a very easy target. as we have tried to be careful about it. >> thank you. it is an easy target and i certainly think it is one we are willing to take. what is the department doing with respect to examining our foreign -basing commitment in terms of whether it is necessary? we have 28,500 u.s. personnel on the korean peninsula -- peninsula in south korea. when the north koreans get upset, it is when the two major

joint military exercises. when we look at our allies across the globe, can we better demonstrate our support our commitments with them by doing. a joint military exercises -- by doing periodic joint military exercises? has there been an ongoing analysis to determine the cost effectiveness of redeploying those forces back to the united states? >> we have just completed a global posture review. we were examining our positioning in europe, our position in the pacific, and in the middle east. it is now being discussed in the interagency because there are political implications for any changes. i would tell you that we examine this very closely and we will probably make some adjustments.

i mentioned in a speech that our force structure as well as our rank structure in europe is still a legacy from the cold war. that said, i am a firm believer that our forward posture in europe, in asia is fundamental to our alliance relationships. it provides them with the assurance that in fact we will be there and we will support them and i think dramatic changes in our overseas posture would be destabilizing to many of these relationships. one of the reasons that south korea and japan have not tried to develop nuclear weapons of their on is because of their confidence that our presence in their country provides a trip wire and a guarantee that if they are attacked, the united

states will support them. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. cherry thank you for your testimony today and for your service, and a couple of things i also want to tell you. i appreciate your stand on the second engine. i was glad to hear your explanation and your thoughtful remarks about the continuing resolution coming from the state of maine where people pay attention to the construction of ddg's. i appreciate your bringing that to our attention to the portents of the challenges of the continuing resolution. i want to thank you for your remarks about the concern about sexual harassment. i am concerned that we have not moved far enough. we have increased dependence on women in the military and we have to be sensitive to their

issues that it has not changed sufficiently to make women comfortable in serving their country. you brought this up earlier and i want to talk about tri-care. u.s. family health care plan designed by congress in 1996 provides full benefits format -- military beneficiaries for over 115,000 beneficiaries. they are highly satisfied with this option. in the state of maine, it is administered by martin's point health care and they have a customer satisfaction rating of 93%. i have visited their facility and they stress preventive care. it is exactly a model we want for health care in this country. the president's budget request as a huge proposed change that would preclude enrollment in u.s. family health plan for beneficiaries who reached 65 years of age. if we enact that, it would force over 3000 military beneficiaries

to dis-enroll from the plan. this recommendation contradicts president obama's position on health care reform. should be able to keep the plan you have if you are happy with it. perhaps the greater concern that you mentioned is a cost savings for this proposal would have a cost savings for dod but it shifts the savings to health and human services. i don't see how we are anticipating a cost savings as a whole and i think it will be detrimental to the beneficiaries. can you address my concerns on this? >> there would be some net savings of government because we are paying these hospitals at significantly higher than medicare rates. part of the goal is that we treat all the hospitals similarly. i want to clarify that as people reach age 65, they would need to join tri-care for life.

they would not be required to leave the hospital where they are being treated. they would need to do with every other retiree does in the department of defense when they reach age 65 and that is joined the tri-care for life program. there would be savings, modest and there are some costs shifted to medicare. we would now be paying medicare rates and we are paying much higher now. we want to work with the hospitals involved. we don't look to reduce the quality of care. we will face this in slowly. -- we will phase this in slowly. it will be very gradual change. our goal is to make sure these hospital's care is not harmed. >> it is my understanding that the law mandates that government cannot pay more for the care of

u.s. family health care plan enrollees' that with a beneficiary were receiving care from other government programs. it seems that we should already be paying the equivalent of what medicare costs are. based on observing my own tri- care program and knowing how important preventive care is and knowing there is high customer satisfaction, but also it is a different model of care, i am greatly concerned with shifting people out of that model that does not result in cost savings and if it is only a cost shift. you have to look at your budget but we have to look at the overall cost and it is only going over to medicare and it is not as significant savings and goes back to the old model of care, i don't think we have improved care for these families. >> i am not familiar with the details of the provisions. there are requirements we are not meeting in community hospitals with medicare rates.

we are also proposing to move toward that. we need to get back to on the details. there would be a modest net savings to government. we worked carefully with omb and they fully support this proposal as far as shifting the funds. >> i would be happy to follow up on that with you, so thanks. >> admiral, mr. secretary, i'm sorry i missed the last hour of testimony. mr. secretary, my colleague from san diego, you were answering her questions and talked about the defense budget and the total layouts and now this is at the lowest point since the 1990's. there is so little being spent on defense. if you don't give this a top line or ask for what it would

cost to erase all risk, literally, or as much risk as possible, we have no baseline to cut defense from or add. the numbers we are using our lib numbers. if you were to take away 100% of risk using your own threat assessment tools and analysis, what would that funding be? what would you ask for? >> i have only half jokingly said in meetings in the department is if we had a $1 trillion budget, we would have on funded requirements. these services could come up with a list of things they really need. the budget that we have provided at $553 billion for fy 2012 mitigates risks to the

extent that i think is reasonably possible. i think we are investing in new capabilities. there is $70 billion that the services will be able to invest in their savings in new capabilities for in added numbers i think helped mitigate that risk. you can never reach a point, just as there is no such thing as perfect security, there is no such the as eliminating rest. >isk. >> if you got to the highest point you could where you got to diminish rate of return, what would that number be, roughly? >> i think we are at a point with the $553 billion where we can do that. >> so fully funding is that that number. >> we will never find every request them up if you did --

>> i have no idea. >> have you ever thought about what would cost? >> nobody lives in that world. >> you have to tell us how we get to zero-direct. >> you will never get to zero threat. we could spend $3 trillion and you would never get to zero threat. >> on a totally separate note. let's talk about iraq for a minute. if the status of forces agreement is not changed and iraqis do not ask for our help and ask us to stay, what is our plan for 2012? what will happen at the end of this year? >> we will have all of our forces out of iraq. we will have an office of security cooperation for iraq that will have probably on the order of 150-160 defense

department employees and several hundred contractors who are working fms cases. >> do you think that represents the correct approach for this country after the blood and treasure we have spent in iraq? i had my own personal time of two tours in iraq. there will be more in iraq and egypt. how can we maintain all of these gains that we have made through so much effort if we only have 150 people there and no military there whatsoever? we have more military and western european countries than we have in iraq. >> there is an interest in

having an additional presence. the iraqis will have some problems that they will have to deal with if we are not there in some numbers. they will not be able to do the job in intelligence fusion. they will not be able to protect their own air space. they will have problems with logistics and maintenance. it is their country. it is a sovereign country. this is the agreement that was signed by president bush and the iraqi government. we will abide by the agreement unless the iraqis asked us to have additional people there. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, and admiral mollen, thank you for your fourth right and compelling arguments. i want to compliment you on going green. the navy is doing extraordinary things as are the other forces.

i hope you continue that. i encourage you to do so and many of us will do everything we can to support that effort. my question goes to the afghanistan war and pakistan. does our war in afghanistan destabilize pakistan? if so, what should we be doing about that problem in pakistan? the war't believe that in afghanistan is destabilizing the pakistan. what is destabilizing to pakistan among other things is a group of terrorist, several terrorist organizations and the western -- northwestern part of pakistan that are intent on

destabilizing pakistan and overthrowing its government. our ever combined with the pakistani efforts on both sides of the border in fact help reduce the terrorist risk to the pakistaniis. extreme economic problems are huge factor in pakistan. i don't think our presence is destabilizing, i think it helps the pakistanis long term. >> i will let it go at that. i will certainly not place my knowledge and intelligence ahead of yours. there seems to be considerable others who would question that conclusion. >> this is not a very stable region. part of the problem we have is that al-qaeda lived there and leadership lives there and we are still -- they are still trying to kill as many americans as they can.

there are multiple terrorist organizations. i called the epicenter of terror is an and the world. ism. they are working closer together than ever before. i talk about this as a region as opposed to one country or another. they are very much integrated in ways that sometimes they don't even like, but clearly they are. i think we have to have and we seek a trustee to partnership with both these -- seagate this year -- a strategic partnership with both these countries to look at long-term stability. whether we are at war at the level we're at now or in the future when we have far fewer troops in the area, can we support stability in a way that does not endanger us in the long run in addition to the citizens

of those two countries? >> thank you. i don't want to engage in the debate so i will let it go at that. my final question has to do with missile defense which is significantly augmented in the budget. why? >> part of the half a billion dollar increase is to implement the phased adaptive ray missile defense that we have considered in europe and also to increase our ability to defend our ships and our troops against peter- level threats -- theater-level missile threats. has the law has 40,000 rockets and missiles. -- has blocked -- hezbollah has 40,000 rockets and missiles.

our missiles defend our ships and have the potential to defend our ground troops. we are developing additional generations of the standard missile 3 that have an enhanced capability to deal with a radiant, north korean, and other kinds of missiles and we are making baseline investments in the interceptor program which protect the continental united states. all of these are contributing to our own security, but also help protect our allies as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, secretary hale, andretary

admiral mullin. if this is your last testament before the armed services committee, we are deeply grateful for your service. you win your families have sacrificed a lot to serve in the way you have. i know you are doing everything you can to accomplish the mission and protect our young people. i thank you for that. i come from a private sector background and i have learned that communication is extraordinarily difficult and absolutely essential for organization to succeed. i don't speak for the committee but just for myself, it seems to me that communication between the dod and hask is lacking. i regret that i have to read it that way. it is acute in the second district of virginia with the disk establishment of defcom.

i have yet to receive the supporting documents that would help me representing the second district to properly understand and respond to the disestablish meant of jefcom. that is disappointing and i trust we will move forward on the house side and the pentagon side to improve sharply communication. one area of like to shift to is tri-care. when someone enlists in the military, health care is for life, it is free. i have served in the marine corps reserve my cell and asked many people -- is widely understood. as tempting as it is to look at the area for cost savings, i truly believe that it is a breach of trust to change the deal because maybe we don't like the deal or the government doesn't like the deal.

mr. chairman, admiral mollen, what initiative if any is being undertaken to have full disclosure to those considering a military career with respect to benefits that may be offered at their retirement? >> honestly, when young people come into the military, they are 18, 1920 years old the material is available and recruiters may use this as something in terms of a health care plan and i have talked about it to our young people forever -- the military health care plan is the gold standard in the country. it is not something i have found that people in active duty focused on. it is more so recently that in the past but is not something

they focus on when they are that young. i did not and many others have not. >> with all due respect, my time is so short -- >> there is a larger point so let me respond. congress settled this issue in 1995. it was not free for life. they imposed fees and they imposed a fee of $460 per year. the issue of whether it was free or not was settled by the congress in 1995. what you have acknowledged that there will be a the, the notion that the fee would never change is certainly nowhere in the legislation. >> my question was, what initiative if any was undertaken to ensure a full disclosure of those who are entering the service? we believe in full disclosure. i am submitting to you today that in countless conversations

with our veterans that there is a disconnect between what is being told by the recruiter and what reality is. as one american to another, i am asking that that be addressed within the command. it is not an expense of initiative. it would be to ensure better disclosure. we look at the profound challenges that are facing our military that you discussed today. we look of a shortage of funds for ship building, the reduction of troop levels, it is stunning to me and a misplaced priority that we are still talking about sending a carrier out which is a risk that could be mitigated with far less funds than it takes to move that carrier to mayport. i would ask you to reconsider that, respectfully. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you mr. secretary and the apple for being here. i have a question on the budget. i thought i read it correctly that the total amount about leg was about $700 billion. the five ordered $53 billion is the base -- the $553 billion is the base but there is about $170 billion more that is not included in the base. i am still short about $30 billion. are you aware that $30 billion? >> there are various ways of adding up of the budget. you could be including national security administration information in there. i would be glad to get with you

and sort out the numbers. >> please do. so this is correct? >> the dod portion of the budget. there are various ways of adding this up. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, the congresswoman has left but i am very curious about the position with okinawa. there seems to not be a firm position about what the japanese position is. the $472 million for guam was not included in the japanese budget. how critical is their contribution to what happens? i would like to know the bottom line. will they move from okinawa?

it looks like a reduction of 10,000 troops from okinawa. what do we plan to do? >> the japanese have fulfilled all their commitment to date. they have given us a little over $700 million for infrastructure. when i was there, they told me they were putting together a program that will include something along the same order of further infrastructure investments. as i mentioned earlier, we really cannot go forward on qualm and congress has withheld money on guam until we have greater clarity on what happens on okinawa. my understanding is that we will have some resolution on this by later this spring or early summer and then we will be able to come to you with our plans. at some resolution of the replacement facility issue, our

troops are not coming out of open allah and land is not being returned to them. -- eritrea and a coming out of okinawa and land is not being returned to them. i expect some resolution. >> when you say the resolution of where the troops will go, are you talking about within okinawa itself? >> on okinawa itself. >> the concept of the end of strength, is that a magical number into the future to eight times the civic or are we looking at that given the information we have today? >> it is looking at the information we have today. the end strength in 2015 and

2016 will be determined by the conditions in the world. above all, have we come out of afghanistan by and large by the end of 2014 that would enable us to have a lower in-strength. ? the marine corps believes it needs to come down about 15,000. they think they have gotten too big and too heavy in terms of their equipment. this is a proposal that is divorced from the budget and is more based on the marine corps' of in view of their structure and what they need to complete their mission going forward. >> how about the other services? >> the only other servers affected is the army. -- service affected is the army. army leadership supports this proposal. the army leadership is also

fully aware they will have the opportunity to revisit this decision if conditions in the world change. >> thank you. >> we have one, two, three, four, five members that have been waiting patiently for three hours. we just got the first series of votes called and i am afraid they will go for 45 minutes or one hour. i know, mr. secretary, you have until 1:30. i appreciate that you have given us the time. i think we only have time for probably one more. mr. gibson -- >> thank you and i thank the distinguished panel for their leadership and for being here today. i want to express my admiration for all the men and women that you lead. for their families of what they do on behalf of our freedom. i also like to express my

appreciation for the budget commission. it is not easy work and i had some experience there and it has been challenging for the team, especially in relation to the last decade. i look forward to being supportive going forward. my concern has been touched on today but i would like to address it more directly and that has to do with, generally, requirements and resources but more broadly with the prefacing discussion of what kind of country we are, what interest we are, what commitments we think are appropriate for a republic. on this committee, there would be wide agreement that we need to protect our quality of life and we need the world's best military to do that. there is a wide variety of views and opinions as to what that means. some believe we should embrace some kind of isolationism. others perhaps, a near global

commitment strategy. i reject to the extremes of both sides. i personally think we are over- committed and we ask too much of our military. that is a debatable point. we have the infrastructure for internal consumption. i kidney to be a national conversation. you both traveled widely and you speak. does this topic, when you were with the american people -- does this topic, when you are with the american people? puffed -- does this topic come up when you speak to the american people? >> i worry about the growing disconnect between the american people and the military. they are enormously supportive of the men and women and their families. they know we are in two wars that we are sacrificing

enormously as well. we come from 40% -- we are 40% smaller than we were in 1989. our day-to-day connections are significantly reduced from what they used to be. it is the depth and understanding of what we do and our number of employment and the sacrifices to families and the changes that occurred over the last decade. it will not happen overnight but it is a long-term concern that i have. it is particularly when you overlay that with the enormous fiscal challenges that the country has right now. i do think the debt is a huge important issue for national security because we will be affected by that. you can see that in this budget and it will continue to happen. having a conversation with america about those challenges and individuals who serve and go on to return to communities throughout the country, the

veterans' issues, we see an increasingly homeless population how did they return to their area? they are enormously capable people and they are wired to serve in the future. they will make a big difference. how we invest a little bit in them so taking advantage of the gi bill, they will take off and make a huge difference in the future and i think they will. that connection i think is really important theme at the end of the day, from our perspective >> the conversation that you are describing is a dialogue that needs to take place between the executive branch and the legislative branch. you represent the american people. you have your finger on the pulse of the people in your district better than any of us ever could. as was intended by the founders, we basically rely on you as surrogates to the american people in terms of that

dialogue. >> i appreciate the comments and i believe it is an area we will need to address and i look forward to working tothe dod and the chairman and the committee moving forward and i yield back that. >> mr. secretary, admiral, thank you for being here enter service. this committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> new jersey governor chris christie spoke yesterday at the american enterprise institute. after his speech, governor christie was asked about his presidential aspirations. here is part of that event. >> you know, there is a lot of talk now about partisanship and the negative, and recount in some of our political debates. there is a time and place for partisanship, i absolutely

believe in that. so did our founding fathers. they believed in vigorous debate and so a lot. do i. it is based on our founding to have principal disagreements of people of goodwill. i am not disagree with folks for the sake of disagreeing and i'm not fighting for the sake of fighting. i fight for the things that matter. i say by energy for the fights of consequence. as a result, some people say i am too combative and some people said i am too much of a fighter. well, i will tell you, i am fighting now because now is the time it matters most to defer to jerseyfuture of new and america. we are teetering on disaster and i love when people talk about american exceptional as of.

lism, but it has to encourage the -- has to include the courage to do the right thing. it cannot just be a belief that because we are exceptional, everything will work out ok. part of truly being exceptional is being willing to do the difficult things, to stop playing the political gains, stop looking at the bumper pool of politics and step up and do the right thing. this is the new era that we newly elected officials have inherited. whether we like it or not, that is the story. we have two choices -- to either stand up and do the right thing, to speak the truth and speak bluntly and directly or to join the long parade of leaders who have come before us and failed.

maybe people will remember us. maybe they won't been the responsibility for failure on us because there has been so much failure around us. i did not run for this job for failure. i ran for this job for success, for success not just for me personally and my children, but success for my state and hopefully, to provide an example for the rest of the country that you can do the difficult things. it seems to me that what america is really all about is about a group of people who came from every corner of this earth because they wanted a chance for greatness. that is what has made us the greatest country on earth. are calling for greatness at this time is to confront these issues and save them out loud and stop playing around.

let's not waste another minute. the world war two generation was called the greatest generation and they were because they put their lives on the line to protect our way of life. they are called the greatest generation because we judge them in the aftermath. we found them to be great. any objective measure. we guarantee you one thing, we will be judged, too. we will be judged by our children and our grandchildren. at this moment of crisis, what did we do? did we bury our heads in the sand? did we surround ourselves with our creature comforts and believe that just because we are america everything will be okay? or will our children and grandchildren be able to say that we stood up and did the hard thing that made a future

great as possible for them? believe me, we will be judged. i know the way i want the judge to turn out for me and i know, in the hearts and minds of most new jerseyans and most americans, how they want the judgment to turn out for them. it is time for us to get to work, to find our greatness again. i believe we will find our greatness for doing the big things, the really big things that will lead america to another century of exceptionalism and not a century of settling for second best. that is what this fight is about. if you're willing to join me, i am willing to join you and that is why i came down here to talk. thank you very much. [applause]

thank you. we have time for a few questions. there you go. >> by your own accounting, medicaid will be in the red in 2017 which means the change that needs to begin have to begin now or by the next election cycle. you have already said you don't plan to run for president in 2012 but no matter what you do in new jersey to fix the fiscal situation, it doesn't matter if washington does not get it right for the nation. can you see the field is not talking about these big issues and will you say that you are the only one talking about it

and you must run? >> that took a long time, did that? [laughter] i was talking to my wife this morning. she said to me that they will ask me about running for president. i said no. [laughter] i threatened to commit suicide. i did i said what do i have to do short of suicide to convince people i am not running. apparently, i have to commit suicide to convince people i am not running. this is what i really believe. you have to believe me when i say to you that you have to feel in your heart and your mind that you're ready for the presidency. there are many people who will run just because the opportunity

presents itself. i am not stupid. i see the opportunity. i see it but it is not the reason to run. i think all too often, that is what people do run. it is because they see the opportunity. they may not get that opportunity again. that is not a reason to be president of united states. you have to believe in your heart and in your soul and in your mind that you are ready and i don't believe that about myself right now. that is why i have said i will not run. i cannot imagine that changing. add to the fact that i made a commitment to the people of new jersey. we made great progress but we are nowhere near finished. i feel challenged and energized by the job in new jersey and i want to do the best i can to finished that job. my wife will kill me. [laughter] we will have been married 25

years in two weeks and there are certain things that you know will not be accepted and that is not on the list. >> i recognize there will be plenty of arguments in the months to come and everyone will have to give a little bit. it comes to difficult choices about our budget and our priorities, we have found common ground before. >> president obama sent congress a $3.70 trillion budget that would reduce the budget by $1.10 trillion over the next 10 years. here the details from the administration including capital officials and what reaction from house and senate officials online at the cspan video library. it is washington your way. on cspan today, "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls and that is followed by live coverage of the house. they are scheduled to continue work on fiscal 2011 spending. work on fiscal 2011 spending.