it's not some software that you can go down to kmart and pull off the shelf. >> we are engaged in a political moment in time that we have the opportunity for tax reform and if we don't gravid that we have lost years in the opportunity to do something significant. what i'm trying to understand is from you experts is what is the consequence of the beneficial consequences of simplifying the tax code and getting rid of a lot of those preferences. as a practical matter you're not going to get rid of all the preference is because too many of them are in grand in what is considered fair and reasonable such as mortgage interest, such as charitable deductions.

but maybe there is a limit to that and there are a bunch of other tax preferences that we've seen that have grown up over the years because people have had the ability to get to the decision makers to get their particular tax aging scratched, and i want to see us take this opportunity and this super committee is the opportunity. i want to just ask one technical question, dr. rivlin. you said that your task force with senator pete domenici had come up for some version of premium support. can you define that with regard to medicare? >> yes. on the version that we support would say the following.

seniors after a certain date would get a choice whether they stay in ordinary fee-for-service medicare or go to a new exchange on which they could choose a plan and would be competition among health plans and the health plan would be compensated by medicare or risk adjusted way this is a vulture you go out and shop around. but, and this is where the scoring comes in. the zero original amount of the subsidy for medicare would be the same whether you stay in the fee-for-service or go to the exchange, but it would increase on the at a defined rate. the rate we chose was gdp plus 1% that's a little lower than the current increase fox the

competition on the exchange has brought the cost down within that and if it didn't whether you were in the exchange or in the fee-for-service system you would have to pay an additional premium, could be means tested premium it would be a premium and if the congress decided the was shifting too much cost to the beneficiaries, and you might worry about that you could change the formula but that's how it works. >> mr. chairman, do you remember when we were doing with the health care bill how the critics were saying about the role was going to come to an end when he were taking on the medicare hmo medicare and vintage? did you hear the cms announcement last week that nationally the premiums for

medicare advantage as a result of the reforms that we did in the health care bill has gone down 4%, and the enrollment has gone up 10%. now, let me just add you know what it is in florida? the premiums have gone down 26% in the enrollment has gone up 20% in the state with the largest number of enrollees in medicare that vantage. >> the predictions were that would be the opposite. we are going to kill the program. instead the program has thrived. so much for all the expertise within the beltway. senator sessions, any last words?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. senator begich made a reference to this and the roads that are built. i was very disappointed at how little infrastructure was in the bill. roads and bridges specifically were 3%, and i do agree that while we can dispute where to get a real growth from a stimulus road-building program you can't dispute where you have a road and bridge that you can use and that's beneficial whereas most of the money that we spend in this program or one time expenditures that did not to reappoint me ask i also what note that cbo scored that stimulus package over ten years as having a net to the economy discordant as being positive before it passed and being positive in the short run. i'm afraid what policy we've had

and i think now we're beginning to draw on the negative. in the response to the question from me last week dr. zandi responded i do not think 2.4 trillion is enough, talking about the cuts that the committee of 12 is charged with cheating. he goes on to say i think we need -- if you do the arithmetic rating there's a general consensus that we need 4 trillion in a ten year deficit reduction that 2.4 trillion is not enough, no. would you agree, i ask you if you can be brief would you agree with that? >> i would definitely agree with that. i think the consensus in the domenici rivlin group and others that have looked at this problem, if you are going to stabilize the debt you need four to 5 trillion in savings over

the next ten years. >> what you call for in your commission. >> yes. >> it gets into some baseline problems but that is the basic story. >> dr. holzer? >> i tend to agree to .4 is probably too little and it needs to be in that three to 4 trillion-dollar range and of course there are many ways of measuring the different baselines that can be used. we have a caveat that i would add as once again the deficit reduction in the short term could be harmful to growth depending on how it is done and it could further reduce the revenue coming in and require more automatic expenditures. so it's important to balance the overall number with a ' of a lot of the professions. we are going to be facing slow economic growth perhaps for much of the rest of the decade. so we have to trade off and balance of the serious debt

reduction that we need but doing it in a bay and the matter and the timing that doesn't put an undue burden on the economy over the next handful of years. >> dr. zandi, i ask you to respond to that question and then with regard to the idea of another stimulus, you spend 400 or so billion dollars that digs the debt hole deeper and we have to raise that money before we even get back to the level that we are now in terms of the projected debt situation. would you comment? >> yes, basically it is assembly of matter you have to stabilize your debt as a share of gdp and then from that point forward so in a sense as the president suggested it is a matter of math. scores this ascent too he's referring to and you don't have to get there all at one the congress just passed one bill with $900 billion to solve the progress you can do it in a series of steps that they do

have to be short-term steps. that is one falling quickly upon the other. >> and you think that they are 2.4 trillion is not enough? >> i think eventually you are going to need something closer to four or five especially for sliding into recession again for the purpose of the very, very slow growth. we are not going to be getting the revenue that is expected and the deficit is going to be that much larger and the whole we have to dig out of is that much deeper. >> thank you, senator. let me just say i guess part of the fiscal commission senator gregg and i have pushed that starting five years ago because we saw that we were headed for debt threat overhanging the economy that had to be faced up to. we agreed that everything had to be on the table. we agreed we need fundamental entitlement reform. to my colleagues on the left that resist that, i just say i

don't know any way around it. the harsh reality is you look at the demographics, if you look at the budget we have to deal with the entitlement side of the ledger. that is the biggest part of the federal budget. it didn't used to be. it used to be about one-third of the federal spending. now it is 60% and growing, and the demographics are as clear as they can be. so to the friends of mine on the left that say you've got it all wrong we don't have to touch that, really? the trustees say that we are headed for insolvency, and then my friends on the right to say you don't have to touch revenue. really? revenue is the lowest it's been in 60 years as a share of national income.

that's where it is. it's the lowest it's been. spending is the highest it's been a to me it's very clear you have to work on both sides of this equation. to those who say that is a job killer, that isn't what the evidence shows this is a look at different top marginal rates and what economic growth has been treated at the end here is the top marginal rate of 28 to 31%. the economic growth during that period, average employment growth has averaged 1.1%. now the top rate of 35% virtually no unemployment growth. 38.6, which is what we had the previous top rate was half of

1%. and we had the top marginal rate of 39.6% employment growth averaged 2.4%. when we had the top marginal rate of 50%, employment growth averaged 2.1%, and on up from there. so, you know, this idea that the top marginal rate is a job killer with no evidence in the real world and the real economy that that is true there is no evidence that that is true. so i'd know. we're in a very skilled debater mature between the two parties to me. very stale and it is not going to solve the problem to be stuck with a stale, tired and sony debate. at some point we have to get real. getting a real means both sides

have to get off their fixed position and the faster it happens, the better. i thank the witnesses for participating today and we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> yesterday the pentagon officially repealed the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, banning gay americans from serving openly in the military. we'll hear from defense secretary pennetta and joint the chiefs chairman next on c-span. then on this morning's "washington journal," topics include the president's jobs plan, environmental policy, and the investigation into solar energy company solyndra. "washington journal" begins at the top of the hour. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's student cam competition,

open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that's important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> this past weekend marked the passing of another former senator. from 1967 through 1985, charles perry served three terms as republican senator from illinois and beliefly considered a presidential run in 1976. a moderate, he unsuccessfully proposed legislation to promote low-cost housing and homeownership to low-income families and also called for the appointment of an independent prosecutor following the watergate break-in. watch a few of his c-span appearances all archive and had searchable online at the c-span

video library. >> the u.s. military has official repealed its policy which banned openly gay americans from serving in the armed forces. the don't ask, don't tell law, instituted during the clinton administration, caused 14,000 men and women to be discharged in the last 18 years. we'll hear from defense secretary leon panetta and chairman. joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen. they also talk about the pentagon's budget at this 40-minute briefing. admiral mullen will retire from his post at the end of the month. >> as of 12:01 this morning, we have the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, pursuant to the law that was passed by the congress

last december. thanks to this change, i believe we move closer to achieving the goal at the foundation of the values that america's all about. equality, equal opportunity, and dignity for all americans. as secretary of defense, i'm committed to removing all the barriers that would prevent americans from serving their country and from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant these are men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of this country. and that's what should matter the most. i want to thank the repeal implementation team and the

service 60's, along with the service chiefs for all of their efforts to ensure that d.o.d. is ready to make this change, consistent with standards of military readiness, with military effectiveness, with unit cohesion, and with the recruiting and retention of the armed forces. all chiefs have stated very clearly that all of these elements have been met in the review that they conducted. over 97% of our 2.3 million men and women in uniform have now received education and training on repeal as a result of these efforts. i also want to thank the working group for the work they did on the report that laid the ground work for the change in this policy. and above all, i'd like to single out the person next to me at this table, admiral mike

mullen. his courageous testimony and leadership on this issue i think were major factors in bringing us to this day, and he deserves a great deal of credit for what has occurred. let me also, if i can, give you a quick update on the defense budget and where that stands at this point. as you know, the department has been undergoing strategy-driven process to prepare to implement the more than $250 billion in savings that it will be required to do over the next 10 years as a result of the debt limit agreement. this review is still ongoing. no decisions have been made, but i am committed to making these decisions based on the best advice that i receive from the service 60's and from the

service chiefs, as well as the combatant commanders. i've made clear that i will be guided by the following principles. number one, we must maintain the very best military in the world, a force capable of detering conflict, projecting power, and winning wars. we have been through a decade of war, and the result of that has been almost a doubling of the defense budget during that period. now i have to take on the responsibility of exercising fiscal responsibility based on doing our part to confront the deficit, and i think this can be done by shaping and using this as an opportunity to shape the very best defense we can

for this country as we approach the next 10 years so that we can effectively take on the challenges and threats in the world that we face. secondly, we must avoid a hollow force and maintain a military that will always be ready, agile, deployable, and capable. thirdly, we must take a balanced approach and look at all areas of the budget for potential savings, efficiencies that trim duplication and bureaucratic overhead, to improving competition, contracting procedures, management, and the operations and investment program, to tightening and reforming personnel, cost, and areas, to developing what will be a smaller, more agile and more flexible force for the future.

finally, we cannot break faith with our men and women in uniform, volunteer force is central to a strong military and is central to our future. achieving these savings will be very hard. it's not going to be an easy process. these involve tough decisions and tough tradeoffs. while we will continue to focus on reducing overhead and duplication, make no mistake, these reductions will force us to take on greater risk in our mission to protect the country in time of war and in the face of growing security challenges. my goal is to try to make sure that these risks are acceptable by making sure that we maintain a strong defense and preserve our ability to protect our core national security interest. even as we take on our share of the country's efforts to achieve fiscal discipline, we still face the potentially

devastating mechanism known as sequester. i've tried to make clear the past month that roughly $1 trillion in cuts that will be forced by sequester would seriously weaken our military. and it would really make us unable to protect this nation from a range of security threats that we face. since the cuts would have to be applied in equal percentages to every project area, we just simply could not avoid hollowing out the force. that will be the ultimate result if sequester goes into effect. the sequester will not only impact our military strength, i think it will impact our economic strength as well. cancellation of weapons systems, construction projects, research activity would seriously cripple our industrial base, which would be unacceptable, not only to me as secretary of defense, but to our ability to be able to

maintain the best defense system for the world. while this budget environment presents some difficult choices for our armed forces, i believe that if we can avoid further cuts, we have a real opportunity here to set some priorities and make some hard choices needed to build a stronger force for the future and to keep faith with our men and women in uniform. and finally, let me say a word about mike mullen, since this would be his last conference, at least alongside the secretary of defense. >> i won't take that personally. i've heard that before. this has been -- it's been a real honor for me to be able to serve with admiral mullen.

he's provided very strong leadership in shaping the defense of this country and our military's future. i think as a result of that, we're a stronger and more secure nation because of his leadership. i've worked with him in this job, and i work with him in the past as director of the c.i.a. and in particular, i appreciate the support he gave us when we conducted the osama bin laden mission. it could not have been done without his support and without his cooperation. he's been steadfast, he's been a passionate voices for the support of our service members, both he and his wife. and our strategy that is now bearing fruit, i think in iraq and afghanistan, holds a great deal of its success to his vision, his determination, and his dedication. he has really, in my book, set a standard for the responsibilities and

performance of the chairman of the joint chiefs, and that will be forever his legacy, so i want to thank him for his years of dedicated service, his tireless efforts on half of our country, for his friendship, and in particular, i want to thank him on behalf of the men and women in uniform who i think more than anyone else appreciate his leadership. thanks, mike. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and thank you very much for both your leadership and those kind words. i, too, am very proud of the relationship that we've enjoyed over the last couple of years, and i'm grateful for your willingness to continue serving our nation. it's been a pleasure to be a part of your team as you navigate new waters here in the pentagon. and i'll say this, you're a pretty quick study. this can be a very difficult culture to master, but it didn't take you very long to figure out that bog can actually be a good thing, that

mitts aren't something we use to take brownies out of the oven, and that man pads aren't hideouts we use to eat snacks and watch football. then again, i don't think we really ever held out any hope of fooling the former director of the c.i.a. the truth is, sir, you've already made an enormous difference, and our troops know that you care about them and their families, and they know that throughout these lean budget times, you will have their back. i couldn't agree more with you on the need to act smartly as we make very difficult, very necessary fiscal decisions about structure, personnel, and operations. as you have said yourself, these must be strategy-driven zitchings we must begin within assessment of those things we must continue to do for our fellow citizens, the options we must continue to be able to provide our president, and be

willing to curtail or even end those missions and capabilities which do not comport with that strategy. we must consider the world as it is, the threats as we see them, not wishing away the danger, nor blowing it out of proportion. it is because i believe that our national debt is our greatest national security threat that i also believe we must do our part to reduce it, to limit its harm. programs that are behind schedule or woefully over budget should be considered for elimination. and i think history is important here as well. i can remember in the early 1990's when two of our major programs, the c-17 in the air force and the dj-51 in the navy were in lots of trouble. these two programs now are certainly stalwarts in our defense and critical to our success.

so there are programs that should be eliminated. i think we just need to do the due diligence to make sure we get the right ones. the personnel accounts which make up the vast majority of our allocation should be scrubbed for inefficiencies and overhead, and those exercises and operations that do not in the end directly contribute to the security commitments we see as essential must be recalibrated. i believe we are what we buy, that the american people will get the military we purchase for them. we ought to make sure that military is the right one for the future, flexible and adaptable enough to fight wars both big and small, near and far, a force that can secure our national interests, and not by its size and shape define those interests. i remain convinced that our effort to find more than $450 billion in cuts the president has ordered over the next 10 years is achievable. and like you, mr. secretary,

i'm committed to the process we have put in place to do that. it's the responsible thing to do, but i also share your deep trepidation over sequestration and the potential for cuts so devastating and so dramatic that we place at risk the very security we're charged to provide that we negate the very reason we exist. i hope the supercommittee and the congress will recognize the work we are doing to shoulder our part of the load and look elsewhere for further reductions. i also hope they will not drive to us make decisions that violate the covenant we've made with our troops and with their families. 10 years of war have not broken the all-volunteer force, but adversely affect the lives of our people. we can afford to lose some things, but committee ant -- but we cannot afford to lose them. now don't ask, don't tell, as

you all know, i testified in early 2010 that it was time to end this law and this policy. i believed then, and i still believe, that it was first and foremost a matter of integrity, that it was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. we are better than that. we should be better than that. and today, with implementation of the new law fully in place, we are a stronger joint force, a more tolerant joint force, a force of more character and more honor, more in keeping with our own values. i'm convinced we did the work necessary to prepare for this change, that we adequately trained and educated our people, and that we took into proper consideration all the regulatory and policy modifications that needed to be made. i appreciate the secretary's confidence in me and his kind

praise, but today is really about every man and woman who serves this country, every man and woman in uniform, regardless of how they define themselves. and tomorrow, they'll all get up, they'll all go to work, and they will all be able to do that work honestly and their fellow citizens will be safe from harm, and that's all that really matters. thank you. >> mr. secretary, admiral mullen mentioned that men and women in uniform are more tolerant today than when don't ask, don't tell policy was begun 18 years ago. i'm wondering, how do you guard against the possibility that some will try to undermine it or even reverse it by committing acts of harassment or violence against gays? and also income your opening remarks, you mentioned you're committed to removing all barriers to equal opportunity in service in the military. does that include allowing women to serve in any position in the military combat?

if i may ask a quick question. would you comment -- could you also elaborate on the remarks you made this morning about the time table for the withdrawal in iraq, which you said, i believe, that the u.s. would be down to 30,000 troops by the end of this month. is that an acceleration of what the plan was recently? because it's quite a large drop. and also, does this compress the time frame in which the iraqis have to make a decision? >> i'll just take the last one. >> no, let him go first. >> no, this is the drawdown plan that we had in place specifically, and it's really a plan that gets us to, under the current agreement, to all the troops out by the end of the summer. so there's no change. >> with regards to, you know, the possibility of harassment,

we have a zero tolerance with regards to harassment, and my hope is that the command structure operating with the standard disciplines that are in place will implement those disciplines and will ensure that harassment doesn't take place and that all behavior is consistent with the discipline and the best interests of our military. with regards to other areas and other barriers, i think that have to continue to look at those issues and not simply put them off the table. i think as we progress, particularly having taken this step, i think the opportunity to look at those other opportunities is something we ought to continue to pay attention to. >> is this the highest priority for you? >> right now i've got the

budget which is my highest priority. >> mr. chairman, you mentioned you really did come out early and publicly in calling don't ask, don't tell an unfair law. as you prepare now to leave office and you look back on your career, where does taking that stand rank in your career, and are you comfortable leading a military in which the partners of a lot of these gay and lesbian service members still won't have access to healthcare, to pensions, even spousal support networks when a service member is deployed? >> i mean, one of the reasons that i've been in the mill father for over four decades is because i care immensely about the people and their families, and that they have been extraordinary to work with and fend on my whole career. from the point of view of this particular law, i meaning, some of it was just actually timing. you know, i happened to be the

chairman when this thing came into obviously very intense focus. i expressed very specifically my personal views at a time when i knew that that was going to be asked of me and then obviously the process for change has evolved from there. i'm want one, i don't think about top 10, top five, whatever. obviously this is a huge change. it hits at the heart of the issue for me, the integrity of the institution. it is a value for us. it serves us well, and in that regard, seeing this change is a huge step in the right direction to be consistent with all our people i care so much about and to be consistent with that value. that's how i would describe it as i would look back on it, and

i think i said then, said today, it's the right thing to do, it's done, we need to move on. >> the second part about leaving the military in which a lot of the partners still won't have equal treatment and some of the other service members -- >> well, as you know and wee talked about this, we follow the law here. and doma, that law restricts some of the issues that you talk about, and we're going to follow that law as long as it exists. certainly we're aware that are benefits which do accrue to this change very specifically and directly that went into effect last night at midnight, and there are others, some of the ones you talk about, which will certainly, in compliance with the law, there will not be any change. >> i want to talk about the

assassination of dr. rabbani today. mr. chairman, earlier today you talked about the violence, you said we have to protect the leaders. my first question is, what are you talking about, what kind of protection for afghan leadership, what about the network and their being behind some of these? and after four high-profile attacks in kabul in recent weeks, is it finally time to say this is more than just them , the taliban, seeking headlines and propaganda, is this time to take this seriously? >> well, i think we do take it very seriously. secondly, i don't have the details of this other than what's been reported. so i couldn't tell you who's behind it. i think there are those that would immediately finger hakani specifically. i just don't -- i can't validate that one way or the

other. for weeks now, since president karzai's brother was killed and there were assassinations or killings back then as well, one of the things that general allen has done is looked with the afghan security forces at ways to shore up their security and to end the personal security, and so we continue to do that, to look at their practices, to look at their qualifications, and that will continue. but this also, from my perspective, reflects the shift with respect to the taliban's overall strategy, because they've not succeeded on the ground this year. their campaign has failed in that regard. they've shifted to these high-profile attacks. strategically they're significant. general allen, as recently as today, described the attack on the embassy as an operational failure.

that said, it's certainly had an impact. we take it very seriously. we know that this is what the taliban are doing, and we've got to adjust and we're doing it. you know, we're aware that this will continue, but i don't think -- that they seek to continue this, but i don't think today is the time or this is the moment to make any significant change. we do take it very seriously. >> mr. secretary, what changes are you looking at in afghanistan in terms of trying to deal with this evolving threat admiral mullen has described? >> as admiral has said, we're concerned about these kinds of attacks. we're concerned about all of the attacks that take place because of the lives that are lost and because of the effort to disrupt the progress that has been made in afghanistan.

but it's not unexpected. i had a discussion with general allen this morning, basically skl him, give me your assessment as to what's happening with the taliban and obviously having gone through the attacks in kabul and in the car bombing that took place before that. give me your assessment. and his assessment was that, you know, we have made progress against the taliban, that we had anticipated early on that there would be broader attacks that would be made by the taliban during this period, this fighting period. and those have not occurred. we have made progress in weakening them. we have made progress in going after their leadership. but having said that, they are resorting to these kind of attacks and high-level assassinations, which, i said, are of concern. we've got to take steps to ensure we protect that.

we're in the process of doing that. we're working with the afghans to discuss steps on how we can take to provide better protection so that this does not occur. but the bottom line still remains we are moving in the right direction. we have made progress against the taliban. and we can't let some of these sporadic events deter us from the progress that we've made. >> how big a loss is rabani to the peace process? >> i regret his loss. i think he was playing an important role with regards to efforts at reconciliation, reintegration, and i'm hopeful that we'll be able to work with others to try to continue the efforts that he was engaged with. >> is there any greater u.s. willingness to take unilateral action across the border in pakistan, and if not, what can you do about it? >> well, i made the point, and

i think mike mullen's made the same point, that, look, we are going to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our forces. i'm want going to talk about, you know, particular strategies to, in fact, implement that commitment, but our biggest concern right now is to put as much pressure as possible on the pakistanis to exercise control from their side of the border. we've continued to state that this cannot happen, we cannot have them coming across the border, attacking our forces, attacking afghanistanis, and then disappearing back into a safe haven. that is not tolerable. and we have urged them to take steps. mike mullen met with the general recently to urge that same point, and we'll continue to do that. i think they've heard the message, but we'll see. >> there was a recommendation

against repealing don't ask, don't tell while testifying before congress in early december. he said he couldn't turn his back on the pentagon's don't ask, don't tell, showing that the majority of his combat units were concerned that repealing the ban would have a negative effect on the mission in afghanistan. was the general wrong in opposing don't ask, don't tell based on concerns among his combat troops, and what is the pentagon doing to mitigate those concerns? >> general amos made his position very clear back then. the second part of his sentence was if the law changes, the marines will be the first ones to do the training and to comply with the law, and that's happened. so the secretary spoke -- both of us spoke to the training, and quite frankly, over the last several months, as we've conducted the training, we have not found any significant issues -- the training was not

to change one's view, it was to make sure everybody understood what the rules were, and the marines do that better than anybody else. so i have great confidence the marine corps is going to do this, as general amos said they would, and actually tell us they are. >> i talked to general amos directly about that, and he said that, you know, after doing the review and finding that there was no impact in terms of recruitment or morale or unit cohesion, that he was committed to putting this in place and that it was now important to move on. >> secretary, you said you think that the pakistanis have heard your pleas about what needs to be done inside their borders, and that, you met with him. we've heard that for several years now. we think they've heard us, we want them to do more, and you kept meeting with the general over and over again. have you been wrong in this

strategy of not having a harder fist with them, taking a tougher stand? is there something else that could have been done that would have changed this narrative after all this time? >> the substance of the meeting just the other day, as well as the vast majority of meetings that i've had with the general have been to work towards a way that we can sustain the relationship. it's going to go up and down. we've had a very tough patch here over the past several months. i would want to reassure you that i addressed this issue very strongly with the general the other night, last friday night, when i met with him. it was the heart of the discussion, that the proxy connection to the i.s.i., they worked coming out and it has to stop. that's not a new message, but

it's one that he clearly understands, and i think it's one we have to keep reiterating. all of that said, i think the strength of having met with him so many times is that we have sustained the relationship when things are going better, as well as when things are not going well, and recently they haven't gone well, but we've been able to sustain that and start to move it again in a more positive direction. but the clarity with which i addressed this issue, there can be no question and no doubt. >> the approach has to be we continue to put pressure on them, continue to put pressure on them. that's what we've been doing over the last few years. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work. but the fact is that the most important thing we can do is keep the pressure off. obviously they cooperate with us in some areas. there are other areas where we have disagreements.

very frankly, terrorism is as much a threat to them as it is for us, and we keep telling them, you can't choose among terrorists f. you're against terrorism, you have to be against all forms of terrorism. that's something we just have to continue to stress. >> i want to ask about libya. fighting continues in a few places. how much longer will the u.s. continue to participate in the nato operation, and do you see this as a template for future international missions? >> well, i think generally our view is that this mission went well, that the role that nato performed there was the right one, and obviously nato will continue to provide whatever assistance it can as it winds up. i mean, i think this is -- clearly the opposition has made

significant progress there. there are still some elements of the regime that are out there that they're continuing to work on. and as to what future role is involved with nato, that's something that we're going to be discussing with nato as we see events unfold in libya. as a matter of fact, i've already begun some of those discussions with my nato partners to try to decide what should be the next steps. >> if he could just one quick comment on that, i met with nato over this weekend, and consistent with what the secretary said and where the mission is, but also a number of them went out of their way to thank the united states for the support, tone able them to be able to succeed to this point. i mean, we led it early. the decision was made to put us in a support role that was clearly critical. and we're a part of nato.

it's a critical alliance, has been, is, and will be for the future. >> there are reports that the state department is planning to hire 8,000 security contractors in iraq if the pentagon pulls out all its forces by the end of the year or leaves behind a small training mission. admiral mullen, are you concerned about the size of the force, that there are discussions of being left behind in iraq? will it be too small, and secretary panetta, is it wise at a time to pull so many troops out of iraq and then have to rely on extensive contractors? >> well, let me just preface this, and i'll yield to mike. it's important to understand that we are now in negotiations with the iraqis as to what they need. general austin, the ambassador

jeffries, both of them are in very serious negotiations with them. we're listening to their needs and concerns. we're listening to what they think they have to have in order to provide security in that country. and so those are ongoing discussions, and it's premature to determine what the size of the force would be or if there will be any force at that time, because it's all dependent on the negotiations with the iraqis. having said that, one of the concerns we always have is the importance of providing adequate security, and i think that will be one of the issues that will be involved in these negotiations. >> i thought the secretary answered that really well. we're in the middle of negotiations right now, so the specifics are just -- whatever you hear, the specifics are just not determined, and i think it's important -- again,

i've been through this once, so for someone to say this is how the negotiations are going to come out, there is no one that can say that right now, because it is a hard process to take into consideration. obviously how the iraqis see their needs in the future, what they want their relationship with us to be, and then the specifics for both the state department and the defense department are going to be worked out as inside that negotiation. we're not there yet. >> are you concerned -- >> again, i -- we've looked at what the potential future missions could be. we've analyzed this well. i think it's going to be. in the end, if there's any, and i don't know that there will be . it will be focused and very well supported from a mission standpoint. >> i wonder if you could comment on the $1.1 trillion in

the war reduction savings that the president announced. $1.1 trillion? >> yes. >> gordon adams, who worked for you at o.m.b., he's called these savings phony, and his argument is that their measured against the c.b.o. baseline that doesn't include true war costs for the future, which are unknown. instead, it has like a mechanical plug in there, just a rough crude estimate of what it might be or might not be in the future. >> you're talking about the president's recommendations to the supercommittee? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i mean, the recommendations that are there, our people did discuss with o.m.b. at least some of the general areas that were included, and we were supportive of including those elements. and i guess with regards to the numbers, my experience having worked on budget issues is that there are always disputes

between o.m.b. and c.b.o. with regards to scoring, and there are going to be people that throw out different numbers in terms of the savings based on whatever baseline you're using. but i would say this, that if those recommendations are, in fact, implemented by the supercommittee, i think there would be significant savings, and it's important to remember, as i've been stressing time and time again, that that committee has to focus on that part of the budget, that 2/3 of the federal budget, which up to this point has not been addressed in dealing with the deficit, in dealing with deficit reduction, and that's mandatory. those are areas that do have to be included, the president has made recommendations. i hope the supercommittee will take those recommendations and build on them and include hopefully revenues as part of that package. >> you have said that you believe it's your role to make the case to congress about why the sequester cuts are so dangerous, but there's a common

understanding that even if the supercommittee comes up with a deal, doesn't fail, that the cuts aren't triggered, that committee could be cutting a couple hundred billion dollars more out of the defense budget. could you talk about how involved you are in making this case directly to the supercommittee. are you talking with them directly, and how are you making the case? >> i've gone up to the hill, i've met with members. i've made clear that what we're doing with the $450 billion-plus that we now have to do will involve some very tough decisions. but i think that we can implement that in a way that gives us the best defense system in the world and that allows us to be able to defend this country and deal with the threats that are out there. but if additional cuts are added on top of that, either by virtue of sequester or by the supercommittee or by anybody else, then they're going to do

serious damage to our ability to be able to make the kind of changes in our defense structure that are responsible and that do protect this country for the future. so, my message is that defense is taking, you know, more than its share of the cuts. we're doing in excess of $450 billion in reductions. we need to have the opportunity to implement that in a responsible way. and if you're serious about dealing with the deficit, don't go back to the discretionary accounts. pay attention to the 2/3 of the federal budget that is in large measure responsible for the size of the debt that we're dealing with. >> with nato mission, the

mission coming in the coming weeks, do the u.s. consider sending it on the ground in libya, or does it remain a policy -- >> the only personnel we have on the ground are trying to assist the state department. we've deployed four individuals that have been there to analyze that situation. i think we did it about a week ago, and within the last few days, we've deployed another 12 to try to provide additional assistance to try to help in hopefully opening the embassy within the next few weeks. but that's it. we have not and do not intend to put any combat forces on the ground. >> thank you, mr. secretary. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> a few live events to tell you about today. over on c-span3, this morning we're covering speeches at the u.n. general assembly beginning at 9:00 eastern, including remarks from president obama. at 10:00 eastern, the house committee on natural resources holds a hearing on job creation and energy development in alaska's arctic national wildlife refuge. and this afternoon, the chairman of google, eric schmidt, testifies before the senate judiciary antitrust subcommittee, which is investigating google's business practices. you can see live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern.

that's all on c-span3. >> william jennings bryan, one of the best-known speakers of his time and the first politician to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles, he ran for president three times and lost, but he changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders," live from fairview, the bryan home in lincoln, nebraska, friday at 8:00 eastern. learn more about this series and our upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal" is coming up next. week take your calls, emails, and tweets. the house will gavel in in three hours for general speeches. at noon eastern, they'll debate extending the temporary assistance for needy families program. live house coverage on c-span. and coming up this hour, an and coming up this hour, an update on