to facilitate the environment where space rokets like the nasa general motors robot will provide new technologies for robot systems that create a human-like presence in space through telepresence control systems.r2, believe it aeronauts currently aboard the rss. it is doing normal tasks that used to be done by astronauts. we deal task like running a vacuum cleaner and doing other medial things. it is easy to forget that all the dollars we spend to get to space are right here on earth. that may seem obvious, but when you're talking about spacecraft hurtling millions of miles away into the solar system or even hundreds of miles above us, we must remember it is people, people who designed and operate them. people are currently orbiting on

the i.s.s. and have done for more than 11 years without interruption. there has always been at least one american crew member. many of the technologies we develop to explore how big impact to quality of life across the globe. one of the most tangible ways we impact people's lives on a daily basis is an aeronautics. nasa continues to lay the foundation for the future of flight by exploring new ways to manage air-traffic, build more fuel-efficient and in our monthly friendly airlines and outstanding safety record. -- environmentally friendly airlines and outstanding safety record, improving the quality of life for everyone, providing new high-quality and engineering

job at -- opportunities and in maybelline the united states to remain competitive in the global economy. we are interested in the aircraft of the future, too. through our green flight challenge we recently awarded a prize for an electric plane demonstration. nasa has afforded development of the next generation of air transportation system in partnership with department of defense, federal aviation of the station through the joint planning and development office. secure network centers operations are a key emphasis of next gen. this means improved and increased network communications among the various peoples in machines, aircraft and computers involved in the air transportation system.

autonomy will also play a much greater role in next gen. there is an increasing need to fly in uas in the air space system. emergency management and science and to enable commercial applications. nasa is working with the same partners, d.h. us, dod, and faa to operate -- ironed out operational issues. -- dhs, dod, and the faa to al iron out operational issues. completed development with other members of a national research and development road

map for access to our national air space. this road map highlighted the joint partnerships ongoing activities and coordination, and is helping to set the course for needed future investments across the community. the long-term research will further unable the dod and uhs to operate air space for national security missions and enhance the technology available in the marketplace. another significant way that nasa contributes to national security is through its partnership with defense department and other space agencies around the world to track orbital debris in monitor space weather, such as solar flares. and knowing what is in space and what is going on is critical to the department of defense. the ability to monitor systems and understand potential threats to these systems is a growing area of concern to the national

security community. and nasa's experience with ground and space-based systems has the potential to assist our of defense in its growing mission area. nasa's investment in improved sensors, a broader area coverage and finer central coverage are some of the activities that have potential benefits. our orbital degree program office of the johnson space center in houston has been working for 30 years to ensure we are safe in space and on the ground. and nasa is playing a leading role in this effort for the entire government. the u.s. strategic command attracts about 22,000 major pieces of space debris and updates the status every eight hours in relation to the international space station, but nasa is aware of more than 1 million smaller pieces of debris. some of these articles only weak can see with their telescopes and other monitoring equipment,

and only we can characterize their environment and potential impacts. the collision several years ago shows that space is not as big as we once thought. the number of jackson's base is growing, and we need to improve our catalog and tracking ability. so far we have been doing a pretty good job with the enormous quantity of data, but it is not just risk to the i.s.s. but we have had to do avoidance measures with some of our satellites. last year one of our satellites in orbit as well. given these contribute to our health and well-being in many ways from continuity of data to rapid information about natural disasters, that most definitely qualifies as national security. when i first launched the space of the cold war was in its waning years, but most of the space program was defined by the

parent. i'm proud to say i commanded our first joint shuttle mission up with a russian crew member. that vision with -- that mission stands among many milestones in space history and was a precursor to perhaps the crowning achievement of international cooperation of all time, the construction and operation of the international space station by 16 nations, demonstrating the potential for space to unite as of the world. something more important today than ever. if everyone could see the world from space, see how it is one planet without political borders, serene in its unity, perhaps there would be less conflict. while we are working on greater access to space, we are pursuing a path of big missions in big projects that the man cooperation across our own government agencies here at

home and among nations. because any missions to mars or similar venture will take the expertise, passion, and the resources of more than one nation. i am the eternal optimist, but i am also a realist. we've been -- we need to remain the leader in space missions. this will only strengthen our position as the world's space exploration leader. any security without growth in jobs is tenuous. as president obama said in the state of the union address, we will have to create an america built to last. there is no doubt as to create good jobs, helps inspire the next generation of science acknowledge -- technology leaders, and gives students hands-on missions in robotic design and and the other missions they can get anywhere

else. -- and many other missions they cannot get anywhere else. we also place a high priority on hiring veterans when they returned from service. nasa is of great fit for them. they have been flying planes in analyzing data up are ready. they know a lot about our nation's security needs, and we will need their skills to help us reach new heights in the decades to come. we want them to translate what they already done on the front lines of combat and military service to the front lines of creating a bright future for our nation's space program. the technological benefits from an expense of 21st century space exploration program will be considerable, but that space exploration program also have as a human face. it is all of you here today, as well as the venue -- brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives for human potential.

it is those that dedicate their lives and passions to keeping a safe and make life better through space. they are the new astronaut class we just graduated this past november who will be the first to climb aboard the commercial rockets, and perhaps the first mars. firsoot on they are my granddaughters who would just spoke to last week at morgan state university who are passionate about science, technology, space, and aviation. they want to make the world a better place. it is up to us to pave the way for them and keep their dreams alive. i am optimistic about their future, and i hope you share my passion and enthusiasm. thank you for allowing me to be with you, and i hope we will have time to answer your questions. [applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we already have a few questions. if you have others, will you please pass them down the aisle and the sergeant of arms will collect them. first, i used to be a reporter. i wonder if you could comment on the possible politicization of space. we have a candidate for president use space as part of this campaign platform and said we would even colonize the moon. >> i am very glad to see any political candidates mentioned space in their campaign speeches, because it puts this important area in front of the

american public. and what our responsibility is to talk about what is realistic, what is on the horizon and the like. i think the road or passive president and congress and the 2010 authorization act have set us on is pretty much in keeping with what you have heard all the candidates talk about, with some limitations. if you have other questions, just bring them on up. there has been voiced some concern about the state of u.s. education. you touched on your training as an electrical engineer. that somehow we are getting behind in science and technology, engineering, and laugh, which could have implications-- and math, which could have implications on the space program. >> nasa shares that concern. we are not the department of

education, but we have more content that is available with any other federal agency. we can put a student in front of a tv and let them talk to astronauts on the international space station orbiting earth 250 miles away in the day of the week. there are so many things we can do to try to inspire kids to get interested in science, math, technology. that is what we generally do. we have a program that is called summer of innovation that we introduced a couple of years ago. it is focused on middle school students and their teachers. nasa recognizes we have to start somewhere earlier than high school. high school is too late. and we focus on middle school and their teachers. we want them to become familiar enough with science and engineering that they can tell their students that the engineer

is not the first guy and a train. it is a field of endeavor that designs, builds, dreams and makes the futures better for all of us. in will not be afraid to talk in front of a group of students and talk about science. >> you mentioned in your remarks the reliance of nasa and the space program on innovation and development in the private industrial sector. yet we are going through and now a prolonged recession that industry has been as much affected as the individual american citizen. has that retarded our development of the innovations that are necessary to continue space exploration? >> i would say not. if you look at the budget for this year, 2012, we were somewhat disappointed in the amount of money we got for the

commercial crew development program. we got a little bit less than half of what the president asked for. my job right now is to try to acquaint all of you with what we hope to do with commercial crew capability to get us off dependence on the russians, and make no mistake, they are and a credible partner and reliable partner, right now we have no redundancy and getting the crews to and from the international space station. that is not good. we need an american capability to do that. we will invest in the capability. we will provide the seed money. i mentioned several companies that are doing very well. i would encourage all of you to follow them. some of them are companies you know, boeing, lockheed martin, but there are some you may have never heard of. when i talk of sierra, nev., a

great military producer for decades, but not well known for their work in space. the founder ofbesos, amazon, who is building his capsule and says the first people to go are him and his son. there are various entities that are coming on. this year we will live for the first time, two capsules, dragon to carry cargo and hopefully have crew within the next three-five years. >> our space program was really born out of a perceived international threat. and we remember back in the 1950's was sputnik and launching the space race. now, potentially the only other

superpower adversary, china, is embarking on a space program, and your counterpart is the general officer in the chinese army. is that a threat? what are the defense implications of a potential space race? >> this may be controversial, and my director of communications will probably be sweating now, but i do not view the chinese as a threat in terms of space. they are very capable. they have a model that is on orbit right now that they will use as the first part of human- tended space station. they have a capsule but they used to carry cruise to orbit. hopefully everyone in here knows they have had three successful human missions. they have actually done a space walk. they have walked through the

gemini program. they have made it through the gemini program. they have rendezvoused and dr ocked. sometime this year they will fly another anunmanned operation. i do not look at them as a competitor as much as i do a potential partner for further development of humankind. we right now cannot work with them bilaterally because i am prohibited by law, but all of my international partners do. i am the internal -- he eternal optimist, but i am also a realist. we're the only ones not working with the chinese in terms of space development and the like. they are years behind this technologically puritan one of these days we will probably partner with them and advance the cause of human exploration, but we have to be careful as we

were with the soviets better now the russians. now the russians. >> the u.s. has been in the lead in terms of space programs. with the looming reductions in the defense budget, what are the implications on our space program and asset? >> i think the biggest implication for us right now, and we really try to coordinate among the department of defense, k security community and nasa, the biggest thing is the launch program. launch vehicles. all of us are about to be priced out of the market. one of the benefits we hope to bring from the introduction of commercial access to space is loring of -- at lowering of the

launch costs. so we are working together. we are all facing the same problems. it is a national security issue. we have to modernize our infrastructure because we were cooperative we all the time. we were talking about the work done at the kennedy space center. there's no place to enter the in the kennedy space center/cape canaveral word they work hand in hand and watching each other spacecraft, and that is national security. i am encouraged, but it to work with our launch and infrastructure. >> thank you very much. mementos for you. s for yowo good things come in small packages. thank you very much. [applause]

>> one of the robust programs of the reserve officers association is our ongoing defense education forums, which are capably led by robert fiedler. we are presenting upwards of 70 of these defense education forums per year, mostly in the national capital region, and most in our minuteman the building. we are bringing together the great minds, researchers, and policy makers in the think tanks

of washington, d.c., and the nation in our legislative branch, executive branch, and the defense establishment. one of our frequent faculty presenters, and one of the most espected, most quotes and analysts of michael defense, is michael o'higginannigan. he shares a ph.d. from princeton and international affairs -- in international affairs. senior fellow at brookings institution. he is a visiting lecturer at princeton, and i jumped professor at john hopkins and member of the international

institute for strategic studies. i present to you, michael o. hand when m'handlin. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. it is great to be with you. a little humbling to be following general patrice it was deployed to places like afghanistan, iraq and space and i deploy at a library. i will try to be brief and try to get a conversation going, because we of a number of big subjects. i am honored to be speaking before my good friend, who i know will get a very and for speech very important today. and with a generally supportive word about where the

administration is going, but a few questions and concerns. in the interest of conversation, i will focus on the latter. let me say how much of an honor it is to be with you. i know we have leaders from yesterday, today, and tomorrow in this group were so interested in our national security and do so much for it and sacrificed so much for it. as a civilian i can only humbly say how much i appreciate and admire what you do for our nation. think you for that great privilege. let me talk about where we stand with the defense budget. -- thank you for the great privilege. i think the administration is general the right on track for looking for savings for 400 billion-500 billion over the next decade. just for those of you that are not following the debate in excruciating detail as those of us that live inside the beltway, let me remind you of those reductions are in addition to the major savings expected as we

draw down forces from the wars. we are essentially out buof iraq and beginning the downsizing in afghanistan, which will be a slow process, which we will keep 10,000 forces in afghanistan even after 2014. in any event, the brought down has begun. we're down to about 90,000 troops after being out 100,000 last year. down to virtually zero in iraq after being as high as 170,000. we're getting savings from that. we're looking at close to half trillion dollars in savings as a result of the ad industry since new budget, which is really a result of law that the congress wrote because the last congress budget control act required as a down payment on deficit reduction that will cost of that magnitude. as you know, the possibility of sequestration could double the cuts, could add another 500

billion to the existing plan for reduction. in fact, current law requires it. sequestration, meaning an automatic cuts in the defense spending levels, is already the law of the land. it happened accidently, or i should say inadvertently not the desired fashion, but currently the law of the land, and therefore we have to worry for those of us but thinks it goes too far, that it may still happen. the administration budget and strategy that is being unveiled right now does not presume sequestration. there is a little bit of an oxymoron in a sense. the administration and president signed a law, which now as a result of the failure of the super committee mandates sequestration, and yet the administration is not planning on sequestration as a matter of current policy, or as a matter of the current budget submission to the congress that comes forth next month.

a little confusing for those of you that are falling in detail, but it is worth pointing out we're living in an ambiguous world. what i wanted to briefly today is explain why i think if the initial cuts, the 400 billion- 500 billion in cuts the administration is presuming in supporting our good idea. why sequestration, however, would be a bad idea. the thing i want to emphasize is the end of history should, i think, has not gone far enough in finding the savings. this is the main critical point i want to meet today in the spirit of provoking discussion. i think it will be on the minds of lawmakers and presidential candidates for the next few months, because what the administration has done, i believe, is to essentially understate, the way all administrations to, the real cost of the current defense

program. when it calculate savings, it is doing so from an unrealistically management point. therefore we're not making deep enough cuts to accomplish the budget targets that are in law. what this means, if i am right, and i've done my own independent calculations, and i do not claim to of done it perfectly accurately, but i learned in graduate school days with major patreus when we were taking classis together, and what i found is you actually have to go a little deeper and make somewhat more significant cutbacks to achieve the budget calls that are now in the budget control act, even without sequestration. you might say why bother making such a fuss about an accounting difference or arithmetic difference? the reason is right now the nation is willing to rethink the

question of defense strategy. we have a lot of people focused on it, and should make good use of this moment. if you make piecemeal after the fact year after year, you want of doing it in a < strategic way. i think all the administration has generally done a good job with new thinking, there are couple of areas that might need to go further. i just want to lay out a couple of those. i want to have most of the conversation with you in the remaining 25 minutes we have in this session. let me lay out the ideas that i think should be more central an administration strategy. i will finish with the role of the reserve components, especially in planning for future possible ground wars. as many of you know, the administration has proposed we no longer need to be ready for two simultaneously ground wars. that would be a change that has not previously been seen in 60

years of american defense policy. ever since peraea we have been planning for the least two at a time. -- ever since korea, we have been planning for at least two at a time. since the cold war ended, we typically focus on north korea and iraq. north korea remains a problem and a rock is still a problem in other ways, but i would submit things have changed enough in iraq and a broader middle east that the administration is correct to change our constructs from two simultaneously ground wars, plus the ability to wrap up quickly if need be. i am not sure they've gone far enough to change to construct as a result. i want to talk about the navy to

begin. you can consider this equal opportunity or equal of kindness on my part towards each service. the navy, an amazing service like all of our military services. doing amazing things around the world. escaped unscathed in this budget process. the only changes to the navy shipbuilding process are delays. nothing major in terms of any program being fundamentally change. i worry this is not provocative enough. i think the navy has one big idea that it should consider, and i know a lot of you have thought about this and can give me many reasons why it is hard. i understand why it is hard, but i still think it is time for c- swap. that means two crews a share a

deployment. up until now in many of you have been involved one way or another in this, the navy has always kept one crew with one ship. the crew is formed at the beginning of a tour. it trains up an american -- trains in american waters. starts doing longer training missions in south america or summer off the coast of north america, and finally sets off on a six-month deployment typically to the gulf or in the old days more the mediterranean pyramid then it comes back so sailors are never away more than six months at a time. that is the way the navy likes to operate. unfortunately i think this wastes a lot of time in transit. we do exercise with allies, but for the most part it is a lot of steaming time that is fairly and productive. when you do the math, and this is not my princeton map, the need five orh, they

six fleets in the ship to keep one on station. that is not a ratio we should be tolerated. not a ratio that is good enough for the fiscal times in which we live. we are deploring billion dollars spaceships with this fairly efficient way of using them. i think it is time to stop wasting the month in transit each way. i am not proposing this for the aircraft carrier fleet with 5000 people on a ship, but the combatants that typically a 300 people on ships, i think it is time we start flying the crew, which has trained on one shift in u.s. waters, to meet up with the ship over in japan or some or else on the other side of the world, and the crew swap. you may have a small crew that stays on to help with the transition, but if you look of the analysis of the navy's own think tanks, this kid to 35%

commission to pass-- this gives you 35% more visibility per ship. for all the talk of china, it cannot lead a multinational coalition or alliance system. we have 65 allies in the world like to work with us. the chinese basically have north korea. there is a reason for this. we have an open political system, and we have decades of experience working with our allies. even when they disagree with us, as they often do, they feel they can disagree in an open and transparent way, and basically trust our intentions. i hope the chinese will get there. i am hopeful person about the chinese trajectory as well. but they are not there yet. no one can help sustained

international stability that we all depend on except the united states. we are a wounded giant. we have to get better. we have to reduce our the opposite. defense needs to play a role, and we have to seize the moment to think of clever and creative ways for the pentagon to contribute. another idea. i will go quickly with apologies. if i'm going to quickly, you can come after me and discussion. i will give you one more thought, and the national guard reserve component in the to-war capability question i mentioned before. let me talk about nuclear forces. nuclear forces are still very important to america's security. i think we have to be careful about keeping our arsenal reliable, safe, dependable and on parity with russia. while i do not think the united states and russia will be adversaries and do not need to worry too much about the details of our single-integrated operational plan, a big war plan

for fighting the russians, i do not think the details matter very much. i do think we want to avoid giving mr. putin and in the russian nationalists,ther we want to avoid giving them any hint we are succeeding to them. and i am not suggesting we get in their face and expand nato again, but i do believe on nuclear forces we have to be careful about not drawing down unilaterally, and we the arsenal to be safe and reliable. however, even if you promise those basic qualities, you can save a lot of money, i believe, by doing things differently. i did not think it matters that much each and every detail of our war-fighting plan, integration of war plan. we can be a little bit more relaxed about these things that we used to be.

instead of distributing warheads under the new start treaty across the 14 platforms, i would reduce down to eight ships. they have the capacity. they were designed to midinette foreheads to meet our new start ceilings, even with just eight chips. that is an example of how i think we could save money. and frankly we could have a good debate about eliminating the force. i am not sure we should do it, but the kind of debate we should be having. the obama strategy and budget documents are a little bit careful on this issue, however. i understand why they are careful. they are responsible for the nation's security of the time of war. republicans are already criticizing them even for the more limited cutbacks ever been proposed. nonetheless, it is a moment we need to shake things up a little bit, because if we do not get

the deficit in shape we will not be a great power in 10-20 years. now let me come back to the 1-le issue of the 2-war vs war capability. i am talking about land wars. most of our concerns in those regions are now centered around iran. with china and the western pacific on the other. they are not primarily scenarios that would involve large-scale combat operations. threats have shifted in their nature from what they used to be, which is part of why i am in favor from shifting from a to- land war capability to a 1-4 capability. if you're going to do the one land war, you have to be careful to make sure you have more than enough capability to do it

right, because you can no longer rely on the second package for the second hypothetical war to beat up your first mission if things go wrong. you better get yourself an added margin of insurance. you also better assume you will be involved in smaller operations around the world in places where even if we're tired of stabilization missions, we may need to do them whether we like it or not. still, and the difficult, demanding pro long way. i can imagine scenarios where we stay in afghanistan with 20 to thousand -- 20,000 troops until 2020. i can imagine a scenario where we end up in syria trying to defend that innocent civilians that the president is slaughtering. i can't imagine that a mission in yemen for a somewhat similar purpose. -- i can imagine a mission in

yemen for somewhat similar purpose. this is a trend we have to be nervous about and careful about. i am not suggesting we jump on the bandwagon and declare the era of land warfare over. i am talking about a more marginal shift. even if we go from to land wars to one land war at a time, we need to do several additional things. i am taking them off to quickly finish in and look forward to your questions. one, we have to have the simultaneously capability for the smaller missions i just mentioned that would typically be part of stabilization operations, not a major ground war's person appeared in we better assume they could occur. i favor a 1 + 2 framework for sizing the ground forces. one all-out war, two

stabilization missions. i admit it is somewhat arbitrary to say two vs one or three. based on recent history it seems a prudent basis for planning, and i think each one of the stabilization missions could involve american for grades over an extended amount of time. and we have all learned the hard way. or maybe have had to deal with the fact that the rest of us did not anticipate well enough that these missions take a long time to finish once they get going. we need a force capability to handle several grades of employment. so caveat no. 1, a condition number-one, be ready for other missions. condition no. 2, you better be able to ramp up fast. if one war begins, you have to start to ramp up the rest of

your forces right away. you do not wait and hope for the best. you start to ramp up capability so no other would-be aggressors around the world sees an opportunity at that moment. demobilize part of the national guard's abocapability. not because there is an the other acute concern at the moment, but because you want to send a message. then you also start increasing the size of the active army and marine corps at that moment. if you do those things come in here is where i will finish, i think we can go to a somewhat smaller active army and marine corps than the army -- than the current administration has intended. i think these numbers are at one level reasonable, but are a little bit too high for what i thought necessary to meet the budget targets, and higher than

what i thought they really need to be if we make use of the reserve component while recognizing more of the threats have shifted to the maritime area, the persian gulf and western pacific, not so much to the sands, because for better or worse, iraq and other major countries are unlikely to drag us into major ground wars. by making use of the institutions you represent and have served within and in body and can tell as so much about, i think we can make greater use of this asset and the way the director was discussing we have learned how we can do in the past decade and really shape a total force package with little byless reliant on the reserve -a little more reliance on the reserve, and we have so far. these would be reasonable members, as long as we recognize the great asset we have and all

of you. we should not be pulling you out of your communities and the existing come on it should not be pulling people out of communities, lives frequently. we need to do this in a careful way, but i think looking at the full range of threats to the country, including the threat of the debt, that it makes sense to try to use the portfolio of active reserve in a way that favors the reserve components a little more than we have so far. with that, i look forward to your comments and questions. thank you. [applause] >> typically provocative. [laughter] again, please if you have questions, passed on to the center of the aisle. our sergeant of arms will collect them. he will hand them up to me. i see a stock already building appeared and i will kick things off.

this may be down in the weeds a little bit. you are ready picked on and maybe a little bit. -- on the navy a little bit. why do we need big deck carriers when we are currently embarked on the most expensive defense acquisition program with the f- 35 and the short takeoff and landing capability is pretty close to the carrier and the air force very end. those on small deck ships, why do any carrier task groups? >> it is a great question. i think over the long-term, and i am delighted to see so many young people here, i think over your lifetime we will have debates on whether the carrier is something to invest in. it continues to be dominant through the capabilities of adversaries we seek. by the way, if we wind up an

operations in those places, allied land access is sometimes limited in terms of where we can operate f-35a's. in terms of the f-35b, i think the problem is it is not so clear you really have a greater cost efficiency operating off of an amphibious. it costs a couple of billion dollars. you can put a couple dozen aircraft carrier on it. cost 6 billionke come and that number is growing with the next generation. in any event, roughly three times as many airplanes per ship, roughly three times the cost. i am not sure you change the cost calculus that much by talking about f-35b's on amphibious ships verses those on

traditional big carriers. where i do think there are ways to save more is using the amphibious ships in the mediterranean. i do not think we need to have larger decked ships doing much in the mediterranean anymore. the threats there are not great enough to warrant the capabilities brought by a big flat deck. >> ok. you mentioned the ramp up of capabilities in the use of the reserve force for the ramp up as all holding capability. what are the implications for the size, training, and the equipping and the laws that enable mobilization on the reserve force? >> i think there are number of things we would have to do to make sure we do not reserve, as

a way of force planning. i think as a legacy -- legal policy framework we have learned a lot of the past couple of years. you have dealt with the difficulty. the real challenge is the human transition of figuring out how you make like compatible with part of the reserve, it. i know there have been huge ships and how the reserve component things about service -- huge shifts in how the reserve components recruits and thinks about service. there are some things that have to be addressed, but if you have a big war that begins, you will have some sort of congressional resolution to authorize that, and that resolution simply needs to repeat the legal language to deal with the legal language. the hard part it's the human

side, and that is up to you. you have shown us how to do it. i think we're capable of doing that again if we need to. >> in the coming budget cuts, should our cuts to incentive programs and benefits like health care and retirement for reserve force be on the table? >> i think the answer has to be yes, and in fact i have been gratified to see many people in the military acknowledging the answer needs to be yes. i think you need to have an important voice in this. i think we need to find an important balance how we maintain our sacred vow as a nation with an all-volunteer military, and even in cases where some of you were not necessarily volunteers when you joined, you still risk your lives on behalf of the nation. we still owe you a huge debt of gratitude. we have to make changes

gradually. we have to make sure we do not cut across the board in all benefits. we have to think hard about people who have been affected by the war's the most, when the warriors, families, and survivors. i think it is time for a reallocation of the benefits towards the number military personnel who do one or two tours and are out, and for whom the benefits have not been accruing. i think we can save money by doing better for the younger generation and do it in a gradual enough way that does not adversely affect people have been counting on the benefits. one last word on this, even on rethinking military pensions, health care, it is a little troubling to me we are getting this whole locomotive going full steam, while we have not yet found a way to talk about broader so secured a reform --

broader social security reform and the nation at large -- [applause] >> we need to ask everyone for collective sacrifice. it does not make sense to ask those who have served to focus on the other 90 percent said you have not served. [applause] >> south america, central america have not been center on the defense establishments scope over time, but we have it as the nexus of narcoterrorism. we have a continent-wide populism movement that is changing governments. hugo chavez is rumored to be on the last years of his life. what you see as the implications for this hemisphere and our

national defense? >> it is a great question. >> and homeland security. >> i think an answer needs to touch on all of that. i will have to be brief and not as comprehensive as i should be. i will begin by saying there is a lot of great stuff going on in latin america that we need to be grateful for at the same time we're troubled by the violence and drug wars. we've seen an incredible wave of democratization. in many ways you could see it was the main precursor to the era of revolutions or the weakening skier seeing right now. the number of countries that went democratic in the early 1980's and 1990's is astounding. this is extremely good news. we've seen a couple of the democracies, like columbia, really get on the ball and figure out how to use democratic process to find leaders who could make a meaningful difference in the violence.

we also seen it -- i think president obama, one of his more significant of talks -- accomplishments has been to ignore it. at the first meeting he was thought to of smiled too much and some thought not enough. he shook the guy's hand and not spoken of him since. it was a good way to handle chavez, who in one way or another is on his way out. he is a message that is broken. his country is not doing well. and as one of the highest violence rates in the country. he will fade away. on that issue i am not worried about him. we still have big problems in mexico. they're having vigorous democratic debate. they did things with the overall approach toward the drug war under current leadership that in

many ways mimics what general pretorius did in iraq and afghanistan. i think we have to be analytical and how we think about what is needed next. the mexicans will make the decision, but one thing we have to think about in this country is what can we do to help the mexicans by way of reasonable gun control measures? i am not talking about taking guns out of the hands of law- abiding americans. i'm talking about tracking the skills of semi-automatic weapons much more effectively than we do today. those account for 80% of the violence in mexico. we owe our southern neighbor a little more debts of obligation to thing about the ways to contribute to the problems. >> the one country that has not been mentioned in the first two hours of the symposium is perhaps our most apparent threats and adversary in

potential nuclear power, and that is iran. how does iran figure into your talking was of the national security? >> it figures in initially and i do not believe we can talk to much about of of pivoting or rebalancing to east asia. the administration has done a good job and reminding allies we are there and committed. we will not cut. i have doubts about the current plan that we can talk about again some other day, but in broad terms it is correct we should not be cutting the overall capabilities in the western pacific, but at the same time you cannot push that too far. whether you want to get out of the middle east or not, it drags you back. it always does. for the most part the world still has a dependency on the middle east in terms of oil and gas, stopping non-proliferation,

and it in my wounded giant book, i think we have to view the persian gulf as well as the broader middle east and the western pacific as equally important theaters a future military focus. there are a lot of ways we could talk about the specifics of where the crisis may go in the next few months. i will leave that to other speakers and other sessions, realizing we do not have much time right now, but as a matter of defense planning we cannot and must not understate the centrality of the persian gulf. the rebalancing to asia has been good up to a point, because it reminded countries in the region that this country as a -- is as important as any other, but it has a lot of positive going on for it right now that makes it important to stay involved. the middle east, while it has positive things, too, has problems like iran that make it

impossible to ignore and has to be an equally of form focus of defense planning as the western pacific in the coming decade. >> thank you very much for these provocative comments on the defense establishment. [applause] we have a couple of guests for you. gifts for you. one is a coin and a gift we hope you use going forward and continue to be our consciousness in the great establishment. >> thank you. thank you all. [applause] >> the head of the consumer financial protection bureau will testify at the senate banking committee this morning. he was given a recess appointment by president obama

and could face questions about the appointment. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. florida presidential primary voters go to the polls today. we will have live coverage of the results, including kennedy speeches and your phone calls. our live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. -- we will have live coverage of the results, including canada speeches and your phone calls. >> think about that, if the imf is right, the guy you elect next november will be the last president of the united states to preside over the world's leading economy. steyn writes that happier warrior column for the national review and a frequent

guest on rush limbaugh's radio show. your chance to call and tweet on cspan2 on "book tv." >> up next, today's news and the latest on florida's primary live on "washington journal." this morning the director of national intelligence, david a national fbi director will talk about security. today, the house will debate repealing a long-term program that was part of repealing the health care bill. the house is in at noon eastern. legislative work begins at 2:00. in about 45 minutes, we will talk with florida republican political strategists, chilly bradshaw, about her state's primary.