currently planned at 2,443 aircraft and right at the new defense strategy and budget, the joint strike fighter program is looking at being restructured which may include fewer aircraft spread out over a longer time frame. according to deputy secretary of defense carter, the department will slow its approach to full rate production of aircraft. what do -- to we have a projected time line to complete the necessary testing and implementation of developmental changes in order to start buying air in higher quantities? how is the department conveying this to the defense industrial base which senator collins was talking about? .

>> my time for questions is over, but i did want to emphasize that i think it's critically important that the

department continue to invest in science and technology programs and the research and development initiatives. these are the seeds that we need to plant and nurture in order to ensure that our military remains the best and most technologically advanced in the world, especially when dealing with the emerging threats and i just don't think we can emphasize enough the need for research and development. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hagan. snor cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, you have my respect and admiration. you also have a very difficult job which we talked a little bit about. but let me start with a quote from the director of national intelligence, james clapper, who two weeks ago said never has there been in my 49-year career in intelligence a more complex and interdependent array of challenges that we face today. technological -- technologies

that can trigger transnational disruptions with astonishing speed that we've seen. and i doubt you'd disagree with his comments. i don't know anybody who would. but this -- the challenge i think we are all struggling with, and senator lieberman, among others, have expressed this is our heart-felt desire to have the mission determine the budget and not the budget, the mission. and you, of course, are constrained by law that congress passes, that the president signs, and so we realize this is our responsibility and your responsibility to try to minimize risks and to maximize our national security given the money appropriated by congress. but i -- and i appreciate, general dempsey, looking beyond the budget window about long-term risk but let me talk about near tevk risk and

something that's been alluded to here and that is we made statements, secretary panetta, you and others there are certain red lines with regard to iran, blockading the straits of hormuz, building a nuclear weapon. this is important to us, it's important to region and but it's a threat to israel, our ally. i don't believe they are going to wait on anyone else determining what determines their right to continue to exist and their people's security. so if iran is hit by israel, which, of course, iran's already been killing americans in afghanistan and iraq and a low-grade war in the united states. what sort of retaliation would you anticipate not only israel

but other countries in the region and american personnel in the middle east? >> the general suggests that we ought to look at a close session to really address all of the implications of what may or may not mean. obviously we are very concerned about it. we are looking at all of the implications and consequences that could result, but it really involves intelligence and we should do that in closed session. >> well, i respect your judgment on that, secretary panetta and general dempsey and i look to further briefing on that. but it strikes me at a time when we are already -- i know we are not calling it. we're not saying we are cashing the peace dividend but we are certainly making disproportionate cuts to the department of defense and our national security expenditures

when my view is that this is the number one responsibility the federal government has. a lot of other things that we do we could put off or do without, but this is it. this is the most important thing that the federal government does, and there are very real, not long term but near-term potentialalitys that could embroil not only the united states but middle east and our allies in a full fledge war that would have dire economic consequences to our country and obviously to our allies, more than economic matter of life and death and existence. >> senator, without getting into the particulars, let me just assure you that we have very strong capabilities in place to deal with any circumstances that could develop in that region. we feel fully prepared for

whatever might take place. >> and i'm sure that would entail -- i'm confident you've done everything that you know how to do to prepare and our military and defense department has. it will not be without cost. it will not be without casualties. it will not be without serious consequences is my only point. and so it troubles me at a time when our national security apparatus is asked to do nor with less in a world that's getting more dangerous, not less dangerous, that we have a budget that unfortunately i think engages in the -- i guess the most charitable words i can use is phantom savings, phantom savings. some may call it budgetary gimmicks and the like. the so-called trillion dollars in savings from a drawdown in brations in havings and iraq that are not currently planned,

which have been funded on borrowed -- by borrowed money in the past 10 years and which really represent -- well, here's one headline in "the national journal." it says "pentagon revives war-spending voodoo." i think phantom savings is the most charitable thing i've seen. but it strikes me as extraordinarily dangerous at a time when the risk is deadly serious to have a budget proposal that makes a trillion dollars in savings on expenditures which we never anticipated spending in the first place. at the same time i grant you, we don't know what the risks will be in the future. let me close on this item. it's a little more concrete. it appears from my reading of the budget that there is a decrease of about 50% in the budget for training and equipping of afghan security

forces from 2012 to 2013. i'd like first i guess a confirmation that my reading is correct and, number two, mr. hale is nodding that it is secret. i'd ask you if in fact our withdrawal from afghanistan is conditioned on the ability of the afghans to defend themselves and maintain stability there, how is a cutting of the budget by 50% from 2012 to 2013 consistent with that? >> i'll take that one, senator. the afghan security forces was fund -- was front loaded when we had to develop a lot of their infrastructure. we front loaded the purchase a lot of their equipment. what you're seeing in this budget is most of the capital investments in our terms have been made in the previous years. so the reduction is a reflection that we have what we need and most of the fund now

is for replenishment and training and operations. but the simple answer to your question is we front loaded the investments in the capital investments. >> if the chairman will permit me, in terms of the size of the force and capability, do you see that getting larger or maintaining the status quo? >> we are committed to building the afghan security forces out to 350,000, 195,000 which will be the army. that will be completed in the next 90 to 120 days. we have not yet decided how long we'll keep it at that size. that's a question we're looking at as we determine how we get from here to 14 and deliver the lisbon objectives. >> to follow-up on that. one of the things that was important in 2011 was not only were we able to reduce the level of violence and weaken

the taliban but one of the important things that took place is that the afghan army really stepped up and started taking over real responsibility in terms of security. and in the areas that we transitioned so far, and we are in the second traunch of those francingses, the afghan army is doing a very good job at taking over security. we just have to make sure we continue to freezing rain and we continue to make them capable to be able to take that responsibility. >> the chairman, could i respond to -- >> you can do it quickly, very quickly. >> i will. that "national journal" article is -- i don't ascribe to its conclusions because i've been so involved in the process. some of the changes we've made definitely will have an affect on that base budget. some those effects will be mitigated by oco. we've kind of papered over the problem. i don't accept that. the army in particular has 10,000 to 12,000

nondeemployable soldiers directly resulting from the repeated deployments and we're going to pay that bill out of o.c.o. because it is related to o.c.o. >> and we don't know what sort of unexpected challenges and threats our country will face in the future. >> we do not sir, and i accept that, but that's what contingency funds are for. >> thank you, senator cornyn. senator gillibrand followed by senator she houston. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general dempsey. thank you, mr. comptroller, as well. i understand you touched early on today on the value of the guard and reserves and how important their services have been serving shoulder to shoulder in afghanistan and iraq. with regard to your air national guard strategy -- about half the cuts have come out of the guard even though they only represent about a third of the costs, and i believe the joint chiefs did a

-- the vice chairman of the joint chiefs did a report talking about managing budget issues and actually made the point that guard and reserve provide capabilities at a lower cost than a nation relied solely on full-time forces. i have a question about the air national guard and specifically because of the assets that new york has. all of us have particular assets and strategies and resources in our states that we think would be important for our national security but one thing that a lot of our bases and assets have is this national guard and reserve component that has been so effective in both iraq and afghanistan. so i would like and urge you to look at that restructuring to see if there are cost savings to have air and national guard components, whether it's in niagara. those are importants a --

important assets. the cyber mission that we do. we do such an important mission for cybersecurity and cyberdefense in roam labs that has been vital in the cutting edge of technology and research and development. one thing i want to bring your attention to is what makes new york so good at doing some of this is the public-private partnerships that's developed with the private sector. a lot of the d.o.d. contracts have been by research scientists that have been across new york. we have the nanotech lab in albany. we have a lot of research and development that will complement the work that the military is doing. i understand that there will be interesting consolidations in cutting but you will lose that cinergy, that collaboration and clustering that's so important in the high-tech sector. i don't want you to

understatement how valuable that is for the military. and then last, just to speak to these particular assets in new york. we are 100% staffed, we have no environmental issues, we have a work force and communities that are so dedicated to the mission that the armed services have placed on these men and women that you will lose some of that enormous benefit to the extent you have to consolidate or restructure. we'd love to gain missions, with regard to air national guard training, with unmanned aircraft and with cyber. i want to give you that background. >> senator, just a couple things and then i'll yield to the general. on cyber, we are making investments of $3.4 billion and even more in the outyears because we think cyber is extremely important. so obviously partnering with the private sector is extremely important in being able to develop the technological

capability that we're going to need to have for the future. i think that's important to remember. second plea, with regards to the air reserve and i understand the concerns. the air force made the decisions. i mean, some of these planes in the past have come out of the active duty force and that's one of the reasons they tried to look for some of the reductions could be made based on the age of these planes as well as their capabilities. but they are trying to do whatever they can to mitigate against those, you know, what impact because we do need to depend on the reserve to be there. they've responded in dramatic fashion over these last few years every time we called upon them to come forward and take their place alongside other fighting men and women in the battlefield and they've done a great job. we want to be able to maintain that for the future. but that was the reason some of those cuts were made in some of

knows areas. >> the only thing i'd add. you mentioned cyber and i want to mention for the record we strongly support the lieberman-collins-rockefeller legislation dealing with to get us in the proper place in dealing with the cyber threat which is significant and growing and as well as the senator feinstein amendment to that legislation. i'd like to say that. i'd like to say one of your constituents and how about them giants. >> go giants. well, thank you, all, for your service. i wanted to make sure that there's nothing else you need in the cyber bill as well that you have reviewed it and it is providing the assets and resources you need to enhance your mission. >> i think -- i think the general is correct. the bill that i know is being put together by senator lieberman and others reflects all of the issues that we think are important to address so we'll continue to work,

however, with the senate and with the congress to make sure that if a bill does emerge it addresses our concerns about trying to make this country better prepared to deal with the cyber issues that i think are growing every day. >> and i would request you look at the legislation with an eye towards making sure you have all of the authorities you need to support this growing mission. and also the resources necessary to do adequate recruitment because obviously you want the strongest pipeline for cyberdefense we could create and the flexibility to bring in the talent that you're looking for. whether it's civilian talent or through the normal course, we want to make sure you have the flexibility and ability to recruit, freezing rain and keep the best and brightest to do that. and then last, if i have time, mr. chairman, a very separate issue but one i feel very strongly about that i'd --

you've already spoken to the issue of sexual assault in the military. and the ability of the military to respond effectively to those concerns, to allegations and to making sure we have the best fighting force we can have and that means we create the right protocols and ability for women to be able to report such incidents and to be heard on those issues. i'd like your comments on your views on that and i'd like to work with each of you on developing stronger protections for our men who are serving. >> senator, we look forward to working with you on this issue. you've provided great leadership on this issue, and it's an area that concern me greatly that the incidents of sexual assault have grown and frankly my concern is that we have got to be able to take action in these situations.

one of the keys, as you know, i announced a series of steps to try to improve our response to sexual assault. one of the most important things is to make sure that the command structure responds to these situations because the longer they take to respond, it inhibits the ability to bring a case and that's what's hurt us in being able to move aggressively in most of these cases. so we need to do a broad education effort to make sure that the command structure understands how important it is to respond in these situations. we also need a legislative package, and i'd like to work with you in trying to address the legislative needs that we're going to node in order to really be able to get this problem in croyle. >> thank you -- >> get this problem in control. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, secretary panetta, general dempsey, mr. hale for your demitment and -- commitment and your stamina.

we appreciate it. i want to begin actually where you began, mr. secretary, with congress must do everything possible to avoid sequestration because i certainly agree with that. i share the concerns. we've heard expressed from my colleagues and i am not going to ask you to respond to this but i would certainly hope that we in congress would do what you all have been willing to do and in a is to future everything on the table and put aside our posturing and come to some agreement that addresses the long-term debt and deficits of this country. it is inexcusable that we are in this position now with you and all of the men and women who are serving in defense and in our military and across the federal government, not knowing what we're going to do because we have been unable to act. i would like to go -- and my questioning, i'd like to start

with where senator gillibrand left off and that is with the guard and reserve and i was very pleased, mr. secretary, to see in your statement in a you talked about continuing the national guard and reserve that is equipped and ready. and i know that the decision to transition our guard and reserve units from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve required a significant investment and a change in strategy. so general dempsey, i wonder if you could speak to the original rational for that transition? >> well, i think it's important to roll back the tapes maybe all the way back to 1974 when coming out of the vietnam war there was no joint chiefs at the time but the service chiefs all realized in a one of the problems we had there in that conflict is we never really got the american people involved because it was born on the back of the active component with very little reliance on the guard and reserve. we built a structure that not

only allows for the utilization of the guard and reserve because it makes it absolutely necessary. so the question is not, will we use the guard and reserve because fully a third of the capabilities necessary at any given time rely on a guard and reserve. so we are committed to do it. and what we found in this conflict as we went forward is we relearned a lot of those and made significant investments and the guard and reserve have never been closer. now as we go forward, of course, and the demand goes down, and the budget goes down, that's going to put some strain on that relationship. you've seen some of that already. i can tell you each service has a plan in terms of the rotational readiness of its formations that they will include the guard and reserve in that rotation. so the entire guard will never be operational any more than the entire active component is

always operational. but i think you can feel secure we understand and work toward this goal in a rotational readiness cycle. >> i appreciate that. as we look forward this year, i know that air force is going to be making some initial decisions on where to base the new kc-46 tankers. i hope d.o.d. will look at least some of those aircraft are based at guard bases around the country. i have one particular in mind, but i'll let you draw your own conclusions. but can i ask you, is there commitment on the part of dodd to base some of those new tankers at guard facilities? >> i think the air force is looking at a whole set of options in order to make sure that we mitigate whatever cuts

have been made and make use of the facilities that are out there with the national guard and reserve. i can assure you they'll be in consideration. >> thank you. i appreciate that. and i would also like to go back to bracc, which a number of my colleagues have addressed and shared concerns that have been expressed. i know, secretary panetta, you said you've seen just about every side of the brac process. can you commit to providing us with a comprehensive assessment of the savings from the 2005 round and also to -- i assume if you're looking at 2013 and 2015, that you all have -- also have estimates of savings in those two rounds and that we would also see those as we're looking at a decision about what to do about the next brac round? >> i'll be happy to give you

what information we have with regards fought past brac rounds and -- to the past brac rounds and in regards to the future rounds. as i said, i've been through the process. frankly, i don't wish the process on anybody because it's tough. 25% of my local economy was hit because of a brac closure. we did use it as an opportunity to develop a college university campus there and it's been successful as part of reuse. it did cost a lot more than anybody anticipated but the fact is we are achieving in the long run significant savings as a result of that. that's number one. number two, i don't know of any other way to deal with the kind of infrastructure savings we got to achieve here as a result of reducing the force without going through that kind of process. that's the problem i have. it's the most effective way of trying to address that issue.

>> well, certainly in new hampshire we've seen both sides of the issue because the air force base was the first to close in the country. fortunately it's doing very well now. and the port and naval ship yard on the border of new hampshire and maine was actually removed from the last round by the commission because of their effectiveness and one concern i have as we look going forward, particularly with respect to our public shipyards is there's a real backlog of projects and -- that need to be done at those shipyards. obviously the portsmouth ship yard is not alone in that. and they have been producing i think very well despite that backlog. they just delivered the u.s.s. san juan attack submarine eight days ahead of schedule despite

some of the challenges with that. i hope that as senator collins and senator ayot and i had an amendment in last year's defense authorization bill that asked the department to produce a ship yard modernization plan to address these shortfalls. i hope that the department will take that very seriously and produce that because as we're looking at our security going forward, those public shipyards are a critical part of that. >> senator, as i stated before and i'll say again, we absolutely have to maintain the industrial base we have and the shipyards, shipyards in your area, the other shipyards we deal with are extremely important to our ability to respond to the needs that we have and so we're going to do everything possible to work with you, not only to increase obviously the competitive nature of trying to achieve

savings but to do what we can to provide those upgrades. >> thank you. a final question. a number of concerns we heard in a number of reports over recent years has been the challenge of attracting people with the backgrounds that we're going to need with science and math, the stem subjects, to be able to continue to do the jobs that are critical to our defense establishment. and i wonder if either you or general dempsey could address what strategy we have for trying to attract those young professionals when the private sector is attracting them with monetary awards. >> it's something initially i

shared the same concern. when i went out to n.s.a. and i look at the people involved in that area, not only at my past agency but other agencies as well, i have to tell you, we are attracting some very bright, capable young people to those jobs. and they're very interested, they're very capable. with the investment we're making in cyber, i'm absolutely convinced we will be able to attract the talent to be able to make that work. >> i think our challenge as a nation -- excuse me, general dempsey -- is to get enough young people engaged in those subjects so we're training the people we need. >> i think the service chiefs will have a view on this as well. it's actually exacerbated by the fact -- and i think you and i had this conversation -- one out of every four american young men and women can qualify to get into the military, either based on education or physical issues or issues of

making really stupid facebook posts in their youth or something. so we are all competing, you know, as we say, academia, corporate america and the military are all competing for the same 25% of the pop proliferation. so the answer's got to be get after education in this country as well it seems to me. >> i totally agree, and general dempsey, i was very disappointed to hear you mention the giants. you are fortunately that all the other new england members of this committee have gone. >> my condolences, ma'am. >> senator blumen thall. >> as a new englander, i interpreted your remark more as an expression of battlefield admiration than endorsement. i think you are still on fair ground. i want to thank all of you for your extraordinarily effective

and persuasive explanation of the president's budget and thank you for your patience in answering our questions so effectively. i want to begin by -- with a subject that the president certainly emphasized which is undersea warfare capability and the note of the flipping, postponing, delaying, whatever the correct term is, of a submarine construction, from 2014 to 2018. i have heard from both electric boat and indeed within the navy about the cost savings that can be realized if we stay on schedule and build two submarines every year. i wonder if there is a possibility for considering and perhaps your hearing our views on that issue, secretary panetta. >> look, this is all about

obviously having to reduce the budget by half a trillion dollars, we have to look really closely at affordability and cost efficiencies and if anybody comes forward with a better idea as to save money i am more than open to listen to it. >> i think we may come forward if you'd be willing to consider it. >> absolutely. >> i'd appreciate it. and let me go to what you have really very convincingly said is the military's greatest asset which is its people and you have been discussing to very movingly and very inspiringly most recently to senator shaheen talking about keeping faith and providing many of the men and women, war fighters who will be coming back from iraq and afghanistan with jobs and transition assistance which has been expanded under the most recent

legislation on veterans to be approved by this congress, an amendment that i offered in a separate bill. i want to focus on what can be done to aid those veterans before they leave the service to more effectively transition into civilian employment because as they come back, if they enter the guard or national reserve, to have an employment rate which is vastly higher as it is right now in connecticut, double the general rate in connecticut, 15.5% as compared to 8.2%, will simply be a profound deterrent to anyone going into the armed services. if that is going to be the kind of hurdle they face coming out of the service, it will defeat your best efforts to recruit the brightest and most capable. >> senator, this -- this is a

problem that i worry about a great deal and frankly it's one of the risks involved as we reduce the budget by this level is how to ensure that we take care of those that are returning. we already have a backlog and we're going to be pumping anywhere between 12,000 to 14,000 a year as we go through these drawdowns. i think it is extremely important that we be able to provide the services as they -- as these men and women come back to really be able to counsel them, gather them, to make sure they are aware of the job opportunities, to make sure they are aware of the education opportunities, to make sure they are aware of the funds available to help them transition, to be sure that their families are cared for as well as we make that transition. this has to be a packaged approach. each service now does it in their own way.

they do it pretty effectively, but i think we got to make very clear that nobody should fall through the cracks. >> i know the marine corps has been doing it more effectively. i talked to general amos. very, very effective work. i wonder if, and you may already be doing it, whether some servicewide approach, building on the best models and practices will be appropriate. >> we are looking at that. >> if i could add, senator. there are more initiatives on this issue than we have possibly have time to discuss. and as the secretary mentioned earlier, we are trying to team ever more closely with the veterans administration to do this. we are starting to take a view that transition begins when you enter the service, not in the last six weeks before you leave. but the other thing i want to mention here, this -- some of this can be legislated. some of this can be made as a matter of policy. these are some of the issues

that will be best solved from bottom up when corporate america reaches out to embrace the returning veterans. and by the way, a lot of them are. i can't tell you how many times i'll go to some conference or something and some tells me a new initiative to hire 10,000 veterans. i think it's a matter of emerging what can be done at the governmental level but what needs to be done at the grassroots level to help this out. >> i agree with you, general dempsey, that corporate america is stepping forward more often and more effectively, but i don't believe i'm telling you anything you haven't heard before in saying that there's still a lot of employers who looks at somebody who's in the national guard or reserve and who say, not explicit plea but think to themselves, this person's going to be gone for a year or more if he or she is deployed and better to hire someone i know i can count on the job without interruption.

that is a discrimination. it's illegal if it can be proved but it has to be surmounted as a matter of practice impolicity in some of the employers -- implicite in some of the employers. i believe we need more effective measures or enforcement to counterthat approach because it will -- counter that approach because it will undermine your best efforts, which i admire, to attract the best for the guard or reserve. perhaps we can work on some of the initiatives we don't have time to discuss here. just one last question. the i.e.d.'s that all too often are maiming and killing our war fighters, i wonder whether there are new initiatives there that perhaps we can discuss if not here at some other point because i've been interested in it and appreciated secretary

carter's very important work in accelerating delivery of the so-called biker shorts and the groin protective gear and also the work that i hope is being done to discourage the pakistanis from permitting the fertilizer and ammonium cal see up nitrate -- calcium nitrate going across the borders to make these roadside bombs. >> senator, i know your time is short on this round. our relations with pakistan, you know, have been somewhat challenged. they're improving. and this is one of the points of friction that we have to get out. >> i appreciate your answers to my questions. i want to associate my remarks made by senator gillibrand and your remarks about the problem of assault, sexual assault within the military, but also the issue of sue sides which we will not have time to discuss

today. perhaps i can follow-up with you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator manchin. >> admiral mullen sat there and the question was asked of him, what is the greatest threat the united states faces. i thought i'd hear some type of military response. whether it was al qaeda, whether it was north africa, china building up his military. he said the deficit and debt of this nation is the greatest security. and i know you all realize that and take it serious. i know we talked about it, secretary. i think in saying that, i am looking everywhere i can to cross over the aisle in a bipartisan way to find out how we can make this financial -- the wherewithals we have

financially but also get our financial house in order. and i know we talk about cutting back and i don't know anybody in here, democrat or republican, that does not support a strong military. but everybody's afraid of the political ramification if they say one thing. i can only say this to you. with the growth of the contractors in the military, when i looked at just a period of time, maybe 10 years, and the support of contractors -- and i'm not talking about the manufacturing base of contracting and i wanted to maybe mention, if you would, as i get done with this question, about buy america and how we can do more in america to make sure we are supporting the manufacturing base. but with that being said, i -- in a simplice particular way i believe we can strengthen the military or the men and women in uniform is reducing the contractoring are -- contractors doing the same -- i see them in the airports and i ask every one of them that are private contractors going back to afghanistan and i stop and

talk to them. i introduce myself. where most of you all previous military? yes. would you have stayed in the military if not for the large paychecks that you might be able to get from the contractors? yes, we would if this option wasn't there. so i can't figure this one out. and then it will doff tail in to the whole -- dove tail in to the whole thing. we are all extremely proud. i can give you examples of how we save. but first of all, the purpose of contracting, can't we cut the amount of contractors we have that are doing the same jobs as military without facing political ramifications of you're cutting the military? i'm not going to vote to cut the military, but i will cut the contractors, sir. >> senator, this is an area that we're paying attention to and the efficiencies that we're looking at which will be about $60 billion. this is one of the areas that

we are looking at. contract services, number of contracts that are provided in order to determine where we can achieve savings. and any ideas you have, recommendations along these lines, we're more than happy to listen to. this is a big job going after $487 billion in savings so i am willing to look at any area necessary. >> secretary, there was a report. there is $12 million a day for the past 10 years in iraq and afghanistan has been wasted, misspent, whatever, by contractors. i think, you know, that report was given to you all, too, so there are many areas. i'm saying wherever a uniformed person can do it -- i know we are cutting 100,000 troops. i'd rather cut 200,000 contractors and keep the 100,000 uniformed and use the support of our national guard. i will say this. they touched on the veterans. all of us, i can't -- i mean, to me in the private sector,

you do the best job of providing the training for our military person. they're disciplined. they are going to come out and do it. why are our unemployment so high and what are we doing wrong and maybe not -- we started a caucus. i started with senator kirk and it's hire a vet. i have two vets in my office. we are looking for more good vets. how do we prepare them to get back and i know the senator from new york touched on that. >> i any -- i'll let the general expand upon this. we really are -- part of the problem is the economy, the overall economy. these kids are coming back and they go back home and most of these local economies are having tough economic times. and, you know, you suddenly pour some of these young men and women back in their communities and there aren't jobs for the people that are there, much less for these young people that are coming back. having said that, we really have had some impressive

efforts by the private sector because of the reasons you suggested. these are kids who are disciplined. they usually have a capability and a talent that is extraordinary that can be used. most of the private sector people i talk to really want to have these kinds of individuals as part of their work force. we are more and more of these individuals coming forward. we set up a website where we list the jobs that are available in the private sector. more of these private sector individuals are committing themselves to hire our vets as they come back. there is an important effort going forward. but a lot of if obviously depends on an economy that has to recover as well. >> i think -- first off, i want to commend all of you on working with our caucus we started, hire a vet. we'd like to even expand on that. if we know who's cycling out and whose skitsetting we can

work better, there are ways to improve upon this so i appreciate that. general dempsey, my final question would be to you. i talked about the national guard. in west virginia we have been very, very blessed having a highly rated national guard, one of the best in the nation. people get an awful lot of good training and i'm so proud of them. we saved the d.o.d. $27 million this year alone. i'll give -- these smalltown facilities if we can do that we believe we will save $250 million a year. we are talking about things that is refurbishing generators, the humvees, tents, tire assemble lease. these are things that we have been able to do at tremendous cost savings and i'm sure other guards are doing them also. is there a way in a we can network more of that to use our guard and we've proven the savings in a couple of our little facilities was quite substantial and i don't know how we can expand on that.

>> i don't either. sitting here today with you, senator. but i certainly -- we all, and to include the service chiefs who really: the leaders of their fick guard. you're going to have general -- i am not throwing him under the bus but you are going to have general order narrow here -- ordinierno later in the week. active guard and reserve is an effort well spent. >> it gives the training to the person we are frying to cycle back into the private sector so it has a two-fold process. i think you realize the sensitivity here, to give you what is needed to keep this country safe and free. on the other hand, the responsibility -- when general mullen said, our greatest threat is basic to our own finances. so we're taking all that serious. we need your help. and we any contracting, if we can downsize the contracting,

reinforce the military and people in uniform, i think you'll have us all on both sides. you might be able to bridge the gap that we can't bridge. >> senator, if i could just comment. look, i think -- i think the defense department has stepped up to the plate and what we proposed here is real, it's real knott out. we have a sfrat gee to back up our -- strategy to back up our decisions. i'd really urge you and others to engage in the broader discussion that has to take place with regards to how we reduce the deficit and that has to include a number of areas that unfortunately have not been on the able if we're ever going to confront the debt crisis. it can't fall on the back of defense. other areas have to be considered if we are going to be able to effectively reduce the deficit. 46 -- >> there are a group of us that

are looking at ways. we know it takes everything. what should be paid in revenues and also make sure we get fraud, waste and abuse and run more efficiently. so i think you're going to find quite a few of us on both sides willing to meet with you. appreciate your service. >> thank you. senator manchin, i hope all of us will take a look at the proposals in the budget in front of you to raise additional $3 trillion for deficit reduction. it's in the budget that came in yesterday but it seems a lot of us are unaware of that. half of that is revenue increases. upper income tax increases, restoring their bracket, the millionaires tax. a number of other revenue measures are in this budget request. i was kind of surprised that so many of our colleagues here today talking about the need for deficit reduction and the

importance of avoiding sequestration which i think by the way is a bipartisan goal. we are unaware of the fact because i don't think the administration, frankly, has done a good job focusing what's in their own budget in terms of deficit reduction. it meets the $1.5 trillion, $1.2 trillion goal. >> mr. chairman, we've had this discuss. i -- we can raise the revenues without raising taxes by closing the loopholes. >> you're exactly right. >> changing our corporate laws, changing -- making sure we are putting fairness to the system. i guarantee you the american people are behind us 1,000%. >> if you look at public opinion polls they say we have to include revenues and deficit reduction. do it without raising taxes on middle-income americans. >> and we can cut spending, too, sir. >> the balance in this budget that has been given to us

yesterday is about 50% additional cuts and about 50% additional revenues. frankly, i don't think the administration in its rollout yesterday focus ready this would avoid sequestration. this budget, if we adopted it, avoids sequestration. it does it -- finally they're talking about additional revenues. nevada' talked about it in the administration. but now they've put it in their budget. we had republican colleagues food talking about avoiding sequestration and when i pointed out this budget that was given to us avoids sequestration because there's additional revenues in it, they were saying they hope they can vote on it. well, my answer is we ought to have a republican alternative, if there is one, so we can see exactly what the options are in that regard. so we had silence on the revenue side from our republican colleagues and it's in a silence which needs to be corrected by the administration, frankly. and i hope there would be

greater focus on what's in the budget relative to the revenues which will help us avoid sequestration. we all want to avoid sequestration. and i think you all are interested in having a bite to eat. we thank you. very, very much. we thank your staffs and we will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> completing testimony from defense secretary panetta and the general of the joint chiefs, general dempsey. one of the budget hearings for secretary panetta and the chair

of the joint chiefs. thursday before the house appropriations committee. also on the defense department budget. watch our website for scheduled update. the house will be returning for general speeches at 2:00 p.m. legislative business will get under way at 4:45 with votes after 6:30 today. later this week, surface transportation programs and possible work on extending the payroll tax cut. and president obama spoke about the payroll tax cut extension this morning at the white house. the congress needs to act quickly on the tax extension. right now it's set to expire at the end of this month. it includes the higher medicare reimbursement for doctors. here are the president's remarks. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you.

everybody, please have a seat. well, good morning, and let me start with a quick public service announcement for all the gentlemen out there. today is valentine's day. [laughter] do not forget. i speak from experience here. it is important that you remember this and go big. that's my advice. you know, lately i've been saying that this samake or break moment for the -- this is a make or break moment for the middle class in america and for folks who want to be in the middle class. we face a choice. we can settle for a country where a few people do really, really well and everybody else struggles just to get by. or we can restore an economy where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody's doing their fair share and everybody's playing by the same set of rules.

and that second option is i strongly believe the kind of america that we want for our kids and our grandkids. that's who we are. that's the america we believe in. that's what we have to roll up our sleeves and get back to doing is creating an america where everybody's doing their fair share, everybody gets a fair shot, everybody's engaging in fair play. and we're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes and we still got a lot of work to do and a long way to go. it's going to take time to recover all the jobs that were lost when the recession was at its depths. but the fight is beginning to turn our way. over the past two years our businesses have added over 3.7 million new jobs. our manufacturers are hiring more new workers to make more new things here in america than

at anytime since the 1990's. so our economy is growing stronger, and the last thing we need, the last thing we can afford to do is to go back to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place. the last thing we need is for washington to stand in the way of america's comeback. first and foremost, that means washington shouldn't hike taxes on working americans right now. that's the wrong thing to do. but that's exactly what's going to happen at the end of this month, in a couple weeks, if congress doesn't do something about it. the payroll tax cut we put in place last year will expire. the typical american family will shell out nearly $1,000 more in taxes this year. you'll lose about $40 out of every paycheck if congress does not act. and that can't happen.

not now. and it doesn't have to. congress needs to extend that fax cut along with vital insurance lifelines for folks who've lost their jobs during this recession, and they need to do it now without drama and without delay. no ideological side shows to gum up the works. no self-inflicted wounds. just pass this middle-class tax cut, pass the extension of unemployment insurance, do it before it's too plate and i will sign it right away. [applause] now -- now, the good news is, over the last couple of days we've seen some hopeful signs in congress that they realize that they got to get this done and you're starting to hear voices talk about how can we go ahead and make this happen in a timely way on behalf of the american people. that is good news. but as you guys know, you can't take anything for granted here

in washington until my signature's actually on it. so we've got to keep on making sure that the american people's voices keep breaking through, until this is absolutely finally completely done. until you see me sign this thing, you've got to continue speaking up. until you see that photograph of me signing it at my desk -- [laughter] you know, make sure it's verified, certified, if it's not on the white house website, it hasn't happened. and i'm going to need to make sure that your voices are heard. you know, last december, when we had this same fight, your voices made all the difference. we asked folks to tell what it was like, what it would be like if they lost $40 out of every one of their paychecks because we wanted to make sure that people understood this is not just an abstract argument. this is concrete. this makes a difference in the

lives of folks all across the country in very important ways. tens of thousands of working americans flooded us with their stories. and some of them are here with me today. and their feedback has been pretty unanimous. allowing this tax cut to expire will make people's lives harder right now. it will make their choices more difficult. it would be $40 less for groceries to feed your kids. it will be $40 less for the medications you depend on. $40 less to cover bills and the rent. $40 less to take care of an elder parent or to donate to a church or a charity. and when gas prices are on the rise again, because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases and if we start seeing significant increases in gas prices, losing that $40 could not come at a worst time. one local entrepreneur named

terry, he told us that $40 would cover the gas that gets him to his day job or alternatively, the internet service that his small business depends on. so he'd have to start making a choice, do i fill up my gas tank to get to work or do i give up my entrepreneurial dream? $40, he wrote, means a heck of a lot. it means a heck of a lot. and that's what this debate is all about. this is what's at stake for millions of americans. this is why it matters to people. it matters a heck of a lot. and i'm asking the american people to keep their stories coming. tell us what $40 means to you. if you tweeted, use the hash tag $40. call, tweet, write your congressman, write your senators -- >> we'll leave the last minute of the president's remarks to go live now to the u.s. house.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as we meditate on all the blessings of life, we especially pray for the blessing of peace in our lives and in our world. our fervent prayer, o god people will learn to live together so that the terrors of war will be no more. as you have created each person, we pray that you would guide our hearts and minds that any person of every place and background might focus on your great gift of life and so learn to live in unity. may your special blessings be upon the lems of this assembly and the important sometimes difficult work they do. give them wisdom and charity that they might work together

for the common good. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- does the gentleman rise? miss fox: pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question are postponed.

-- the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertarian request for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday the president released his budget for 2013 which calls for a cut in defense spending for the first

time since 1998. by almost $500 billion. it is clear the president is simply taking resources away from our military capabilities and using the funds to grow the size of government to promote more unsustainable domestic programs. putting senior citizens at risk of a devalued dollar and burdening young people and college students with crushing debt. instead of focusing on stopping defense cuts sequestration, the president is putting our national security at risk and our allies in jeopardy during a time of international instability. cutting our defense budget with record breaking tax increases destroying jobs will not reduce the national deficit but only a diversion of funds. i urge the president to recognize the primary function of the national government is national to the defense to provide peace through strength. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget

september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, on behalf of the three million seniors represented by the alliance for retired americans, i rise with my democratic colleagues to accept their valentine for our vote to improve medicare under the health care reform law. our seniors deserve love, care, and support every day, but today on a day when people across the country are celebrating with their loved one, let us stand together and show our appreciation to the more than 47 million seniors who make up the fabric of our country. in my state of maryland, the affordable care act is already working to provide more than 70,000 seniors with preventive care benefits, and offer 50%

discounts for drugs to nearly 4,000 beneficiaries who enter the medicare part d doughnut hole. the ryan budget lauded by republicans would replace medicare with inefficient voucher plan, and increase the out-of-pocket cost of maryland seniors by more than $6,800 in the first year alone. while they charge the health reform bill cut to medicare, republicans failed to admit they adopted in their plan the same $500 billion in cuts actually cost savings included in the health care reform law. i stand with my colleagues to assure seniors we'll protect medicare today and the future and for all the seniors i visited this morning, happy valentine ait's -- valentine's day. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: millions of americans will celebrate with a box of chocolates or candy. all told consumers are expected to spend more that $1.5 billion

-- million on candy this holiday. what they don't know is government sugar controls are making that heart shaped box more expensive than it needs to be. what they don't know is that american companies are struggling to compete against foreign producers who pay half as much for sugar. because of government price supports, marketing allotments, and inport quoteos, u.s. consumers and businesses pay almost double the average world market price for sugar. by some estimates this could be costing us more than 20,000 jobs. many of us who have watched good jobs lost because of government guarantees the profits of a relatively small group of growers and producers. reforming our sugar program isn't a partisan issue which is why i have been proud to introduce h.r. 138 a 5, the free market sugar act with my friend from chicago, danny davis. may next valentine's day can be sweeter for american workers and consumers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. sir. in 2010 the affordable care act delivered a $250 check to seniors in my district who are struggling to cover the gap between the cost of their prescription drugs and their medicare coverage. mr. carson: in 2011 these same seniors benefited from an average savings of $248 on their medication. for my well-meaning republican colleagues who say health reform is hurting medicare beneficiaries, i ask them to imagine spending two and three times that amount on prescription drugs per month. for most seniors $648 is a significant savings. and it is just the beginning. the affordable care act will provide 340r efficient care by bundling medicare services invested in our health care work force, and focusing on quality.

replacing medicare with vouchers would erase the progress we have already made toward prescription drug coverage and lead to fewer choices for beneficiaries. i encourage my colleagues to work with me on solutions that guarantee continued access to health care for our seniors. i yield back. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, today i want to acknowledge a colleague, fellow texan, a veteran, true american hero. congressman sam johnson served in the united states air force for 29 years. during service he flue 62 -- flew 62 combat missions in the korean war and 25 missions in vietnam. while flying his 25th mission, he was shot down and captured in north vietnam. on february 12, 1973, after seven years of imprisonment, congressman johnson was returned to the united states and reunited with his wife and

daughters. this week we honor congressman johnson and celebrate the 39th anniversary of his homecoming. through the years of agony he persevered and left vietnam with the resolution to support every man and every woman fighting for the united states of america. mr. speaker, we are all called to office for different reasons. for members of my class 10 years ago it was a tragic event of september 11. for congressman johnson it was his imprisonment that empowdered him. it is an honor to celebrate a man who has given not only part of his life to protect our freedoms but a man who continues to represent the american people with dignity and respect. thank you, congressman johnson, for your service to our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa revise and extend? mr. faleomavaega: i ask unanimous consent to drem. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, the housing crisis plunged our economy into a recession we are still struggling to overcome. homeownership is at the heart of the american dream and yet

over 10 million american families now own more than their home than what it's worth. president obama recently announced a plan that would give homeowners a chance to save hundreds monthly and approximately $3,000 yearly on their mortgages by refinancing at historically low interest rates. under president obama's plan, the administration would also expend the eligibility for the home afford and modification program to borrowers with higher debt loans and triple incentives paid to banks to reduce principal on loans and help borrowers rebuild. the administration is also extending it to december, 2013, to help responsible homeowners to lower their costs and stay this nir homes. i thank president obama for his proposal that will provide much needed relief for millions of american neams. i thank the president for his leadership and his commitment to helping american families move forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the supreme court will soon take up the president's nationalized health care law. mr. poe: this case will go down in history as it affects everyone american. unless every citizen has the seat inside the supreme court, they will not be able to watch the legal arguments or hear the questions by the justices. the people will not be able to see justice in action. the american public should be able to view the proceedings on tv much like they do with c-span when congress is in session. i know cameras can be placed in a courtroom without disruption because i was one of the first judges in texas to allow an unobtrusive camera in the courtroom. i did so without any problem and proved the cynics wrong. a lack of seating capacity is no reason to deny the american public access to the supreme court. the american people deserve and all access pass to watch the

high court in action. the supreme court is the most important court in the world. let the world know what takes place behind those closed doors. let cameras and the people in. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i request to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the president assured american seniors that under his health care package their insurance plans would not be affected and they would have the same health care choices as before the law. ms. buerkle: sadly, mr. speaker, this is not the case. the president's health care law makes drastic cuts to the medicare program by more than $136 billion. with these cuts, mr. speaker, medicare advantage plans will be forced to make significant adjustments including reductions in what they cover. those reductions will limit seniors' ability to choose the

medicare plan that best suits them. it is important to note, mr. speaker, that the cuts will hit low-income seniors and the disabled with disproportionate cuts. about 70% of the cuts will be imposed on those with incomes below $32,4 upped00 -- $32,00 per year. it will give the 120,000 seniors in my district who choose medicare advantage few choices and increased costs. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me to protect medicare advantage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address the question that is on the minds of every senior in america and that question is, what is the future of medicare? and what is this congress doing

to protect it? the president's budget which was released just yesterday fails to address the inevitable bankruptcy this program faces. his budget includes a record budget deficit, his budget also includes over $2 trillion in tax increase that is will not only destroy jobs but do nothing to protect the future of medicare. we know that obamacare cut $500 billion out of medicare. . and now the president in his budget is asking for $350 billion in cuts. the president's health care bill is destroying a program that was designed to protect seniors. it's limiting access, increasing costs and lowering quality care. according to the american medical association, one out of every three doctors limits the number of medicare patients they see. just try to find a doctor in eastern washington who will take a new medicare patient. this is unacceptable. we can do better and we must do

better. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i seek permission to -- for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's interesting that our colleagues across the aisle are doing their best to hide the truth about the cuts to medicare that came with obamacare and those that the president has recommended in his budget. however, the truth will out. the president's health care takeover, like his latest budget, is bad for our nation's seniors. according to the congressional budget office, the president's health care and tax increase law slashed money for medicare advantage plans used by millions of seniors across the country. according to an october "forbes" article, the average beneficiary, according those who stay in the strippeddown medicare advantage program will

accrue $3,700 in benefits by 2017. that will affect the 40,000 in my mostly rural north carolina district who enjoy those plans. so much for the president's promise that, "if you like your plan you can keep it." that's just another reason why i voted against the health care law and continue to support its repeal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 14, 2012, at 10:25 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 1162. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the white house on february 13, 2012, at 2:14 p.m. and said to contain a message from the president whereby he smits his budget for the united states -- submits his budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2013. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, america was built on the idea that anyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules can make it if they try no matter where they started out. by giving every american a fair shot, asking everyone to do their fair share and ensuring that everyone played by the same rules, we built the great

american middle class and made our country a model for the world. today, america is still home to the world's best universities, most productive workers and most innovative companies. but for many americans, the basic bargain at the heart of the american dream has eroded. long before this recession hit, there was a widespread feeling that hard work had stopped paying off, that fewer and fewer of those who contributed to this economy actually benefited from that success. those at the very top grew wealthier while everyone else struggled with paychecks that did not keep up with the rising cost of everything, from college tuition to groceries, and as a result too many families found themselves taking on more and more debt just to keep up, often papered over by mounting credit card bills and home equity loans. then, in the middle of 2008, the house of cards collapsed. too many mortgages had been sold to people who could not afford or even understand them. banks had packaged too many

risky loans into securities and then sold them to investors who were misled or misinformed by the risk involved. huge bets had been made and huge bonuses had been paid out with other people's money. and the regulators who were supposed to prevent the crisis either looked the other way or did not have the authority to act. in the end, this growing debt and irresponsibility helped triggered the worst economic crisis since the great depression. combined with new tax cuts and new mandatory programs that had never been paid for, it threw our country into a deep fiscal hole, and millions of hardworking americans lost their jobs, their homes and their basic economic security. today, we are seeing signs that our economy is on the mend, but we are not out of the woods yet. instead, we are facing a make or break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get there. what is at stake is whether or not this country -- this will be a country where working

people can earn enough to raise a family, build modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement. this is the defining issue of our time. this budget reflects my deep belief that we must rise to meet this moment. both for our economy and for the millions of americans who have worked so hard to get ahead. we built this budget around the idea that our country has always done the best when everyone gives a fair shot. everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules. it rejects the -- you're on your own economics which led to the widening gap between the richest and poorest americans that undermines our beliefs in equal opportunity and the engine of our economic growth. when the middle class is shrinking and families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services in a businesses are selling, it drags down our enfire economy. and countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

the way to rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class is to make sure that everyone in america gets a fair shot at success. instead of lowering our standards and our sights, we need to win a race to the top for good jobs that pay well and offer security for the middle class. to succeed and thrive in the global high-tech economy, we need america to be a place with the highest skilled, highest educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication network and the strongest commitment to research and technology in the world. this budget makes investments that can help america win this race, create good jobs and lead the world economy. and it does so with the understanding that we need an economy that is no longer burdened by years of debt and which everyone shoulders their fair share to put our fiscal house in order. when i took office three years ago, my administration was left with an annual deficit of $1.3

trillion or 9.2% of g.d.p. and a projected 10-year deficit of more than $8 trillion. these deficits were the result of a previous eight years of undertaking initiatives but not paying for them, especially two large tax cuts and a new medicare prescription drug benefit as well as the financial crisis and recession that made the fiscal situation worse as revenue decreased and automatic government outlays increased to counter the downturn. we have taken many steps to re-establish fiscal responsibility, from instituting a statutory pay-as-you-go rule for spending to go through the budget line by line, looking for outdated, ineffective or due plick think programs to cut or reform. importantly, we enacted the affordable care act which will not only provide americans with more affordable choices and freedom from insurance company abuses but will also reduce our

budget deficits by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. as economic growth was beginning to take hold last year, i took further steps to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable path that would strengthen the foundation of the economy for years to come. in april of 2011, i put forward my framework for shared prosperity and shared fiscal responsibility that built on the 2012 budget to identify $4 trillion in deficit reduction. during negotiations over extending the debt ceiling in the summer, i presented to congressional republicans another balanced plan to achieve $4 trillion in the deficit reduction. finally, in september i sent my plan for economic growth and deficit reduction to the joint select committee on the deficit reduction which detailed a way to achieve $3 trillion in deficit reduction on top of the $1 trillion already achieved in the budget control act of 2011

that i signed into law the previous month. i also made sure that this plan covered the cost of the american jobs act, a set of bipartisan, commonsense proposals designed to put more people back to work, put more money in the pockets of the middle class and do so without adding a dime to the deficit at a time when it was clear that global events were slowing the economic recovery and our ability to create more jobs. unfortunately, republicans in congress blocked both our deficit reduction measures and almost every part of the american jobs act with a simple reason that they were unwilling to act the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. in the year ahead, i will continue to pursue policies that will shore up our economy and our fiscal situation. together with the deficit reduction, i signed into law this past year, the budget will cut the deficit by $4 trillion

over the next decade. this will put the country on a course to a level of deficits below 3% of the g.d.p. by the end of the decade and will also allow us to stabilize the federal debt relative to the size of the economy. to get there this budget contains a number of steps to put on -- to put us on a fiscally sustainable path. first, it implements the tight discretionary spending caps that i signed into law in the budget control act of 2011. it will generate approximately $10 trillion until deficit reduction in the next decade building on reductions we already have made. this will result in a cut in discretionary spending of $42 billion since 2010 when higher levels of federal spending were essential to provide a jump-start to the economy. meeting the spending targets in this budget meant some very difficult choices. reforming consolidating or freezing programs where we

could. cutting programs that were not effective or essential and even some that were but not now unaffordable and precisely targeting our investments. every department will feel the impact of these reductions as they cut programs or tighten their belts to free up more resources for areas critical to economic growth and throughout the entire government, we will continue our efforts to make programs and services work better and cost less using competition and high standards to get the most from the grants we award, getting rid of excess federal real estate and saving billions of dollars by cutting overhead and the administrative cost. second, this budget begins the process of implementing my new defense strategy that reconfigures our force to meet the challenges of the coming decade. over the past three years, we have made historic investments in our troops and their capabilities. military families and veterans. after a decade of war, we are

at an inflexion point. american troops have left iraq and we are undergoing a transition in afghanistan so afghans can assume more responsibility. we have debilitated al qaeda's leadership, putting that terrorist network on the path to defeat. at the same time we have to renew our economic strengths here at home which is the foundation of our strength in the world and that includes putting our fiscal house in order, to ensure the defense budget is driven by clear strategies that reflects our national interest, i directed the secretary of defense and military leadership to undertake a comprehensive strategic review. i presented the results of the review reflecting my guidance and the full support of our nation's military leadership at the pentagon on january 5. there are several key elements to this new strategy. to sustain a global reach, we will strengthen our presence in the asia pacific region and continue vigilance in the

middle east. we will invest in critical partnerships and alliances, including nato, which has demonstrated time and again most recently in libya in a it is a force multiplier, looking past iraq and afghanistan to future threats, the military no longer will be seized for large-scale, prolonged stability operations. the department of defense will focus modernization on emerging threats and sustaining efforts to get rid of outdated cold war era systems so we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. my administration will continue to enhance capabilities related to counterterrorism and countering weapons of mass destruction, and we will also maintain the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access and we will keep faith with those who serve by giving

priority it our wounded warriors, service members' mental health and the well-being of military families. adapting our forces to this new strategy will entail investing in high-priority programs such as unmanned surveillance aircraft and upgraded tactical vehicles. it will mean terminating unnecessary and low-priority programs such as the c-27 aircraft airlift and a new satellite and maintaining programs such as the joint stryke fighter. all total, reductions in defense spending will save $487 billion over the flex 10 years. in addition, the end of our military activities in iraq and the winddown of operations in afghanistan will mean that the country will spend 24% less on overseas contingency operations, o.c.o., this year, than it did last year, saving $30 billion. i also am proposing a multiyear

cap on o.c.o. spending so we fully realize the change of policy. . third, i believe in this country everyone must shoulder their fair share especially those who benefited most from our economy and the united states of america, a teacher, a nurse, or a construction worker who earns $50,000 a year should not pay taxes at a higher rate than somebody making $50 million a year. that is wrong. it is wrong for warren buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than warren buffett. this is not about class warfare. this is about the nation's welfare. this is about making fair choices that benefit not just the people who have done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that also benefit the middle class, those fighting to get into the middle class and the economy as a whole. in the budget i reiterate my

proposition tore extend the bush tax cuts for families making more than 250,000 a year and opposition to a more generous estate tax than we had in 2009 benefiting overwhelm the very largest estates. these policies were unfair and unaffordable when they were passed, and they remain so today. he will push for their expiration in the coming year. i also propose to eliminate special tax breaks for oil and gas companies, preferred treatment for those who purchase corporate jets, tax rules that give a larger percentage deduction to the wealthiest 2% than to middle class families for itemized deductions. and a loophole that allows some of the wealthiest money managers in the country to pay only 15% on the millions of dollars they earn. and i support tax reform that observes the buffet rule that no household making more than $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income taxes than middle class families pay.

fourth, to build on the work we have done to reduce health care costs through the affordable care act, i am proposing more than $360 billion in reforms to medicare, medicaid, and other health programs over 10 years. the goal of these reforms is to make these critical programs more effective and efficient. and to help make our health care system reward high quality medicine. when it does not do and what i will not support are efforts to turn medicare into a voucher or medicaid into a block grant. doing so would weaken both programs and break the promise we have made to american seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families. a promise i am committed to keeping. finally, to address other looming long-term challenges to our fiscal health, i have put forward a wide range of mandatory savings. these include reductions in agriculture subsidies, changes in federal employee retirement and health benefits, reforms to

the unemployment insurance system and the postal service. and new efforts to provide a better return to taxpayers from mineral development drawn from the plan i presented to the joint select committee on deficit reduction. these mandatory proposals would save $217 billion over the next decade. reigning in our deficit -- reining in our deficits is not an end of itself. it is necessary to -- it is a necessary step to rebuilding a strong foundation so our economy can grow and create jobs. that is our ultimate goal. and as we tighten our belts by cutting, consolidating, and reforming programs, we must also invest in the areas that will be critical to giving everyone american -- every american a fair shot at success and creating an economy that is built to last. that starts with taking actions now to strengthen our economy and boost job creation. we need to finish the work we

started last year by extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for the rest of the year. we also need to take additional measures to put more people back to work. that is why i introduced the american jobs act last year and why i will continue to put forward many of the ideas it contained as well as additional measures to put people back to work by rebuilding our infrastructure, providing businesses tax incentives to invest and hire, and giving states aid to rehire teachers and first responders. we also know that education and lifelong learning will be critical for anyone trying to compete for the jobs of the future. that is why i will continue to make education a national mission. what one learns will have a big impact on what he or she earns. the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is only about half the national average. and the incomes of college graduates are twice as high as those without a high school

diploma. when i took office, i set the goal for america to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. to reach that goal we increased the maximum annual pell grant by more than $900 to help nearly 10 million needy students to afford a college education. the 2013 budget continues that commitment and provides the necessary resources to sustain the maximum award of $5,635. in this budget i also propose a series of new proposals to help families with the cost of college, including making permanent the american opportunity tax credit. a partially refundable tax credit worth up to $10,000 per student over four years of college. and rewarding colleges and universities that act responsibly in setting tuition. providing the best value and serving needy students well. to help our students graduate with the skills they will need

for the jobs in the future, we are continuing our effort to prepare 100,000 science and math teachers over the next decade, to improve our elementary and secondary schools we are continuing our commitment to the race to the top initiative that rewards the most innovative and effective ways to raise standards, recruit and retain good teachers, and raise student achievement. my budget has $850 million in this effort which already has been expanded to cover early learning and individual -- in individual school districts. and to prepare our workers for the jobs of tomorrow we need to turn our unemployment system into re-employment system, that includes giving more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers, places that teach skills that businesses are looking for right now. from data management to high-tech manufacturing. once our students and workers gain the skills they need for the jobs of the future, we also

need to make sure those jobs end up in america. and today's high-tech global economy that means the united states must be the best place in the world to take an idea from the drawing word to the factor of four to the -- factory floor to the shelf of each store n this budget we are sustaining our level of investment in nondefense research and development, r&d, even as overall spending declines, thereby keeping us on track to double r&d funding in the key r&d agencies. we are supporting research at the national institutes of health that will accelerate the translation of new discoveries in biomedical science and to new therapies and cures. along with initiatives at the food and drug administration that will speed up the approval of new medicines. we make important investments in the science and research needed to tackle the most important environmental challenges of our times and we are investing in the fields as varied as cybersecurity, nanotechnology, and advanced

manufacturing. this budget also puts an emphasis on the basic research that leads to the break throughs of tomorrow which increasingly is no longer being conducted by the private sector, as well as helping inventors bring their innovation from laboratory to market. this budget reflects the importance of safeguarding our environment while strengthening our economy. we do not have to choose between having clean air and clean water and growing the economy. by conserving iconic american landscapes, restoring significant ecosystems from the everglades to the great lakes and achieving measurable improvements in water and air quality, we are working with communities to protect the natural resources that serve as the engines of their local economies. moreover, this budget continues my administration's commitment to developing america's diverse clean sources of energy. the budget eliminates

unwarranted tax breaks for oil companies while extending key tax initiatives to spur investments in renewable energy production. the budget also invests in r&d to catalyze the next generation of clean energy technology. this investment will help us achieve our goal in doubling the share of elech terrorist forfeit clean energy sources by 2035. by promoting american leadership and advanced vehicle manufacturing, including funding to encourage greater use of natural gas in the transportation sector, the budget will help us reach our goal of reducing oil imports by 1/3 by 2025 and position the united states to become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. we also are working to decrease the amount of energy use by commercial and industrial buildings by 20%. to complement our ongoing efforts to improving the efficiency of the residential

sector and we'll work with the private sector, utilities, and states, to increase the energy and productivity of american industry while investing in the innovative process and materials that can dramatically reduce energy use. it is also time for government to do its part to help make it easier for entrepreneurs, investors, and workers to grow their businesses and thrive in the global economy. i am calling on congress to immediately begin work on corporate tax reform that will close loopholes, lower the overall rate, encourage investment here at home, simplify taxes for america's small businesses, and not at a -- add a dime to the deficit. moreover, to further assist these companies, we need a comprehensive reorganization of the parts of the federal government that help businesses grow and sell their products agrod. if given consolidation authority which presidents had for most of the 20th century, i will propose to consolidate six

agencies into one department, saving money and making it easier for all companies, especially small businesses, to get the help they need to thrive in the world economy. finally, this budget advances the national security interest of the united states, including the security of the american people, the pros piret and trade promotioning that creates american jobs, and support for universal values around the world. it increases funding for the diplomatic efforts that strengthen the alliances and partnerships that improve international cooperation in needing shared challenges. opening markets to american exports and propose development. and invest in the intelligence and homeland security capabilities to detect, prevent, and descend -- defend against terrorist attacks against our country. as we implement our new defense strategy, my administration will invest in the systems and capabilities we need that our armed forces are figured to

meet in the challenges in the coming decade. we continue to invest in improving global health and food security so we address the real causes of conflict and security threat. and we will keep faith with our men and women in uniform, their families, and veterans who have served their nation. these proposals will take us a long way towards strengthening the middle class and giving families the sense of security they have been missing for too long. but in the end, building an economy that works for everyone will require all of us to take responsibility. parents will need to take greater responsibility for their children's education, homeowners will have to take more responsibility when it comes to buying a house or taking out a loan. businesses will take responsibility for doing right by their workers and our country. and those of us in public service will need to keep finding ways to make government more efficient and more

effective. understanding and honoring the obligations we have to ourselves and to each other is what has made this country great. we look out for each other, pull together, and do our part. but americans also deserve to know that their hard work will be rewarded. this budget is a step in the right direction. and i hope it will serve as a road map for how we can grow the economy, create jobs, and give americans everywhere the security they deserve. signed, barack obama, the white house. february 13, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:45 p.m. today.

>> in fact this is the streaming that we designed was to hit concentration area, the second echelon, concentration forces, lines of communications , depp poes administrations, depp poes organization and command and control nodes. it's important that we talked about it. the mission was the protection of civilians. the most difficult and complex ending to this would have been that said i'm taking over from my father, i love the people, i will stop violence, it would have been good, but in the long run this would have been a difficult event to manage. as it were, the regime insisted until the last possible moment to the civilian population. as late as october orders were given to behead people if they were part of the t.n.c. so violence or threat of violence remain. it's important to understand

that regime fell and it took to go that far, but not necessarily that was not the end state we are looking at. we were looking at the end of hostility, the removal of all large weapons systems from the built up area and clear movement of humanitarian assistance. we formed our headquarters out of naples, combined joint force headquarters, it was international headquarters. my deputy was a british maritime officer. and my chief of staff was a french army officer, two star as well. head of my intelligence section was a turkish brigadier general. head of targeting was an italian brigadier general. head of plans and operations was a british officer. and we had a greek officer in charge of the resource development. this was a true nato headquarters an it works. and we could make it. but there are some cultural difference that is we must learn about each other to make these efforts take place. we formed the headquarters,

small one, 2 5 people. put things in perspective, i had 900 people in my command force headquarters. the component head forces are situated in northern italy with 300 people. that's it. so hence the very thin coin i have been talking about here. whereas 1,000 people in a c fack organization with not be surprising. maritime component was based in naples and it was headed by an italian three star. there were libyan boots. there were libyan flip-flops. libyan running shoes. these were the libyan people. fully organized. trained, led. equipped, but these were the people that were fighting for their freedom. and these were people also working to make sure that civilians were not killed and our mission was to make sure that civilians were not hurt. as the campaign developed, i told you a little bit about the

strategy, it evolved over time, over the mission. we were not the air component, maritime component of the libyan forces. and also this was not a libyan air campaign. this was a combined and joint operation which involves many aspects of it, of which the air component played a major part. i think it was important. over the seven-month period it evolved. the first aspects of it was really stabilizing the area, making sure that benghazi was away from bombing and shelling. we were facing difficult points because along this road here, 80 kilometers, is on one side is a pipeline for oil. on the other side is a pipeline for water. if we knew if it went beyond there it would be difficult to work this without touching critical infrastructure which we did not want to hit. so it stabilized itself in the

area. in fact regime forces decided to dig in in the break out area. they were facing shelling every day and being pushed into the mediterranean. the maritime component task became -- number one priority was to keep the port opened for the evacuation of wounded and also to a lot of movement in humanitarian assistance in that city. finally, stablizing the western mountains as well was important . from there the second evolution of this was a stable period where we saw forces being -- coming -- we saw the libyans organize this manieselves. some people confused that with a stalemate. it was not a stalemate. it was a matter of these folks organizing themselves into a cohesive matter to face a very well organized regime forces. the third part was the offensive from their perspective which we saw began

movement to cert. it pushed both toward sirt and tripoli and we set the western mountain areas. and that culminated in tripoli falling. it fell at a much faster pace than we thought would happen, but it led us to the conclusion that indeed the people of libya wanted their freedom, but they were concerned. nato was operating on a 90-day cycle. 90-day mandate. they were concerned that nato would stop. you hedge your bet on this one and make sure that people are going to stay or make sure you will win. it was understandable, but it fell. finally, sirt and danny walid became the last area. some areas were also the final areas to fall. but really it was truly a much faster movement and pace of action as it went. interestingly enough, gaddafi himself opted to go to sirt in

his last stand. if we look at history a little bit we also find that in iraq we saw similarity as he had chosen to go back as well -- hometown as well. it's interesting. to go back, you now have a bit of our strategy, how it developed itself on the ground. let's talk about some of what we learned. i think it was peter said hope is not a strategy. nor is enchallah, sometimes that's what you got to work with. that's what we did. and it's about understanding what hope means to someone and what enchallah means to someone, especially to the people of libya. and we worked through that. from the process nato exercises and we internationally have exercises, but we did work hard at this and prepared for this, but in many ways one of the recommendation was made to nato was we need to be more aggressive.

we had the team from the joint work center in nato come over and visit us, they said we would have problems duplicating the kind of temple you were operating under. my view is, you should. you should. we should always push ourselves to the limit and adjust. understanding, though, that for some clurely to have an exercise that fails is not appropriate. so here again we must understand the culture of the people that says, ok, let us work together and in fact an exercise that pushes us to the limit so we can find the seam is the way to do this not just coming close to it and declaring victory after that. i think it's an important point to understand. nato as was mentioned, nato in the past was perhaps not as speedy as we did at this point. if we look at the bosnia area, bosnia example from the time the united nations security resolution came in to the time troops were on the ground, it

took one year. in three weeks we developed four plans, developed three end states, and essentially a week before the operation started i was asked to join my boss, joint force commander, naples, to report and talk to him and essentially he said, congress gratlation, you are the commander. you are taking over in a week. come back tomorrow and tell me what the plan will look like. that is the speed in which we went through it. if you look at it, we have to go through very speedy processes. speedy processes were normally there's quite a process that follows. to the time the mission is executed. we had to find ourselves processes. in fact shortening them and going to crisis response management which caused some people -- talk about nations, talk about people. there is no thing as bad people

and good people. there are different cultures and different approach. what you have to understand is how these people react to situation and how can we as a group make it happen? and this is where a will the of -- a lot of processes, people would come to me say not only are you not following the process and establishing according to doctrine. to me was doctrine is there to help us, but doctrine wasn't written for libya. it wasn't written for kosovo. it shouldn't become the doctrine of the next place. in fact use it as a guide, a -- as a tool but don't become a slave to it because you'll find your fighting the same old points again. it's a chaotic environment. it's not comfortable for a lot of folks to work with that with all due respect to my italian colleagues, 18 months driving in italy certainly prepared me well to understand chaotic environment. speed is of the essence. and when speed takes over, expediency, then processes have

to go on the side. remember, people were dying out there. we had to get on with this. that's probably the biggest point that i want to talk about this part of it. we also brought procedures and process many of the people who were working on the libyan campaign had experience in iraq. had experience in bosnia. had experience in afghanistan. the problem is you can't try to adapt libya to all of these other theater. in fact, you must adapt yourself to it. in the early days we had some difficulties managing that. difficulties in the sense that we hadn't shifted the mare dime yet and we needed to -- paradigm yet and we needed to move on. this is libya. let's take what we have learned from all of these other places, apply them where we can apply them, but other places just don't go and ignore those points. examples. afghanistan has the ability to spend as quite a bit of i.s.r. there are people on the ground to give intelligence and

information. we had no nato boots on the ground and two predator orr bits. that tells you -- orbits. that tells you a little bit about the intelligence we were getting or the sources was limited from the beginning. the changing of the process. possibly identify a target as friend or in this case regime forces was a matter of minutes not hours of observation. and we went through this. probably that caused us the most to adapt our targeting campaign, targeting processes to this. targeting process starts with intelligence and intelligence gathering. and having workable intelligence to do the job. some have already alluded to we have national intelligence network. these must be blended in to either formal coalition -- former coalition, but if we did

that it left quite a bit of the nations that were participating in the strikes out. this is not acceptable. now we had to make sure that intelligence would be provided to all of those who needed it. we needed to share intelligence. not need to know. , truly an important point. we were 28 nations under nato, but we are also have four partners, sweden and three arab nations. actually nato's secret had to be declassify mission secret itself which caused a problem as well. by the time you get to a mission secret, the level of intelligence you are getting is -- and you can probably see you can question whether it's actionable intelligence you are receiving. the point here again is there are process established but it's important to understand that when it comes to a mission, intelligence must be shared with all equally. it was critical, it's a page from general horner, during the

first campaign in iraq, was you cannot accept casualties based on knowledge that may have been known but not shared with somebody. this would have been critical to the alliance and not acceptable. we worked around it. we have to create our own fusion cell and that's probably the biggest point here for us was to establish a place where all these various players would come in and share intelligence, turn into actionable intel. first part. second part is your -- now that you have intelligence and understand some of the points, where else can we go? what we found also is something we are not good at in the early days is social networks today are a source of intelligence a great deal. people in libya talk to each other via skype. they would post stuff on youtube. send emails. there are social networks, webpages and the like, we need to do mining in there as well and learn to work at this. i had a very small intelligence cell and in in fact my social

network cell consisted of three people. so to me in the future that's not only go with the traditional methods we know but what is today's environment? social networking, social media. how do we capitalize on that and get some effects out of that as well? then the targeting became the difference between -- the progression that goes from the art of war to the science of war. . >> the intelligence we had and link every target we did to the commission. if it was tied to end it was connection to protection of civilian, yes, we would do it. if you could not make the connectivity to that, we did not engage those targets because this was the mission as given to us. and strategy went to this important topic. it's not done by one

individual. it's done by a team. we have political advisors, we have cultural advisors, we have public affairs. we have targeting specialists. we have operation specialists. this is a team effort and the targeting was a people effort and truly important. and in many places this became not only, what are we going to do if we hit this target, what is the primary effect affect, but what can be the secondary and tish rather affect? -- tirtiary effect? i believe he worked for general petraeus in iraq and he said, when the u.s. first arrived, we saw them an as liberator but over time we lost faith in them and it became problematic and keeping trust of the people of libya and nato was important. the u.s. saw general petraeus work for the hearts and minds.

let's operate it right from the start and work throughout. the second example i talked to people -- and plenty of examples whether it's in iraq, whether it's in the balkans, whether it's in serb yarks if you break things you have to rebuild them if you want the country to run again. it's important not to touch any of the oil infrastructure, the medical infrastructure, the electricity, the water, all those important networks to keep this country together. by christmas this year, libya was able to go back to around 60% export of its oil. it's not about oil. it's about having a nation that can fuelly have its own funding source and find money for themselves instead of being supported by the international community and with money will come prosperity, frayed and stability and it's all part of it. again, it's about the welfare of the population. so we actually -- this was part of our mindset and really the second example. the third example is one point

i told our component. in fact, many others is we will not have to go through -- i do not want to have to go through we shot the wrong bus, we shot the wrong thing. we are going to have to be very specific how we do it and how we do and we refer to it as courageous restraint. if you are an airman, to bomb a place, it's technically possible and not that difficult with the equipment we have today. to say, no, i will not bomb today because i do not have all the conditions we have and we are under zero civilian casualties in our activities so it became very important. these were the three examples that i kept with me throughout the campaign. so we continue with the decision, what would we hit and when would we hit it and how we would hit it because we went through this process where school was out, school was in, school came out and schools were being used as rally points

and concentration for the regime. then ramadan came in. it's an important event in the life of the muslim people and we respected that but we knew it changed their pattern of life and much less activity during daytime but a lot more activity during nighttime so we adapted to that as well and then school time came back in and it's important to understand the aspects of it, the universities and knows points. so we put all of those factors to me. that was the art of war, putting it all together, and then handing it over fought targeting experts who find out the right bomb to target the right fusing, the right time, the right approaches and all of that. battle inside tripoli, the regime claimed it was full of civilians who were acting as human shield for gaddafi and his regime. i beg to differ with that.

if you look at the tape you'll find a lot of the guards were not looking outward for people coming in. they were trying to keep them from going out. to keep them busy, right behind the bunker they created a kiddie park, there was a carousel, a bouncy house. we discovered at about 2:00 in the morning they would leave this amusement park and go watch a movie about 50 meters down the road and this allowed us the space to operate and go into and hit the bunker that night. and that's the kind of -- that's the kind of study that our air component team and the targeting team did. we watched a soccer game take place for two hours because right around we waited for the game to end and we struck. to put all this together, and then inside a coalition, each nation has a sovereign right and sovereign responsibility to act in accordance with

international laws but also their own laws so we would find ourselves with certain nations being uncomfortable with certain targets. that never bothered me. what was important was that all of the targets were addressed as necessary and we found ourselves here again having a more collegial approach to it and understanding why certain nations would not do certain things. i think it's an important point because everybody in the alliance has a vote and that's important. at the end, complex methodology allowed us the desired effect that we were after. i talked a little bit about intel fusion and i won't go much further than that. but i am going to talk about numbers and numbers game because at the beginning we went through and we've seen this before somewhere else. how many times did you kill today? how many times were destroyed? how many times were they against total?

we are an effects base business and what i meant the number of tanks and materials, the number of targets is immaterial. it's the effect that civilians is still dying is what is important here and this is where we stop counting tanks. we actually look -- as long as there was one artillery piece or tank or mercenary killing people we were not achieving the effects that we were given. i also learned that from the other perspective which was in nato when you ask for forces you actually ask them in terms of numbers rather than effects which is interesting. in our case we'd have up to 80 jets available or 80 fire aircraft available but saudi arabia would not allow us more than 50 to 60 every day. this is a country 1,300 kilometers by 30,000 kilometers. you can see it's rather limited. what do you do? you prioritize.

prioritize where civilians are at risk first and then how we work -- working on the command and control sites and also ensuring that the weapon storage weren't used to feed the fight further. and we'd fry or ties it and we'd work it. but really what i'm getting to is effects base operation. it works well for some cultures. about giving a mission, a commander's intent and you let people through. some cultures are not comfortable with that. they'd prefer to be told exactly what is required of them. and here again i'm in the effects base business. i would keep effects. keep the port of misrata open. how you do it maritimely is up to you. the what and the command i think it was very good to do. patten said, give people clear

direction and watch them do it to your surprise. give them clear direction and get out of the way and have people get along with that. effects base operation. under nato also the concept of comprehensive approach is political military economic, social, infrastructure and information. these are all aspects. it's clear to me right from the start that the military campaign is more than military. in fact, we could control very limited aspect of the military since we did not control -- have access to the libyan people on the ground. but it's important to understand what are the political objectives? what were the objectives of the surrounding countries and what were the objectives and political interests and concerns of the people that are part of this alliance? so it's really important to understand that and, again, processes are nice, but push them aside and try to

understand what are the economic points? 65% of the oil export of libya is from this region here in the east. so you can see the strategic importance it was for libya to regain this territory. it became evident for us that it was a point to note as well and to understand that. the same thing with the social, i talked about ramadan. i talked about the regional differences between each regions up there and to me these are the points that must be understood and it's important to understand that. i talked to you about the infrastructure. it's important what you leave behind is still workable. communications, most important aspect of it and communicating is more than talking to each other. it's about more importantly, better communication when i listen to people. if there was something i would do better today it was to learn more about each cultures of each of the nations that were

part of it. inside nato, within nato and also of our partners and allies and of the people of libya. once you understand why people are doing things, it's a lot easier and get on with it and find a way for everybody to work together. and that's probably one of the biggest points that i had from that. communicate -- communicate a fair bit with my chain of command as well and with the nations and it was important here, again, to exchange, not that i did what the nations wanted as much as i needed to understand each nation's interest if there were any particular interest and how did they affect the accomplishment of our mission to protect the civilians. and i think it was important. 50% of this campaign was kinetic, in pie opinion. 50% was nonkinetic in terms of strategic communication, public affairs, psychological operations are important.

strategic communications is more than what you are going to tell the press. is what are the key messages and who are the audiences? what was the audiences inside libya, the t.n.c. and also the regime forces and the mers flares themselves because these were different groups? what were the key strategic messages to the partners and the regional neighbors? what -- how was it inside nato and outside nato? because the credibility of nato was important as well and it's important to put it in perspective. public affairs, simple point, tell the facts, stick to the facts and pass them. the other side, the regime used the press in many ways to provide misinformation and we never got in the business of arguing with them. we just stuck to the facts and it paid off in the end. as far as psychological operations, how do i stop

anybody to do what they're doing without using force? we drop leaflets. we dropped over nine million leaflets out there and it was to reach some of the population. but we could have reached them in many other ways through social networks as well. how do we do that? how do we get into a future battlefield where people are talking on skipe? they're reading facebook and myspace and talking to each other and passing on youtube and the like? there are places here where we have lots to go. agility of the mind is the last point and attitude is everything. leave your ego at the door and learn about each other and really remain agile. don't let process get in the way. and what may seem as -- to some as i don't understand what they want. well, if you don't understand and they won't tell you, then produce it and say, this is how i read back to you which is the

essence of communicating again. let me read back what you told me or let me understand what you are trying to tell me and it works at the personal level, interpersonal level. it works at the international plelf as well. in a is the point i am trying to talk about or the point i want to make here, agility of the mind. so at the end of the day we had three key tasks -- the protection of civilians, the embargo and nfls and i believe we met -- no-fly zones and i believe we met knows with success. but the victory belongs to the people of libya. this was a libya and libyan people victory. they are the ones who fought for it. they are the ones who earned their victory. i think we are going to go a long way. i think libya today is in position. we can cover that as to the future and what will happen in the further proceedings on the question will be postponed period. how do we understand -- we can cover that in the question and answer period. i do say libyan democracy. i think it's important for nato, it was a success.

i believe we validated the strategic concept and the need for rapid response to our crisis. and i -- it can be done. it can be done and i think today i see many improvements as people go there. and finally, we've made some new partnerships from the military perspective. i any we need to continue to work on intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. i.s.r. we need to be able to link those together and we need to be able to talk to each other as partners and into an alliance because a lot of are national sdms and we have lots of sfove pipes and we need to build -- stovepipes and we need to build bridges for these systems. to the makers of these systems, i don't need translator boxes that will take various plannings or various security classification. i need multilingial systems that will jump back and forth allowing a nation to attain their own privacy and secrecy.

there is a long way to go there. i think we learn that it's not bigger bombs we require but smaller bombs we require. we need precision-guided munition with low collateral damage effects. we need to be able to link each other and we need to continue to develop leaders that will understand and understand about military operations that are more than just giving oords. it's about interrelations with people, understanding their cultural and understanding the weakness and the strength, capitalizing the weakness, minimizing the strength and give everybody to work together because that's where the strength of the alliance is all about is everybody works together. let me close with a final word from a personal perspective about leadership. a friend of mine who passed a few years back defined leadership as the art of telling people to go to war and having -- to go to hell,

rather, and have them look forward to the trip. the -- actually, my perspective on that on the leadership aspect at the operational level is the kindergarten rules. there are three major kindergarten rules that you should work with. one is you need to get along with everybody in the schoolyard. second is, you need to share your toys. and third is don't forget to take naps in the afternoon. ladies and gentlemen, that completes my presentation. thank you, sir. [applause] am i on schedule? >> well, thank you, general, for interesting remarks but also important for this audience in particular which is the policy community, the public, government policymakers, etc. i have about 10 questions to ask you but i won't, but i would like to ask you one which i thought was a new characterization that i heard

in your remarks and then we'll open it to the audience. you characterized the handoff from odyssey dawn to operation unified protector as a hail mary pass. can you talk more about that and did that have any relationship to the obama administration's sort of overall strategic approach to this mission to unify protector as certainly playing a role but as one white house official put it, leading from behind? can you just talk about that transition a leadership more? >> from my perspective, i think it was important as a global community to have nato take the lead in this operation as quickly as possible. to provide it through the u.n. security council, nato voted unanimously to proceed with this and we were told, get on with that. so to me to become more inclusive and come together. so time became thess enls and we wanted to move as quickly as

possible to show that nato could actually take this mission and take it, fake the lead from that. so we pushed the limit. to me there will never be a commander to say he's ready or she's ready to take over this mission. they always want a couple more weeks and you say, no, shoot the puck, as we say, and then get on with it and we did. i think it was an important part. it was important for the nations of nato, for the partners to be inclusive and to as quickly as possible build the alliance. you did allude to certain expressions and one of them was lead from the rear. i'm not sure if i share the approach to this. my approach to it is actually the united states played a big role to this mission. the united states' role was to provide capability, unique capabilities and capacities

inside nato. my commander is a u.s. admiral. i think in have an international team put together. so i opine to i you i think everybody played the role, albie it in this case -- albeit in this case the u.s. opted to be more balanced in this approach. in fact, give the tasking of leadership and cooperation to the broader nato community. >> thank you very much. i'll ask one more question and then we'll open it to the audience. we had the administration put its budget on the -- to our congress for fiscal year 2013 yesterday. it includes a significantly new approach to defense strategy and investments. we heard about the strategy in some various announcements last month. we have some of the numbers now. the investments in a much

reduced defense budget for at least the u.s. military. if we had to do another libya and there is other defense budgets also suffering from significant cuts, if we had to do another operation of this sort, what -- do you think we could do it again? especially if the cuts continue, sir, where do you think the threshold is for being able to put a coalition together to do an operation of this sort which is even largely an airpower operation but also heavily relying on enablers like intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, transportation, tankers, etc.? >> difficult to quantify when we look at the various nations. but i think as we look at all of our national issues, whether it being the national debt, being the economy, being the euro, the standing of the euro and the e.u., all of us are facing financial challenges and

therefore to me it drives us to see the alliance warfare is the right way to go because it's about cost sharing. it's about risk sharing and it's about working together. with that comes also the need to understand that alliance warfare also is a more collegial way of doing business and in some places it may take a little bit more time but the results can be accomplished in the same way and in fact it's probably not a bad thing to listen to what the others have got to say to put together. so could the alliance put another mission like this? absolutely. in terms of capabilities, in terms of knowledge. as far as the sustainment and the scope of it, i think the future and the economies of the various nations part of nato will dictate that. but i think we also need to take a look globally at nato capabilities and decide what should reside within nato, what should reside within each

countries and are there any capabilities that do not need necessarily to be duplicated from one nation to the other? but are some nations better suited for certain interests and others for certain activities and try to find through this alliance a way to operate together? as i said, shared responsibility, share the costs and share the risks. >> thank you very much. to the floor now to see if there are other questions for general bouchard. yes, in the third row. >> i was wondering if you could speak a little bit more to the lessons learned with regard to coalition interoperability and c-4 i.r.s. systems, networks and platforms, how good we worked with data links in the actual operational environment? >> many of the systems in the network are developed on a national basis. each of us have a national

industry that needs to be supported. and the difficulty is that many of these national systems are developed to suit national requirements and not necessarily alliances requirements. so the communication from one system to the other can be difficult. i have a canadian system. i was aware of u.s. systems, british systems and the like and you have nato systems. but even the nato system need to mature even further. we need to go beyond this. the technology in terms of link, in terms of exchange of information, data link and transfer of information is a place where we need to continue but it's a difficult part because on one side you're facing a national interest and national requirements and on the other side is alliance requirements and therein lies the difficult part is where do we find that balance between those two -- those two end of the spectrum to find a place where we can work and i think

it starts at the policy level. where we agree -- i think you can find within military structures, we all agree we need to talk to each other and we can probably find out some way but there has to be a policy architecture that nations will drive to that will provide them with a place to go that ensures interoperability. and it applies not only c-4 i.s.r. it applies to movement of airplanes, movements of ship, transfer of data, transfer of information, logistic system. it applies across the board. it's how do we find a way to do this. and it's not simple. nato's been around for quite a while, and we're still struggling through many of those. at one point one has to accept for the good of the alliance you may have to form -- to create a system that will be able to operate to cost a little bit more, -- or if you

do, as i said, we need to create systems that are multilingual, not have boxes that can translate from one system to another. and we're not in yet. so it's a difficult part and it's something that needs to go. but i will say right from the start you can work it from the bottom. we've seen this from afghanistan with the afghan mission system network but it also requires that umbrella on top and that policy framework will it gives a place for people to go to to find a workable solution. >> thanks. another question in the last row in the far corner there. >> thank you. my name is max with center for complex operations at n.d.u. miss torecally, military commanders charged with protecting civilians have had an extremely difficult time interpreting that mandate.

particularly because it doesn't necessarily imply or clearly imply a political end state and set of goals. you mentioned some of the analysis you did and particularly your center of gravity for the regime and your prioritization of different kinds of targets, implying you obviously did go through quite an extensive analysis and come to some conclusions about what at least some intermediate end states would be required to achieve the protection of civilians mandate. could you walk us through some of that analysis? >> very complex and it's really trying to understand first of all what is happening on the ground. and what are the tactics being used, who's using them, how are they using it? but the most important work is the effects at the end. is there still violence against civilians? working your way back from us. for us it was nearly impossible

without tactical control systems on the ground and clear understanding of the full picture on the ground. it was very difficult to get involved in that engagement but this is where we said this will engage from long range systems, artillery rockets. large concentration of troops moving forward. the logistic trains it was feeding this organization. and also the centers, be it communications, command and control, lodge strk centers, and we formed a team together on that and this is where it also became important. like i said, everything we did had to be based on a clear understanding, how does it relate to our mission, that responsibility that we had to protect the population and our action. if you could not draw those links clearly we went back, reassessed and redefined the problem a little bit more but

we set those standards to make sure that exactly we stayed within our mandate and that was the most important point. never once did i consider that we were straining anywhere outside. we stayed well-nigh the mandate. but also to us, it's more than military minds. it's more than targeteers. it's more than weaponeers. it's also cultural. it's also political. it's also legal. it's also perception, global perception, our own perception and the bound of trust that you're trying to develop between the people of libya to make sure they still have trust and respect into the actions of nato towards the mission. and this is where the team becomes -- and you have to be very collegial about this and allow everybody to do this. also, this is where the good part of an alliance where you receive information and knowledge from many partners. we look at the world

differently and their views will help you understand. i spent time talking to our cultural advisors about the customs of that country and what would it be if we worked in a part and how do we stop the population from suffering, from being targeted, from being starved, from being not provided with electricity, with water? so it's the whole chain aspect of it as well because it's more than just a kinetic action against a population but also all those other parts of it. running the satellite at night to find out where the electricity is. what part of the country does or does not have water? how does it work? this is where the team got together sand really worked at this and much of my advise hors were knows political advisors, policy advisors, legal advisors. so it's pretty much getting the team together and play it, give them clear direction, play it and at one point every day we'd

make decisions as to what will be engaged, what will not be engaged, what do we need to develop further to understand and what do we need to do to achieve the mission we were given and the linkage to that. so it is a process that we developed. it went a little bit outside the doctrine because our mission was not to search and destroy someone. it was to protect a population. so there's a shift in there and to how you approach this conkept and how you work it. -- concept and how you work it. so there is this collegial approach to it. i know a military commander talking about collegial approach doesn't sound right. well, it does. it does. it's about, as i said before, the political, the military, the social, the cultural, the economic aspects of it, the infrastructure. understanding all of this. and to me that's the essence of being able to run this kind of mission, especially in the protection of pop proliferation rather than a more conventional

approach to warfare and combat. >> yes, harlem in the front. >> general, i ask emphasis on old and old professor from the national war college. what prepared you in your career for this particular assignment? was it through the canadian system of war colleges? because it through conversations like chuck connor, mike short? was it war games? did jim hold seminars? because you display a phenomenal bringing together collection of necessary skillsets to do this in a very effective way that not necessarily is the norm. so i wonder when you click back at your long and distinguished career, what really empired you most or gave you the thought power and as you talk about the mental agility for this particular assignment? >> thank you for your question. throughout this operation i had a friend back home which had

been a mentor to me over these years and we talked about in a a little bit because he asked me a similar question. what do you think prepared you for this? and to me the simplest answer is that it took 37 1/2 years to get me to where i was. i'm a slow lerner so it took me quite a while to get there. but the point is the ability to fall back on every one of those points, whether you learn through history, reading the book of general horner or general schwarzkoph or reading several of those books. seven years in the united states working. the events of 9/11. watching canadian leaders, nato leaders work together and understanding at the end of all of this, no matter what, command is how you interrelate with other people. a dictator does it by fear. a transformational leader does it by convincing others that it's the right thing to do. having convinced them it's much

eyesier to get on with it and that's the approach i chose in in arena. so to me i don't think there was one seminole point in my career that changed it as much as the accumulation and it takes time and it takes experience. but i was blessed i was -- i had a very, very experience. i had great leaders through my time, both here in the u.s., in canada and also europe. it's the ability to put it all together and remember it and put it all together and see what works and what doesn't, discard it along the way and remain agile as you go along. >> general, let me just follow up and try to connect the last two questions. the question before last is critical for current discussions about what's going on in syria, why did russia veto the u.n. security council resolution. some say because it was being burned on the libya operation going well beyond what they

thought the u.n. resolution allowed. so if you could talk a little bit more about your guidance, what targets you left out, not for ancillary reasons but for reasons that you thought perhaps it went beyond the mandate. i mean, how did you distinguish between protecting civilians and sort of hampering the regime there was actually killing the civilians? it's a very fine line. i mean, your position it would be have i difficult, especially with the whole coalition breathing down your neck, working back with nato head andrews, so much political pressure because of the geopolitical kwlications, could you talk a little bit about that? >> probably the biggest point about that is much like -- i like analogies. i guess it's easier for me to understand things. keep your eyes on the ball. stay focus on the mission itself and clearly you got to understand the linkage that exists between what is the mission that needs to be done and what is ancillary to this

and what is not related to this? you know, our case also we did not engage into -- we did not engage into regime change. this was not about that at all. it was to stop the violence against people. so just because a target would -- we would be aware of certain presence of individuals but they were not related to the protection of civilians, we did not engage. and we had to make sure we stayed within the mandate was this -- i don't want to say rigid but it isn't but this application of power, again, set standards that we set for ourselves and we set similar standards that we wanted to stay with that. it was critical. some countries decided whether

or not we were within the mandate is their point. i'm satisfied we stayed within the mandate and through the communications we had with the north atlantic council it was clear we were within the mandate and that's that communication as well and explaining what we are doing along the way. and i'm not talking about here but seeking permission for anything as much as keeping them informed, taking the right action for the right reason and then -- but doing it when it's needed and not needing it. sometimes you opt not to do something to understand what the impact will be. we alluded to that before whether it's courageous restraint is to restrain yourself to that mission and to stick to that objective and the missions we were given and the effects we wanted to accomplish. regrettably there is no easy solution on that to me other than analyze it and spending a lot of time looking at maps and talking with your advisor and

developing the process together and this process did not really exist because a lot of the nato process were based on a different environment. we looked at that time iraq, we looked at bosnia, we looked at the balkans, we looked at afghanistan and said, ok, what is it i can apply from there as well to the concept of protecting those civilians' back but stay focus on that part and don't stray, don't take the easy way out, don't stray on it. >> yes, a question on the far back. >> hi. germy middle east institute. i was just wondering if you could speak a little bit more what nato's role was after the fall of tripoli? especially when gaddafi's forces were to banny salid and they had been much more on the

offensive? had nato's role change? did you coordinate with the t.n.c. with respect to protecting civilians in a more advisory role as opposed to taking more practicing natic -- practical actions or i was just wondering what their specific role was in that? >> even after the fall of tripoli, the threat of the civilian population continued. benny walid, as i stated before. so the threat continued. but one of the things we discovered, as the hunter became -- stopped hunting, if you wish, our approach to it as well, once the civilians were not dying we pulled back. we stopped doing some of the engagement that we did tanned we pulled back and overwatched the situation and made sure that nothing could come in to start this situation again. we were not coordinated with

the n.t.c. it was not in my mandate and our mandate was to protect civilians. but one thing we made sure that was passed through the t.n.c. was, remember, protecting civilians applies to everybody. so if you turn the fable on each other, you will also be accountable for this and you will act against the mandate of protecting civilians. we did pull back. we weren't as active as we watched the situation develop and we took action where we thought civilians were in danger or there were a group preparing to attack civilians but we were not as actively as we were. we took also an overwatch position on it but also ensure what applied it applied on both sides, not on one side. >> yes, fred camp in the front row. >> general, thank you very much for that excellent presentation

and for joining us at the atlantic council. two related questions. one is, couldn't one argue and why doesn't one argue that the ultimate responsibility, protect civilians in a situation where a dictator is leaving a regime, to kill them is regime change? we seem to be dancing around this. so is that not part of the responsibility to protect and how did you interpret that and how -- what kind of discussions were about that related? were there not a russian and chinese veto at the security council if that had not come about and you were tasked with a responsibility to protect chore for syria, what questions would you be asking from the experience you had in libya? >> thank you. both interesting. first one, the regime change. it has been a discussion all

along. but really my sense, the world wanted this dictator to stop killing his people as people wanted democracy and to establish themselves in a different approach and the world said your actions of killing your people, women and children, is not acceptable point so stop. there were some out, exit ramps for this regime if this regime had chose. in regime could have stopped the violence and sat down. we talked in the early days of reading an environment for diplomacy and dialogue to take place so that we can find a way out of this without having to resort to kinetic actions. so there were some movements available and some room toll maneuver but the regime insisted until this last possible moment to inflict casualties. i think the regime misunderstood the situation, misread the situation completely and thought in fact

they were still winning. i think some of their own processes and intelligence network may not have been as strong and i don't think people were telling gaddafi minimum self the truth in many ways so he continued until the end and it's regrettable because at the end of the day the mission was to stop the violence so i understand what you're saying and i guess you could paraphrase it by saying, you know, regime collapse if necessary but not necessarily regime collapse. in terms of accomplishing the effects that we set to do. regards to a potential -- a new environment from my perspective, as i look at it, the various aspect of it that i question and the first one is we found our international legitimacy through the united nations security council. and i think it's important to have this international

legitimacy that says the world does not agree and the world is an agreement, this behavior must stop. obviously it finds its root in the u.n. as if is, but it's not necessarily the u.n. peach country as a sovereign nation has the right to take action as deemed appropriate to what it believes is an event that takes place and breach international law and law of armed conflicts, for example. but i'm leading to my second point. if we give this international legitimacy and accept nations of the world do not believe that the actions of one should continue, then you must find a group that will do it. who will you task, who will take the lead to bring an end to this through either kinetic or nonkinetic methods and military methods? in this case, nato is a place that offers in a.

outside nato, if not nato then what? , we've seen coalitions being led by the u.s. where the u.s. has taken the lead and worked it, but i think the alliance offers you a different solution. it offers a solution where as i said we can share risk and share responsibilities more equally. i think secretary gates and secretary panetta and indeed secretary clinton have all talked about being inclusive and having everybody's participation and thus burden sharing and increase burden sharing. and to do that for 28 nations in nato i think international legitimacy is probably a requirement to bring those 28 nations together. it's either there or sufficiently heinous act that will trigger 28 nations and partners to do that.

so legitimacy, nato and can you get nato to operate together, but i talked about also in partners because then regional -- regional balance -- regional support is important. in the case of libya we had three arab nations, sweden joined us and we had the nato nations. surrounding it the region itself was stable enough in per speblingtive, in re-- perspective, in relation to others as we continued. when we look at syria we'll have a much more complex situation where it's next to one of the nato members, turkey. it is -- it borders on israel. there's a direct link with iran. there's a direct link with hezbollah. so the complexity of this operation becomes much more difficult. and these are all aspects. and the final complaint, very early in the gain and in the process the world, the u.n. recognized the t.n.c. as

legitimate authority in libya. do we have such recognition of a new leadership of a country that exists in syria? and i'm not sure if it's in place yet. so there are various factors. i think each of them must be considered. and also i say the point where we did this mission and people will say, well, you did it without nato boots on the ground. could we do the same somewhere else? i think the military commander will do his estimate. military commander will do his assessment and it will be a different outcome and structure and these days it will be an acceptable force structure to do this or is diplomacy another way to solve this problem? so there are various factors which i had you a offer to you that i'd consider and each of

these needs to be plooked at in depth and understanding and i think we need to look at our own internal, we the nato nation, our own internal operation, political situation which will force various decision makings. the difficult part is acknowledging there are people suffering, but what are the costs, what are the risks associated? will you reach a tactical solution which will trigger strategic failure? in the case of libya we weren't able to accomplish both strategic and tactical success but would a direct engagement with syria be the same? i am not advocating either way. these are factors we must carefully analyze before a final decision is made. >> excellent answer to a very difficult question that we are all struggling with. so appreciate it. any other questions from the audience before i ask my fourth

question? yes, in the back. >> thank you, general. how are you? good to see you. you have talked at great lenks about the even handedness of nato forces in the protection of civilians. could you address the even handedness in the arms embargo? because we've seen post facto to have evidence that at least some coalition members, nato members were in the provision of weapons to opposition forces during the conflict. >> difficult situation, difficult question. and really when you look at it, the nato mission was given its task sand we continued with

that, blue in many ways parallel to whatever nato will be doing, nations have got their own rights to do certain actions that may not necessarily be shared with the alliance itself and various nations will decide that. it's their sovereign right to take certain decisions as they go in. from our perspective. we enforced the embargo with the knowledge that we had and the information that was given to us. and from there we accepted information that was given to us that would either enable safe passage or allow safe passage as each nation would provide us the information. i think there also the essence of it was to make sure that the -- i think it's a two-way street. no more weapons were coming in that would end up in the hands of regime forces that would end up killing civilians so you go back to linkages to protecting the pop proliferation. and the other part was to

ensuring that where at all possible that some of these weapons were not finding their way out into another theater somewhere. now, remember, this was an error of maritime embargo, not an embargo on the land area which we could not -- we didn't have the force structure to cover. so, again, it's a balance here but the linkage has to go against the civilian population and this is what we use as a benchmark. >> general, how did you handle the daily requirements of public affairs? >> pretty easy. tell the truth and stick to it. the thing right from the beginning, i saw ibrahim give

his side of the story and their side of the story was given. for us we would not get in the they said this and we didn't agree with it. we would provide a report on our daily activity, provide the information that we had, stick to the facts and do not make any judgment on anybody else. i believe it's important. at that point it was important to us so we stuck to the message. it was important, also, we understood that the world was listening. the world was listening. the regime was listening. what were those key messages that were important to make sure we reassured some that we would try to have others understand that their activity was immoral and illegal and unethical and that we would not stand for that and we would continue to protect the population? so the key messaging were very

much -- were factual and our activities were factual and if we did something that doesn't go well, you stand up and explain that as well. don't try to hide it. just stand up and face the facts. for nato, for our mission, every activity, every bomb, every naval activity did not have a national flag on it. it was a nato event. it was a nato mission and we provided that information to people. i think that eventually we -- i tell people that, you know, your credibility in front of the media is all you got and if you lose that credibility, once lost, it's very difficult to find again so let's work at not losing it and the best way not to lose it is stick to the facts, tell the truth and then move on with that. probably oversimplify the very complex issues but to me was the approach we took.

>> general, if i could follow-up because i was taken by your comment in your remarks that 50% of the campaign was strafiegic communication. so a couple sort of related follow-up questions. did you have a strategic communications campaign plan that sort of struck certain themes as events unfolded? so in addition to just sort of hitting on the facts, was there an arc of your story that you wanted to make sure got out so that as you said you win the hearts and minds of the libyan people from the very beginning and don't have to fight an uphill battle? >> well, it was important for us for the people of libya to understand clearly why we were there and we were there to protect civilians and we would work hard at that and we did that. we wanted to make it clear to other that what they were doing was not acceptable to the world and their behavior was not acceptable and in fact if we could convince some to put their weapons down and walk out, which we did.

we had several defections in various places in the country, and these defections were not covered in a widely by the media. but for us we saw those defections take place which was feedback that because by and large i do believe by and large the libyan regime forces did not want to kill civilians. they didn't want to kill other libyans. they're stuck with having to do this act or be killed yourself because many were killed. and then the other angle was the mercenaries themselves because they'd do it for different reasons. and also it's important that the world knew what we were doing, clearly understood what we were doing and because after all those 28 nations and the people and the governments of those 28 nations are those people that we were accountable to through the north atlantic

council. the message was important, what are the key message and do you pass them to the right audience and work together? obviously the solution of choice is nonkinetic. to accomplish this if you can do without dropping one bomb the better you'll be but also understanding that diplomacy took place and each nation was running its own diplomatic campaign on various elements as well and understanding that part. >> other questions? we have time for one more. yes. >> george. senior fellow at the atlantic council. pa neto and rasmussen both highlight -- panetta and russ plusen both high -- rasmussen both highlighted how nato can do more with less, how they can protect key nato capabilities from defense cuts.

however, in nato's largest mission, afghanistan, nato's response force was not used and nato's most recent mission, libya, nato's response force was not used. as commander of one of the most successful operations in nato's history, is nato's response force a luxury that will never leave the garage and never be driven or under what circumstances will their response force be used? what type of missions will they justify the investment of resources it is receiving? thank you. >> probably the first answer is the easiest one sand second one is a little more complicated but still both of them, is nato's response force a luxury vehicle? i don't think so. before being tasked for this operation, in fact, i spent a year training with the nato response force. in fact i was appointed as the commander for training of the nato response force.

so we worked together and developed relationships and we raised the quality and ability of each of these groups of people and these components to work together. the component for the mission was the component for the nato response force so they were ready to go. whether it's used in whole or in part becomes an interesting point but also becomes a political issue because each nation will again decide whether their forces will be used in the matter in question -- which they were authorized to do. to me it's not whether we use the whole thing. it's whether the force that we have is an abled force, a trained force, a ready force and whether it can be use in whole or in part to create a workable organization. they're both fine to me. so there is value at both ends

of it. as far as the last point. what will be the trigger or what will be the conditions under which the n.r.f. would be used? well, i would think first of all the nations will decide that. i think that article 5 would probably be the guiding factor into the deployment of a nato response force because that's what it was created for. anything beyond that then we'll have to have a political direction from the n.a.c. and through the n.a.c. and the decision to engage in whole or in part the force but at the end of the day many of the folks that came in were trained during the nato response force and there was no waste of time because these folks would be able to come back. >> general, we are out of time. on baft of the atlantic council, we thank you for your

remarks here. you have an important story to tell that is relevant to our ongoing debates and we thank you for choosing the atlantic council to begin to tell your story. so thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the house is expected to come back in in about 45 minutes from now for debate on naming post offices. later this week, debate on a bill about transportation and payroll tax extension.

funding for unemployment insurance and the payroll -- would be offset. we'll have live coverage when the house comes back in at about 4:45 eastern. we're going now to the white house briefing which focused on the chinese vice president's visit today. >> so quiet. good afternoon, everyone, thanks for being here. happy valentine's day, to all of you from all of us.

i wanted to make note if i could of a development in the senate. as you may know, or may not, the nat is set to vote to confirm alberto jordan, our nominee for the court. he is supported by senators rubio, he was reported out months ago, he will be the first puerto rican on this. despite his stellar record, the republicans invoked closure. -- cloture. republicans are still forcing the senate to burn time.

the seat he will fill is a judicial emergency seat. the reason i raise this, even though mr. jordan will be confirmed, is it is so indicative of a breakdown in the system, when a nominee as qualified as he is, who was reported out of committee unanimously, still faces filibusters. you have to ask yourself why that is. it's delay tactics and they're shameful. there are 17 other judicial nominations on the calendar, 14 reported out unanimously, seven of those would fill judicial emergencies an seven are represented by at least one republican senator yet the delay tactics continue. with that, i will take your questions. hello. >> china has blocked the nato action on iran and syria going back in time.

did the president raise that with vice president xi today? and from your vice president -- meetings with vice president xi, do you see any movement on that? >> let me take a step back if i might to give you a accept of this visit. it is a reciprocal visit. vice president biden visited the people's republic of china last year. vice president xi of the people's republic is now here being hosted by vice president biden he met earlier today with president obecause mark they had a good meeting, it was a meeting, in fact, in part because of the full range of issues that our two nations have to discuss. it is an important bilateral relationship and it is one where we speak candidly about the concerns we have, whether it's

issues of trade or currency, or as you raised, matters of national security for foreign policy as in syria. so i don't have a specific point-by-point readout of the president's meeting with vice president xi, but you can be sure that they discussed the full range of issues that vice president xi will have those discussions, not just with the president but with vice president biden, secretary of state clinton, and others. i can tell you that as i mentioned, the meeting ran long. it lasted from 11:25 a.m. until 10 minutes to 1:00. the president said afterwards the reason he was taking extra time was the importance of the relationship and cooperation in dealing with the range of challenges our two countries face together. the meeting began on a lighter note, when vice president xi said he was going to iowa and the president said he, vice

president biden and secretary of state clinton know iowa very well. it's fair to say the president probably has the fondest memories of iowa. at the own of this e-- end of the meeting, the vice president -- vice president xi invited the president and first lady to china. stay tuned. >> so no specific indications -- >> you can be sure that our -- i have no specific readout yet on the meetings. but you can be sure that all of these issues are raised in meetings like this. it is elemental to the kind of relationship that we've established with china in this administration, that we speak very candidly about the full range of issues that are on the table between us, both ones where we cooperate very effectively and where we have concerns and that includes our disappointment that china join with russia in vetoing the jines security council resolution not

long ago with regards to syria. >> a followup to that, did the question of currencies come up specifically in the conversation? the president mentioned the trade imbalance but did currencies in particular come up? >> again, i don't have a point-by-point readout of that meeting for you. i can tell you that generally speaking, as has been clear, because we talk about it both publicly and in our meetings with chinese leaders, currency is an issue that -- where we have some concerns. and where we have urged the chinese to take further steps to appreciate the chinese currency. while, again, i don't have a readout of the oval office meeting, point-by-point, you can be sure that that is one of the issues that are discussed in all our meetings with members of the chinese leadership. it was in the bilateral that the president had on his asia trip with president hu.

and it's the kind of -- it is one of the issues routinely raised in our meetings. >> in the preparations for this meeting, was there a concern that this meeting taking place so soon after the veto of the resolution on syria, that that sort of cast a bit of tension over the meeting and the relationship? >> well, as you know, this visit was planned quite some time ago. but i think i would point you to what i said before. there are a number of issues, this is an important bilateral relationship between the united states and china. we engage on the full range of economic, national security, and other issues. and we are able in our discussions with the chinese to talk about all the areas where we cooperate, including military to military cooperation, an area

of cooperation that's hailted -- highlighted by vice president xi's visit to the pentagon, as well as where we have disagreements and certainly the recent vote in the united nations security council is one area where we have a disageement. >> i know you're planning to release something on corporate taxes by the enof the month. do you have any update on when we can expect that? >> i don't know that i have a day to give you but we'll be putting that out before the end of the month. >> a followup on her question, what is the white house's impression of vice president xi in terms of the direction he's going to take china, his -- whether or not he's going to be a reformer or -- what is the take? i know that the national security advisor, this is his area.

>> it's an important enough relationship that there's no single interlo cutor -- interlocutor, you will. the president has a role, and others. i think it's too early to make those kinds of evaluations but also would be inappropriate for -- to speculate. vice president xi is the likely future leader of china. he obviously at this time is vice president. president hu is the leader of that country and the head of state, so we -- our interactions with him are the ones that -- decision making issues that we deal with president hu, obviously, at this point. i think it's premature to make those kinds of judgments but it is a measure of the importance of the relationship for both

countries that vice president xi is here. and that he is having the kinds of meetings he's having today. let me move around, if i could. in the back. >> i'm a politico journalist and politico analyst for china. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i have been here for two and a half years and i have always seen the american government press much more importance on the appreciation of the northeast. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> our leaders are very concerned whether the u.s. government is much less interested in the human rights situation in china. >> [speaking foreign language] >> and our leaders are also interested to know whether the u.s. government, the center on human rights center and policy between the mideast and china. can you tell us about this issue? >> well, i would simply say that we have in our relationship with the people's republic of china,

a whole host of issues. as i was saying before. and we always raise human rights concerns at the highest levels when we have meetings with senior members of the chinese leadership and we'll continue to do that. it is not -- it is simply not the case that we emphasize one aspect of a relationship over the other. they're all important, both the areas where we agree and the areas where we disagree. and we certainly express ourselves openly when we have concerned about human rights issues as we do in this case. president obama's very aware of that issue and -- as is vice president biden and secretary of state clinton and others. >> general dempsey today was testifying before the senate armed services committee, he said that some people in china are hacking into u.s. computers

and one senator said he's having lunch with vice president xi and asked if there was a message for him, and he said happy valentine's day, which drew laughter. most people are seeing friendly diplomatic talk bus there are serious issues that divide them are they really being addressed behind closed doors? >> you can be sure they are. and i think that is evidenced by the fact that the president in his state of the union address, millions of americans, announced his trade and enforcement unit, to address issues of the need to establish a level playing field in our trade relationships, include bug not exclusively, including china but not exclusively with china and the fact that whenever we have these

meetings, that these issues are raised. i think that the testimony you referred to, i think is more evidence of the concern that we have about that issue, that we speak publicly about and discuss with members of congress as well as with the chinese and others and again, i think that it is a hallmark of the relationship that we have established between this administration and china that we are able to discuss the whole array of issues involved in our relationship, both those where we agree and have strong cooperation and those where we disagree and have concerned. -- concerns. >> yesterday, they said a man from maine who is unemployed, and the president replied in his own handwriting and said, i won't lie to you, it will probably take another year to dig out of this hole. is that basically the white

house timetable? you think it's going to take a career or two? >> i don't have a timetable to give you. i happen to -- happened to catch that and noted the framing which is ironic, because i think anyone who looks at the facts the eight million jobs we lost because of the great recession, would note that while we have gained 3.7 million private sector jobs, since the economy began growing again, that obviously leaves a substantial hole to fill. and that's why the president is so focused on extending the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment insurance and passing the measures that will enhance the rebound of american manufacturing, passing the other aspects of the american jobs act to put teachers back to work and construction workers. so work is not done. recovery from this terrible recession is under way but it is far from finished. i think that's reflected in the letter that you mentioned.

>> yesterday, you talked about a syrian meeting february 24 in tunisia and the president spoke with mr. cameron yesterday, is the president going to be making a series of calls to world leaders, in terms of trying to gather and garner more support toward some sort of additional action in syria? >> well, i don't have any additional calls to preview for you or read out but the president is very engaged in this issue, as is, of course, the secretary of state, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations and others. we are working with our allies and partners within the friends of syria context to examine all ways that we can further pressure the assaad regime to get it to cease its reprehensible violence against its own people.

>> without any security council backing, what can the u.s. do additionally? what options do we have? >> we can continue to put pressure on the regime through sanctions, we can continue to move toward assisting the syrian people through humanitarian aid, and we can continue to make the case internationally to those who have yet to agree with us, and they are in a distinct minority, that the assad regime has lost its relejit macy and needs to go. you can be sure we'll continue to work very hard to try to bring about the transition to democracy that the syrian people so clearly want and deserve before it is too late. there is a political solution to be had here and it is imperative that every nation that continues itself a friend of the syrian people act on the syrian people's behalf.

>> last night on our evening news, i reported a white house official told me that because of the security council's failure to even condemn violence in syria, that china and russia's veto amounted to, quote a license to kill. >> i agree with that assessment. it is a warning that we made to our fellow ambassadors and others at the united nations prior to the united nations security council vote that failure to pass that resolution would be essentially a signal to assad that he could act with further impunity in brutalizing his own people, killing innocent syrian civilians. and that has seemed to have -- to have been the case. and it is highly regrettable that that veto occurred and that the resolution didn't pass. that's with why it is so important for action to be taken, for the international

community of nation who consider themselves friends of the syrian people to come together and do everything they can to further pressure the assad regem -- regime and assist the syrian people. >> finally, on corporate tax reform, to you envision a snaree where the president and his advisors would consult republican leadsers on that tax reform proposal before putting it out in order to get them on board so it could be taxed this year or the president is going to put it forward with other -- like he does with other proposals? >> we intend to put forward our corporate tax reform proposal. i don't think this is a case of getting people onboard before. i think this is an issue where there is the opportunity or potential for bipartisan compromise. the president has made his principles pretty clear in his approach to tax reform, they are sound principles, and principles we believe should have broad

bipartisan support. once that proposal is put forward, we will engage with congress to see if there's an opening here to get something done. as i was saying, just the other day, i think it's a fallacy to assume that there cannot be significant accomplishments on capitol hill this year just because it's an election year. in fact, the opposite may be true. it's certainly worth trying. >> in general terms, is the u.s. using this visit by vice president xi to ask china to lessen its dependence on iran -- iranian oil imports and isolate iran even more? >> i think that's one of a portfolio of issues likely to be discussed in these met a -- meetings. i think it's important to note,

however, that this is a reciprocal visit of the vice president of the people's republic to the united states, hosted by the vice president of the united states. he is not the leader of china, but the presumed future leader of china. but these are important discussions to have, certainly. >> following up on that, india has said it won't implement any sanctions on iran that aren't endorsed by the u.n. security council. is this something that could complicate the improved relationship the administration has pushed? >> i don't know about that i think we made clear to our allies and partners around the world about the importance of isolating the regime in tehran and putting pressure on iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. we will continue to work with countries around the globe in

furthering that goal and that includes, obviously, india as well as many other nations. >> [inaudible] talk about manufacturing goals, is he trying to send some sort of message about the dispute boeing was in last year? is there a message for labor? >> i think that boeing is an important manufacturer in the united states. on his asia trip he worked with boeing, there was an announcement of a major trade deal that represents a significant growth in that industry. so i don't think -- i think it has to do with the revitalization of the american manufacturing sector, most of all. boeing is obviously a good story in that regard.

>> being caught up in right to work and moving workers around, is he going to talk about that? did that factor into his decision to do this? >> i'm not aware that it facted -- factored in, i think the issue is about revitalization of american manufacturing, the measures the president wants congress to take and the measures he'll take through his executive authority to try to continue this rebound in american manufacturing. and i think that will be the primary message he'll deliver when he visits boeing on friday. >> following up on that invite for the visit, was that for this year? >> i think it was a general invitation, i don't have a time on. >> was it more just, oh, you should come visit, stop by with the kids sometime?

i know when you're throwing dinner parties, you ask for specific dates. >> i think it was a serious invitation. made by the vice president of the people's republic to the president. but i don't have a time frame for you on it. >> was a time frame given? >> not that i'm aware of. >> there's a report that the administration is considering, along with some of the allies, kicking iran out of an outfit called swift, an independent financial clearing-house that puts the financial screws to them in a big way. what are the prospects for that? >> i'll have to take the question, i don't have information on that for you. perhaps treasury does. >> on another issue, the president referenced in his comments today about the tax cut extension, the rising oil prices, rising gasoline prices people are facing. what is the administration doing

right now in terms of tracking where these prices are headed upwards so dramatically and what are the prospects for possibly tapping the strategic petroleum reserve again to try to bring the prices down. >> as was the case earlier in his administration when we saw a rise in prices like this, we monitor them very carefully. the president is keenly aware of the impact that higher gas prices have on families trying to make ends meet. i think the point he was making today with regards to the payroll tax cut extension is that at a time when prices at the pump are going up, it is more important than ever that that extra $40 on average per pay period is in the pockets of americans -- american men and women who need it to pay the bills. our approach to this is --

begins with the recognition that there's no silver bullet in dealing with global oil prices and that's why he pursues an all-of-the-above agenda when it comes to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, increasing domestic production of oil and gas, increasing our investments in clean energy and it's really an all-of-the-above approach. fars the strategic petroleum reserve, as was the case when we had this discussion a year ago, we never take options off the table. but i have nothing, no announcements to make or anything like that. >> so prices are on the up and up? >> i think that oil prices have been going up internationally and we monitor them very closely. i don't have an assessment of them beyond that.

maybe you might want to address your question to the treasury or justice departments. >> china is iran's biggest oil customer. the u.s. is looking to limit tehran's oil exports, what kind of -- one, will the president -- will that be addressed between vice president biden and the president and what kinds of assurances are you hoping to get from china that they won't increase their consumption of oil from iran? >> you rightly identify this as an issue that we have raised with our allies and partners around the world. and it is certainly on the list of topics that are of -- are discussed in meetings with the chinese leadership, including in these meetings with vice president xi. i don't have a detailed readout of the oval office meeting that

the chinese vice president had with the president but i can assure you that this is a topic that is, of course, one that we discussed with the chinese leadership as well as with other countries. i don't have any readouts to give you in terms of their response to this issue that we raise but it is certainly our position that we need to work collectry -- collectively to put pressure on iran, to isolate iran, and that -- and one way to do that is to limit the import of iranian oil, so this is an important issue. >> how does this visit work toward maybe solidifying some sort of assurance? >> again, i don't have specifics about the interchanges at this point. but it is an issue that we raise with the chinese as we raise it with many other countries. and it is part of an effort, a concerted effort, that has, i

might remind you, resulted in the strictest sanctions with the greatest impact that have ever been imposed on iran. and that impact is, i think, evident now to observers and having an effect on both the iranian economy and on the iranian leadership. >> the president's assessment earlier too, is it the view of the white house that things are close to an accord or not that close and perhaps more important, is this a case where nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to, including the doc fix and jobless benefits extension. >> let me make a couple of points about that first, point you to the comments the president made today. as ever, he says it best he did today about his views of the current discussions under way about how to extend the payroll

tax cut, how to extend unemployment insurance and the is sho -- and the so-called doc fix. i guess it is a hopeful sign, though a confusing sign that republicans who once declared the tax cuts never have to be paid for, then insisted that tax cuts for working merps had to be paid for, are now saying that perhaps tax cuts don't need to be paid for, these same tax cuts. confusing but a sign they are committed, as the president is, to extending the payroll tax cut through the end of the calendar year. the president made clear today an i'll make clear again here, that it is essential for the economy as well as for recipients of unemployment insurance that those benefits be extended as well. it is essential, and i don't think you'll find much disagreement about this on capitol hill, that doctors who receive medicare payments do not get a 27% cut in those payments this year so that doc fix needs to be extended through the end of the year.

otherwise, it would have a serious impact on senior citizens and their access to the physicians they need to see for their health. so all three of these elements of what was the package that was extended for two months at the end of last year are very important and we look forward to working with congress to find a resolution that ensures that all three are extended. they're all -- they're all important to the economy in different ways. and as the president made clear earlier, it is of vital importance that congress not muck up the recovery that we're seeing under way, the growth in the economy and the growth in job creation that has been evident of late. one way to muck it up would be to somehow fail to extend the payroll tax cut or somehow fail to extend unemployment insurance benefits or the doc fix. so we look forward to working with congress to make it all

happen and how we get from here to there, i will leave to congress to decide. but we're confident that with good faith and good will, it will all get done. >> could you talk about judge jordan being confirmed, are you trying to signal the elimination of the back log of judges will be more of a priority going forward and apart from expressing frustration about it, what can you do? >> we can't change the rules of the senate although on some days i'm sure we wish we could. my point is simply to highlight what has become a major problem in the conduct of normal business on capitol hill. when you have judicial nominees who are highly qualified, who have the support of members of both parties, who are reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously and then get held up and filibustered, you have to wonder what's wrong and you should not be surprised then

that americans get so frustrated with the gridlock and the playing of politics here in washington. >> judges -- are judges sometimes frustrated you haven't advocated more, they say you could use the bully pulpit more. >> we think all of our qualified nominees should be confirmed by the sthath without delay. i took this opportunity because it came to my attention that this highly qualified nominee would be confirmed today and that he had gone through this ridiculously long and delayed process for apparently no other reason than politics. and it was an opportunity to make a point. all the way in the back. >> on syria, last week you said that the regime is not going to last. what makes you so sure of that when russia and china -- nauble

-- and also, -- [inaudible] and also -- >> i don't have an exact date. i think it is, i know it is our view that the assad regime's days are numbered. he has clearly lost control of parts of his country, he has -- there are signs that he -- that members of the leadership in both the military and government are looking for ways to distance themselves or get out of his orbit and he has certainly lost all credibility with his people and with the international community. history will not forget what he has done in these past months and certainly the syrian people will never forget it. i don't have predictions on

when, but i think it is a matter -- it is not a matter of if, but a matter of win -- of when. and we will work in a concerted effort with the friends of syria to further pressure assad, further isolate his regime, assist the syrian people -- syrian people and try to bring about the democratic transition that the syrian people so clearly deserve and want. alexis. >> i'm just curious, is the -- if the house republicans are retreating on some ways on the tax, coming around to the president's way of thinking, does the president believe that going out to the country is affecting policy? that he's applying pressure on congress that's going to be producing deliverable results

this year? is it working? >> maybe you can assess that for us. the president looks forward to getting out of town and speaking with americans about his agenda and the efforts he's undertaking to grow the economy and create jobs. he certainly has used that opportunity to call on congress to act, to call on americans to let their representatives know how they feel with regards to the initiatives he's put forward to gre the economy and create jobs. i think that in the case of the payroll tax cut,, it is clearly a good thing with the economy recovering but still in a fragile state to extend this payroll tax cut through the end of the year. it is a hard argument to make that it is not a good thing and it is, i think, a hard argument to make or harder argument to make if one were to try to make it in an election year when members of congress have to explain to their constituents,

you know, what they did while they were away in washington and what they did to help the economy and help jobs. so we expect that for all those reasons, congress will do the right thing and act on what should have been and can now be something that has broad bipartisan support. the president will continue to go out and talk about his agenda, talk about the policy he is is putting into place to try to grow the economy and create jobs and he'll look for allies everywhere in that effort. >> in recent weeks, a number of people had been on a mission bringing jobs back to the u.s. from india. the president also met with the prime minister of india, indonesia and because lee, why

the focus on jobs coming back to the u.s.? >> i think there's a bright future on u.s.-india relations in economics and trade. that is true regardless of the effort that this president has undertaken to give more momentum to a trend that's already taking place, which is the insourcing of jobs from overseas, insourcing of american manufacturing jobs and other jobs, where american companies are bringing those jobs back to the united states from a variety of places around the world. we think that's a good thing for this country, for this economy. but broadly speaking, trade with india, trade with china, trade with countries all around the world, is vital to global economic growth andest terribly to economic growth in the united

states. this president has set a goal of doubling our exports by 2015. we are on track to meet that goal. and this president will do everything he can to enhance and spur economic growth so that we do meet that goal by 2015. >> [inaudible] >> i think -- i'm sure they were, i think it's important to have those kinds of visits. >> demonstrators outside the white house are asking for human rights and justice for people and saying the u.s. should change its policy to china. also there's a concern for human rights and conditions and labor.

>> well you know, as i was saying earlier, we take human rights issues very seriously. we are not shy about raising those issues in our meetings with members of the chinese leadership and it is part of the relationship that we have that we can talk about the whole range of issues that we -- that are on the table between us and human rights is certainly one of them. i just want to give others a chance. anybody? anybody? >> on the human rights issue, the vice president mentioned human rights, i'm wondering if you have any information about that? >> i don't. i don't have a detailed readout of that. we'll see if we can provide more details about that. >> can i clarify one thing on

the visit? i don't think we mentioned taiwan. was taiwan -- >> again, i don't have a detailed readout. i think all of the issues that are traditionally part of the discussion with china are likely to have been raised, but -- >> can you get one? >> we may have more of a readout. we don't tend to read out every topic of every conversation that we have. -- that we have with foreign leaders but we'll see if we can get you more. >> just two questions. just two. >> last one. >> the family, this is, we've got to keep it clean here. >> keep it clean. wait a minute. what do we mean by that? >> i know you don't have a readout but the president conveyed that message in person that you -- that a veto by china on the resolution by the united nations amounts to a license to kill and do you buy into or accept the justification by the

chinese that the united nations security council should not be used to issue mandates to change regimes? >> well, you know, our views on why that resolution was important, and it was a negotiated resolution that we had hoped would garner support broadly and would not be vetoed, are well known. we've made that clear. again, i don't want to give you an itemized list of topics that were discussed because i don't have that list to read from for you and i don't want to say that something was discussed if i don't know for sure that it was. but i can tell you broadly speaking that in our conversations with vice president xi and in our conversations with chinese leaders in general, we bring up all these issues, including our disappointment with the vote in the united states security council, including human rights and other issues, as well as our important cooperation on economic issues, on military-to-military relationships and the whole range of matters between us.

so again, i don't have a specific itemized list of the topics discussed in the oval office but i can assure you that broadly speaking, we speak very candidly with the chinese, i think as the questioner earlier indicate cod -- indicated, the vice president of the united states made that point in his remarks at the lunch today. i think that is generally the case. >> the supreme court justice, after justice breyer, this is the third incident in maybe a decade, but it was a pretty serious incident, does the president have concerns about security? anything the white house is looking at? >> i'm not aware of anything the white house might be looking at or the secret service. i would refer you to the security service for the supreme court. thank you all very much. >> now online at the c-span video library, speeches from last weekend's conservative

political action conference. >> we must outsmart the liberals. we must outsmart the stupid people that are trying to ruin america. >> it's about one country united under god, we aren't red americans, we're not blue americans, we're red, white, and blue, and president obama, we are through with you. >> around the left's table they can get along and come at our throat as long as we're foolish enough to raise taxes and telemoney in the center of the table and then they can get along like the scene in the movie after the bank robbery, one for you, one for you, one for you, and they're all happy. >> search for cpac, and you can clip videos and share them at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> there's been honest contention, spirits of disagreement, and i believe, considerable arguments. but don't let anybody be misled

by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of how americans who honestly differ close ranks and move forward for the nation's well being, shoulder to shoulder. >> we look back at 14 men who ran for the office of president and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders, who see voof the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> what about you? are you now out of debt? do you have a comfortable back log bank? are you paying less for the things you buy or more? do you really think things can't be better? of course they can. working together, we can and will make them better. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> the house is coming back in

now for debate on three bills that name post offices. votes expected to take place after 6:30 eastern today. on the agenda this week, debate on a bill dealing with surface transportation programs, they may also consider extending the payroll tax cut. politico writes that house and senate negotiators are nearing a deal to extend the payroll tax cut holiday, jobless benefits and the medicare reimbursement rate. funding for unemployment insurance and the medicare sustainable growth rate would be offset and the payroll tax cut holiday would be extended with cuts to the budget. now live to the house. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2079. torpcloipt --

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to senate the facility of the united states postal service located at 10 main street in east rockaway new york as the john j. cook post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, and the gentleman from no, mr. clay, each will control -- missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, h.r. 2079, introduced by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. mccarthy, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at number 10 main street in east rockaway, new york, as the john j. cook post office. the bill was introduced in june of this year and was favorably reported by the committee of oversight and government reform

last year. he served the community of east rockaway for six decades working as a letter carrier. serving his community for 60 years and four months. he went above and beyond and exemplified professionalism each and every day on the job. mr. cook delivered mail on the same route for almost all of the 60 years on the job and according to many in the community he continually touched the lives of countless people spanning many generations. according to one east rockaway resident he was quite simply the best. he knew all his customers very well and gave personalized service every year. they said, you know what, they don't make people like any any more. sadly mr. cook passed away in 2005 at the age of 78. he left behind his wife, roberta, and many who will miss this true public servant and model postal employ. i urge all members to join me in -- model postal employee.

i urge all of my members to join me in passing this and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. as a member of the oversight and government reform committee, i am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of h.r. 2079, a bill to designate the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 10 main street in east rockaway, new york, as the john j. cook post office. the measure before us was introduced by representative carolyn mccarthy on june 1, 2011, and in accordance with the committee requirements, h.r. 2079 is co-sponsored by all members of the new york delegation. it was reported out of the committee by unanimous consent on november 3, 2011.

and at this time, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlewoman from new york as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank certainly mr. kelly from pennsylvania, and mr. clay from missouri, for helping me get this through the committee and i appreciate that. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor mr. john j. cook, a world war ii veteran, a model american postal worker and an intory indicate resident of the east rockaway community. i would like to bring mr. santoro for bringing this to my attention. mr. cook began working for the postal service in 1944. for the next 60 years he served our east rockaway community as a letter carrier who exemplified the american work ethic, displaying prolvesalism,

courtesy and tireless dedication. after serving in world war ii in the pacific theater, mr. cook began working for the local post office and quickly became an intory indicate part of the east rockaway community. day in and day out for more than 60 years, mr. cook took pride in his work delivering the mail to the east rockaway community in a timely and efficient manner. he tailored his delivery to the wishes of each individual customer. for example, he would make sure that important messages, such as a wedding invitation or college acceptance letters were placed on the top of the day's mail for that customer. mr. cook would go above and beyond his expected duties. at times he even would cancel his family vacations because the post office needed him for a last-minute shift. as public servants we can recognize the importance of dedication, hard work and service to one's community. in his -- it is only fitting

and proper that the united states government and postal service take the opportunity to honor a great man like mr. cook. he truly was a great american. mr. cook exemplified these values on a daily basis and became esteemed member of our east rockaway community. he watched the children of his customers grow up and marry and have their own children. to rename the post office in mr. rook's honor will be a well-deserved tribute to a world war ii veteran and a modeled public servant. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting h.r. 2079 in honor of mr. john j. cook. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers at the moment and i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i am

ready to close if that's ok with the gentleman from pennsylvania. having no additional speakers, i once again urge adoption of h.r. 2079. i also ask that we keep the example of mr. cook's career in mind as we work together to craft what should be bipartisan legislation to ensure that the institution mr. cook loved so much, the united states postal service, can continue to serve our nation so well. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of h.r. 209, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

2079. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. kelly: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3247. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3247, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1100 town and country commons in chesterfield, missouri, as the lance corporal matthew p. pathenos post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, h.r. 3247, introduced by the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1100 town and country commons in chesterfield, missouri, as the lance corporal matthew p. pathenos post office building. the bill is co-sponsored by the entire missouri state delegation and was reported favorably by the committee of oversight and government reform on november 3 of last year. mr. speaker, it is fitting and proper that we name this post office in chesterfield, missouri, for marine corporal -- lance corporal pathenos, a true american hero who gave his life courageously defending freedom.

more than a selfless marine, mr. speaker, lance corporal pathenos was a loving son, brother and friend. as one of his fellow marines reflected after his tragic passing, the best thing about matt was his ability to wake up every day with a smile and hold it all day long. even while in the midst of war, lance corporal pathenos strove to bring joy to his fellow marines and friends. that's the kind of guy he was. with the sacrifice we are truly grateful. i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from missouri and the sponsor of this legislation, mr. akin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3247, a bill i introduced to honor the life of matthew p. pathenos by designating the post office in chesterfield, missouri, and the lance corporal matthew p. pathenos post office building. a resident of baldwin, missouri, plans corporal

pathenos was part of the third battalion, 24th marine region meant, fourth marine division of the marine forces reserve. on february 7, 2007, lance corporal pathenos was killed during combat operations in the anbar province of iraq. matthew was often described by family and friends as a friendly young man who always had a joke to tell and a smile on his face. matthew decided to go join the military in order to follow his older brother into his country's service with the hope of helping those who could not help themselves. matthew's then girlfriend, irene, called lance corporal pathenos her hero and hoped she possessed a fraction of his bravery and discipline. as the father of three marines, one of whom has served in iraq, it is a privilege to stand here today to honor one o