finally, you refuse to produce any documents that post-date the false letter of february 2011 to either the house or senate. i'm happy to have a conversation with you about what the facts show at another time and place, but i stand on the record. >> with regards to that letter, but i made available was not in creation of the february 4th plotter. i made available all of the materials that went into the creation of that letter, which was unheard of, something that they just department has always tried to protect. as i said, and i will say that again, to the extent that there are issues that remain

unresolved, materials that want people to get, i'm willing to go into the process to listen to those requests and make available things that we have not decided would be appropriate. i want to avoid this constitutional crisis. i will not compromise the integrity of witnesses or people that we are working with. aside from those two concerns, and willing to work with congress in this regard. >> out of fairness to the others, i would note to the appreciation of all of the gun walking. >> thank you. welcome, attorney general. i wanted to make one point and ask a few questions.

the point i want to make is that it is my belief as a former united states attorney, someone involved with the department of justice, that it should be are based on expectations that every attorney general and every united states attorney should be willing and able to follow evidence wherever it leads. in that regard, that is a somewhat different entity than other elements of an end ministration -- and other elements of the administration that may be more appropriate. within the department of justice, we behave differently. i'm worried about where this

discussion is going is setting the bar to low with a presumption and a standard that the united states attorneys are not capable of investigating the branch of government. i think that is factually wrong and want against the history of the department. they have put pressure in building of these safeguards. i can remember that, for a long time, there was a world based on a letter from senator hatch that very few members of the white house were allowed to do so and it was a small number on the other side. they could have direct access to those involved. after a pointed that out to attorney general gonzales, they retreated on that, but there

have been all of these fences built in overtime to protect the unique role. there have been high points and low points. this was when he went all the way to the attorney. -- to the office to stand up for the independent view that the wiretapping program is being conducted illegally and that the white house did not back down that he, and a considerable amount of the senior members in that department going to resign. the white house blanked and the reconstituted the program. that is all a matter of public record. a less happy event was when the inspector general investigation into the politicization of the administration actually lead into the white house and the attorney general refused to conduct an investigation once it touched the white house even there is no executive privilege

>> we are going to leave this oversight hearing and take you live to ohio for mitt romney's campaign and a candid it is just arriving. this is the third day of his bus tour through small towns in battleground states. earlier today, he was at a pancake breakfast and later today, attending an event with house speaker john boehner. we expect to hear from the junior senator, rob portman, as well as the governor's wife. >> the next president of the united states, mitt romney. [applause] >> hello, new work. -- newark.

[no audio] videos withing some the problems coming -- having the feedoblems with coming in from ohio. we will get this fixed. at the iceake a look cream social in a meeting with reporters.

clacks serving ice cream on friday to supporters. we go live now back to ohio. we will hear shortly from mitt romney. >> i think all of us know where our happiness comes from. it comes from our families. it is really wonderful today -- it looks like we're having an emergency in the background, but it's wonderful for me to that -- to date have two of my son standing with me today. in honor of [no audio] >> again, still having problems

from the video coming in from ohio. and romney had just taken the stage. this is the third day of his bus tour through small towns and battleground states. earlier, a pancake breakfast and later today, an event with house speaker john boehner. we will try to get you back to the ohio event as ann romney some of the children take the stage. >> when he was governor of massachusetts, everywhere he has gone, he takes things and turned them into a success. one of the best deals is that of a problem solver. i'm in west coast time and i had to get up really early. i was exhausted on the bus. i was trying to curl up and take a nap. i was kind of sitting under three kids that were kicking their legs. he rearranged the chairs,

found me a pillow, and found me somewhere this league. he sees problems and the fixes them. thanks to him i'm well rested. it's great to be here. we love my dad so much. we are really behind him. sometimes we wonder how much we really wanted him to have the job of president, but i have to tell you it's the right thing for the country. we need him to do it. [applause] we are really behind him. we will do anything we can. today is father's day and i want to make sure we honor him and tell him happy father's day. >> i this want to say one quick story. when i was a young husband and we're having our first kids, they were twins. i have my boy and girl twin

here. and then i have my other two and my wife. when she was pregnant with the twins, they were starting to come out early and she had gone straight to bed rest. she could not go anywhere, not even get food out of the kitchen. i would thackeray cooler, a packer breakfast and lunch. then i would leave for work for the day. i think she had a book or something and i hope she was ok. my dad came in and would asked what we were doing. he went and put a tv in the upstairs and started making calls and found someone to do errands for her during the day all within a few hours. it was amazing. [applause] it taught me a lesson of fatherhood and also being a good husband. he set an example constantly for

me, my brothers. this is someone we need desperately to fix our economy in america. [applause] we look forward to hearing from you. thanks for being out today. we love this. thank you. >> it's great to be with you today. thanks for your help today. senator portman, thank you for being here with the whole family. they do not want to have to hear me one more time, but i cannot tell you how much i appreciate your being out here today on father's day to give me this welcome for a father's day will never forget. thank you. you are the best. thank you. thank you. thank you. let's get going right now. [chanting] go, mitt, go!

go, mitt, go! we will not let his record of failure and disappointment turned a one-term proposition into an eight-year proposition. he has to go home. the astride to convince us that

he is made things better, but he has not. he went out there and said the economy is doing just fine. you know what? 23 million people are out of work doorstop looking for work and they have something to say about that. they have something to say about that. we have a lower rate of new business formation than at any time in 30 years. he has failed. he deserves to go home. get someone to a chance. he says the things he has done help, but you get a lot of businesses over here. ask them whether his policies have helped or hurtm, and they will tell you they hurt. ask him whether his pushing back

against the wheel and gas made it easier to create jobs. they will say it did not. ask them if obamacare helped. ask them what they will say. he was asked about small businesses and the impact of obamacare. he says he has not heard it made it harder for small businesses. i can hear your voice is loud and clear. they said obamacare made it less likely for them to hire people. we need someone who put jobs number one, not obamacare number one. [applause] in this speech of his the game last week, he said every american deserves a good shot. every american deserves a fair

shot. by the way, i agree. hard andwn for working living by the right kind of values that we will have a chance for a dreams to be fulfilled and will also be able to provide for our families. that me ask you this. do you think passing along $1 trillion in new debt every year to the next generation will give them a fair shot? how about the fact that the president takes tens of billions of dollars of your money from a taxpayer money, and uses it to bailout or invest in companies of his campaign contributors? does that give you and small businesses a fair shot? how about those kids in washington, d.c., used to have a scholarship program? these are at risk kids that this allowed them to go to charter schools of their choice. does that give them a fair shot? i agree. this is an election about a fair shot for the american people, a

fair shot for the coming generation coming a fair shot for entrepreneurs and innovators. i think it's time for a fair shot the citizens and i want a fair shot for the future to be bright. [applause] audience: go, mitt, go! g , mitt, go! >> you're going to see something right here in ohio that will be all over the country. we're going to shock the world with our economy is coming back. i'm optimistic about the future of america. -- i'm confused now and then, but today am convinced that the american people are going to be surprised by just how great this

economy is going to be because the people in this country are patriotic, hard-working, willing to sacrifice for the future. we love america. we love the principles on which this country is founded. if we take advantage and turn away from the path of europe with big government, big taxes, america will see a very different dream for the future. let me tell you three things i'm going to do. it will be very different than this president and, frankly, different than any president we've had so far. i will take advantage of our oil, gas, coal, and energy resources. [applause] i'm going to get the pipeline in here from canada even if i have to build it myself.

two, i'm going to get rid of this big cloud hanging over all of the small businesses in america. it is a cloud of uncertainty. i'm going to get rid of obamacare and create real certainty here. number three, and i'm going to do something that makes people recognize that their investment in america, whether it is a start a business or anything that creates jobs, that it will take a great deal and i will make sure the dollar is worth something by getting us on track to a balanced budget. [applause] i had the privilege of being in san diego to celebrate veteran is day and to be there with some of the veterans of our foreign wars and a number of our servicemen and women who served

today. one man i introduced was a world war ii veteran and he had been on the uss tennessee. he was a lookout on the day of pearl harbor and the happened to look up and he saw in the eyes of the pilot of is coming in to drop bombs. i had him stand up. for 33 years, he served in our u.s. navy. these guys to serve in world war ii troops, there is not as many of them that they're used to be. but they cannot hold their arms high to hold up the torch of freedom, hope, opportunity, and that torches' coming down as they get a little older, but now it's our turn. we have to seize that torch and hold it high for the world to see. it is our duty and honor to hold that torch and how that will only happen if we are strong.

that starts with strong families and it includes a strong economy and it means a military second to none in the world. [applause] job number one is putting americans back to work with good jobs and rising incomes to make sure we can protect freedom here and freedom around the world. we can have a prosperous future and say your future is even better than what we enjoyed. i loved this country and a love you for your generosity today. we want to keep america the help of the earth. thank you very much. [applause] ♪

>> we have been watching republican presidential candidate mitt romney had a campaign rally in ohio. this event is part of the third day of his tour touring small towns in six battleground states. the five-day tour includes stops in new hampshire, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan. he attended a pancake breakfast

in ohio and later, an event with house speaker john boehner in troy, ohio. we will bring that to you later in programming. now, a conversation from yesterday talking about america's role in the world, deficits, his decision making process, and experiences from the 2002 winter games. >> i would like to begin by asking you about the future of our country and the role in the world. where do you see america four or five years from now? >> i see america's strength resuming, our homes, our economy, which will come with a resurgence by virtue of our energy and every direction of our economy towards the private sector in creating good jobs for small businesses.

i see as being known for strength and resolve globally in our military might, but not so much using that as we used are soft power resources to communicate to the world that we have interests and values that we want to share them with like- minded people and keep the world free and open and peaceful. >> i know you are reading george freeman the book about the next century. what about america's role in the next 100 years? >> i hope some of the things george freeman has predicted come true, but i do believe america is a place where the concept of freedom, individual freedom, political freedom, economic freedom will change the world. i believe that over the coming century that america will continue to play a leading role on the world's stage brevard

sure of our commitment to those principles. >> what worries you the most? >> we continue going down the road we are on, if i were to not get elected or reelected, we would become more and more like europe with higher deficits, debt that could put us in a greece, spain, or italy-like circumstance with low wage growth and with a military that would get slowly but surely hollowed out but could paper the various programs the government would try to keep in place. i see america and in defining position under this president and i think it's important to return to the principles of economic vitality that makes america the nation that we are. >> some question whether the austerity programs in europe have gone too far. are there lessons in what is working and what is not? >> what we would never do would

be to dramatically slash spending by $1 trillion or $2 trillion. instead i would look to eliminate programs which, over time, will be growing and taking up larger and larger shares of our economy. get rid of some of those programs like obamacare. thereby balance the budget but do not cut it all in the first year or you could cause a slowdown of our economy. i will not tell you precisely what each country got into problems, but each time it has been massive overspending and borrowing by the governments. >> in order to bring down a $16 trillion debt coming need more revenue, so where does the money come from? >> he began by taking action that slows down and ultimately reduces the growth of government. you actually eliminate programs. number two, you eliminate programs that have been growing very fast rate can send them back to the states and say they

will grow at the rate of inflation or inflation plus 1%. take medication, food stamps, they'll go back to the states. then a major government does not continue to grow but you shrink the number of government employees through attrition and you get america down by about $500 billion in four years which allows us to stimulate growth at the same time because we have tax policies that encourage small businesses to hire and grow again. then we finally get to a balanced budget. then you begin to pay off the debt. >> how does mitt romney make a decision, whether you are a business person, a governor, or the ceo of the olympics. what is the thinking process you go through. >> have to make decisions immediately. there's no time for the liberation more input from

others. most of the time, you have the occasion to go through a process that is more normal. my normal process is an important decision that involves a number of matters of significance. i asked a number of people close to the area of the subject to come in and present their views. i like having debates. i like having two sides. i did go to law school and a like the idea of it. arguing point back-and-forth, sorting through them. in some cases committee to go back and get information. i like gathering data and information so you have people with numbers, facts, figures to look to and to find out what is really happening. then with the information you have come you make the decision. all alone,re if i'm but you make the decision based on what you feel is best.

>> other places you try to go out to search out these ideas and make the decisions? >> it depends on the topic area. on the middle east, there would be a number people who had experience in the middle east that i respect, people with i might have disagreements, former members of republican and democratic of ministrations. i would seek out their opinions. i would love to be in a room where we debate different alternatives. you want to understand all the possible downside as you try to make that kind of the liberating process. i would also look to some of the leaders i have been close to who understand the region and gather that input, gather that information that is necessary, perhaps diplomatic, military information and then you make the information to develop strategies. i have done that in areas like energy speaking with those who work in different sectors of the energy world and recognize that

we have an enormous opportunity in this country to take advantage of natural gas, coal, oil. america can be a powerhouse, if you will come from an energy standpoint once again. >> people think washington is broken. how do you fix it? fort's virtually impossible a group of 535 men and women to be able to make decisions. you have to have a leader, a president will be actively engaged in the legislative process putting forward his/her views, fighting for them, fighting coalitions, working with people on both sides of the aisle and trying to build a coalition. i was elected governor of a state with a legislature that was 87% democrat. i could not have gotten anything done had i not been willing to work with the leaders of the democratic party on a collaborative basis to find

common ground here and there. that has to happen in washington, but it will not happen unless you have someone who has the experience and capability of really being a leader. president obama is a very nice fellow. he's never served as a leader before. he has not run a state, a city, a business. he is learning this leadership thing on the job and he's making some of the errors that have accounted for the fact that this economy has been so difficult in terms of rebuilding this to put people back to work. >> the think you can work with nancy pelosi and harry reid? >> members of the democratic party in the house and senate, those who feel that this is a critical time, that the nation as close to a press office and that we have to work together to find some common solutions. that happens more often than is given credit inside the house,

inside the senate. and then the white house just dropped the ball on obamacare, for instance. they came together with health care proposal than they were just swept aside. the president has his view and it was that you are no one else's. that is not the way to get the job done in a way that the american people would support. >> let me ask you about the olympics. what did you do, what did you learn with the winter games in 2002? >> i have spent 25 years in the business world before the olympics, one working at the consultant and having experienced working with enterprises tried to change and improve. then i began my on business, a venture-capital private equity business and i learned something there as well. the olympics allowed me to use some of those skills of the well, but it was a different

type of environment because my board of directors consisting of 53 people including the governor, mayor, and a number of public officials. it was caused by public-private to work together. -- it was quasi public- private. i had a lot of bosses. i began the process to help it become a better governor which is understanding that you have to personally take the time to meet with all the people who have interest in concerned about something as big as the olympics or as they get the state, as big as health care. the cannot just impose that on the country. that's not the way to make major change. >> what would your mom and dad think about your race for the presidency? >> they would be overjoyed and

delighted. when i ran for senate a long time ago, my dad came back and moved in. for almost six months, he would write speeches and ideas. he went to parades. he was 86, 87, 88 years old. he loved the process. he would be over 100 this year but he did not quite make it. >> what is it like to run for president physically? >> a lot of endurance, early- morning scum a late night. it is exhilarating. it is exciting that people support you like they do and give you encouragement, that there with you, that they will help you. you come away with more energy, not less. you then have a hard time falling asleep, not because i'm

worried, but because i'm so energized from the people i have met. >> governor, thank you for your time. >> join us again for the conversation with former gov. mitt romney. it will be at 6:30 p.m. here on c-span. >> one i thought was exceptionally inspiring was that everything else will pale in comparison. >> it was best put by saying those who think they're crazy enough to change the world are the ones who actually do. >> it's the same man christopher was talking about setting choose carefully and execute relentlessly which met a lot to me because too many times we find ourselves taking too many things on and not focusing on that one thing that should be a top priority.

>> the senate youth program bring students in for leadership education. this year, brian kamoie made an impact. >> i started with an impact of what it is like to be them. now that i'm in this role, what could share with them that either i wish i had known along the way they will remember when they read washington week, which is a very intense rapid-fire experience. if you leave a few key encouraging messages that a time when you know it is very easy to be cynical about politics, it is a good thing to encourage young people to preserve to pursue -- . >> that is tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> the eldest son of joe biden was the keynote speaker at a

north carolina democratic fund- raiser last night. >> governor, that has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? gov.. i look forward to calling you governor now and governor in november, governor. i see why you're going to get elected. it is an honor to be here in north carolina, an honor to be hosted by your state, an honor to sit next to your incredibly effective and truly one of the real leaders of the united states senate, senator hagan, who my dad knows well or did not have the privilege of serving with. i think they just passed in the night. they worked hard together to make sure that he was elected. i know why he worked so hard. your lucky to have the senator.

it's good to be with you. congressman price did not remember me. a lot of people do not. who the heck is bo biden? when he was first elected in 1986, my dad came down for him in chapel hill and he brought his eldest son to look at chapel hill and a few other institutions, that i won't mention, duke, davidson. it's good to see you and spend time with you. i did not have the good sense to apply to chapel hill and there probably would not have gotten in, but it's good to be with you. i'm sorry that your attorney

general is not here. i know he is out campaigning. i guess he does not have an opponent, does he? he is one of the great attorney- general is and a good friend of mine. i appreciate the party for inviting me and i want to thank you, congressman miller, for your services in this country. i'm sad to see you leave the congress, but i know your voice will continue to be heard. you have been a strong advocate for so many important things in american and it's an honor to be with you tonight. [applause] to meet youngonor democrats. i have met young democrats, all democrats -- well, not old. rufus, you are not old. he works with a lot of a.g.'s

and he took my dad under his wing in 1972, and he was kind enough to introduce me to one of these senior democrats in the room. mrs. goolege? it's an honor to be with you, here from union county. 91 years old. [applause] there is even a woman here from miami home town that had the good sense to move down here. good to see you. i want to start by thanking you, not just for inviting me, but what you did for the president of the united states in 2008 and for the vice-president. you let the the first democrat this state has seen in a long,

long time. i know you will do it again in 2012. it is not just because i think we have the best candidate both and viceesident president, but we have the best ground game i have seen. you have field offices all across this state in a way that is incredible. that is why this campaign is going to win, because of the people in this room, the ground game you brought here, unlike anything i have seen at least in my lifetime and you're going to repeat that effort here in 2012. i was in fayette bill last month for a great event he had a headquarters there in a shopping center. i know they're scattered all

across the state, registering voters, making phone calls, talking to neighbors, knocking on doors. this is a grassroots campaign, the governors as well as the president and that is why we're going to do so well and win this state again, because of you. let me get right to it. i want to talk to you tonight, not surprisingly, about this election, not just as an attorney general or a veteran, like many of you in this room. let's take a moment to think the veterans. thank you for what you do and thank you for what you do on their behalf in the senate. i'm here to talk to you as a parent. , as a father of two young kids that i'm going to race home to celebrate father's day with. i want to talk to you as a parent and the choice of all

americans facing at the polls in november about the consequences of the choice that we have in front of us. one can keep us moving forward, as the governor mentioned, or one moving backward. ladies and gentleman, as president obama said, this election, and i think he is dead on, is a make or break moment for the american middle-class. a front of the table that made me attorney general. unions made the middle class what it is. ament is right. as the president said on thursday, we need an economy that is not built from the top down, but from growing the middle class to provide letters of opportunity for people who are not yet in the middle class. that stake is not simply a choice between two candidates

and two parties but between two paths for our country. that is what the president said on thursday. i hope you all heard it. you should check it out on youtube. i have seen firsthand, ladies and gentlemen, from the perch i have as the son of the vice- president. the ladders of opportunity that they are building and the path they're putting this country on. for example, as a veteran, i talk to the senator about this briefly earlier this evening. i am often asked about president obama as record as it relates to veterans. i know this is something that affects some money. i messed about what this president has done for veterans. this is why i was in

fayetteville for a great event for veterans and their families for obama and biden. three things about this president. he understands what it means to be commander in chief. he understands when it comes out where, and how to deploy our forces. when, where, and how to deploy our forces. look at what he has accomplished as commander in chief. he has toppled a libyan leader without shedding 1 an ounce of united states blood. [applause] he has crippled al qa and aeda years of a lot of talk we finally got osama bin laden because of this president's leadership. [applause] second, this president understands what it means to be commander in chief because he knows when, where, and how to

redeploy those members of this audience for those who know what that means. that means when to bring our troops home and where to send them. he understands this. that is exactly what he's done. he ended the war in iraq and brought our troops home. like he said he was going to do. that is what leaders do. that is when your senator does. he went to washington and did exactly what she said she was going to do. he began the process to hand over authority to the afghans and he knows what you're senator knows, that our nation's need to focus on building our own nation, our own nation. third, president obama knows that his obligation just does not end with sending warriors to bottle or bringing them home.

in understands the words of george washington and what he meant when he said, quoting washington, "the willingness with which are then people are likely to serve in any war no matter how justified shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." that is what george washington said. that is what this president understands. president obama understands the obligation we have to go through to them especially when they come home and to the families of those who have not come home. those fallen angels come home from my state, dover air force base. i check every day and i'm going to make public remarks, i make sure i know how many fallen

angels have come through. 6407, as of today, of our best and brightest have lost their lives in the battlefield. most of home come through my state. thousands of amputees and i know a congressman here to die as visited walter reed in bethesda here in this state. thousands more with traumatic brain injuries. tens of thousands with post- traumatic stress disorder. this president understands what it means to take care of this generation of veterans as they come home. he has put his money where his mouth is. that is why, along with the senator and the congressional delegation of the democratic party, from 2009 to this day to day, this president is a

supporter of your congressional delegation and has increased benefits for veterans more than any administration has in 30 years. [applause] he made veterans benefits available to people who otherwise would not qualify, and this is in support of your delegation through a tax credit to incentivize employers to hire veterans. we're returning some of the most capable people in america, disabled and otherwise, whether it fits in or not, we have the most talented generation of people coming home and can fill some many jobs and we now have an incentive position program because of this president and your delegation to hire these veterans. michelle obama and my mother come until biden, have embarked upon a program called joining forces to help mobilize private

companies working hand in hand with the private sector to create 50,000 jobs thus far with a commitment to create an additional 160,000 jobs. thanks to this president, to our president, and your delegation in the post-9/11 gi bill come of veterans can get free undergraduate education at public institutions and other benefits to cover vocationally and on-the-job training and practice programs. -- apprentice programs. when it comes to mr. romney -- all right. i come to his record as it relates to veterans, there is simply no comparison. you need, and i believe this is about farming terraces in the

with the fact and that's what i'm here to do -- arming citizens with the facts. i was wondering why he did not run again in massachusetts. i've never met a successful politician who did not run again. makes you think, doesn't it? the poll showed him about 15 points down at one year out. off script here. let me tell you about his record. when he became the governor of massachusetts, one of the first things he did was proposed to cut veterans' benefits to the tune of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars. is general assembly, controlled by different party, blocked him or else that would have happened. even more concern to me, he supports what i call the romney-

ryan budget. you have seen the cuts. these are the cuts they intend to pursue. senator knows this very well. we have been telling you exactly what they're going to do. they're going to take an ax to the budget between 17%-20%. where that tax will fall if you believe them, and i do, will be to take out their numbers just by their math that the romney- line budget will cut veterans' benefits by $11 billion. they mean what they say, folks. facts. he took the occasion of last veterans day to propose to a group of veterans that we'

voucher the va. that is code for privatize. means was to provide a voucher -- a doctor -- to a soldier, a veteran returning home. ladies and gentlemen, there will be and should be a debate about the role of government. we will have that debate here in north carolina. we will have it in the united states senate. ladies and gentlemen, there should be no debate that it is the essential sacred role of the government to provide for veterans until their final breath. [applause] my grandfather had a sighing, don't tell me what your priorities are.

show me your budget, and i will tell you what your priorities are. these folks mean what they say. that's not the only example of the stark choice we face in november and across this country. working with your incredible attorney general, roy cooper, had that seen them face the heart of this financial crisis that the both alluded to. our president understands the devastating impact that this has had on the middle class where we literally lost billions upon billions of dollars in equity in our homes. true catastrophes and oppression's within each of the homes that are now under water and is estimated at one out of four are now under water. this is because of this man made

crisis that was born out of something called a mortgage- backed security. ladies and gentlemen, our president understands that. mr. romney simply does not get it. our president joined 49 other attorney general's, have republican and have democrat, led by your attorney general, roy cooper, working toward a landmark $25 billion settlement with five of the nation's largest servicing banks. it sounds like a lot of money, and it is, it's a good step towards accountability and for providing relief when needed for homeowners. what was mr. romney's enter to that? he went to the epicenter of the

mortgage housing crisis, nevada, the single most impacted state in our nation and what he said was -- and i always have to write this down -- "let it hit rock bottom." that is his answer today. he simply does not get it, ladies and gentlemen. his plan reveals a lot about what the future of our economy looked like if it is in his hands. when it comes to crime, i prosecute for everything from misdemeanors two murders in my state -- to murders. our president understands we have the lowest crime rate because we put more police on

the streets of our small, medium, and large cities and towns. starting in the 1990's with your leadership, 100,000 offiercers paid for by the government. you think things got safer because it just happened? we put officers on the streets. what does mr. romney thing one area that's good for costs? police offcers and fire fighters. he likes to fire people. he means what he says. an indication -- on education, an important issue in this state, our president knows w

need strong schools and skilled teachers to help them to go down the right path. mr. romney has made teachers public enemy number one. my mom is a teacher. i didn't take too kindly to that, and you did not either, however yelled in the back of the room. none of you do. [applause] he, like the republicans in your general assembly, would drastically slash spending on education. he plans to cut more jobs for police, firefighters, and teachers. he put 14,500 teachers, officers, and firefighters out by cutting aid. he wants to do this nationally.

it surprises me the republicans say the first that need to go are the ones that we need most, the people responsible. simply, he does not get it. in a those jobs in north carolina and across the country to keep our country moving in the right direction. speaking of jobs, let's not forget that this president has created more jobs as president of the united states in three and a half years and george w. bush did in eight years. [applause] he created 4.2 million private- sector jobs after inheriting a economy that was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month. before they took the new economic plan in the spring.

since then, this president has had 27 consecutive months of job growth. [applause] 27 consecutive months of job growth. this president, our president, treated five times more jobs in massachusetts -- created five times more jobs in massachusetts in three and a half years as president than in mid romney did in his four years as governor of that state. [applause] his term as president or governor -- he was 47 in job creation. i can not wait for people to look at his record. massachusetts fell to 44th place in economic growth and 35th in household income. to be fair, he did help his state reached first place in one area -- that is per-capita debt.

mr. romney, the same man who is campaigning on fiscal responsibility, left the citizens of massachusetts with more debt. write that down, because you need to tell your neighbors about this. he left the citizens of massachusetts with more debt per person than the residents of any other state in the nation. ladies and gentlemen, we have a choice to make in november. i know this as the father of two young children whose lives will be impacted by this choice, not only with regard to their generation, but also to the americans -- the inherit -- the america they will inherit from us. you know that, moving ahead into the future, it cannot be powered by old technology like fossil fuels. smart technologies, tomorrow's

technologies, are being invented right here in north carolina as we speak. you know that medicare and social security are lifelines for america's aging population, so you understand the consequences of these cuts and moves toward privatization of those programs in the romney- ryan budget. you know the choice between slipping backward by counting the failed policies of the past that devastated the middle-class and fractured our economy, or continuing to progress towards a better, stronger america. ladies and gentlemen, there are three simple yet powerful body is that have defined this president's policy in his first term. -- of values that have defined this president's policy in his first term. they are straightforward. hard work pays off. responsibility is rewarded. everyone gets a fair shot.

ladies and gentlemen, that is what this president stands for. that is what the democratic party in north carolina stands for. i believe that is what the united states stands for. that is why this choice is so clear. that is why i will work so hard to make sure that governor dalton becomes governor dalton and that president obama is elected to a second term. thank you, god bless you, and god bless our troops. i love this state, i look forward to coming back. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank yo. this is from the north carolina democratic party to thank you for your appearance and your inspiring carquinez. this basket is filled with food

manufactured here in north carolina. afterwards, you will still have the basket. if you are a good enough students to consider applying to the university of north carolina, your knowledge of geography is enough to remember where you got this basket. thank you very much for being here. >> thank you, senator. i love coming to north carolina. i love coming to the south. i did call a general one i companies the mason-dixon line. i know i'm not a real general, but thank you for calling me that. [applause] >> florida congressman alan wendt and other african- american -- allen west and other african american republicans will discuss ways to help small businesses in the african- american community. it will talk about ways to

enhance entrepreneurship and remove barriers to economic growth. join us live at 1:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> canada, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend, followed david maraniss following in the president's footsteps. a video record of his travels, then live at 7:30, he takes your calls and questions. afterwards, conservative commentator john of kohlberg blames liberals for a ongoing war on ideas. >> politics have been distorted for the last century or so by the idea that the closer you get to the left, the closer you get too bad things. the best definition of a fascist in modern american life is

simply a conservative that is winning. >> that is monday on a secret -- c-span 2 bank. >> defense secretary leon panetta says automatic budget cuts set for last year would be a disaster and would be reductions in health care for veterans. the cuts were put in place after congress failed to reach the agreement on reducing the deficit. secretary panetta testified wednesday at a subcommittee hearing along with joint chiefs chairman to dempsey. both were criticized by patty murray about the state of veteran health care. a recent study shows that military suicides have doubled in the last 10 years. this is just over two hours. [conversation]

[gavel] 'conversati[conversation]

>> this morning i would like to welcome the hon. leon panetta, secretary of defense, and general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to testify on the administration's budget for 2013. gentlemen, you assume these positions during a very challenging moment in history. the economy in our country is facing a budget deficit and you have been tasked with significantly reducing the department of defense budget in an effort to cut down spending. these budget reductions come at

an occasion where we are fighting a war in afghanistan and a terrorism's threat worldwide. at the same time, the world is changing rapidly. the department of defense is being called upon to respond to threats ranging from cyberspace to weapons proliferation, instability in key regions such as we witnessed in the arab spring. the fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $604 billion. this is a decrease of $28.8 billion over last years enacted budget. mainly due to a drawdown of operations in afghanistan and iraq. over the next decade, the budget

control act sets limits d forod, -- for dod that are $487 billion less than what the department plans to spend. in order to meet the new fiscal realities, you have approved a defense strategy for these budget reductions. the budget moves from the ability to fight two major theater wars to being able to defeat a major adversary in one theater. in addition, it shifts the military focus to an increased emphasis on pacific and middle eastern regions. furthermore, the department

institutionalizes capabilities to deal with an asymmetric threats. it enhances cyber operations. most importantly, the strategy reaffirms the administration's call -- commitment to an all- volunteer force and maintains the records of this force as a vital component of national security. the defense strategy does not take into consideration another component of the budget control act now sequestration. -- known as a sequestration. beginning on january 2, 2013, if the deficit reduction agreement is not reached, the department of defense will take a reduction of nearly $500 billion over the

next 10 years. gentlemen, i look forward to having a candid dialogue this morning on this issue, as well as others i have highlighted. we sincerely appreciate your service to our nation and the dedication and sacrifices made daily by the men and women of our armed services. we could not be more grateful for what those who wear our nation's uniform and those who support our military to for our country each and every day. mr. secretary, general, your full statements will be made part of the record. i will now turn to the vice chairman for his opening remarks. coc senatehran. >> am pleased to join you to

review the senate -- and the dip -- request for the department of defense and overview the challenges facing our national security interest. we thank you very much for your willingness to serve in these important positions. they really are complex and could not be more important. we appreciate the dedication and the years of experience that you bring to the challenge as well. we expect to have an opportunity today to find out some of the specific details that need to be brought to the attention of the senate. thank you very much. >> i thank you very much. i will not call upon the secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator cochran, members of the

committee. it is a distinct privilege and honor to have the opportunity to speak before the subcommittee of appropriations. first and foremost, let me express my personal thanks to all of you for the support that you provide are men and women in uniform and the department. i have had the honor of working with many of you in other capacities. i just want to thank you for your patriotism in providing very important public services to this country and, from my point of view right now, providing the support that we absolutely need at the department of defense in order to keep this country safe. thehere to discuss president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. i also want to comment as well

on the problems associated with sequestration. this faces us in january of 2013. i wanted to mention also some of the budgetary challenges that we still face in the fiscal year 2012 as a result of your costs and other contingencies that we are facing. with regards to the fiscal year 2013 budget request, this was the product of a very intensive strategy review that was conducted by senior military and civilian leaders of the department under the advice and guidance of the president. the reasons for the review are clear to all of us. first and foremost, we are at a strategic turning point after 10 years of war. obviously, a period when there was substantial growth in the

defense budget. second, we are now a country that is facing very serious debt and deficit problems. congress did catch the -- past the budget control act, which imposes spending limits that reduce the spending budget by $487 billion over the next decade. i have always recognized, based on my own background, having worked on budget issues, that defense does have a role to play in trying to get our fiscal house in order. for that reason, we look at this as an opportunity to develop a new defense strategy for the future, not to simply have to respond to the budget requirements that were here, but to do it in a way that would provide a strong defense for the country in the future. the defense strategy that we develop does reflect the fact

that, as we end the war in direct and drawdown in afghanistan, we are at a turning point that would require us, frankly, to make a strategic shift under any circumstances. the problem is, unlike past drawdowns were the threats that we confronted receded, after wars, after the vietnam war, after the fall of the soviet union -- the problem is that we continue to face very serious security challenges in the world of today. we are still at war in afghanistan. we still confront terrorism even though there has been significant damage to the leadership of al qaeda. the reality is that we find -- we confront terrorism in somalia, yemen, and north africa. we continue to see the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we continue to see threats from iran and north korea.

we continue to see turmoil in the middle east. we see the rising powers in asia that represent a challenge in terms of stability in that region as well. there are going -- a growing and concerns about cyber intrusions and cyber attacks. we have to meet these challenges and at the same time the responsibility to fiscal discipline. i do not think we have to choose between our national security and our fiscal security, but at the same time, and this is not an easy task, to build the force we need for the future, we develop strategic guidance that consists of five key elements, the elements that guided us in terms of the budget recommendations we make. first, we know that the military will be smaller and leaner in the future, but it has to be agile, flexible, quickly

deployable, and technologically advanced. second, because of the world we live in and where we confront some of the most serious problems that face us, we have to rebalance our global posture. and presence -- to emphasize the asia-pacific region and the middle east. those are the two areas where we confront the most serious challenges. third, we have to build, for the rest of the world that we deal with, we have to build innovative partnerships and strengthen key alliances and partnerships elsewhere in the world. so that we maintain a presence in latin america, africa, europe, and elsewhere. fourth, we have to ensure that we have a force that can confront and defeat aggression from any adversary anytime anywhere. lastly, this cannot just be about cutting the budget. it also has to be about

investments, investments in new technology, new capabilities, as well as our capacity to grow, adapt, and mobilize as needed. in shaping this strategy, we did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. our goals were the following -- number 1, maintained the strongest military in the world. that is what we have now, that is what we want in the future. secondly, we do not want to hollow out the force. we will maintain a large force, -- a large force with less spending -- the result is that you weaken everything by the inability to address the needs to address that kind of force. that was a mistake that has been made in the past. we do not want to make that mistake again, today or in the future. that means that we have to take a balanced approach to budget cuts. we have to take a balanced approach and put everything on the table. it also means that we do not want to break faith with the troops and the families,

particularly the troops that have been deployed time and time again. as a result of these efforts, both our military and civilian leaders, strongly unified behind the leaders that we protected -- presented, consistent with the budget control act, this budget reflects that we will achieve savings of almost $260 billion in the next five years. tenure savings will be $487 billion. the savings will be from four areas. efficiencies, force structure, procurement reforms, and lastly compensation. let me walk through each of these areas. on efficiencies, efficiencies will yield about 1/4 of the targeted savings we have in this package. on top of $150 billion in efficiencies in the 2012 budget, we have added another $60 billion, primarily from streamlining support functions,

consolidating i.t. enterprises, consolidating inventory, and reducing service support contractors. as we reduce this -- a force structure, we have a responsibility to be cost efficient in terms of the support for that force. a that is the reason that the recommendation has been to authorize another base realignment and probe -- closure process for 2013 and 2015. as somebody who has gone through this, i realize how controversial this process is for members and constituencies. yet we do need, if we will bring the force down, we have got to find an effective way to achieve infrastructure savings. that is the reason the recommendation was made. efficiencies are still not enough to achieve the necessary savings. budgetary reductions of this magnitude, almost half of $1 trillion, require significant

reforms to structure, for germans, and compensation as well. we achieve those in the context. let me walk through each of those. we have a force that is smaller and legal -- leaner, but it has to be agile and technologically advanced. we knew that the military would be smaller coming out of the wars. to insure an agile force, we made a conscious force not to maintain more for structure than we could afford to properly train and equip. implementing force structure reductions consistent with its guidance will give us a total savings of $50 billion over the next five years. those recommendations are to gradually resize the active army. we're at 560,000 now, we would bring that down over five years to 490,000. that is a 70,000 reduction over that period.

it is a force that we flexible, agile, -- we would still maintain 18 divisions, 65 brigade combat teams, and 21 aviation brigades. we do the same with the marine corps. we're at about 202,000 in the marine corps. which would bring them down to 182,000 over the next five years. that is a reduction of about 20,000. again, they would still remain the strongest expeditionary force in the world. we would have 31 infantry and italians, 10 artillery battalions, and 20 at -- 20 tactical air squads. we would reduce the airlift fleet. in addition, the air force would eliminate seven tactical air squadrons but would still retain a robust force of 54 combat fighter squadrons. the current bomber fleet would be maintained. we obviously have the joint

strike fighter in production. we're also going to develop a new generation bomber. we look forward to it in the future. we also have a fleet of 275 strategic airlifters and 318 c- 130's. the navy would retire seven lower-priority cruisers. the reason they focused on that is because these cruisers have not been upgraded with ballistic missile defense capability. they're old and need repairs. so that was an area that they decided to try to achieve savings. that would still maintain a force in the navy of 285 ships. 11 carriers, 82 cruisers and destroyers, 15 nuclear-powered set -- attack submarines. we would achieve a naval number of about 300 ships by 2020. secondly, in rebalancing our

global posture to emphasize asia-pacific and the middle east, we make clear that we have got to protect capabilities needed to project power in asia- pacific and in the middle east. to this end, the budget, as i said, maintains the current bomber fleet, the aircraft carrier fleet, the amphibious fleet, and it restores army and marine corps force structure, particularly in the pacific. we are looking at -- we have already provided for a rotational deployment of marines in darwin, australia. we're looking to do the same thing in the philippines as well as elsewhere. the same thing is true with regards to a strong presence in the middle east. because of the threats in that region, we have maintained a strong presence of troops strength in that area as well. building innovative partnerships and trying to strengthen our

alliances throughout the world -- the way that we are doing this is by developing this innovative rotational presence, where troops will go into an area, exercise, provide guidance and assistance, develop alliances, develop capabilities, and build key alliances and partnerships for the future. that is the message i delivered to the pacific on my last trip. it was received. i delivered the same message to latin america. it was well-received. this is not a question of the united states going around and exerting our own power and telling these countries we will defend them. they have to develop their own capabilities to secure themselves for the future. that is what this proposal provides for. fourthly, we ensure that we can confront and defeat aggression from any adversary, anytime, anywhere. that goes to the force structure that will sustain a military that is the strongest in the world, capable of quickly and

decisively confronting aggression wherever and whenever necessary. in the 21st century, our adversaries will come at us using 21st century technology. that is the world we live in. we have got to be able to respond with 21st century technology. so we must invest. we have got to invest in space, cyberspace, long-range precision strikes. we have got to invest an unmanned vehicles. we have got to invest and special operations forces. we have got to invest in the latest technologies to insure that we can still confront and repeat multiple adversaries. the last area is to protect and prioritize the key investments that have the capacity to grow, adapt, and mobilize. i talked about some of the areas you want to invest in. this budget provides almost $12 billion of investment in science and technology.

$10.4 billion in special operations forces. $4 billion in unmanned air systems. $3.5 billion in cyber. the last point i would make is that we have got to maintain a strong reserve and a strong national guard that can respond if we have to mobilize quickly. that has been a key to our ability to mobilize over these last 10 years. today, i have to tell you that, when you go out to the battlefield, you cannot tell the difference between active duty and national guard and reserve units. they're out there fighting. they're developing great capabilities. i do not want to lose that for the future. i want to maintain that. the last area will mention is an area that is extremely important. it is fundamental to our strategy. that is our people. that, frankly, is the biggest strength we have in the united states. for all the weapons we have, the technology we have, is the men and women in uniform who are the strongest weapon we have for the

future. so we want to sustain the family assistance programs, the programs were wounded warriors, the basic support programs for our troops and their families. but at the same time i have got to focus on savings in the compensation area. this is an area that has grown by 90%. frankly, we have got to be able to find some cost savings in that area. it is for that reason that, when it came to military pay, we provide pay raises in the next two years, but we will try to limit pay raises in the out years to provide some limits. we do the same thing with care costs. i recognize that is sensitive and controversial, but health care costs are almost $50 billion a year at the defense budget. i have got to do something to control health-care costs in the future. we have also looked at the idea of retirement commission -- a retirement commission to look at the time and commissions for

the future. we want to grandfather benefits for those presently in the force, but we want to achieve savings for those in the future. that is the package. it is not easy. it is tough. we need your support. we need your partnership in trying to implement a strategy. i know these cuts are painful, and the fact is that the impact all 50 states, but there is no way that you can spend half of $1 trillion -- cut half of $1 trillion and not have an impact. that is a reality. so the key here is to try to do this in a way that will -- relates to a defense strategy. that is important. the committees that have marked up our budget have accepted the recommendations we made for investment changes and we appreciate that. but some of the committees have also made changes with regards to our recommendations that we

are concerned about. some of the bills seek to reverse decisions to eliminate aging and lower-party ships and aircraft. my concern is that, if these decisions are partly reversed, i have got to find money somewhere in order to maintain this old stuff. this has me literally in a situation where i have to hollow out the force in order to do that. we have got to be able to retire what is aged and what we can achieve some savings on. the same thing is true for proposals to basically not provide for the measure and a gradual reductions in the strength we have proposed for the army and marine corps. if i have a large force and i do not have the money to maintain it, i will and appalling it out because i cannot provide the training and equipment. that is why, if we are going to reduce the force, i have got to be able to do it in a

responsible way. the last point i would make is with regards to overhead costs and military health care and compensation. again, and i understand the concern about that, but if i suddenly wind up with no compensation -- no reductions, i have to reach someplace to maintain those programs. somebody has to pay the price for that. there is no free lunch here. every low-priority program that is retained will have to be offset with cuts and higher priority investments to comply with the budget control act. i recognize that there is no one in this committee who wants to hollow out the rough force -- the force or weaken our defense. i would strongly urge all of you to work with us to reach a consensus about how we achieve our defense priorities recognizing your concerns. our job is to responsibly respond to what this congress is mandating on a bipartisan basis

with regards to reducing the defense budget. and i need to have your help and support to do this in a manner that preserves the strongest military in the world. let me say a few words about sequestration. obviously this is a great concern. this would result in the doubling of cuts, another $500 billion that would have to be cut through this kind of formulaic meat axe approach that was designed into that process. it would guarantee that we haul out our force and put severe damage on and national defence. i think all recognize that a sequester would be entirely unacceptable. i urge both sides to work together to find the kind of set -- a comprehensive security that would not -- a comprehensive solution that would not trigger sequester and prevent this potential disaster. i know that members of the committee are committed to working together to stop

sequestered. i want you to know that we are prepared to work with you to do what is necessary to avoid that crisis. the last point that i would make is on fiscal year 2012. we have some additional needs that have developed during fiscal year 2012. just to summarize a few. with regards to your cost, because of the increase to cure costs, we are facing -- because of the increase in fuel costs, we are facing additional costs in that area. right now, that is what we are facing. we also have the closure of ground lines, the so-called g- locks and pakistan. we are using the northern transit route to drawdown forces and supply our forces. the amount is about $100 million

a day -- $100 million a month because of the closure of those lines. iran dumb, -- iron dome, a system we are trying to provide for the israelis, also has additional costs. we had to provide additional forces in the middle east because of tensions in the gulf. we have increased our naval and land forces there. those are additional costs as well. we have some and budgeted needs that we would ask for your support. i will present an omnibus reprogramming request. we hope to work with you to resolve these issues in the current fiscal year and do what the american people expect all of us to do, being fiscally responsible and developing a force that can defend the country and defend our nation and support the men and women in uniform that are so important to

the strongest military in the world. these last two weeks i had the opportunity to travel throughout asia-pacific. i consulted with our key allies and partners. i think that they are very receptive to the strategy that we are proposing, and they are enthusiastic about our engagement in the region. i have been able to reassure our allies and partners that we have a strategy-based approach to dealing with national security. i come from this institution of the congress. i have great respect for you and for your institution. i look forward to a partnership here to try to develop approaches that will be necessary if we are going to meet our responsibilities to national security and fiscal responsibility at the same time. thank you. >> thank you for your comments -- testimony. i now call upon general dempsey.

>> thank you, chairman. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the president's defense budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. this budget represents a responsible investment in our nation's security. it maintains our military is decisive edge and sustains america's global leadership. moreover, it keeps faith with the nation and the true source of our military strength, which is of course america's sons and daughters to serve in uniform. i would like to open with a few words about them and their accomplishments. in just this past year, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for the crippled al qaeda. they brought to a close more than 20 years of military operations in and over a iraq. they continued the steady transition of secured responsibility in afghanistan. they helped to protect the libyan people from a regime's brutality and helped japan

recover from a tragic natural disaster. they work professionally and quietly behind the scenes, defending against cyber threats, sustaining our nuclear deterrent posture, and working with allies and partners around the globe to build capacity and prevent conflict. they did not just do it last year. they have been doing it year after year after year. during a decade of continuous combat, our service men and women and their families have persevered and prevailed. it is a genuine pleasure and honor to serve with each and everyone of them. there remain a great source of pride for our nation. we need to keep faith with them, just as they were to keep faith with the nation. one way to do this is by making sure that our defense budget is informed by a real strategy. this past january, we released a new defense strategy that reflects the lessons of war and anticipates a more competitive security environment in the future. it also acknowledges the

realities of the new fiscal environment. it sets priorities for investment and establishes a strategic focus. this budget resources that strategy. it assures the retain our conventional overmatch while divesting capabilities not required in a domestic force. it takes advantage of emerging capabilities such as special operation forces, intelligence, and cyber. it restores versatility and readiness. overall, it is an important step in off point on our path to the joists -- joint force we assess we will need in 2020, a military always ready to provide options for the nation. keeping faith means appropriate compensation for our troops. this budget proposes modest reforms to military pay and benefits. however, it does not place the burden of budget cuts on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. there are no freezes or reductions in pay.

there is no decrease in the quality of health care received by our active-duty members and medically retired would warriors. that said, we cannot ignore some hard realities. we need practical reform to deal with escalating personal costs, particularly in health care. we must make our health care system more sustainable. otherwise, risk both the quality and the continuity of care. we can assure its viability in ways that are fair and modest. lastly, keeping faith means managing risk. to be sure, we are assuming some risk in this strategy. all strategies and all budgets that resource them have to accept some risk. that risk is not in what we can do but in how much we can do and how often. the budget helps reduce that risk by investing in our people and the joint capabilities we need most. we have achieved a balance in this budget. keep in mind that this is a budget for a joint force.

it should not be thought of as a set of separate service budgets, but as a comprehensive and carefully devised a set of choices that reflect the right mix among force structure, modernization, readiness, pay and benefits. different choices will produce a different balance. so before giving us weapons that we do not need or giving up on reforms that we do need, i would only ask you to make sure that it is the right choice, not for our armed forces, but for our nation. sequestration is absolutely chasseur -- certain to append this balance. the potential cancellation of major weapons systems and the destruction of global operations. we cannot yet say how precisely bad the damage will be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk calling out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation. we would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visible globally and presenting less of

an overmatched to our adversaries. that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially increase the likelihood of conflict. in closing, i offer my sincere thanks to this committee and the entire congress of the united states. thank you for keeping our military strong. thank you for keeping -- taking care of our military families and supporting those who have served are serving and will serve. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, secretary. your description of sequestration is a candid but frightening one. you have indicated that you would have reduced training at a time when you should be increasing training. it would mean the deferral of equipment -- and it is getting

pretty bad. you have fewer purchases of aircraft, ships -- but there is something else that you did not mention. i would like to comment on that. sequestration, coupled with discretional defense spending is, could add 1% to the national unemployment rate from job losses in government, military, and private-sector jobs in the defense-industrial base. does that description makes sense? >> chairman, i think that that is the estimate that we have seen. in terms of the impact that we have. again, i stress -- the defense department is not a jobs program. it is a program to defend the nation. but clearly it would -- that

kind of sequestration cut across the board would have serious impact, not only on men and women in uniform, but on our personnel and the contractors to serve the defense establishment. >> when you speak of deferral of maintenance and equipment, can you give us something beyond that? >> let me have bob hale, our comptroller, speak. >> we have not done a detailed plan, but one option we would have to look at is cutbacks and maintenance. that would mean we would push up the availability of ships, for example, or planes. we would try to do it in a sensible manner, but it would inevitably delay maintenance activities. i cannot give you details, but that is an almost inevitable result of sequestration. >> the way the formula works for sequestration is that it takes the percentage across the board

out of every area of the defense budget. that means that it is an almost 20% cut in weapons systems. it 20% cut with regards to training and equipment. it would impact every area of the defense budget. that is the way it was designed. it was designed as a meat ax. it was designed to be a disaster because the hope was that if it were such a disaster, congress would respond and do what was right. i am just here to tell you, yes, it would be a disaster. >> the across-the-board cuts as indicated by you will not impact upon pay, health programs, anything else? >> the president has the authority, mr. chairman, to exempt military personnel.

he will have to decide if he does that. if that were the case, it will not affect military personnel. other accounts will have to be cut by larger amounts of the totals remain the same. it would affect our ability to pay health care. we would face a serious problem of potentially not being able to pay all our health care bills, for example. >> mr. chairman, could i add something? it is important to notice that oco is now subject to sequestration. that would be $8 billion. of the $80.5 billion we have requested to maintain operations globally. but we have to fund that. that money will have to come from something -- summary program -- reprogramming activity to cover the war- related costs. that, in conjunction with

potential freezes in the manpower account means that a service chief can only go back to three places to find this money -- training, maintenance, and modernization. that is it. there is no magic in the budget at that point. those three departments to be subject to all the cuts mandated by sequestration. >> i would not look as reprogramming is a way to solve this problem. we have some legal limits, unless you change them, on the amount we can reprogram. we would not have the authority to offset all of this change is, at least not readily. we could do some, but there will be very little flexibility if this goes into play or into effect as it is currently designed. >> thank you very much. before i call upon my colleagues, i would like to note that we will have to let

the questioning. 25 minutes -- to five minutes. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you, mr. secretary, what your impression is of the amphibious ships. we have heard that the navy and marine corps is -- has determined a minimum force of 33 amphibious warships is the minimum acceptable risk in meeting the amphibious force requirement. what is your assessment of the risk that we are assuming with our current shipbuilding plan as proposed and requested by the department? >> i will ask general dempsey to comment as well. one of the things that i am trying to do is to maintain our industrial base in the defense department.

if we lose more shipyards, if i lose more of the industry that supports our defense requirement, it makes it very difficult to mobilize in the future. so my goal is to try to design a budget here that maintains the shipyards that we have, maintains the industrial base that supports our defense system. on theamphibs, the reason they are important is because of the agility. these ships allow us to be very agile, quickly deployable, to move quickly if we have to. that is the reason that we want to maintain those as part of our defense structure. >> to add, senator, the number that you cite is based on the existing war plans in a particular phase in which the amphibious warship capabilities are under most stress. what we're doing as a result of

the defense strategies, we are opening up our plans to look at the assumptions we make and to see if we can adjust the way we conduct operations in order to mitigate that risk. at this point, the commandant and i are confident that the budget proposal and the number of amphibs in that proposal are adequate to the task. >> there is a suggestion that the current 30-year ship building plan is -- projects inventory that will fall to 28 ships in fiscal year 2015. i wonder, general, if this is below the level required by the department, and whether or not you will see an increase in the assumption of risk -- will you need to revise that upward?

what you suggest that we do with requirements being submitted by the marine corps and the navy? >> i would ask you, senator, to take that question for the record. there is a bit that would cross over into classified information related to war plans. but i would be happy to answer that for you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary panetta, general dempsey, thank you for being here. i appreciate the chance we had to talk before the meeting. one thing that i did not mention them is that, during the last 10 ours, we've added more of guard and reserve. i appreciate, secretary panetta, what you said during our testimony about them. we could not have supported two simultaneous wars without them.

like you, general dempsey, i visited areas where we are in combat. you do not fit -- see a difference between active guard and reserve. they are all put in their lives on . i think -- as a result, many of us in congress, senator gramm and i are co-chairs of the caucus. when the air force presented a plan that disproportionately cut the guard, i know there has to be cuts, we all understand that, but you are going after the least expensive manpower to save money. that does not make a lot of sense. especially since man power costs are considered more of the budget, as he said. i do not know how you shrink

them and maintain a ready and capable force. my question is, does the department of defense stick with its usual strategy is to increase dependence on the guard and reserve, or is there an alternative? the air force budget does not appear to follow that. secretary panetta? >> senator, again, what the air force was asked to do was based on a new strategy to try to develop an approach that provided a kind of multi-mission support for the force. as a result of that, i made decisions with regards to some areas that could be reduced in order to achieve the savings that we were required to achieve. i recognize the controversy

involved here, because it impacts my constituency, it impacts the guard. >> i am afraid it impacts the readiness, too. >> i understand that. but obviously we do not want to take it out of the active force because they are ready to deploy quickly. what i have suggested is to try and see if there is a way that we can work to provide some restoration. i think the suggested putting in placetional 130's to assist some of these areas with regards to the impact that might be there. let me say this for the record. i am fully prepared to work with this committee and to work with the staff of this committee to try and see if there is a way to do this that can minimize the impact but, at the same time, hopefully achieve necessary savings we have to. >> you work g centerraham --

senator graham and i and the past. i oppose the ira or from the very start. president obama did. -- the i iraq war from the very start. i did not think it was the right decision from the point of national security. we basically ran the war on a credit card. now we are making decisions and how we address the national deficit, not to sequestration. the majority of us voted earlier that sequestration be only if we are unable to reach consensus. the understanding is that we would put everything on the table, but now we have people who are calling for more military action in other parts of the world. at the same time, they do not

want to consider any way of paying for it, unlike what we have always done in the past. what would be the impact of going to war again without committing to pay for that war with an up-front tax, something we did not do in either iran or afghanistan for the first time in the history of our country? >> obviously if we repeated the mistake of not paying for the war, the result would be that you would simply add more to the deficit and to the debt of this country for the future. you put that burden on our kids for the future. look, we always have to be careful when you make the decision to put our men and women in uniform into harm's way. that is number one. but number two, that decision is made and for the sake of the

country is important that we recognize the costs that are involved and that all of us bears some responsibility to pay those costs if we are willing to engage in war. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service, all three of you. secretary panetta, since the end of the cold war, nato has gone from 16 to 28 members, and yet we know that the threat of a soviet invasion into europe has virtually disappeared. only five alliance members spend the obligatory standard of 2% of their gdp on defense. several countries, as we know, refused to purchase it in combat assignments or limit what they will do. -- participate in combat assignments or limit what they do. we can to be 22% of military construction for nato. that is approximately 200 -- to

record $54 million this year alone. -- $254 million this year alone. we found a virtually the same percent for operations. my question, are you looking at the nato alliance and determining if it is serving the function for which it was intended, and if there is a commensurate effort by all of the members, or whether perhaps we are paying more than our fair share for what we are getting in return? >> you have raised a legitimate concern with regard to the responsibility of nato nations to assume the greater responsibility for developing capabilities and improving their defense posture. one thing that came out of

chicago was developing greater capabilities for nato with regards to missile defense and other areas to try and ask them to assume greater responsibility in those areas. i also think we have great concerns because of the budget situation in europe. one of the dangers is they will constantly go back to defense and sikhs are -- to seek further savings. that would be dangerous. we provided about 60% of the support to the forces that went into libya. now they tell me if we were to engage, the united states would have to pick up 80% of that

responsibility. that is not something that makes clear to those nations of the responsibility they have to develop their own capabilities. i think it is very important to continue to stress to those countries that they have to invest in their basic security. there are some countries investing in their defense budgets. we commend them for that. other countries have to realize the last thing we need is for them to do further cuts in defense budgets they have. that will put more of a burden on our shoulders in the future. >> let me take germany as an example. germany is going through part- time -- through hard times.

in military construction, germany contributes 7% to the infrastructure changes we would make. we would bring resources into libya. in afghanistan, they limit what they will do. the number of troops is around 5000. now the army is planning to spend 7% of its military budget in germany on top of the nato apart. it will be about $243 million this year to build a priority of

ours. i am for that. the other half is for new schools. are we overspending the military construction for the amount of troops we have there? are we looking at the future on whether it might be the rotational forces for the strategy in the pacific, maybe we could do that in germany and other places and cut back on the enormous costs? >> we are doing that. we're bringing two for dates home from europe. we intend to emphasize the rotational presence. -- we are bringing two brigades home from europe. we have important

infrastructure. it is important to our deployments in the middle east and war zone. that is why some of that is continuing. i think you are right. we have got to increase our rotations. we have got to ask them to make a greater contribution to the infrastructure needs to do this. let me make clear that the nato alliance is important to our ability to deal with challenges in the world. we cannot do it alone. we have to have alliances work with us in confronting challenges we face. >> we are out of time. i would offer a briefing on what we considered to be the important benefits of being part of the alliance. we have ground systems, things behind the scenes we need to

expose to you so you understand the reason we are still so deeply integrated into the nato command structure, and acknowledging your point about their investment in the fact is declining. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope we're looking at an equalization of the effort according to the term we're getting. >> thank you. we want to welcome you. we want to thank you for your service. mr. panetta, you came to the house in 1976. you were part of the bicentennial year. we're going to try for the tricentennial. general dempsey, e.u. graduated about the time we were getting

started in congress. -- he graduated about the time we were getting started in congress. we thank you for your dedication and service to the country. mr. hill, the role of the civilian force in supporting our military and commander in chief. we want to thank the civilian work force. i want to talk about new threats acknowledging there is a strong military presence from the naval academy to bethesda helping with the permanent needs of war, fortews, aberdeen, 4

deadrick. we are proud of the presence here. you have said you do cyber and potential digital pearl harbor. talk about what you mean when you say digital pearl harbor. do you have the right money and authority you need to protect the nation? you have the chair of the intelligence committee. you have one of the co-authors of the bill. we want to make sure we do not have a digital pearl harbor.

could you elaborate on what you meant. to me do you have what you need? should we have a greater sense of urgency in getting things done? what would that be? general dempsey, i would like your comments as well. >> i appreciate the question. there has to be a greater sense of urgency with regards to the cyber potential. this is a rapidly developing area. we are the target of thousands of attacks every day aimed at government and the private sector. there are a lot of capabilities being developed in this area. i am concerned about the potential to cripple our power grid, our government systems,

our financial systems would virtually paralyzed the country. that represents the potential for another pearl harbor as far as the kind of attack which could be the target of. it is important we do everything we can to defend against the potential. i feel good about our capabilities in terms of defending our systems with the help of nsa. i do think the