being matched up for companies that are hiring now. they maybe start apprenticing jr., senior year of high school. maybe it extends to another year or two line community college. and by the time they're 21, they are experts where we know there is hiring taking place. it is very important. we will be working with local governments and community colleges to try to figure out how we can expand what is already a proven idea and a lot of places. you and i are right there. we are doing it. that see if we can make progress. -- let us see if we can make progress.

i am going to call on this yen lady right here. we have to get a microphone to her. it is the icc. that is a good-looking young man. >> my father is an unemployed construction worker. he is on unemployment. will he have a job before his unemployment runs out? >> this is important. what is your name? >> taylor. >> it is so nice to me in. -- meet you. my hope is that we can put him to work. housing to the biggest hit. you have this big bubble that collapse.

since september of last year i have urged congress to expand our efforts to rebuild roads, bridges, schools, making sure that all these folks like your father who want to work, and these are not folks that are looking for a handout. they want to be on the job so they have an opportunity that we're going to have to do anyway. this is important. how many folks here have a house and you know that you have a leaky roof? you can put off patching it up.

sooner or later you will have to. sooner or later. if you do not, what happens ? it falls in and it is more expensive. the same is true if you have a busted broiler. we all have deferred maintenance. we cannot always do it right away but a lot of times if we have the opportunity, we should do it, especially if it is cheap. it is cheaper now to do it then will be later. interest rates are low. contractors are begging for work. they will come on under budget. we cannot out a whole bunch of work that needs to be done for this country anyway. and put people back to work which would grow the economy. so far i have not gotten a

positive response from members of congress on the other side of the aisle. if they did just passed, the sign of modest cooperation, a transportation bill that would not lay off more construction workers. i want to rebuild america. if your father still does the get a job, part of what i am also looking for is making sure that unemployment insurance is there for folks who want to work but are having trouble finding work. i want to folks to be clear. unemployment benefits are paid for. your employer paid for them. directly and indirectly you pay for them.

the idea is to have the safety net because everybody every once and awhile could have some bad luck. we try to extend unemployment insurance. we were able to in 2010. it has been harder to get congress to extend it further. i do not know what category your father falls in. my general view is that as long as the economy is weak and somebody is willing and able to work and looking for work actively, which is required, then we should be for them to make sure they can pay the rent and look after their families. we will continue to negotiate with congress to make sure that unemployment is there. the most important thing i want to do is make sure your decking get a job. all right? -- dad can get a job.

all right? i am going to be back in cincinnati. i am going to be back in ohio. i want to thank you for your attention. i want to explicitly ask you for your support. this is going to be a close election. it is going to be an important debate. i want everyone to understand what i am trying to do is to keep my promises. i promise i would end the war in iraq. i ended it. i promised we would keep taxes low for middle-class families. i did that. the most important promise i

made, some of you remember me saying this not good 2008, i said i am not a perfect man. i said i was not going to be a perfect president. no president is. what i promise you was that i will always tell you what i thought and believed and i would wake up every single day fighting as hard as i knew how for you. [applause] do you know what? i have kept that promise. when i look around this room i see an elderly couple and think about my grandparents and everything they did for me. when i see this young lady asking about her-i think about my daughters.

i see myself in you. my most important job is fighting for you and the basic american idea. if you work hard in this country you can succeed. you can get ahead. i am going to do everything i can as long as i have the honor of being president to fight for you and and working families and middle class families all across this country. i hope you will stand with me. i hope you will work with me. let's finish what we started and remind the world why the united states is the great nation that it is. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ [playing "your love keeps lifting me higher" by jackie wilson] ♪

[playing "your love keeps lifting me higher" by jackie wilson]

>> the president in cincinnati this afternoon. he has made eight visits to the state this year. he is heading back to

washington to the olympics men and women's basketball game against brazil.

>> of the center hosted an event are there today of looking at the half a trillion dollars in defense spending cuts included within the sequestered. they also envelop the results of the survey in which average americans are given budget information and asked to create their own pentagon budget. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> historical with this graph, breaking out of more spending in afghanistan'afghanistan and ira. we ask is if this was more than what they expected.

we presented the amount of defense spending as a percentage of the economy over time. this number has been going down quite a lot. the economy has been growing. the largest number said it was less than they expected. then we presented defense spending it relative to enemies and allies. we used bit as china, north korea, and iran. on the allies' side, nato, a south korea.ome othe they said it was more than they expected. the next thing we wanted to do was take them to that process

that is like the debate for they can hear arguments pro and con. we have four pairs of arguments. i will briefly show you three of them. they are in the materials that we brought. we have full copies of the report. here is one qe1. among the people we talked to, it is most often cited as a key argument. the united states should be leading the world, and not following get. this is a force that has contributed to global peace. they should be able to do this anywhere in the world. it would send the signal that we are no longer committed to our

role. our allies with his confidence. the asian companies might come under china's influence. it is not mean they disagree or agree. it means how convincing do you find it? 61% found it convincing. it then we gave the other side of this frame. the united states has more military power than any other nation. we are playing the world of policemen too much. we are building this up. we can deal with the global threats by sharing the burden. we do not have to have a military so big that we can do it all by ourselves. this was found convincing by 72%, a larger majority.

i am going to skim over the other ones. national defense is the first priority. it is just 4% of the economy. it has been going down. 58% found this convincing. democrats did this likely to the the negative side. the defense one does this. the majority found this convincing. republicans are more divided on this. it is also popular in policy cuts.

we have job losses. this got the lowest number saying it was convincing. not that big. the one that got the most disagreement was the argument in favor of cutting based on the waste in the defense budget. that got bipartisan. after going through these hearings, both sides say that makes sense. one person collects his side. then he says you are right.

someone says they cannot both be right. it he says you are right. in the end they have to take some action. this was basically to set what level of defense spending they thought should occur for 2013. they could specify down to the dollar. they had to fill it in. cuts kept at how many the same level or increase. of republicans and 90 server of democrat cut. they cut it 127 billion. republicans cut 83 billion. democrats, $155 billion. we also discussed the area of afghanistan. they got an explanation for what was going on.

they got one pro and one con arguments. . here the day took quite a lot, a $35 billion or 40%. this was with democrats cutting more. then we wanted to go what if they really have to think they're all of the things that they do. what if they really had to break it down and make their own budget? we carry the framework we thought was one that people could relate to comment air power divided into new capabilities. special operations, forces, a missile defense. for each of these areas they

were introduced and got an explanation for what they were like and what it involved and then a pro and con argument on spending. i want to give you a quick example. they could maintain and operate them. they give the u.s. capability to control other targets on the ground and help protect u.s. ground forces. planes and satellites also provide intelligence. this is not an argument. obviously, it is and that it tells you all the good things it does. we say here is the amount the u.s. is spending. for developing new capabilities, of building and testing prototypes, $30 billion. then they hear an argument against reducing power spending. it could limit our ability to

strike any target in the role it played in targeting al qaeda, things like that. 77 surmount a convincing. on the other side, america's power has been the most of fans in the world. china is several decades behind. there are is coming up with more technology. enough is enough. majority found that convincing. when we went to the areas, the argument against cutting did better than we talked about defense spending over all. in this case, the majority of republicans did not find this. after going through that process, they specified what

they thought the spending level should be. i'm not going to go through all of the areas. you can see them in terms of the arguments given. summarizing what they did overall. first the changes by percentage. the biggest cut was to nuclear weapons. by as 20's term followed ground force. ground forces cut 23%. naval forces that 20%. they're all cut on average except one that was new capabilities for ground forces. i imagine that has to do with wanting to protect the troops. putting it in terms of dollar amounts, the biggest cut word to existing ground forces which were cuts an average of $36

billion followed by existing air power which was cut $19 billion. dollar amounts had the capabilities and will increase approximately 1 billion. putting all these areas together they were cut on average 18%. republicans cut on average 12%. i also want to mention try care and personnel costs. i do not want to spend a lot of time on this. the proposals are more detailed than what i am covering here. making copays, increasing premiums for retirees under 65, raising the cap for costs on

retirees. they are told the dollar amounts associated with each one. making the copays more typical. a slight majority opposed. increasing premiums. a larger majority oppose raising the caps. it then we looked at a number of proposals for cutting costs related to personnel. changing military pensions, a military wage increases. there's a lot more detail on what was presented. these did a little better. this slight majority is changing military pensions. putting it all together, the

cuts to the nine different areas and the savings that came from try care and personnel costs. overall an average of $103.5 billion in cuts. republicans got $74 billion and democrats $124 billion. maybe some of those people cut a whole lot in it change the average. some cut more. what with the majority of people be willing to agree to? that is a lower number. overall, at $83 billion were the majority specified cuts of $83 billion or more. republicans $50 billion or more. we wanted to go through specific systems to see how they felt about those. the numbers of those are the ones that were canceling.

they're canceling a new aircraft carrier. 54% favored canceling the fighter. 52% work in favor of canceling the next generation bomber. a large majority oppose the idea of eliminating bombers. another interesting question is if we see all this conflict on many of these issues, are there differences between the views of people that live in the registered and blue district's tax we invited everyone in to the sample depending on whether they lived in redder blue districts. the short answer is not much. 74% made cuts.

made a little different but not much. in terms of the average change, eighteens are made cuts. there were slightly lower. interestingly when it came to military health care in a registered cut more than they did in blue districts. -- in red districts cut more than they did in blue districts. our views different in districts where people have high levels of defense spending where it could really have some impact? wii broken down into tents. the top 10 has really big

numbers it is significantly more than the others. it is vocalizes a small number of districts. basically, the short answer is no. there is a significant variance the face on this by district. you have the top tent. it had some of the highest levels of cuts, 22%. the next one down. statistically this is just noise. there is no pattern.

there is the significant variation. that top one is the one where there is really big money. this is just one number. this is just one part of the budget. there is no significant pattern. i am going to pass that over to map now. >> i want to say thank you for coming. we are a project that specializes in national security spending and strategy analysis. we want to thank steven for bringing us along. my role was not someone that

could take the defense appropriations and carve it up into a way that is accessible. the way you sell a subdivided were the ways that we divided it ourselves. then we divided up the pro and con statements. as well as the context statement. that work is done. this was out of the context. what does it mean? i'm going to walk you through that. i'm going to start with the context. we started with the innovation. we can then conclude by applying this to the fy13 appropriations process. the big context i found was that

preferences were similar to the pentagon strategy but stricter than the plan. both sides are similar. it is easy to focus on the cut but not notice the pattern. walking through what i feel are four examples of where that is most important. the first message to with the war in afghanistan. this strategy is concluding the war and moving away from that type of conflict in the future. he began year and also specifically in 2014. they were consistent. they cut the contingency operation element of the budget as they saw to $53 billion. this number was $115.

this was halfway between the 2011 value. 20's are below the request. this allows you to make changes in the structure. the strategy said we're not going to be cited with lean beef operations. -- cited would link the operations. we also saw this in our survey. it was the ground force that was cut the most. this is more than because they made to the air force. cut here. they kep d.c. this being addressed.

-- you see this being addressed. they downsized and move away from counterinsurgency is. there was consequences of that. putting more stress on that. when he testified with the release of this, they increase operations forces. he also said they were looking for between 66 and 71,000 strong respondents still cut this. it is one of the lowest cuts they mate. they centered around this statement. they said it was more precise than their counterparts. a structure budget decision when it comes to the preference.

when you prioritize something like special operations forces, and there's something else. there was a statement being made that keyed a lot of people's interest. in a possible to deter. this has been a priority. every expectation they will pursue. this is something we agreed with. it is a 20 7% cut, the long list of all the cuts made in nuclear forces. the bottom line is that according to our survey policymakers are moving in the right track. they are doing this tentatively. it was an average cut of $104 billion.

sitting out front is an op-ed i put in defense news. next is the innovation that our survey makes. respondents expressed all of these views. they responded to service shares and other budget categories, not to the strategy. that is significant. a lot of times people will think in strategic terms. why do we do that? strategy and spending has something that is important but not absolute. this is how they engage it. there is a subtext that bureaucratic politics and in russia matters. this is an inspiration. it is not an accident that the defense budget looks like this over the past 40 years.

the shares are very stable. the their stable with and their average. -- they are stable with their average. within the timeframe the united states has changed significantly. if it was total, you would expect this far more than it has. the fact that it has not suggests that something else is going on. our hope was at their answers would be relevant to how this lays out, whether it should change or not change. our findings back that up. respondents to want this to change. they had the ground being cut by

23%. an indicator moving forward whether the preferences are being implemented and whether strategy is have this and whether this picture changes. there was a statement that our secretary made in the middle of last year saying there have been a tradition for a long time. the army share of the budget increase. it increased more than the navy share. as you see all of these things being said, it is important to keep an eye on that. we will see whether this changes over the coming decade. we cannot take this for granted that people would differentiate

between the services. that could have turned out to be ineffective. i was pleasantly surprised that they did. they had different ideas about how it should be budgeted. there is not a clear pattern between how they treat current and future spending. i was under this that they might choose to cut current spending and then maintain or increase future spending with the idea of there being a hedge. we needed to be able to manage things in the future. there was not a pattern that i observed at all. also, alice surprised by hoi waw they did not have significantly different opinions than those elsewhere in the spectrum. they caught me off-guard. applying it to the 2013 cycle, i

was not surprised to see that red and blue districts do not have major districts among them. there is an idea percolating that democrats favor defense cuts and republicans do not. that has not been substantiated by the evidence to the best i can tell. this is the national defense budget and inflation defensive terms. the bottom line is a base budget. when you adjust for inflation, our budget has been declining for the past two years. that is this congress. even the high end of the oppressions were enacted, it is still be a nominal freeze. it would be a year three of cut. where are the two years into this.

-- we are already two years into this. despite all the heartache, led this congress was the one that passed the budget control act. that includes both republicans and democrats. as you saw and the slide, the ads and flows of defense spending have crossed administrations of both parties historic plea. it was president eisenhower who cut after the korean war. nixon cut after the vietnam war. budget authority with the cold war fell under the reagan administration and continue through the bush administration and clinton administration. portraying this as a difference. it does not seem to be true. the evidence does not back it up. history is important. we do have access inflows. what we do not have this plateaus. a plateau right now is what the pentagon thinks is going.

were that to happen, we're on a path that would take a six% below. historically, but is good down by about 30%. while in may not be strictly partisan, we do have a district between where we typically go with defense costs and where we presently are. the pressures are deeper than just the budget control act. two things are underlying. we're ending the wars. that is something the administration stressed and that our respondents seemed to favor it hit also, debt reduction is important is respectful -- irrespective of the things that in at 63 close of $4 trillion by

their revenue increase or spending this. you are going to have to have something that will substitute for sequester. national defence was still be part. american views are a big reason why after the election are likely to see further reductions made to the national defense budget. national defense will remain on the table. with that, i'm going to turn it over to adjustment. >> i am sorry i came late. the perils of mass transit. this is not a typical survey as

everyone has said. it pushed them into a context in which policymakers actually make judgments, where they get information. they render a verdict. this can be dangerous ground. the built-in safeguards. the survey asked the same question over and over again but in a slightly different ways. it told people how much america spends on defense with five different ways of comparing other defenses. are you surprised? this and what happens. people get a lot of information. their opinions can be shaped by the frame the conversation is occurring. we gave them by and watch what difference it made. then it ask, how much should we be spending? the survey provided balance information about nine key

areas. when they were given a chance to set spending tallies, their net tally came out to be close to what people said that the top of the survey. they gave more or less the same answer. the survey did not push people into corners. the as what was the best way to cut the deficit. -- they asked what was the best way to cut the deficit. they did not have to pick just one. how authoritative our these results? its challenge is what we previously understood. more democrats do this more deeply than republicans. people like spending on special forces. they like a missile defense.

they are wary. they are wary of big ticket items like a jet or aircraft carrier. i would argue that it does. even if those polls to not have access to the same information our officials have or see the same classified data, they still have formed strong opinions that were strongly widely held. outcomes are sometimes done by what minorities one. it is interesting to call it into some of the strongest views. here we will draft out some of the opinions that people held. the u.s. pro-defense spending arguments. we live in a hostile world. defense matters more than the

deficit. defense jobs are important. then you have to look at the cons and you see these were among the most strongly held. they were more strongly held in the pro-argument. defense worsens the deficit. do not be the world's policeman. these are summaries. these are summaries of long paragraphs that people had a chance to read when they took the pole. i urge you to look at the actual language. i want to call attention to this view point. it was the most widely held of all the viewpoints. 80% of all republicans and 80 6% of democrats basically said that members of congress often prove unnecessary spending for their districts or keith unneeded bases open to benefit

their own supporters. -- or keep unneeded bases open to benefit their own supporters. they persuade lawmakers to improve weapons that aren't needed by giving them large campaign contributions and other personal benefit. this is the way the system works according to the vast majority of those we polled. this is held by democrats and republicans. it is the most ugly held view of all the options that we gave people the -- strongly held view of all the options that we gave people. this survey is a reflection of where the public wants its leaders to go in broad strokes. it is why i can predict the cuts that have been settled on are just the beginning. the last thing i would mention is that these results have been widely circulated. they have not been challenged. these have appeared in more

than 70 publications. with this i think we will invite your questions. >> there has been a lot of attention recently as candidates visited virginia. it is a big state, mostly because it is a recipient of big defense sellers. your survey would disprove that headline. i was wondering what your comments are on some of that coverage. >> it is important to remember that when you hear reporting about political activity, it's

just not necessarily mean that it represents public opinion. -- it does not necessarily mean that it represents public opinion. the interests are making contributions to candidates and so on. the individuals who are ultimately the voters, when you ask them to look at the big picture and get information, they come to the same conclusions. it is an interesting dynamic that in general people do not look out for themselves when they are making judgments about public policy issues. they will probably be influenced to some extent by the way the money is being spent in virginia. if one side has more money to spend, and that can definitely have an impact. it probably will not be so focused on a vote for romney and

he will save your job. i would despise but there was a lot of advertising along those lines. >> i want to add to that. it has been shown that this is not the issue that is occupying people's minds. motivating an electorate are rounded is likely not to be an effective strategy. people are considering this one that is not at or near the top. i would also add a little bit of the information into what stevens said. this is a survey. we took a lot of pride and taking information. the information they received matters. the information that people in

virginia and others received. it is not rain the same way as you see in the survey. you should expect that to have some effect on their attitudes and opinions. the other thing worth noting is the effect that an organized minority opinion can have. just because this is not the majority opinion does not mean that they're not well organized and influencing the political process. despite some of these attitudinal things, organization also matters. >> i would add that actual data on job loss related to defense spending is very scarce. good data is even more scarce. there has been a survey done by the industry, by the aerospace industry, that predicts millions of jobs might be lost if this defense budget goes down.

it is not a peer review to study. it has not been done in any academically certifiable manner. it predicts that the cut would be far deeper than what obama has proposed. it does not look at the set of options. immediately it imagines bit more serious. there are other studies that say different jobs are not the best. and they do not create the most benefit to the economy as a whole. if people were reemployed from the defense industry, there would be broader benefits to society. when people are looking at this question, and they tend to look at it narrowly. they look at shifting employment

from one place to another. it is clear that the rhetoric about defense cuts and their impact on virginia will probably motivate the people who work in the defense energy to go to the polls and take a decision which they see as protecting their economic future. the rest of virginians i doubt will have much impact. >> recently i think there was a project with the eastern seaboard and missile defense that the majority of defense official spoke out against and congress passed it anyway. it'll never get past. short of reelecting our officials, what are some ways you think we can i eliminate projects that 70% of the dod think are unnecessary?

>> i would first note that you are right. i do not think it clear the house. the prospects are poor. it's somehow escaped the hill. i emphasize that not for acknowledging the record but to point out that is part of what the liberation is. in that sense, the system is already working. to reiterate, it is also true that we're already on a cut path. we have been cutting for the past two years. we want to continue cutting in 2013. if history is any guide, we will do it well beyond that. there is governors in place that are already regulating that. here question them pertains to what about the specific projects that the hill values but that

the pentagon does not. what can you do to rectify that? i would first point out that in some ways it is not a problem. the mobile ambushed the vehicle was a program that the pentagon did not initially prioritize. people were getting blown up by i eds. there is a proper role for congress and decision making and imposing some things on executive institutions. how to deal with the rest? management i think. there's got a golden bullet. it is something he will have to wrestle with on a case by case basis. you will have to hope that the governor's i have outlined are

sufficient and that most of these things did not come into the budget. >> i should probably clarify that when people are percentage arguments pro and con, the majority respond favorably to both. it is not that most people are carrying around very discreet feelings of "i think defense should be cut and i am looking for signs that this candidate is for or against that." it is not articulated like that. they say that is true. that is true. now i have to make the hard choice. then they make the hard choice. they do respond to arguments in favor of a weapon system. when congress says "here is the

reason why we need to keep this weapon system." that would probably make sense to them. however, we asked when congress adds back money for programs at the pentagon does not want, do you want, do you think that they are doing it for national security reasons or some other reasons, and the large majority said "some other reason." if you present the argument, they may go, maybe that makes sense. but if you say the pentagon -- that has an impact, that overrides whatever that argument might have been. >> realistically, the fact that 80% of americans think that

there is waste in the defense budget does not mean there will stop being waste in the defense budget. that will not be the thing that changes the day and we will suddenly change our ways. >> it is just one of the views that underpins the conviction of all that the defense budget can come down without suffering a loss and serious military capability. it is not going to deterrent -- going to determine the outcome, but it is one of the factors and one of the viewpoints that influence the overall outcome of the polls, and the public's general sense that the vote -- that the budget overall can shrink. if everyone thought that we were buying a zuck with what we needed for security, then there would be a lot more nervous about the decline. >> spending has been reduced and

the last six years, probably, but we do not have any data to show that confidence is up or down. >> confidence is one thing, but what that empirical data would look like, i think jeff is right that this is why some people are comfortable cutting the budget. but i'm not sure how the budget would be cut. waste reduces down pretty quickly to other people's priorities. when you are identifying what you consider to be waste worthy of a cut, it is in there for a reason. someone else put it in there and it is their priority, not yours. identifying which waste will be cut and even measuring how much waste there is -- >> [inaudible] >> right, the only metric you could use is looking at gao's high risk, list for defense programs and determining that a

number of them are on the list. the one is the dod, financial management systems, which has not been proven to be very successful in getting ready the financial data. the those systems themselves have been in breach of financial regulations. that is an aunt -- an anecdote that i'm not sure how are you attracted over time -- retract it over time. >> [inaudible] also, if you see any potential for change in that. also, i was wondering [unintelligible] >> the information to my you can see exactly what was presented to them.

and for nuclear weapons in general, there was a common argument for cuts -- con argument for cuts, that it plays a crucial role, that is our fallback. and that nuclear weapons have helped keep the peace and so on. and there were arguments related to missile defense. surrounding the triad, preserving bombers in the triad, we did not have so many arguments there. if we were mostly focusing on the core proposal. in general, this takes me to another study we did where we asked people how many nuclear weapons they thought the u.s. had. and i'd think the average estimate was about 200, and

deliverable. and we said, how many do you think the u.s. needs, and the average response was 100. i do think that probably there is some potential for people getting more comfortable with a smaller nuclear force. on a percentage basis, a nuclear weapons were cut the most, spending on nuclear weapons were cut the most, 27%. americans do not particularly like nuclear weapons and in questions where they are asked what role nuclear weapons and should play, -- and this was included in our argument in the con, that we should not reduce spending because they have utility. in a kind of war-fighting

context. not just for deterrence. the new developments in nuclear weapons are moving toward trying to make them more accurate, more limited so they can have utility in a war-fighting context. those kinds of arguments do not do well with the public. they think generally, nuclear weapons should be limited to a deterrent purpose, that they should never be used first by the u.s. that limits what their interest in developing those capabilities is. specifically on the bomber, it did not do very well, that argument in favor of reducing or eliminating the bomber leg of the triad. i think that is a difficult

concept for people. and it is not the first wave they would think about it. they like arms control. they like moving toward reductions. and overwhelmingly, they endorse the ultimate goal of completely eliminating nuclear weapons. that is based on various polls that we and others have done. and they support developing an international regime with intrusive inspections and then gradually reducing step by step toward complete elimination. >> the specific bomber information, some people say that given how powerful nuclear weapons are, some say it is better to have enough and we should not have too many.

others say that we need to have enough to call on them at the last minute. in that context, people decided it was probably better to have three instead of two ways of delivering. but they also said that the idea of a strategic bomber -- a new strategic bomber was not a good one. the vast majority -- a strong majority, but a majority nonetheless -- not a strong majority, but a majority nonetheless were in favor of reducing. on nuclear weapons as a whole, the overall changes that people made it were to cut about one quarter of the budget now been spent on nuclear weapons. republicans were a little bit less. democrats were a little bit more. there was still strong sentiment

on the side of both parties on cutting the nuclear-weapons budget. >> there are these preferences that will shape the way that the nuclear triad programs and other nuclear programs unfold. there are also budget realities at play. i will start by putting another stemson report that came out a month ago looking at the 10-year cost of the nuclear programs, including both military delivery vehicles and the energy department's of the national security administration. a couple of things worth noting in the 10-year plan, the next generation bomber is in it and also a new ballistic missile submarine that comes into play later. the bomber program is peg? -- is pegged at 80 to 100 aircraft, $65 million programs.

you saw chief of staff schwartz saying several months ago that he was intensely aware of a call for needs in that program. he even went to the -- went so far as to say that they would lose the program if cross discipline was not maintained. we will get a case study in the next claviers about whether to break off this cost curve of aircraft procurement or not. the stakes are relatively high, at least in the way that the sitting chief of staff has framed it. the other thing, a ballistics the marines, which come into play a bit later in the cycle, -- ballistic submarines, which come into play a bit later in the cycle, the conversation has not been concluded as to whether the navy will be able to successfully move those into a defense-wide account or move them into the shipbuilding budget. the suggestion that they will stay in the navy's accounts will create the pressure on the navy

shipbuilding. using rough historical guide, usually, those programs will be cut. there is a complexity into how the bomber fit into that. they do not want a new bomber, but they want to maintain that leg of the triad. but there is also information that suggests this will be tough to manage in the next 10 years. for details, take a look at stemson's of the report. >> [inaudible] i was wondering in terms of comprehensiveness, the budget report, if you address the international verses domestic. for a reduction drawdown. >> we have not addressed for other countries spend, if that is where you are asking. >> there is a part of a poll

where people were given information about what the u.s. spends as a whole relative to what other countries to spend, but not specifically on what the nuclear powers spend on their own forces. >> if you guys provide information -- i was wondering if you can address the subject [unintelligible] >> and not as a stand-alone question, no. >> the three of you seem very confident about a decline in defense spending. but you have a candidate in mitt romney saying that he would reverse obama era cuts and on top of that, focus on the mission of the military. what makes you so confident that we are headed toward a decline?

>> i'm not making such a prediction. the capacity of government to act in ways that are at odds with public opinion is well known. and there is a kind of -- it is important to remember that you do not have had a highly organized set of spots in people's minds. it is more that when they look at the big picture, they come to that conclusion. that does create a political environment where it is -- the public is really quite receptive to cutting defense. and there will be increasing pressures, budgetary pressures. and not just from this study, but the earlier study where they were presented the entire discretionary budget and allowed to make their own budget. defense constituted about half of all of the cuts.

it is where people's minds go when they see the big picture. given that we are going to have these political pressures toward cutting. there is a receptivity. nobody likes cutting anything. it is not that they are eager for it, but when the pressure is there, that is where it comes out. i am not making a prediction of what exactly the outcome will become law only that you've got the conditions that make it viable. >> i do not think of myself as so much making a prediction as much as an observation. it is july. we're well into the 13 appropriation cycle and we do not have a proposal from any of

the budget terribly relevant factors to increase the budget. -- any of the budgetarily of corporate actors to increase the budget. unless something changes and things get produced, then fiscal year 2013 will be lower than the fiscal year 2012. that is just an observation. another observation, romney has staked deposition out and did so relatively firmly as part of the primary. -- that position out and did so relatively firm as part of the primary. the primary is over and already use the language changing a barge how quickly that would be implemented, the language changing as to how put the debt would be implemented, and so on. he certainly seems to be

emphasizing it differently than during the primary session. and the last observation is that these pressures are not going away in respect of who is president. -- regardless of who is president. there are challenges and ways to overcome them, but it is difficult to do without everything on the table, including how -- including national defence. you're still talking about one- fifth of the total budget and a chunk of the discretionary budget. when is obama, then it is not bring anywhere. >> even if he wants to increase the defense budget, he is not as our -- a czar. he is part of a complicated dynamic in washington and

democrats will have different ideas. even some of his below republicans live different ideas. -- fellow republicans will have different ideas. the competition in the spending dynamic is not going to disappear. the debt and deficit will not disappear. what romney said should not be taken as a predictor of an outcome, of a specific outcome. at best, it'll change the current dynamic if he gets elected. it will change the current dynamic because you have one player in the system as pause in a different point of view than any of the players are expressing our, except for maybe the chairman of the house armed services committee. he is pretty much alone in washington now as an important

player who wants to increase the defense budget. >> i am with congressional quarterly. picking up on a complicated political dynamic, could you talk about what you will be looking for in the spending bill -- specific weapons systems, augmentations to accounts, and spending proposals? could you also not only give us your opinion of the sequestration program, but how do you think [unintelligible] will turn out this year? a production. >> i do not have a prediction. i will, again, share some thoughts on it. when it comes to the house appropriations bill on offense coming to the floor this week, i

am not especially watching any particular programs. there is a problem, and that is, the appropriation is consistent with the budget committees 302b, but not consistent with the governing statute at the moment. but something is got to change. in other words, congress is going to have to amend the budget control act or all of these positions are in excess of what is presently allowed. i see it as part of the election cycle. the house is staking out a leadership position they feel comfortable campaigning on. and they will do so. the election will be contested and some people visit -- will win and others will lose. after that, everybody will have to come back to washington and

deal with the fact that the very significant piece of legislation gets amended to permit them to have a conversation they are presently having, or that defense appropriation conversation just changes. i do not think i would hazard a guess on how that plays out. it is certainly possible to see both. as for sequestration again, an observation. congressional research service has a great report out where they looked at previous instances where sequester was a risk. bear in mind, this is not a new legislative issue. this has been around for more than 20 years. there have been about five instances in that timeframe where sequester was a possibility. if memory serves me correctly, on three of those occasions, an act of congress decided not to do that. in one of them, it was a financial accounting area --

error that turned out not to be a problem. and then another -- in another, the size of a sequester was cut down enormously upon its implementation. sequester is meant to be for a tough decision making. at the same time, it is an act of congress. congress can act again and they tend to do so when these things come up. my information is that there will not be sequestered on defense in 2013. i expect something will happen during that lame-duck session that will change those terms so that defense may be continued to -- may be allowed to continue to cut, but not at that level of service. >> [inaudible] i was just wondering if the

respondents were placed as a republican or democrat as far as party registration, or were you just looking at where they align? and if that is true, and you think that tends to skew some of the analysis, the results of it? you are mainly just looking at districts as a whole and not party lines, is that the case? >> whether they are republican or democrat, that is based on what party they associate themselves with appeared before the red/blue diss for analysis, it is driven entirely by where they live. -- district analysis, it is driven entirely by where they live. who is a member of congress in their district? it is pretty straightforward. >> when you chose the respondents, and they identified themselves as -- ?

>> as republican or democrat. and then we have information about where they lived and we can divide them accordingly based on where they live. >> ok, thank you. >> how comfortable are you that if defense cuts are implemented that they would go the way that you mentioned? >> because of the way the system works, the chance that the cuts will be made only in places that would be broadly identified as waste by some independent group sitting on the outside are slim. there is a certain level of warfare that takes place among interested parties in a time frame of decline. the best team will be the one who is program survives -- i mean, best in terms of the strongest team.

not best in terms of necessarily what is good for national security. i am kind of pessimistic that the shrewdest cuts will be made. but there is a chance. i know the people at the pentagon care very deeply about trying to allocate the cuts in a responsible way. but there has risen by disagreement, enter service rivalry, and contract pressure. the system rarely produces perfect outcomes. >> we appreciate everyone coming out today. >> there is a copy of the full report if you would like them. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, washington senate democrat patty murray talks about cuts in spending. according to the congressional budget office, the impact of the

so-called fiscal cliff couldn't put the economy back into recession. we would not -- we will have that report tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. the national governors association held a session on saturday specifically focusing on veterans and health care. a marine adderall spoke at the event for about one hour, 20 minutes.

>> we are going to bring you the national governors association session from over the weekend on veterans. >> please, take your seat. welcome to the meeting of the national governors association for the special committee on homeland security and public safety. we are officially calling the meeting to order. gov. o'malley, great to have you with us. thank you as my co-chair.

these proceedings are open to the press and all meeting attendees. i would like to thank heather, who is here with us. she is seated on my right. she is the director of isnga special committee -- on the nga special committee of homeland security if you need copies, you can see other and she can answer your questions on the special committee's jurisdiction. it has been a privilege for me to serve on this committee. i think we have accomplished a lot during the time that gov. o'malley and i have served as cochairs. it has been a partnership effort and a successful one. thank you, governor o'malley. i know we have military members here. and my adjutant general is here. we have seen some natural disasters on the east coast as well, and we are all reminded of how valuable the guard is to

our state and country. and i would also like to recognize the veterans in our states, and all of the military members. they add so much to we have in our states and in our country. i know that governor o'malia and i feel very strongly about doing what we can -- gov. o'malley and i feel very strongly about doing what we can for the veterans of our country. f. the first part of the meeting is the governor's roundtable discussion on state programs that serve veterans and their families. the second part is an executive briefing on bio-surveillance from the office of health preparedness and response, which is an offer is within the center for disease control -- an office within the center for disease control and prevention. we begin this discussion on serving our nation's veterans. thousands of men and women are returning from iraq and afghanistan. they gave us their best and we have to return the favor.

communities across the country are working to ensure that the transition to civilian life is as seamless as possible. the states have launched various initiatives to help these brave men and women find jobs, educational opportunities, access to health care and much more. some states have started programs that encourage veterans to get back into the classroom to earn degrees. other states have launched initiatives to transfer skills that learned in the military to others the job force. still, they're working to modernize things such as medical treatment and housing assistance. in the state of wyoming, we have begun a collaborative effort between our wyoming veterans affairs commission, the department of health, and the department of public affairs, the district attorney's office, and the county attorney's office to set up a veterans court in cheyenne, wyoming.

joining 30 similar courts across the country, it will identify veterans within the system with treatable condition such as ptsd, of all or substance abuse, or other mental illness -- a call then -- alcuhul or substance abuse, or other mental illness for treatment. there is no one size fits all solution. the needs of veterans varies from person to person and state to state. solutions must be tailored. as governors, it is our responsibility to help identify the needs and ensure that the thousands of veterans returning from overseas and are meant receive the rewards they have burned. this provides -- that they have earned. this provides governors with the opportunities to look at

programs that have been successful. it will also help identify approaches of best practices that could be applied elsewhere. i will turn it over to my co- chair, gov. martin o'malley, for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much, and thank you for the honor of being able to share as co-chair on this task force with you, and for your championing, and insistence really, to focus as governors on how we might do a better job of providing for our veterans. so many of them are coming home and we need them to be the strong moms and dads that we need them to be here. i come from the state of maryland, and in our state house, gov. george washington signed his -- resigned his commission and gave authority back to the representatives of the republic. in a very short remarks that are contained therein the state house in that seminal moment of america's founding, half of those remarks were spent urging

congress to do a better job of doing right by the veterans of the american revolution. i think all of us have a role to play, and indeed, many of the governors are coming from the vfw to the administrations of veterans job corps initiative. our federal government is doing a better job and doing a great job in providing for our country's veterans, but as you said, one size does not fit all. when it comes to providing services and going the last mile to convict to that veteran -- to connect to the veteran, services are very important. in addition to providing assistance with jobs and educational opportunity, health care services are very important. for many behavioral issues, such as ptsd, do not begin to manifest themselves until months, years, sometimes decades later. i want to commend the lot of our

private-sector leaders, like magellan services, who works together with the u.s. department of labor, homeland security, hud, and we have launched a hero help hire for warriors who have suffered physical and mental injuries. also, companies like dominion, the power company. they have created a program called on troops to energy jobs. our men and women in uniform have fought for the quality of life we enjoy. we owe them. when they return from overseas, we owe them some of the basic obligations to make sure they are able to re-enter and become the moms and dads that are healthy and strong that we need them to be. that means the highest quality benefits and services possible. i look forward to today's meeting, and the second half of

today's meeting we will be talking about the bio- surveillance system, that ability to monitor outbreaks, pandemic flu, and the like. with that, thank you, governor back to you.rn it >> we are on opposite sides of the aisle, but we share our passion. armenta thank you for your leadership as well. in wyoming, education assistance from our very valuable and provide an opportunity for veterans to go back to school. they provide assistance for as much as 10 semesters. the second thing we establish about a year-and-a-half ago is a welcome home day. it is every year, march 30, we have a welcome home ceremony. the first year, would travel to three different towns in wyoming and welcome paul mcvet's.

-- and we welcome home veterans. it is an amazing experience because some of those folks never got a proper welcome home. and when we to have travel to those places and got to meet with vets and hear their stories, the simple message of welcome home and thank you for your service, we were touched by the reaction of many of our veterans. we travel to different towns every year, but it has grown quite big in a short time frame because too many of our veterans did not receive a proper welcome home. the third thing we are working on is a veterans treatment corp., which i mentioned. it is expected to get away -- get under way soon. other states are ahead of us, but it is something that we are getting started and we have been working on in the last 18 months. this course will be in cheyenne, which is home to our large number of veterans, 13,000.

it is intended to identify those who enter into the criminal justice system while suffering some type of mental illness that may have been exacerbated, they will get assistance with their legal situation. veterans will be permitted to enter into plea agreements that require intensive treatment and rehabilitation. this is not a free pass. participants will be closely monitored with weekly check in program and the requirement of time and effort. and they will be given the support of community veterans were going through similar treatment programs. the department of veterans affairs and the office of veterans just as outraged assume all costs. with little to no cost of -- -- veterans justice out reach

assume all costs. with little to no cost to the states, we are implementing this program. but i have been very fortunate to have a lieutenant governor in the state of maryland -- >> i have been very fortunate to have a the tenet governor in the state of maryland, lieutenant governor brown, who happen to be the highest-ranking official in maryland to serve in iraq. 28,000 maryland residents have served in iraq and afghanistan, and about one in five of them are in need of behavioral health services. for a variety of reasons they end up coming to the state rather than to the day -- to the d.a. for those services.

in 2008, we signed into law the veterans be brought health act in order to address the needs of maryland veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries and stress disorder. and we created the maryland health advisory board and the maryland commitment to veterans program. that is shared by our lieutenant governor. it has four assistant coordinators' that assist veterans throughout the state, including some of the more rural areas. they help them obtain access to services. we have been allowed to make that critical connection between the veterans in need of services and the services available. we also initiated a program where we meet on a quarterly basis with all the state agencies that provide any

services to veterans in order to keep track of the effectiveness of their programs, and also the utilization rate of our veterans of those programs. we reviewed that regularly to see how we can make better connections. these issues do not just affect the veterans. they take their toll on families and if are not address, can result in homelessness, substance abuse, or running afoul of the law. in maryland, we also provide financial aid for veterans and their families. we receive private donations and sadly, most of those requests are for food and shelter, food and rent. those are the leading request for help and our veterans come home. -- when our veterans come home.

i appreciate being with you and look forward to hearing from other governors this sort of things that they are doing. thank you. >> governor perdue, as you know, we have been fighting wildfires in the west. cholera has had a very significant fire season. in wyoming, we had fires, one of them 30,000 acres from another one close to 100,000 acres. we reach out to other states to get assistance. i would like you to share with us as your guard unit came to the west.

share with us about the tragic accident in south dakota. >> thank you. in south dakota, a specially -- we were especially delighted to be part of the whole team, even though there was adversity and tragedy at the end of the mission. there were no met -- and no women on this mission. the guys blow out voluntarily. -- flew out voluntarily. they loved helping their neighbors. several were killed and two are still very dangerously burned. we met with the families and we began the burials on wednesday. the governors of the western states were very partisan but

jori and rich are to the families. it is one of the big things that happened that affect families and lives. you all may not know that north carolina has the third largest number of bids on the ground in the country. and we have branded our state to the most u.s. military from the state in the country. i lived in a base community for more than 20 years. north carolina has the largest success in the country after the last round of base closures. if you all are interested at all, we would be glad to give you a template for what we are doing part of the reason that we have been so successful is because we have such a huge number, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of veterans and family and civil servants in our state. we have done all of the things

that you need to do to take care of a veteran family. we have a technological database that helps with the military. it is a job search, employment, recruitment tool. we match a person's skills with what the private sector needs. it is terrifically successful. we have expedited process where all of those leaving the military are trying to enter into a civilian work force. the licensure is required to do an expedited license so they can go to work the day they leave the military. we provide in-state tuition assistance. we have a veterans' tax credit.

we have developed a cadre of services around our wounded warriors. we pride ourselves on the ability to quickly rehabilitate in the house and provide assistance necessary for the families. that is one of the hard parts of the enduring freedom efforts, to see these families come back. your comments about the residual effect on the family, it is long-lasting. we do what we can to ensure that the warrior comes home and we better them. thank you for your latest efforts. and anytime we have a hurricane or a tremendous national disaster, you are there for us. >> thank you, governor perdue.

it is amazing, the level of cooperation amongst the states when it comes to these things. just watching it during fire season, but in colorado and wyoming -- both in cost model and wyoming, as well as other western states, these men and women job at the chance to enter dangerous conditions. -- a jump at the chance to enter dangerous conditions. when i see them deployed to afghanistan and iraq, when i asked a service member who is going and they say, do what you can for my family. and the welcome home is there when they come back, but after that, we forget to follow-up. thank you for your leadership on that we have put in place a

system -- thank you for your leadership on that. >> we have put in place a system for school leadership. if your a guardsman and your a son or -- if your a guardsman's son or daughter and you live in a place where it is rare to have died, then -- that it is rare to have, then we reach out to you. >> and shy and had a military school, i ask the kids about this. one of the boys had a testing story about how his dad was deployed for a year. in his mind, he was never coming back. and when they said he was here today, he did not believe me. he did not believe him until he was back in his dad's embrace.

and his dad told me that his boy struggled in school and things were tough at home. can you share what is going on in your state? >> certainly. and thank you, governor of malley, for your leadership. -- governor o'malley, for your leadership. having served in the national guard in texas for almost 14 years, we as a state have -- we in pennsylvania have taken part in every war since the beginning. my father flew in world war ii. he is 90 years old. i have had the opportunity in the last three years to meet many people who actually participated in the day -- d-

day, as well as those who have participated in the problems in iraq and afghanistan. the story is the same when they come home, they need help. i am proud to say that pennsylvania over the years has developed over 27 initiatives, from education to states of veterans homes to employment, civil service, benefits and state retirement if you have officers.ervice each county has a veterans affairs director. sometimes it is particularized to the persian gulf conflict of 1990-'91. emergency assistance for food and clothing for the disabled, and it goes on. we actually had a school that is

not too far from the area near gettysburg, on the other side of the mountains, that was a school for the orphans and children of veterans. unfortunately, over the last few years prior to me taking office it was closed because it was not being used as much. our plan is to sell the property and the money that we will gain from that will go into a program much like what governor o'malley mentioned earlier, i trust fund. that fund money will go to help with the various service organizations to help with the county representatives in each of the counties and help our veterans across the way. when you create a foundation like that and a program like that, you want to find other sources of income. we have two pieces of legislation that we hope to finish in the fall.

i am pretty sure this one is going to pass. one would be a designation on a driver's license, a "v" for veteran. it is a $2 offset fee and it will go to a foundation. second become another bill has been created where when you get your driver's license or your state issued id or renewal, you can check of the box and had $3. that money, again, would go into a trust fund. we think that is going to raise about $500,000 a year. or you can have a special license plate that anybody can buy. people can recognize the service of our veterans in a much different way than when the veterans came home from the vietnam conflict. it will say "are our veterans." and anybody can purchase that.

-- "honor our veterans." and anybody can purchase that. all the money will go into a trust fund for our people. finally, the small-business reserve program, money that pennsylvania sets aside to allow small businesses to compete for state contracts. we have four different contracts. -- categories. minority and women in business, and one that is also a service disabled veterans in business. we will give them somewhat of an advantage. and one last one, gov. o'malley, you mentioned it. event -- veterans treatment court. i'm glad to sit at one of our justices in the supreme court like the idea of the drug court so much that he suggested that we have a veteran st. mccourt to

help veterans returning, especially -- a veterans treatment court to help veterans returning, especially those with behavioral issues. there are a number returning and we think that will grow across the commonwealth of pennsylvania. >> thank you for your leadership. you are doing a lot there. i took some notes. >> we will share the programs with you. >> thank you, governor. any time you travel, we need to hear from you. thank you for being here, governor. >> [inaudible] most of our veterans the retire

and stay in our states where they used to surf -- most of the veterans retire and stay in the stage where they used to serve, but recently, we have seen a return of veterans, so much so that over a time frame of 10 years we are now seeing a lot of veterans and their families returning. we used to have an office in the governor's office that we referred to as the veterans affairs adviser. i am now elevating that office into a full department to deal exclusively with employment issues, health issues, and liaising with the local government as well as the veterans administration. when we came into office, one of the things we saw it is our veterans were forced to travel to hawaii and other states to

receive health treatments. since the onset of the iraqi war and so many of our reserve forces were deployed, we began to see a lot of them with behavioral health problems. it was -- at that time, we started pushing the veterans administration to have a clinical in america samoa, or at least partner with us so that we would be able to afford their health care locally. the veterans administration has now established a full-time clinic and staffed it with professional physicians and nurses, and is doing the

outpatient treatment effectively. that is part of the reason we are standing up the new department. there are so many issues that need to be addressed. and we do not have anyone full- time assigned to that task. the new department will specifically work with veterans and their issues. second to that, i have also created legally it veterans association of american samoa and leased to them about 4 acres of land, and we are now constructing a veteran center that is specifically dedicated to the issues of veterans. it will have a clubhouse for veterans and their families. and also, the new department that we are standing up. with the new outpatient clinics, we are still not happy with the fact that there is no mechanism

for addressing the many soldiers that we see with potential ptsd issues. one of the things that i have done, and one of the primary reasons for us setting up the new behavioral health center was to allow a mechanism where most of these soldiers, and some of the families -- because we saw a lot of behavioral problems when the deployments return. it is not only affecting soldiers, but their families, their children. we needed a place to treat them. we did not have a state hospital or any other mental health facilities on the island. this will be a first for us. but it was primarily one of the reasons, to assist veterans in their issues. but one of the biggest things that we are hoping to accomplish

with a new department is to help this to transition -- help veterans transition back into the work force. i have ordered my his administration to give preference. any veteran who applies for a job with the government will get a preference, in number of points. they will get 10 points ahead of anybody. all things being equal, the veteran will always have the preference of taking that job. two years ago, i signed a community contract, as you may have already done in some of your state. and one of the commitments that we have done is to assist our reserve forces, but also to help them transition back to the community as they retire from their services and reach out to

companies in american samoa. those are some of the things that we are doing to assist our veterans. we are confident that our legislature in the present session will approve this new department and this new department will then take over the responsibilities that are now being done through my office with just an advisory person. >> governor, thank you. i think it illustrates, again, it is not one size fits all. the we all have our own challenges. thank you for your leadership. gov. mcdonald, we had an opportunity to hear from the other governors. i mentioned in wyoming that we are starting a veterans court. i know others are doing the same. it would be eager to hear a report on the set -- the success. governor, is that statewide? >> within a year it will be statewide.

>> governor mcdonald, if you want to share with us some of the things you have going on here in the commonwealth. >> sure, and thank you, mr. chairman. i guess i am too late to claim that i have the most veteran from the state -- a veteran from the state. >> you are way behind in that claim. sure we all have good reasons and many other military organization. did they choose to retire. they live and work in virginia after that. they have a sick of it and population. there are a lot people trying to put some new things in place. i could just mentioned a handful of things that we done that we

think are working well. there are some challenges under stress related. there are other ones to really help these returning soldiers. there are other state monies.

we have a claim a jam program. they are applying for federal and state benefits. i think you have that program. i think we broke that idea that is working very well. we have established lifetime hunting and fishing licenses for our disabled veterans. we provided in state tuition for veterans, of cardmembers to be able to take advantage. it is operated by disabled veterans. we also ratified our constitution.

there is a fair number and virginia. some in eight businesses in virginia offer veterans discounts. -- so many businesses in virginia offer veterans discounts. if you are not a disabled veteran, you do not have a better and identification cards. our folks in veterans' services came up with a good idea of having a state issued veterans cards. i have a first one issued in virginia. i got to the front of the line. it is a beautiful card. you are entitled those discounts. it is a brilliant idea.

there are very few things that bring more angst to me as a veteran having a kit that lets to iraq. there are services to the veterans that are homeless. this year we had a coordinating for this. we are trying to do everything we can to make sure every veteran has a minimal level of support. we started a new program which is a virginia veterans reemployment initiatives. the department has put this together to help train employers on how to redesign the hiring

process. they match the people separating the discharges from are many local basis in order how to hire them. they make tremendous ones. last year we passed a professional licensing and precocity one.it i think a lot of states are joined. that is terrific to be able to have more rapper salsify -- rep precocity. what came up with the church's program. we also have a trip to teachers

program. teachers program. we also have a troops to trucks problems. we make it easier by waiving all the requirements. this is working very well. if i could brag about my wife for a minute. she has made this one of her top initiatives as well, being a mom of a veteran herself. we started something called the s.o.s. website. those of you that are interested can go to sos.virginia.gov. the whole idea is to match of

the need of family members to spouses are deployed with volunteers to say i want to help a veteran. we did not have a way of matching that up. this web site is designed to do just that. she also is doing something really remarkable that we are excited about. we just received this back from the federal government in the 2005 process. we just received that back. for 200 years we have had that bad. on this site we are starting something called the freedom initiative. we are going to create this. this is something easy to replicate. we are starting a one-stop shop

so any veteran who wants to know anything that they might be able to get that they could come to a freedom for it. they can get access to any benefits they need without having to get the runaround. many of you have done that. they have this wonderful clearing house. they can now bring things there. veterans can have access. veterans can get free items. it is a great way of matching

that. there are some other things that i could go over. we are very pleased to have some many veterans of making their home in virginia. these are some things that we will make a happy home. >> we ate oysters last night. do you hunt for those are do you fish for those ta? >> you fish but you have today. i guess it is a little bit of both. >> thank you for your leadership. i wanted to announce that this is a reason why nga will be releasing a survey this week to identify other states and

practices. just in the few comments, there are a lot of things going on that we can learn for each other. the governors are going to report back on best practices to give us this. i will now turn this to gov. o'malley. thank you for your leadership. you're going to take is in a different direction. thank you very much. >> we always come to this. the very reason for this creation was the need to create our nation's public security, our ability to protect our people here at home.

what i thought we will do for the second half of this this turn to buy a surveillance and efforts to plan and prepare for biological events. we have been accommodating here. this is protecting that spectrum band so we could have an operable communications in the event of the emergency so all our first responders can talk to each other. this court capacity will have to do with by a surveillance. he currently europe's servers as

the public and prepared this response for the centers for will control torrid he has led the irresponsibility -- for the centers of control. he has led the response abillity. he has served as one of the main architects as the public help buy a terrorism prepared this program which upgraded the ability of local, state, and public health systems to be alerted right away to the outbreak or to the attack.

he was an adjunct professor. this task force really appreciates the making time to be with us today. thank you for that generous introduction. baltimorea thing embar that can be done in different ways. it is all good. about've of like to talk is that they've always been in the protection business.

this is a way in insuring the way it is secured. it is framed in the sense of by a terrorism. he mentioned hurricane katrina. increasingly as you think about the public health events whether it is food borne outbreaks or what ever in the northwest, there are political consequences that our nation why it and want us to think about this a lot better. we often framed this as public health. the lifeblood of public health

is information. not just routine information. i am sure you want timely information. we have put this during the early days. often information is confusing in the early days. the balance is about looking at the core monitoring systems and putting in additional pieces of information. you have that information to say how could i make that decision every day that is necessary to secure the help of my population? what comes to mind is routine public health events.

you can look at this information for all sorts of things going on in your community. we do believe this will work. i know my time is short. there is the core of your routine system but includes

hospitals, nursing homes, long- term care facilities and always happened on this. all of a sudden they noticed .ases of salmonella heidelberg they breached their colleagues in new york. they said let us -- they reached out to their colleagues in new york. they said let us look. they were able to look at a number of others. it to show graf you what is supposed to be in the green line that were above the five-year average. the map shows where they saw an extra 190 cases. this is looking at combining all

the data that came together to define the outbreak. because this is all about public health, they were able to identify this outbreak. they realize this was due to broiled chicken liver. they're able to have a class one recall and take it off the market. this is exactly how public health should be working, identifying things as fast as possible, preventing additional people from getting sick or potentially dying. you have the same exact system. this is the surveillance system for the early notification. this is along the same lines.

it to was combined traditional. it was from other laboratory data. no, these are examples i can get it. it is so that more recently they were better prepared. we do not find yourself in emergency rooms.

you look at who is at risk if he ways in which used to mobilize the national guard appeared some is to the mark back less people. this is about timely data. i will move on. the have similar systems which win awards. these are state based systems. they are national systems. they take the data use agreements. they will give you a national picture that provides a number of advantages based on the type of system. i've already said the base system is a notifiable disease.

it to become a lot more motivated. one is looking at this. food borne infections, he can do this transmitted all along the united states. we use this to identify large outbreaks. this is a way we do in it.

you get products very fast out of the market. it is a very important laboratory system. the other system i would like to talk about is one that is available to states that like to put these surveillance systems. we can help assist with that. let me transition to this. i think everyone thinks the answer is out there and social media. all they have to do is look at some analytic tool. i am sorry to disappoint you. that is not quite sure yet.

this is a word cloud. the word cloud will say there is outbreak going out. this is actually a workout after the movie contagion came out. -- word cloud after the movie "contagion" came out. the need to use all of these tools. they are complementary tools that come together to give you a sense of what is going on. let me and at this light for what opportunities you may have -- at this slide for what opportunities you may have in your state to examine. do you have the building blocks

for a robust system? do you have a well-trained work force? do they have the ability to bring in the monitoring and electronic help records? how well are these linked together? are there use agreement? s? do you participate to you look at it nationally? are there opportunities to help you assist in some of these efforts? thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. let me ask you this question. feel free to jump in. kind of a two-part question. how he accesses information.

let me ask this. >> there are a number of data systems you have access to. some of these systems would get a used agreement. you share your data. it is over 27 states and municipalities that have done so. we would encourage them sign up with the use agreements. >> that leads me to my second question. have we done one of these daily use agreement? >> ps. -- yes. >> this cd see look at what we're doing at a level -- cdc

look at the level and see if we are robust enough? you should be monitoring these things. a deal have an instrument we can use to sell a buy you a whether we have a system that is timely and accurate and that provides our public health and front-line detection? >> will there are a number of guidelines published -- there are a number of guidelines almost. states do that routinely. >> thank you for being with us. you talked about the word clout. i appreciate you talking about that. i was talking to a company that tracks that. they say they can see these spikes.

running nose, sore throat, fever. i am interested because how does it otherwise were of you can say there's something going on in this part of the state or country to identify and address it more quickly to prevent additional problems ta? how would this normally float? is there any -- flow? is there any other addition? we are getting a spike in searches for these types of things. >> they absolutely do. >> i will show you the first part of that. google has published a scientific paper where they look at searches around influenza.

they can have a number of other indicators will tell you people are going to the hospital. they're going to come down with the flu. some of the bottom slides will show you that. that is nice. that is available to anybody. do you have some sort of mechanism and the chief complaint to transmit that to the local or state health departments though they can see they're having a spike of fever like illness and then they can compile that data using a number of different analytics? usually we see people who are

coming in every day. all of a sudden we're seeing six or seven. these tools exist. they need to be looked at together. you always need that to look at the data. >> another broad question. we can be very mobile and the country. as you fly around the country you go to the airport. how do you track that situation for anithere is potential outbreak? how do you track that? how the watch that activity and what do you do to monitor its? ? >> i did not know that one was coming. honest. someone had mentioned that in a different context.

that happened. there was a measle cluster during the last super bowl, up one child that had measles. -- one child that had measles. he exposed a large number of people. the question came up very quickly. we could get quick snapshot of whether or not we were seeing the spread throughout the u.s. with national systems you can see whether this disease is spreading or not across the u.s. you need not just a picture actor local level. you need to add that to the national data to get the picture. even though it started here, it

is spreading or not spreading. >> thank you. >> do you have, in the case of the areas, we do not have any sophisticated labs in american samoa. we're limited to our hospital lab. what protocol says cdc had in the event of these things showing up in our territory? we report occasionally on diseases. chemicals, atof cubicle the next time an envelope showed in my office with powder, it took four days for the support units from the national park in hawaii to show up.

four days could have wiped out the whole population. thank god it was determined to be just powder and was a hoax. what does cdc halve to the placs that have no access to any real examinations and quarantine if required? >> thank you. that is an excellent question. you have many advocates within the agency for the issues in very remote issues in american salmonella and other in some areas. we can get ideas from me to think about all the efforts with

in areas such as american samoa. i know that our programs support american samoa with resources for prepared as related issues. so do some of the other programs. there are opportunities there to think collectively about public health and help support you for public health may be more. are there diagnostics back may be more amenable to your case than the whole laboratory response network? it is expensive to maintain. >> it is one of the things that

we tried to do to ask the national guard to stand up a small units for a couple of soldiers -- or a couple of soldiers with one of the portable lap is that they have -- or a couple of soldiers with one of the portable laboratories that they have. is there any way we could get some coordination to the cdc? >> the national guard or dod. >> i was hoping to see the national guard here today. >> other questions?

>> some of them are municipalities. they have all 50 states to have executed agreements. we would be glad. we cannot have everything on the same day. they would execute these agreements and help get access to these cloud based technologies to help get there in the future. this is still our best defense

and our best tool for identifying when we need to deploy. >> as long as it is a true compilation, there are other pieces of information. >> we believe we're on the cusp of a technological breakthrough. they can tell you whether there are agents that have been released something. what are the limitations? what are the uses? i guess it can never replace this. there are other technologies. >> we are the have deployed biosensors within the united states.

this is another part of this multi layer system for the united states. it to get picked up by the buy a watch. -- it would get picked up by a biowatch. we would do other things to help protect our population. >> you have to do them all. >> ps. >> anything else? >> you have other states participate. do you have on your website if there are states interested what it takes for an mou to be signed so we know what we are getting into? >> absolutely they know us very

well. >> i guess that is good news. thank you. >> now it is time to turn its who willr to have theiheather give us an update. maybe an update on the public safety broadband network. >> sure. i would be happy. there are two items in particular. they hahave been big areas of legislative focus since the beginning of this year. it the first issue is the national guard. earlier this year, the air force proposed to disk partially cut the national guard by -- disproportionate that the national guard [unintelligible]

this issue was discussed when this committee met in february. nearly every governor signed a letter opposing the cut to the defense secretary. that letter was presented to the secretary during a meeting shortly after the meeting ended. panetta agreed to work with governors to see if there is a better path forward. several generals then worked on behalf of the council of governors to try to negotiate a compromised proposal to find a better path to finding this out. those negotiations were unable to close these of the thickened differences that remain. -- the significant differences that remain. i am pleased to report that both

the house and the senate has decided to protect the international art and the budget for fiscal year 2013. then move their legislation out of committee. they will vote on the legislation before the august recess. they are trying to find a way that we do not repeat this situation again. the second issue that has been a big focus was the block legislation. when this legislation that in february we talked about the passage of the legislation that provided $7 billion in funding to help construct the first inoperable network. and this case dealing with broadband capabilities. bac reallocated the d block

sector. nga has been doing things to try to help continue support efforts to implement that legislation and to ensure that priorities tend to be represented. what we have done is put forward nominees to the teeth of the zero boards that will be established -- to the two boards that will be established. i want to take away this presentation. they recently hosted a national meeting for individuals from states to get together and begin discussion. >> thank you for the update.

thank you for your help with this committee and getting us in order. thee's the director of homeland's security. >> thank you. my job is to help implement legislation at the state level. this is one of the most impact will things happening. full things happening. it is the first dedicated broadband network to help states. to help states began to prepare for that, at the center hosted

a national forum on implementing public safety broadband. the objective was to look at actions the states can take now. there are representatives from local law enforcement. homeland's security advisers and managers. we did this in partnership with the national association. these meetings are worth noting. we got 48 states to respond. in terms of the decisionmaking process thesrelated to these, there's really no one model. there are three different approaches.

there's some type of wireless commission or something. second is that states need to continue focusing on public safety. public safety needs to be at the table. there is a general sense that states could do a much better job in the decisionmaking process. states need to begin to assess their critical assets now as a relates to public broadband. they need it to make some key decisions. regional planning efforts need to occur. one of the most successful discussions was very impac

impactful. the other was looking at tribes. tried to present some issues whether they opt in or opt out. finally, there were a number of myths of that were dispelled. building the network will take time. it is the going to be an instant push. it will be in network that will push data and not just voice. boys will happen down the line. there's not enough money to build the money. it'll take time and other resources. two other things. in response to the leadership of this committee, nga is

pushing to create a resource center. we are fund-raising for that. the objective is to fill the policy void looking at what states can do to effectuate. the second thing i wanted to know it is that nga released [inaudible] to all governors, of looking to create a policy academy on drug abuse. back policy academy -- that policy academy is done under the bidders. >-- governors. >> you said you're doing fund- raising. >> currently we are working with some corporations, looking at the corporate salas program. the center is a non-profit.

our objective is to put together a two phase project. one will be a 30-40 policy group of folks. the objective is to identify what are those core elements of that governors can do now to effectuate a strong as posture as possible. phase two will be politics. we will work with states to actually implement this. >> knell to the questions for thomas. >> thank you for your excellent work. -- now to the questions for thomas. >> thank you for your excellent work. we are working on funding from the guard issues. we have co-authored an op ed piece.

i think we have done a lot of good work. i appreciate your leadership. in our last meeting we were surrounded. it was wonderful. we had some great advice and leadership. thank you for your leadership. i appreciate working with the. >> thank you. >> is there any other further business we need to attend to? >> thank you for what you do. thank you for being with us today. >> thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are looking live where the

democratic senators say they will continue to debate legislation on campaign to finance rules. earlier, senate republicans voted to block the bill which would require individual and corporate donors to disclose large donations that air campaign ads. democratic leadership has left the option for a another vote to move forward tomorrow. you can see the senate live right now on c-span2. ben bernanke is testifying tomorrow and wednesday when he delivers his monetary report to the senate and the house. he is expected to talk about the visible cliff and mutilation of libor lending rate. we will have the testimony like tamara and c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. -- tomorrow on c-span at 10:00

a.m. eastern. >> lyndon b. johnson was the best president and looked up poverty issues and spend money on it. he talked about the social service program. lyndon johnson. richard nixon is actually the father a minority business development. inside his minority business that established the small business administration, he used the turn "economic justice." >> julianna malveaux regularly writes on african-american history. live sunday at noon on august 5, your calls and tweets. in death august on c-span -- in depth on c-span.

>> they unveiled the results of a survey in which americans were given budgeting information and to ask to create their own pentagon budget. here is part of that problem. he can see the entire thing at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. >> this is the high end of the spectrum. unless something changes, then this will be lower than fiscal 2012. that is just an observation. bromley has taken that position out. the primary is over. already use the language changing from with in his camp about exactly how that will be implemented.

he has to find a way to establish his national security bonus. he certainly seems to be emphasizing it differently than during the primary session. and the last observation is that these pressures are not going away in respect of who is president. -- regardless of who is president. there are challenges and ways to overcome them, but it is difficult to do without everything on the table, including how -- including national defence. you're still talking about one- fifth of the total budget and a chunk of the discretionary budget. when is obama, then it is not bring anywhere. >> even if he wants to increase the defense budget, he is not as our -- a czar. he is part of a complicated dynamic in washington and democrats will have different

ideas. even some of his below republicans live different ideas. -- fellow republicans will have different ideas. the competition in the spending dynamic is not going to disappear.

the debt and deficit will not disappear. what romney said should not be taken as a predictor of an outcome, of a specific outcome. at best, it'll change the current dynamic if he gets elected. it will change the current dynamic because you have one player in the system as pause in a different point of view than any of the players are expressing our, except for maybe the chairman of the house armed services committee. he is pretty much alone in washington now as an important player who wants to increase the defense budget. >> i am with congressional quarterly. picking up on a complicated political dynamic, could you talk about what you will be looking for in the spending bill -- specific weapons systems, augmentations to accounts, and spending proposals? could you also not only give us your opinion of the sequestration program, but how do you think [unintelligible] will turn out this year? a production.

>> i do not have a prediction. i will, again, share some thoughts on it. when it comes to the house appropriations bill on offense coming to the floor this week, i am not especially watching any particular programs. there is a problem, and that is, the appropriation is consistent with the budget committees 302b, but not consistent with the governing statute at the moment. but something is got to change. in other words, congress is going to have to amend the budget control act or all of these positions are in excess of what is presently allowed. i see it as part of the election cycle. the house is staking out a leadership position they feel comfortable campaigning on. and they will do so. the election will be contested

and some people visit -- will win and others will lose. after that, everybody will have to come back to washington and deal with the fact that the very significant piece of legislation gets amended to permit them to have a conversation they are presently having, or that defense appropriation conversation just changes. i do not think i would hazard a guess on how that plays out. it is certainly possible to see both. as for sequestration again, an observation. congressional research service has a great report out where they looked at previous instances where sequester was a risk. bear in mind, this is not a new

legislative issue. this has been around for more than 20 years. there have been about five instances in that timeframe where sequester was a possibility. if memory serves me correctly, on three of those occasions, an act of congress decided not to do that. in one of them, it was a financial accounting area -- error that turned out not to be a problem. and then another -- in another, the size of a sequester was cut down enormously upon its implementation. sequester is meant to be for a tough decision making. at the same time, it is an act of congress. congress can act again and they tend to do so when these things come up. my information is that there will not be sequestered on defense in 2013. i expect something will happen during that lame-duck session that will change those terms so that defense may be continued to -- may be allowed to continue to cut, but not at that level of service.

>> [inaudible] i was just wondering if the respondents were placed as a republican or democrat as far as party registration, or were you just looking at where they align? and if that is true, and you think that tends to skew some of the analysis, the results of it? you are mainly just looking at districts as a whole and not party lines, is that the case? >> whether they are republican or democrat, that is based on what party they associate themselves with appeared before the red/blue diss for analysis, it is driven entirely by where they live. -- district analysis, it is driven entirely by where they live.

who is a member of congress in their district? it is pretty straightforward. >> when you chose the respondents, and they identified themselves as -- ? >> as republican or democrat. and then we have information about where they lived and we can divide them accordingly based on where they live. >> ok, thank you. >> how comfortable are you that if defense cuts are implemented that they would go the way that you mentioned? >> because of the way the system works, the chance that the cuts will be made only in places that would be broadly identified as waste by some independent group sitting on the outside are slim. there is a certain level of warfare that takes place among interested parties in a time frame of decline. the best team will be the one who is program survives -- i mean, best in terms of the strongest team. strongest team.