our nato allies have difficulties as well with their economic issues. the fact is that nato represents probably the most successful collective security relationship in the history of man. that relationship remains strong, will continue to remain strong, must remain strong. >> just to clarify something you said earlier, that adjustments will be made to avert serious damage. to you think there will be a decision on sequestration? >> i hope we will see a consensus. this is a partnership. this is every public and it is the executive and the congressional branch is working together to find a way out. listening to our leaders, all are saying the same thing, we need to find a way to resolve the issue. that is the only way out. i will leave this gentleman, whom some of you may know, ash

carter, who is our deputy secretary and plays a significant leadership role on this particular issue as well as others. it is a benefit to our country and it is a benefit to this institution, especially in a difficult time like this. i would not say anything more. >> a couple questions. can you flesh out what practical impact the pentagon and its forces will see during sequestration versus three or four must from now.

over the next 8 weeks, what will we see? >> let me start with the army. you will see the army beginning to curtail training at the national training center. if we go to the air force, you will see the air force beginning to curb flying hours. that means the nuclear capable air force, that part of the air force participating in operations in afghanistan -- we will protect them. that means the cuts costs by sequestration and the continuing resolution will fall more heavily on other parts of the combat air force. they will need to cease training, which mean they -- means they will not be ready for other conflicts, which is a serious impact. you have already seen the navy began to make adjustments in terms of how many ships are at sea.

you will see each of our program managers -- sequester a facts 2500 individual investment programs. we are working with our individual partners. we will see them beginning to make adjustments, for example, in the number of weapons systems in a given category that are being purchased. a different kind of arrangement. you were weapon systems in a contract than we anticipated were being put in a contract. as the secretary and the president indicated earlier today, this progressively bills -- builds over coming months and constitutes a serious problem in readiness accounts. >> delaware the services have

flexibility in their own accounts -- don't the services have flexibility in their own accounts where the bank will training? >> they have flexibility and they are using that flexibility to protect operations in afghanistan. we are not curbing training from units that are going to afghanistan. that means the burden falls more heavily upon the rest of the air force. a lot of people ask why some much happened so fast -- happens so fast. you begin to see some of the reasons for that, the combination of the sequester and the resolution, the fact that we are trying to protect the war in afghanistan, the fact that only half of the fiscal year is left.

even after we moved everything around. secretary hagel just said we're doing everything we can to protect national security and minimize damage, but the reality, even after you have done all of that, you still do not have enough money left to do the training that underlies readiness. that is why the readiness crisis is very real. quacks which people are you more concerned about today? are there any immediate impacts on personnel and their families must mark -- families? they will feel that immediately.

our civilian workforce. it is about 800,000 strong. those people are dedicated to the defense mission. they lived all over the country, which remind you 86% of them live outside of the washington area. 44% of them are veterans. they are dedicated to the mission. as the year goes on, many of

them will be subject to furlough. the contractor work force depends on us. we do not make anything here in the pentagon, so we depend upon the industrial base to make our weapons systems which make us the greatest military in the world. many of them will be affected directly by this because we will be cutting back on contractors. we have to defend -- find $46 billion between now and the end of the year. the civilian and military workforce will only to only provide a few billion dollars. the rest of that will affect contractors.

the effects will be serious and immediate area. >> hwo ow many of these initial cuts will have lasting effects? >> it is a good question. in this area and every other area, we are doing everything we can to minimize damage. when you cannot afford to begin overhaul or maintenance of a ship and you do for that maintenance, our shipyards have their planned maintenance planned out through many years. once you have created a this

year, that rob richards -- propagates into the future. i explained that the air force was not going to be able to afford to have many of the pilots in the compat air force trained in the latter part of the year. if you stop training for a while and you are a combat pilot, you lose your rating. we cannot allow you to fly if you cannot fly safely. you cannot fly proficiently. then you have to go back to the long building back process of getting your readiness back erie it this is not something that, even if it is temporary -- the secretary explained that everybody hopes that, in some way, both sequester and the

problems we're are experiencing with the continuous resolution will be resolved through legislation and a large budget deal of some kind -- but even were that to occur some months from now, there would be lasting damage. it is serious. quacks abc to use. of all the cuts coming down the pop line -- coming down the pipeline, what gives the pentagon the greatest pause. what are the specific threats to the pentagon, the cuts you could be seeing at midnight tonight? >> at midnight tonight and through the days and weeks and months.

the readiness of the other units will decline. that is not safe. ious ed readiness is a serj matter. >> will it make people think the pentagon can absorb these cuts? people will be less ready and less capable?

does that concern you that it may not be tangible enough to sound alarms to the public? we have been trying for 16 months to sound the alarm for sequestration. we are describing to you and all the detail we can how each and every part of this enterprise will be affected adversely. the people, the weapons programs, the readiness. people, those who do not appreciate how serious this is, as the years go on, it will be unmistakable. this is not subtle.

this is an abrupt, serious curbing of activity and all their key categories of activity. it is not subtle. quacks there is a contrary and narrative out there that says the war in iraq is over, we are winding down in afghanistan. we're not in a nuclear standoff with russia, china is a competitor not an enemy. even if the sequester is a closing tool, why cannot and why shouldn't this department be forced to operate on less after 10 years of so much money coming your way? >>a year ago, the department embarked on $487 billion in defense cuts, in accordance with what you just said.

that built upon $300 billion that secretary gates had begun in the efficiency of initiative. we understand that as the wars in iraq and afghanistan wind down our overall budget authority will go down. that will make a contribution to deficit reduction. sequestration is a different matter. it is arbitrary, abrupt, and on top of sequestration, we have a continuing resolution in force which creates its own set of problems. the net of this is something that is abrupt. it is a real detriment to defense.

we should only the money we deserve and that the nation needs. that is the principle upon which we build this new strategy last year. secretary alluded to that. this country is turning a strategic corner. that is the broader point you are making. we are coming out of the era of iraq and afghanistan. we are trying to address the national security problems that are going to define this country cost future. we are prepared to do that. and we also understand we will have less resources than we did in that last decade. all of that is understood. this is a different matter. this is something that is not managerial he prudent. >> you mentioned how the

civilian work source -- civilian workforce as a mission. -5 orwould you say to a gs fiv someone contemplating a military career? do you still feel it is a good idea? >> 44% of them are veterans. they do real things that are important to us. they have had their pay frozen two years -- four years -- for years.

the reason is they join us and hope -- and i hope they will stick with us because of mission, to defend the country and help to make a better world. thank you very much. quacks members of the house arms for services committee to discuss the effects of budget cuts in the military. they talked about the sequester poss impact on their home districts. this is just under 30 minutes. >> i am chairman of the house armed services committee. these are members of the committecommittee.

we have a responsibility. i have never seen such lies. of the army chief for a year and a half and never had a budget. that goes for the chairman of the joint chiefs.

sequestration was the president cause idea. he said it was armageddon. he has played all kinds of roles and disposition. -- in this position. when woodward try to lay out the truth, he was crucified, vilified. i do not know to what extent this white house will go to, but it has got to end. we are done cutting our defense. we are fairly intelligent. we know we can cut 2 cents out

of one dollar of government spending. but while we cut those 2 cents, 50 cents has come out of our budget. when you walk out of that meeting this morning, we are telling the president and john boehner, do not plan on cutting our national defense one more sent. -- more cent. i would like to turn to mike turner. >> the president has called congressional leaders to the white house as a prop to the backdrop of his game of sequester, again the candles lit our national security and hurts our men and women in uniform. . today, the sequester will happen with a stroke of his pen. this did not need to happen.

from the proposal by the president of the sequester in august, 2000 11, to the failure of the supercommittee thomas through his reelection campaign through today, the president has not brought forth one proposal to and sequester. he has not turned in his homework. the president is touring the country talking about sequester and the department of defense, the pentagon, and our men and women in uniform are preparing for furloughs that was hit people who are protecting our country and national security. the only work that is being done on sequester in the white house is being done in the pressure off. yesterday, the senate put forth a bill that sets up sequester and replaces it with more spending. a $7.2 billion increase in spending. the cbo scores the senate possible mark as failing. the house passed two bills,

both on the house armed services committee website, both of which replace sequester with responsible cuts and sustain our national security and reduce overall spending. the president off steam on sequester has said it is irresponsible, reckless, wrong, dangerous. we agree. in my community, over 13,000 people are facing furloughs. my community is listed as number three in the nation that will be impacted by sequestration. today, the president has broken his promise to the american people. it begins with sequestration. it was his idea, that he places forward today with his signature on the backs of those who protect us. it is time to get to work how much of behind your desk, and extend an actual proposal to congress. thank you. >> i am randy forbes, chairman

of the executive forces subcommittee. people back it -- back at our home in virginia feel there is too much bravado coming out of the white house and maybe congress and nobody is looking at the concerns they have right now when they are worried about whether they can send their children to school. i want them to know that while the house of representatives has gone home, the senate has gone home, chairman of the subcommittees have not. we are telling you we will continue to work as we are going to come forward with proposals that help mitigate these consequences for national defense. second thing is we are tired of the definition we have seen of acceptable risk. no longer is it going to be acceptable risk when the united states navy can only meet 50% of requirements. no longer is it to be acceptable for our air force to be flying planes that are older than them. it is not acceptable for us to have an army that is cutting out 80,000 troops.

no longer is it acceptable for us to find the lowest possible point for military and argue that is acceptable. we will begin a new chapter that would -- will rebuild the military and defense the security of generations after us. we are turning the light back onto the analysis of national defense in this country for both parties. one of the things you heard the chairman mention about bob woodward, when you have a journalist that starts talking about the actual facts in washington turned on them, the story that has not been written is all the gag orders that began with this ministration -- administration and the pentagon. even as late as last week, i was seeing memorandums where individuals at shipyards could not talk. we are going to change that image in writing a new chapter. i would like to present the chairman of the readiness subcommittee.

>> thank you. i want to make sure people understand where we are today and where we have been. secretary gates put in place $100 billion of reduction to our defense budget. in 2011, there were $487 billion in reduction. nearly half a trillion dollars. the sequester puts another $.5 trillion on that. we are at a point where we look at our readiness and our ability to meet the threats and we are at a place of increased risk, at a place of readiness crisis. we as a nation have always stood behind our military, our men and women in uniform, to make sure they have the overwhelming superiority on the battlefield when we call on them to defend this nation. that is our obligation. with the sequester, we will no longer be able to.

those people will be asked to go into a fair fight. there may be great on the athletic field, but in defense of this nation, it is incomprehensible. we owe it to them, we owe it to that great contracting community, to provide for them the ability to defend this nation, to make sure they have superiority and can fight to victory and come home safe. that is our obligation as a nation. that needs to be our renewed sense of ur energy -- of urgency to make sure we do the job week -- we were sent here to do. that job needs to start a new today. that is why we are here. i want to welcome to the podium the chairman of the military personnel subcommittee. >> is a 31-year veteran of the

army national guard, i want to thank chairman buck mckeon for his leadership. we are here today -- and this is the third round of budget cuts. secretary gates -- there was a $100 billion reduction, followed by a $487 -- or hundred 87 billion dollar reduction. today, possibly $600 billion in cuts. the american people need to know these are targeted. the defense budget is 18% of the federal budget, but 15% of the cuts are applied against defense. this creates a circumstance and i'm grateful for the leadership of leon panetta. he has pointed out that these cuts could lead to the hollowing out of our libertarian -- of our military, putting families at risk. the american people need to know that our defenses are at a low point.

we will have the fewest troops since 1939 in the army and marine corps. we will have the fewest ships since 1916. the fewest aircraft since the air force was created in 1947. gallup has done a survey indicating that the confidence of the american people in our national security is at an all- time low as the questions were first asked in 1993. i am hopeful we can come together addressing these issues, and i am so hopeful that the president will change course. we know the policies of the fence that work are through strength. i hope you will change his policies and recognize we must have peace through strength and not have a circumstance of potential attacks due to weakness. i am honored to be here with the woman ofen it -- chair

the oversight committee. >> there is a better way to cut spending then/our military -- than slash our military. in august of 2011, that is exactly what this was about, the harm the president assad quest or would do to our military families. i cannot help but think about that my om whose husband is on his third or fourth deployment and she is watching all of this play out on the news and wondering whether or not she is going to be able to put food on the table, all while her husband is an harm's way fighting for the region and liberty you and i a joy -- you and i enjoy. it is unconscionable what the president is doing. we cannot tax our way out of the sequester. we cannot tax our way out of debt. the president received his tax

increase and jeremiah or -- in january. it is time he got serious so we can reprioritize what matters most, providing strong national defense. it is unconscionable for this president to use our military families as pawns in his crusade for higher taxes. >> i am back born very from texas -- mac thrornberry from texas. the federal government has to get its fiscal house in order by cutting spending. they have to defend the country in a dangerous world. we do not have the luxury of doing one or the other. we have to do both. there are lots of options to do both. you have heard the house has passed a bill twice that would cut other spending and prevent the sequestration.

the bill would not lay off or for low anybody. -- or furlough anybody. i introduced the bill that would just delay further implementation of the health care appeal -- health care bill by two year. -- eyears. if you give them more time to get their act together, you say that taxpayers. there are lots of options out there to do both of those things. we need the senate and the president to adopt one. we are not giving up. just because it is march 1 does not mean we are holding our hands. next week, on the house floor, we are going to vote on the

defense appropriation bill that will last through the rest of the fiscal year. that is not going to undo sequestration, but it is going to add flexibility and help update the categories which will reduce some of the damage that comes from having a continuing resolution and a sequestration at the same time. we are going to keep working for solutions that protect the country, get our fiscal house in order. toneed a commander-in-chief - do the same. >> thank you again for being here. now we can take a few questions. >> on the 27th of this month, you are going to be at the start of possibility the closing down of the government. the idea of passing just the defense appropriations, as chairman rogers would like to do, does not sound like it is going to get traction in the senate.

are you going to push for an omnibus question mark at that point, a lot of these bills have been negotiated. on defense and a host of other appropriations bills, it looks like we could get deals. would you push for an omnibus? >> it is a cr that will run until the end of the year. wrapped in that cr, is the defense appropriations and veterans affairs. it will fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. you can call in and on the bus or whatever you want, -- an omnibus or whatever you want, but it does fix pending for the rest of the year. next weekthat passed and see what the senate does. we are used to them not doing anything, but we are not waiting until march 27 to work on this. we want to get ahead of it.

there is no thought of closing down the government. we have enough problems without getting into that. >> you have been raising concerns about these cuts ever since they were created. there are some republicans in the last week or so that have indicated that they would be ok with these cuts, at least for the time being. he said there have been -- there has been a real change on your side of the aisle. >> i thought sequestration. i thought the $487 billion. but that is done. we accept that. the chiefs said they could live with that. they have had to change the strategy they have had since world war ii. they will not be able to protect us in two different places around the world. we look at korea and i run -- and iran. we pulled back. that has already been implemented.

the sequestration gives them no flexibility. it just cuts every department an equal percentage. it is a crazy way to do things. i am hopeful. we knew national security spending needed to be part of the deal. what i am saying -- and remember what i said -- 50 cents out of every dollar we have saved has come from national security. that is too much. >> you said you regret your boavote on the budget control . do you accept any responsibility for sequestration going through? >> there is enough blame to go around. many of these members voted against it. promisede leadership's that the supercommittee would do

its work, that it would never happen. the president promised it would never happen. that is passed. it happened. that vote also was to raise the debt ceiling. if we had not done that, we would have had a more serious crisis can. i was hopeful othat we would, given time, come up with a better solution. we have not done it here at it has gone far enough. this is the end. >> [indiscernible]the idea of the sequestration, the meeting with many of you in the speaker's office, the multiple plans, proposals, press conferences, news releases, videos and try to inform members about the sequester -- what would you have done differently? >> part of the problem in all of

this debate is the president, at the same time he made a promise to the american people it would not happen, he restricted the department of defense of telling the people what would occur if he broke his promise. today we are standing here with the president having broken his promise and the department of defense ha grambling. -- scrambling. the department of defense has not been able to hand in their homework of what will happen. we have a better understanding of the consequences. this is dangerous. we agree with the president that it is wrong. >> you have been talking about this since august of 2011 every day. >> there is no question that the amount of articles that could have been written about the specifics of what this means to educate the american public

would have been helpful while we were speaking words in committee rooms and press conferences. there is a gap between what everybody knows and what is going to happen. we believe the president has broken his promise. >> could you explain more about if the appropriations bill passed how it would mitigate the effects of sequestration and how you could minimize the damage? >> we have two serious problems. the chiefs, in their planning, are handcuffed right now because we are operating under a cr, which keeps us on fiscal year 12 financing. we passed a defense authorization bill that gave them the opportunity to start more important programs. that was signed into law last

december. unless you fund it, they are still hamstrung. if we do a cr for the rest of the year or an omnibus or some kind of funding mechanism that does not give them the appropriations and the authority to move funds from one area to another, it severely impacts them. one of the greatest concerns we have is readiness. i know that we have troops that are being trained to go to the war theater and they are not receiving the same training they did just a year ago because those funds had been cut. if we do not pass that appropriations bill they will be cut further. i was told by the secretary of the army that he is going to have to cut 40% out of his operating maintenance account. this cannot be allowed to happen. >> is it a problem for your

efforts that there seems to be a mixed message within your own party, that many people are saying let the cuts go ahead. many of them are saying defense cuts -- we need them. i heard a lot of people saying things that are not in line with what you're saying here /. 743in congress, there are th -- 437 people. we cannot be experts on everything. we have a greater knowledge of how the impact of these cuts will be on our national security. most people have forgotten or did not know about the $487 billion of cuts we have already made. most of the american people are

looking at waste, fraud, and abuse. we are way past at that -- past that. assault colt talking about our megaphone. -- i saw a poll talking about our megaphone. we have not reached the people. i very very small portion understands what the real impacts will be. they have not had a chance to visit the basies where the training is not being done that should be done. they have not seen down at fort rucker where the flying hours are going to be cut for the helicopter pilots. we know the problem and we are trying to reach out to all of our colleagues to make sure they understand it too. but that is the process to take some time. >> are you willing to accept any

revenue or tax increases if that is what the president wants? are you willing to bend on that issue? >> we just passed $600 billion of tax increases a few weeks ago. probably many of us voted for that. did we want it? no. the president talked about a balanced approach. his balanced approaches increase taxes, cut defense. at some point, if he wants a balanced approach, he better start bringing mandatory spending to the table, because it we cut all of discretionary spending, we would still be running a deficit of .5 trillion dollars a year. most people understand the problem -- the mandatory spending. not bringing that into the discussion makes the rest of this an exercise in futility. >> it sounds like what you

guys are talking about are things to get dod more flexibility to implement sequestration. the plan anything to delay it or turn it off? >> that was the second point i tried to make. we are not saying this is done. we are going to keep after it. i gave you three different a process that would save money in other places other than the sequestration. we are going to keep looking for options. we are not going to say this is done. we have opportunities coming up as budget resolutions come up, with the debt ceiling in may. there is a lot of opportunity to go. i would say the only area of government spending that has an authorization bill signed into law the president is defense.

as we are looking for appropriation bills to pass for the rest of the year, passing defense, which is consistent with the authorization bill he is are ready signed into law, makes perfect sense. we are going to do that next week as a step, but it is not the end. >> thank you very much. >> next, education secretary duncan on the importance of early education programs. after that, president obama and john boehner on the automatic budget cuts. >> imagine we are in front of a group of 20 years old. we asked them i am launching a nongovernmental organization that is going to try to save a butterfly in indonesia that is

in danger of extinction. raise your hands, those of you who would like to help me. you'll find that that among the 20-year-olds and others that they are interested in doing that. then ask the same group who wants to join me in a political party, who wants to join the republican or democratic party? you will see far fewer would be willing to volunteer their time, effort, and passions in joining a political party. that is bad. i think political parties need to modernize, become more attractive to young people, young professionals, because political parties are the essence -- the idea that you can have democracy without strong political parties is a bad idea. >> the changing nature of governmental and economic party -- power, saturday at 10:00 pm

eastern. like us on facebook. the tv. >> today, the new moon is in the sky, laced in orbit by a russian rocket. you are hearing the signals is -- transmitted by the earth's satellite. >> mobilization of resources in the united states. we could have put the first satellite up, but we were not in a rush until the soviets did it. in the next few years, there was a real race going on with the united states attempting to put a man in space. the russians did it first. then to put two people in space. the russians did it first.

the russians put a woman in space first. it took about five years before the united states caught up to the fleet -- feats that the soviet union was performing in space and began to take the lead. >> from the dawn of the space age to the space shuttle discovery, from the space museum, sunday, at 7:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span three. >> education secretary arnie duncan, and kathleen sebelius discuss the importance of investing in early childhood education. they warn about the effects of automatic spending cuts on early childhood education and public health. this is about 30 minutes. [applause]>> to the board chair,

the superintendent, the school -- this school represents so much of what we want the country to be like, and i get to visit great schools, struggling schools, but this school has a high poverty rate, 35 different languages spoken, but children are doing well.they have great adults that take care of them, they're excited. we asked them, do they like coming to school, and they say yes. challenges of poverty, assimilating children, and they come to an environment where they can be successful. board members, superintendents, teachers, staff -- it is fun to see.thank you for the hard work

you are doing. this is a topic that we love to talk about, and government at all levels, federal, state, and local, investing in the education of our nation's teachers, our children. this is one of the best investments we can make collectively. we are thrilled about the president's landmark plan to create new partnerships with states to provide universal access to high-quality preschool for all 4-year-olds. it would provide the biggest expansion of educational opportunities in america in the 21st century. parents who hunger for affordable learning programs, teachers who work tirelessly to provide opportunities, and business leaders all want children to have access to high- quality preschool. the biggest beneficiary will be our children, particularly disadvantaged children, english language learners, and children with disabilities.

dramatically expanding early high-quality learning is a win- win proposition. it will make america more productive, and over the long haul will save millions in taxpayer dollars. it is past time to get our public schools and out of what we call the educational catch-up business. america cannot win the race for the future by cheating children at the starting line. i hope everyone here today appreciates this is an extraordinary moment. it is not too often you find government departments with overlapping responsibilities working together. i am grateful to my partner kathleen sebelius for her vision. she always puts children first. we worked on issues like the h1n1 virus. the president's plan will allow states to provide high-quality

preschool to 4-year olds from low income families, up to 200% of the poverty line, and will provide incentives for all families who want to send their children to preschool. it would be an investment space - investment in space to jump start access to the preschool and take leading states to the next level. states would use funds from our department to create high- quality state-run preschool programs, administered with local providers. the urgent need for greater access to preschool for low- and moderate-income students is not in dispute. ask any parent or teacher about the gaps in development when children come to kindergarten. we know that on average children from low-income families start and come into kindergarten up to 14 months behind their peers in

pre-reading and language skills. it does not have to be that way. fewer than 40% of 4-year-olds are enrolled in high-quality preschool programs. our theory of expanding high- quality preschool will be the same as it was during our first term. the federal role in education is support in partnerships to incentivize innovation to strengthen educational opportunities. that means, at the federal level, we should be clear on goals, but loose on the ways to get there. our department must set a high bar. we should leave it to local leaders to figure out the best way to achieve that high bar. under the plan, states will be required to have benchmarks for outcomes, like having a high-quality state-level standards for early learning, well-compensated

teachers, and a plan to implement comprehensive assessments and data systems. the president has pledged to offset the cost of the early learning plan so it will not add a dime to the deficit. skeptics question we should make a major investment in preschool in a tough time. in the end, i believe it is a false choice. in fact i would suggest all of you that we cannot afford not to make these investments in the future of our babies, toddlers, and 4-year-olds. as the president has pointed out, if you are looking for a good bang for your buck, high- quality preschool is the place to look. if you want to invest wisely, save taxpayer money, this is the best place, the best investment we can make. i wish some of our friends on the hill today could have been with us and visited the school and would talk to governors across the country who are expanding high-quality preschool

programs in their states. they understand it is a great investment. i wish they could be with me as we watch children being engaged and having fun and having curiosity and excitement, have a chance to explore their skills. if we move forward with the topic of the day, sequestration, it is a real challenge and a lot of different levels. honestly, too many members of congress are out of touch with the concerns of parents and teachers and students. they are out of touch with the real-world consequences of their actions. it is important everyone remember that school districts in montgomery county, they spend 80% of their budget on personnel. sequestration will have a big impact on school staff.

sequestration would cut title i money by $725 million. that blanket cut could affect 1.2 million disadvantaged students. if the budget cut was translated into furloughs, another way districts may have to make these cuts, it would be the equivalent of furloughing 541,000 teachers and staff for five days. other cuts include $600 million for children with special needs. that will require distance to-- states and districts to cover the costs of approximately 7,200 teachers and support staff. the furlough equivalent will be 33,000 teachers and staff missing a week of school. secretary sebelius will talk about the impact of education on

head start. cutting programs for children is economically foolish and morally indefensible. in his state of the union, obama called for smarter government. sequestration is an example of dumb government. it is mind-boggling that washington is manufacturing a crisis when educators and parents are facing challenges and doing so well every single day. these across-the-board budget cuts were not caused by some hurricane or by natural disaster. they are manmade. they can be fixed now, by men and women who have the courage, commitment, and willingness to come together to compromise. they can be fixed by lawmakers who come to the table to do the right thing for children and keep growing america's middle class. this is not rocket science, not

intellectually difficult, and must be done. thank you so much. now it is my honor to turn it over to secretary sebelius.she fromeen an amazing parter day 1. please give her a round of applause.[applause] >> good morning. i want to join secretary duncan in thanking the superintendents, school leaders, principals, pre- k teachers, and the amazing kids who we have seen so far at this school.-- school, rolling terrace elemtentary. it is a truly great example of kids learning every day and learning lots of things that are going to make them world leaders. i talked to a young man here who has his eye on maryland state house, so i have to warn

governor o'malley. he has some competition. i have to tell you this effort is near and dear to my heart because i am a new grandmother and have a 6-month-old grandson. early childhood education, always important to me, has taken on a brand-new meaning because i am seeing the world to -- through the eyes of george each and every day. the secretary has mentioned we have had some great partners and champions in the united states congress from here in maryland, but i want to particularly single out congressman hoyer, who has not only been a longtime great leader, the judy center-- but the judy center here at the school is named after his late wife, and it shows the kind of energy and commitment he has had all along. i cannot tell you what a great treat it has been during my tenure as secretary to work with a partner like arne duncan. there could not be a better champion for children and

families than arne, and he is leading this effort at an historic moment, and i'm glad to be partners in the initiatives with him. the kids at rolling terrace and across the country who benefit from the early learning programs are not just getting an academic foundation. they are gaining emotional skills, learning how to interact with others, benefiting from services. i just saw the new health clinic that will help the whole family. as any parent knows, and the science shows, the first few years of a child's life are the most critical. that is when the most important learning takes place. we have evidence that when we invest in education during those early years, the benefits last a lifetime. kids who attend high-quality early learning and preschool programs are more likely to do well in school, more likely to maintain successful careers.

that is what makes this investment so beneficial. that is what makes this investment so beneficial. these programs benefit all of us. we all gain when our country has a stronger, more productive work force. we gained what we have lower crime rates and less need for public assistance. that is why the president has announced historic investments in programs that help put more children on that path to opportunity. in our department, we have worked to strengthen critical programs like head start with more accountability and training programs to help spread best practices. as you have heard from the secretary, the president announced a new plan for the second term that would build on those efforts by making high-quality preschool available to every child in america. these children's needs begin earlier than preschool.

that is why we are launching a new head start child care partnership. it will expand the availability of high-quality early learning and opportunities for infants and toddlers, while we are expanding programs with resources needed to help thriving on it. we have a moral and economic imperative to ensure no child has fallen behind by the first day of kindergarten. that is what the last thing we can afford right now is the self-inflicted wound that you have heard secretary duncan describe. it occurs with blunt arbitrary cuts that congress is allowed to go into effect, the sequestration. in addition, to the cuts you have heard described, through k-12 education, we have a situation in our department where we look at the

possibility of 70,000 and children losing their access to an early start through early head start, where teachers are being laid off. with those services eliminated, it makes it more difficult for those parents to go to forward, so it has a ripple effect, damaging the fact, throughout the community. we know about 30,000 low-income children and their parents would lose their child-care slots, which has a huge economic impact on working parents. that is up to 100,000 american children, some of the most economically deprived children, whose futures are put in jeopardy, and their parents' ability to work every day is put in jeopardy. if we want to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country, we should not be cutting back on programs. we should be expanding them, as the president has suggested.

that is what this administration is committed to doing. i join arne on the notion that sequestration can be fixed quickly by congress coming together with a balanced approach to continuing to make smart cuts, smart reductions in programs that do not work very well, and smart investments in programs that have a huge payoff down the future. arne called it dumb government. to me it is stupid government. we have a smart way to do things and a stupid way to do things, and what is unveiling today is stupid government. thank you again to our host this morning, good luck with rolling terrace elementary, and the secretary and i will be pleased to answer questions. >> secretary duncan, this week on a couple occasions, you said there are teachers being laid off because of the sequester. are you prepared to say that that was an exaggeration on your part?

>> that needs be clear. what i said is teachers are getting notices, and in the district we talked about, 110 teachers were getting notices. that is not what i said. let's not lose the -- they are getting such notices now. that is where some of that misunderstanding is. the fact of the matter is whether it is what is already happening or what is coming across the country of the next two months, which i also said tens of thousands of teachers potentially are going to be getting these notices. the impact here is very significant. >> both you and the secretary said this was dumb government. didn't this dumb idea come from the white house? >> actually, the idea was designed in such a way and really inserted in the bill by congress because they thought it was such a bad way to run

government that it would never happen. two years ago, congress agreed to give themselves this option which should never occur in order to force themselves to actually come up with a deal. if you remember, it was the failure of the supercommittee to reach a budget agreement that produced this methodology. there have been two years that have expired, and here we are on march 1, a day that no one ever wanted to see come, and everyone agrees it is a bad idea. it can be fixed. the president is meeting this morning with congressional leaders. he has put forward a proposal. one thing i think we need to make clear, government is being cut year in and year out. we at health and human services are operating on less resources than last year. $2.5 trillion has already been cut out a program spending during the president's

administration. it is not like we are spending huge pots of money we did not have. but making strategic reductions and making smart investments in things we don't work is the way we need to go forward. >> one more question. >> how did you come up with the figures of how the impact will be felt at local schools? >> it is important for the media to understand how school budgeting works. 80% of -- 81% -- we did not plan that. on average, 80% of school budgets are people. most of the rest of them are paying the heat, school lunches, buses. when schools have to make commitments and cuts, and between title i and well more

than $1 billion, they are not too many places to cut besides people. with people, you do two things -- you lay them off, so you are talking about potential layoffs, or you do furlough days. there's not a better option. people said if you have control, what would you do? the majority of our funding from the department of education, the federal level, from the nation's most vulnerable children, to english-language learners, migrant children. the biggest part of the cuts are children with special needs and title i for poor children. those cuts are $25 billion. if you are asking folks to choose, do you hurt more special-needs kids -- there's no choice, but no right answer. when districts are forced to cut, because our funding goes down, they have very few places to go. one of the only places they can go, the vast majority of their

budget, are people. what that means is potentially a lot less children, tens of thousands of children, having access to head start, lots of children with special needs and poor children losing access to services. what we have not talked about yet is as many as 7,000 young people try to go to college will lose access to work study and to grants as well. at every level, babies, k-12, higher-ed, at every level we will be taking a step back education. it makes no sense. the economy is starting to bounce back. graduation rates are going up. the final thing i will say, as a nation we're trying to keep good jobs. good jobs, employers want an educated population. i promise you our competitors for those good jobs, singapore and south korea and india and china, they are not going through sequestration now.

that is not their approach to education. they are doing more. for us to go backwards is mindboggling. it's infuriating. >> thank you. >> one more question. are those 70,000 new slots or slots that have to be cut? >> these are slots of have to be cut, and again, first of all, sequestration does not give us discretion. we have to take $15.5 billion out of the hhs budget out every agency, every department, every program, in seven months of the remainder of the year. it is a very arbitrary cut. those are slots, child care slots, 30,000, and head start slots, about 70,000, that exist right now. we do not have a need budget. congress has not passed a 2013 budget. we're talking about existing slots. we have to cut services that go to public health departments

that help vaccinate kids. we know thousands of children will not have the vaccines that they need. that is a cut in the program. we know mental health services to the parents and children, which actually help to support that behavioral health issues have to be cut. this has health and wellness implications, as well as teachers, as well as having a huge impact on parents' ability to go to work. if you think about the youngest kids, if there's lots are gone for their children to be in a safe and secure learning environment, the parents actually then have a much more difficult time going to work every day. thank you, all. >> >> i want to thank you today because we are with you on pre-k.

we can see all the differences that pre-k makes. and i want to say all of us are teachers, are very proud to be teachers in montgomery county public schools. we know now we are number one in the nation. i wanted to segway just a little bit because all this new stuff about education is turning into all sorts of good ideas. what i want ask you is about teacher evaluations are a big deal now everywhere. with our administration and the teachers and representatives, we have developed in mcps a good teacher evaluation system, very qualitative, more than a checklist, and we have worked

with the administrators, and we feel we have a good evaluation system that states are asking for how they would put forth their evaluation statement, and maryland has 50% of the evaluations that would include performance. so we want to know in your opinion is there room for the states to have wiggle room. we are helping, and dr. starr asked for a moratorium for testing for three years, some of which speaks to this idea, so is there wiggle room for states to go less than 50-50? >> i do not know the details, but absolutely. look at what has happened across the country.

i have tremendous confidence in the board here, in the state. the folks here have to compromise, and those are complex questions, but we have never said 50%. never said that once. >> between the president and mcconnell and boehner, is this too little too late on both sides? >> i do not think it is ever too late. you have to keep working things through. i want to come back to the urgency to get this done. this is why i worry congress does not understand the real world. you have a really good board here, a fantastic superintendent. what are they doing now in march? they are planning for the fall, try to put their budgets together for all. they need stability, predictability. in chicago, we never had enough money. i wanted to know what i had so i could plan. these guys are doing the

fiscally prudent thing, planning not have this money. they're forced the plan that way. you cannot plan for money that is up in the air. they have to plan on not having that money, putting in a budget cuts, and we saw in the district in west virginia where they sent out 110 notices. we're going to see notices going around the country in the next coming weeks. this has to do with the notification of the unions. four districts that to go through this trauma, why put them through that? let's fix it, fix and now, let's do it right away, today, over the weekend, and i do not think they realize the real-world impact and stressed this is putting on working families, on teachers, on principals, on superintendents. it does not make sense. >> [indiscernible] >> i would like to say that i am really proud of the -- my

son attends this school, and i just made it to get him into the pre-k program, and i see results that are fantastic for him. are there plans to help those middle-income people that live in high-income or high-cost-of-living areas to get into the program? >> part of what we want to do is make sure we have access for children who are living in poverty. we want to have incentives for states to make sure that middle-class folks that chance. investment early childhood education is the best investment we could make. the majority of children who need access to the, the majority do not have that. we are playing catch-up. we have to get out of that business. if we can get babies up to a good start, status does not matter. it is a game changer for the country. on 3- and 4-year-olds, they do not vote, they do not have lobbyists.

too often politicians walk away because dividends won't happen while the president and i are in washington. this is 8, 10, 20 years down the track. we hope the country can come together in a bipartisan way. i am hopeful for all this current dysfunction. we're seeing governors across the country, republican and democrat, invest more in early childhood education. this is starting to be a bipartisan issue, which for me is very, very encouraging. thank you very much, guys. thank you for your hard work. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> historian carol hullser on lincoln. at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> at one point steinbeck had had to write a small paragraph that said people are asking what happened to charlie. this is after his wife joins him in seattle. when he says "we" it's elaine and john. it's not charlie and john. and somebody must have said to him, hey, where's chearl, he disappeared? >> he wrote about a page 1/2 of pages saying what happened to charlie? well, when my lady fair joined me, charlie took position in the family. he's fine. obviously that never appeared in the book because what they zid that editors went in and

just expunged elaine entirely from the west coast, 30, almost 30 days of elaine's presence with john on the west coast. they weren't camping out. they were basically on a vacation. >> bill steigerwald said that steinbeck had more truths. >> officially enacting across the board reductions known as a sequester. the president acted just hours before the mandatory deadline. earlier. the day. the president spoke with reporters after meeting with congressional leader tats white house. this is about 35 minutes.

>> here's the president. >> good morning, everybody. as you know i just met with leaders of both parties to discuss a way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today. i told them these cuts will hurt our economy, will cost us jobs, and to set it right, both sides need to be willing to economize. now, the good news is the american people are strong, and they are resilient. they fought hard to recover from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and we will get through this, as well. even though these cuts are in place, all across the country, folks will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going. but washington sure is not making it easy. at a time when our businesses have finally begun to get some

traction, hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to america, which should not be making a series of dumb, arbitrary cuts to things that businesses depend on and that workers depend on, like education and research and infrastructure and defense. it is unnecessary, and it is not one where too many americans are still looking for work -- it is inexcusable. what is important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain from these cuts right away. the pain, though, will be real. beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. businesses that work with military, like the virginia shipbuilder that i visited on tuesday, may have to lay folks off. communities near military bases will take a serious blow. hundreds of thousands of americans who served their country, border patrol agents, fbi agents, civilians who work at the pentagon, all will

suffer significant pay cuts and furloughs. all of this will cause a ripple effect throughout our economy. pay cuts means people have less money in their pockets, and that means they have less money to spend at local businesses, and that means lower profits and fewer hires. among these cuts are in place, the greater the damage to our economy. a slow grind that will intensify with every single day. so economists are estimating that as a consequence of the sequester, growth cut by over one half of 1%, it will cost about 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly. so every time that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, the next two months, the next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we will know that that economic news could have been better had congress acted.

we must be clear. none of this is necessary. it is happening because of a choice republicans in congress have made. they have allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budge on closing the single wasteful loophole to help reduce the deficit. as recently as yesterday, they decided to protect special-interest tax breaks for those well-connected, and they think that that is apparently more important than protecting our military or middle-class families from the pain of these cuts. i do believe that we can and must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach that asks for something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses, without raising tax rates.

also that we can responsibly reduce the debt is without laying off workers or cutting financial aid for college students. i do not think that is too much to ask, and i do not think that is partisan. it's the kind of approach that i proposed for two years. it is what i ran on last year. a majority of the united american people agree with me. by the way, a majority of republicans. we just need republicans in congress to catch up with the -- their own party and the country on this. and if we did so, we would make a lot of progress. i do know that there are republicans in congress who, outwardly, at least, say they would do this rather than let the tax cuts go through. there are democrats who would rather have smart tax reform rather than let these cuts go through. so there is a caucus of common sense on capitol hill. it's a silent group on capitol

hill, except it is a sign that group, and we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard, and in the coming days and weeks, we will keep on reaching out to them both individually and as crews of senators and in the house and say, "let's fix this." not just far month or two but for years to come because the greatest nation on earth does not conduct its business in month to month increments or by going from crisis to crisis. america has got a lot more work to do. in the meantime, we cannot let political gridlock stand in the way of other areas where we can make progress. i was pleased to see that the house passed the violence against women act yesterday. that is a big win for not just women but for families and for the american people, and it is a law that's going to save lives and that will help more americans live free from fear. it is something that we have been pushing on for a long time.

i was glad to see that done, and it is an example of how we can still get some important, bipartisan legislation through, even though there are these fiscal arguments taking place. and i think there are other areas we can make progress, even with the sequester. i will continue to push for these initiatives. i will continue to push for high quality pre-school for every family that wants it. i'm going to keep pushing that we raise the minimum wage so that we can make sure families can live on. and forimprovements in our transportation sector, and i will keep pushing for sensible gun reforms because i still think they deserve a vote. this is the agenda that the american people voted for. these are america's priorities. they're too important to go unaddressed. and i'm going to keep pushing to make sure that we see them through. so with that i'm going take some questions. ly start with julie. >> how much responsibility do

you feel you bear for the cuts taking effect? and is there any way to offset this, or do you see any alternatives? >> look, we've already cut $2.5 trillion in our deficit. everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion. which means we have to come up with another trillionian and a half. the vast majority of economists agree that the problem when it comes to deficits is not discretionary spending. it's not that we're spending too much time money on education. it's not that we're spending too much money on job training or that we're spending too much money rebuilding our roads and our bridges. we're not. the problem we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care costs, and programs like medicare, and what i said, very specifically, in great detail, is that i am

prepared to take on the problem where it exists, on entitlements, and do some things that my own party really does not like, if it is part of a broader package of sensible deficit-reduction, and so, the deal that i have put forward over the last two years and the deal that i put forward as recently as december is still on the table. i am prepared to do hard things and pushed my democratic friends to do hard things, but what i cannot do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors , ask students to bear the entire deficit-reduction when we know we have things when we know have a whole bunch of tax loopholes benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, who are not contributing to our economy. it is not fair. it is not right. and the american people do not think it is fair or right, so,

you know, i recognize that speaker boehner has got challenges in his caucus. i recognize that it is very hard for the party leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me. you know, sometimes i reflect, is there something else i can do to make these guys -- i am not talking about the leaders now but maybe some of the house republican caucus members, not to paint horns on my head, and i genuinely believe there is an opportunity for us to cooperate, but what does not make sense, and another thing we have seen from fluns so far in terms of proposals to replace this set of arbitrary cuts with even worse arbitrary cuts. that is not going to help the economy. that is not going to help growth, and it is not going to create jobs.

as far as a number of economists have noted, it does not even reduce our deficit in the smartest way possible or in the fastest way possible, so in terms of going forward, my hope is after some reflection, as members of congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having, that they step back and say, "all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package, on entitlement reforms, tax reform, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that do not work,

coming up with a plan that is comprehensive and that makes sense?" and it may take a couple of weeks, and it may take a couple of months. but i am going to keep on i'm been keep on pushing on it. my view is that ultimately, common sense will prevail. what is true right now is that the republicans have made a choice that maintaining the ironclad rule that we will not except an extra dime of revenue makes it very difficult for us to get any larger comprehensive deal. that is a choice they are making. they say it is more important to preserve tax loopholes than it is to prevent these arbitrary cuts. what is interesting is that house speaker boehner a couple of months ago identified these

tax loopholes. he said that we should close them. it is not that it is impossible to do. they have suggested it is possible to do. if they believe that in fact these tax loopholes and breaks for the wealthy and well- connected are noncontributing to growth are good for our economy and our fair and could raise revenue, let us get started? why do we not do that? it might be because of the politics within the republican party. my hope is that they can do it later. i just want to repeat because it is important to understand. it is not as if democrats are not getting asked to do anything either to compromise. members of my party who

violently disagree with the notion that we should do anything with medicare. i disagree with that. i want to preserve medicare for the long haul. we will have tough politics within my party to get this done. i'm saying that everyone will have to do something. the one key to this whole thing is trying to make sure that we keep in mind that we are not here for ourselves or for our parties or to advance electoral prospects. we are here are american family who have been battered pretty good over the past four years. a are to see the economy improved. confidence is coming back.

you know, this is not a win for anybody. this is a loss for the american people. if you step back and remind ourselves what it is we are supposed to be doing here, hopefully common sense will be the answer. >> [indiscernible] >> give an example of what i might do. clarify the question. i have put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts and entitlement reforms. that is at the heart of our last deficit problem.

what they have said is that we cannot do any revenue. what more do you think i should do? ok. i just wanted to clarify. i'm happy to -- this is a room full of smart folks. >> mr. president, then x focal point seems to be the continuing resolution. to continue to fund the government? would you use leverage to convince republicans that this is not the way to go? >> i would like to think i have some persuasive power left. [laughter] the issue is not my persuasive power. many people agree with my

approach. they think we should have a balanced approach that the city reduction. the question is whether the american people can persuade their members up congress to do the right thing. i have a lot of confidence that over time that they express it and that congress response. sometimes there is a gap between what the american people think and what congress thinks. i eventually congress catches up. with respect to the budget and keeping government open, trying to make our viewing audience so that they do not -- they're not talking washington terms. it calls for an extension of last yours budget into this year put you budget. it would make sure that basic government functions continue.

i think it is the right thing to do to make sure we do not have a government shutdown. that is preventable. we agreed to a certain amount of money that would be spent each year and certain funding levels for military, our education system, and so forth. if we stick to that deal, then i will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. it is a deal that i made. the sequester are additional cuts on top of that, and until we take the sequester a way, we have to abide by those additional cuts, but there is no way why we should have another crisis by shutting the government down in addition to these arbitrary spending cuts. >> funding the budget even at the lower levels of sequester, even if you do not agree? >> i think it is fair to say that i made a deal for a certain

budget, certain numbers. there is no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. it was a deal that speaker boehner made as well and all of the leadership. the bill that is on my desk is reflective of the commitments that we previously made, and, obviously, i would sign it because i want to make sure we will keep on doing what we need to do for the american people. jessica? >> mr. president, to your question of what you could do, could you just refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal? [laughter] >> i mean, jessica, i am not a dictator. i am the president.

ultimately, mitch mcconnell or john boehner would say, "we need to vote or catch a plane." i cannot have secret service block the doorway. [laughter] i understand. i know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that has been floating around washington, and somehow, even though most people agree that i am being reasonable, even though that most people would agree that i am presenting a fair deal, the fact that they do not take it means that we should somehow do a jedi mind meld and convince them to do what is right. well, they are elected. we have the constitutional system of government. the speaker of the house and the leader of the senate and all of those folks have responsibilities. what i can do is i can make the best possible case.

i can speak to the american people about the consequences of the decision that congress is making or the lack of decision making by congress. ultimately, it is a choice they make. this idea that somehow there is a secret formula or secret sauce get speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell to say, "you know what, mr. president? you are right. we should close some tax loopholes for the well-off and well-connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform." i think if there was a secret way to do that, i would have tried it. i would have done it. what i can do is make the best possible argument, and i can offer concessions, and i can offer compromise. i can negotiate.

i can make sure that my party is willing to compromise and is not getting ideological or talking about these just in terms of political terms, and i think i have done that, and i will continue to do that. what i cannot do is force congress to do the right thing. the american people may have the capacity to do that, and this will allow the speaker of the house and others to put middle- class families, whatever political imperatives that he has right now, we are going to have these cuts in place, but, again, i am hopeful about human nature. i overtime, they will do the right thing, and i will keep on reaching out and see if there are other ways to do this so we have a better result.

>> what about people like mayor bloomberg, who is no critic of yours, he endorsed you, what he talks about posturing. >> jessica, look. let me give you an example. the department of defense right now has to figure out how the children of military families are going to continue with their schooling over the next several months because teachers at these bases are typically civilians. they aren't there and subject to furlough, which means that they -- there are there and are subject to furlough, which means that they may not be able to teach one day a week. now, i expect that we will be able to manage around it, but if

i am a man or woman in uniform in afghanistan right now, the notion that my spouse back home is having to worry about whether or not our kids are getting the best education possible, the notion that my school or that my children at an army base might be disrupted because congress does not act, that is an impact. mayor bloomberg and others may not feel that impact. i suspect that they will not, but that family will. the border patrol agents, they are in the hot sun. they are doing what congress said they are supposed to be doing. finding a suddenly they are getting a 10% pay cut, and having to go home and explain that to their families, i do not feel like they feel this is exaggerated. so i guess it depends on where you sit. now, what is absolutely true is that not everybody is going to feel the effect or feel it all

at once. what is true is that an accumulation of those stories all across, folks who suddenly, working all of their lives to get an education just so they can get that job and get off of welfare, they have got their kid in head start, and now they're head starts lott is gone, and there are trying to figure out, how am i going to keep my job, because i cannot afford child care anymore. some of the shipbuilder is down in virginia, you have got some small businesses, and this is all they do, and they may shut them down, and those employees will be laid off. the accumulation of all of those stories of impact is going to make our economy weaker. it is going to mean less growth. it is going to mean hundreds of thousands of job losses.

that is it. we are not making that up. that is not a scare tactic, that is a fact. starting tomorrow, everybody here, all of the folks who are cleaning the floors at the capitol -- now that congress has left, somebody is going to be vacuuming and cleaning those floors and throwing out the garbage. they are going to have less pay. the janitors, the security guards. they just got a pay cut. and they have to figure out how to manage that. that is real. so i want to be very clear here. it is absolutely true that this is not going to precipitate the kind of crisis we talked about america defaulting and some of the problems around the debt ceiling. i do not anticipate a huge financial crisis, but people are going to be heard. -- be hurt.

the economy will not grow as quickly as it would have. and in climate will not go down as quickly as it would have. and there are whys behind that. that is the problem. >> mr. president? >> mr. president? >> mr. president, months ago, it looked like you would be averse. i want to know if you can talk to buy your deliberations in -- talk about your deliberations in your thinking on that, the conversations that were important to you. >> as everybody here knows, last year, upon a long period of reflection, i concluded that we could not discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage.

that the basic principle that america is founded on, the idea that we are all created equal, applies to everybody. regardless of sexual orientation, as well as race or gender. or religion. or ethnicity. and, you know, i think the same evolution that i went through is the evolution that the country as a whole has gone through, and that is a family-positive, so that when the supreme court was taking this case about california's law, i thought it was important for us to articulate what i believe and what this administration stands for, and although i do think that we are seeing on a state- by-state basis progress being made, more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them

the opportunity to marry and although i do think that we are seeing on a state-by-state basis progress being made, more states recognizing same-sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all of the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do, when the supreme court asks, you think that the california law, which does not provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they are same-sex couples -- the supreme court asked me or my attorney general or solicitor general, do we think that meets constitutional muster, i felt it was important for us to answer

that question honestly, and the answer was no. >> given the fact that you do hold that position about a gay marriage, i wonder if you have given a thought about once he -- once you made the decision to weigh in, that the marriages are right, that they should be available to all people? >> well, that is an argument i made personally. the solicitor general, in his institutional role of going before the supreme court is obliged to answer the specific question, and the specific question presented before the court right now is about prop 8 and the california law, whether it is unconstitutional. we put it forward what applies to all equal-protection cases. whenever a group is being discriminated against, we ask the question, what is the rationale, and if you do not have a good reason, we strike it down.

same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, in the supreme court needs to ask why the state is doing it, and if they do not have a good reason, it should be struck down. that is the core principle. the court may decide that if it does not apply in this case, it may not apply in any case. if i were on the court, that will probably be the view that i prefer, but i am not a judge at present. i'mt he the president. let's treat everybody fairly, and i think the brief that has been submitted accurately reflects our views. >> you said a few minutes ago, and you have said repeatedly that the country has to stop

living from crisis to crisis, and with a few crises behind us and a few crises ahead of us, how as the leader of this country do you plan to stop the country from careening from crisis to crisis? >> a couple of things. one is to make sure that we keep making progress wherever we can on things that are important to middle-class americans. if you set aside the budget crisis, we have been able now to get the violence against women act, and there are the things about immigration reform moving forward, we have seen great interest in a bipartisan fashion about how we can continue to improve our system, including around early childhood education. there have been constructive discussions about how to reduce

gun violence, and i am going to keep on trying to make sure that we push on those things that are important to families, and we will not get everything done all at once, but we can get a lot done, so that is point number one. what i have done is to make a case to the american people that we have to make sure that we have a balanced deficit- reduction but that the deficit reduction alone is not an economic policy. part of the challenge that we have had here is not only congress but washington, generally, spends all of its time talking about deficits and does not spend a lot of time talking about how to create jobs, so i want to make sure we are talking about both.

i think, for example, we could put a lot of people back to work, rebuilding our roads and bridges. we know we are going to have to do it. i went to a bridge that was a rotten bridge. everyone knows it. they want to see it improved. how do we do that? how do we create jobs that will be good for businesses and improve commuter safety? that has to be part of the conversation, not just about cutting and spending. what i want to do is make sure we are constantly focused, that are true north is looking at how to make american families succeed. deficit-reduction is part of

that agenda, but it is not the only part, and i do not want us to be paralyzed because we disagree on this one thing. as i already said to jessica, over time, perhaps after republicans step back, and maybe they say, we were tough on sequester, and this makes us feel good, maybe then we can have a more serious discussion about what the more serious problems or. -- problems are. the good thing about america is that sometimes we get to these bottlenecks and gets stuck. we have these sharp partisan fights. but people have common sense and

are practical, and eventually, that common sense and practicality wins out. in the meantime, just to make a final point about this question, we will get through this. this is not going to be an apocalypse, i think as some have said. it is just dumb. and it will hurt people in this country and the economy overall. but if congress comes to its senses, we can now one month from now, three months from now, then there is a lot of open running room for us to advance the agenda of the american people dramatically.

and this is a temporary stop with an outstanding prospect for american growth. all right? thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> mr. president, if the supreme court goes against it? >> has he signed the order? >> jay, has he signed the order? >> house speaker john boehner spoke weakly to reporters after meeting with the president and other congressional leaders. he said the house would vote on a budget bill next week. >> the american people know that washington has a spending problem. while there are smarter ways to cut spending, the house should

not have to pass a bill before the senate does anything. i would hope that the senate would act. when the president got his tax hikes, this discussion about revenue is over. it is about taking on the spending problem in washington. i did say the house is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government. i am hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shut down while we are dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week and i hope the senate will follow suit. thanks.

>> why did you wait until friday to meet with the president? >> house minority leader nancy pelosi talked about changes to entitlement programs and the need for additional tax expenditures to be part of an agreement for an alternative to plan. this is just over 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, just barely. as you know, this morning the president held a meeting at the white house with the vice president and the leaders of the house and senate in a bipartisan

way. it was an important meeting, pointing out the clarity between the democrats and republicans in the congress. we believe we should build the economy from the middle class out. the republicans believe in trickle down. that is the essence of our difference. today begins the cuts, the mindless cuts as a result of sequestration. across-the-board cuts that do not reflect priorities but a blunt way to make cuts, which even the chairmen of the fed has said that cuts of this size made this quickly means we will lose jobs and slow the growth of our economy. and keeping deficits larger than

otherwise. the point is to reduce the deficit, growth is essential to that. mindless cuts made in such a large amount over such a short time do not reduce the deficit. the president challenged us all to look at all of the expenditures that government makes and if it is about entitlements, taxes, discretionary spending, and see if we can come to some agreement on how we go forward. to govern is to choose, and when we want to subject our expenditures to this group, we know the taxpayer is getting his or her money's worth out of this.

and the initiative is doing the job that sets out to do. we have to make judgments. is a particular initiative still a priority? is it obsolete? is there wasteful spending? we have to always subject the initiative to that scrutiny. but we have to be careful about how we do it. for example, education is probably the best investment we can make in our future and our families. nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. higher education, post graduation, and nothing brings more money to the treasury that investing in education. cutting education does not reduce the deficit. cuts in education did not deter the growth of innovation, so are we going to cross the board cut science?

we must continue to be number one. we do not do that by making cuts. the president mentioned cuts in infrastructure. what we do know is that no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance. investing in infrastructure create jobs immediately as well as the infrastructure of our country which is essential to our economic growth. broadband information and real time high-speed. why would we cut those kinds of things? across-the-board cuts are libelous. the president mentioned the tax reform.

we must reduce the deficit, we must look at another set of expenditures. we have to prioritize. they may not be the best and they may not make the cut. we have to prioritize. the next thing is that we look at entitlements. we want to look at how we can prolong and sustain social security, medicare, medicaid. and certainly for our economy. let's go to the table -- if the purpose is to prolong, sustained, a fiscally sound way, medicare and social security, that is what the american people want us to do. to say we want to privatize its,

and we want to voucherize it. looking at how we can strengthen those, we should do that. there are two levels of expenditure. investment and entitlement. a very important bit of this is tax expenditures. there are probably $1 trillion in tax expenditures that occur each year. we have a $3.50 trillion budget, $1 trillion of its tax expenditures. some are very worthy of support the middle-class. some of them are wasteful and our special interest gifts to special interests. some of them are excessive.

these tax expenditures cost the taxpayer. what are we getting for that? the speaker has said there are hundreds of billions of dollars, and you look at what mr. mccall has said. -- mr. mcconnell has said that as well. the only way is to lower rates. about reducing the deficit by removing wasteful tax loopholes for special interests, and some of them are just a bit excessive for the wealthiest individuals in our country. we can't ask seniors and children and families to make all the sacrifices and said this is going to be -- we have a proposal that would have been better.

the proposal that cuts spending and has a revenue peak and does not deter growth, which have not been able to bring it up. we tried three times in the last two months, i don't know what the republicans are afraid of. this is a marketplace of ideas and they might be afraid that their members will vote for it. it has to be with the commitment to the american people, to the middle class. and not for us to be the opening our eyes to the fact that if -- not opening our eyes to the fact that if this is going to happen, it has to be done shared sacrifice. we have to look at domestic discretionary spending, entitlement spending, and tax expenditures. that is where the big money is and what has remained untouched in all of this discussion. that is a place i think we can

find some area of agreement. >> the president suggested talking about replacing the sequester. the c.r. is what hthe house is voting on next week. for it?mocrats fvote of >> i have not seen yet. have you seen it? i don't know what it is, i can't tell you if i would vote for it. but we came to an agreement on the budget control act which says there the a certain level that the appropriation -- or when we see that, i can tell you what is because it is at that level, the republicans can produce the votes to pass it. but we certainly don't want a shutdown of government.

i think some people thought sequester meant that it was a shutdown of government, but it doesn't. it means more hold hostage all things you care cabout. just describing this this way, it notifies you that the department of justice proposes to furlough you no later than 30 days from receipt of this notice. we recognize the difficult personal implications, no matter how limited. that is what this is about. they will have an impact on people's lives, individually, that is really important to them. many of your there and saw the impact sequestration has on women, taking a big hit on this in addition to other cuts that have already happened. it also has a tremendous impact

on our economy. again, losing jobs, deterring growth, and not reducing the deficit. >> [inaudible] how hopeful should people at home be that a deal can eventually be reached? >> my own hope springs from the american people. they know what the choices are that have to be made here. hopeful for our republican colleagues that we can have a situation where there are no absolute statements, revenue that will be cut. remind us we have $1.60 trillion in cuts, 1.2 in the budget control act, other legislation that was passed in the last congress.

my hope springs from the fact that we should be able to focus on the tax expenditures, big money there. and we cannot have a situation where one party is saying we're going to protect these wasteful tax giveaways to special interests, but we're going to stop meals on wheels for seniors. i don't think the american people would tolerate that. elydo you tink hink it is lik a deal will be reached? >> yes, i think so. there are different categories. the categories are domestic discretionary spending, we have cut a lot of money from that, over $1 trillion. we're always ready to fly more

if we can, it does not impede growth as cuts in education, infrastructure, science and innovation would impede growth. but if there is a the wasteful spending, or just not a priority in light of the realities that we have in our budget, there may be some spending cuts we can find there. we're always ready to strengthen medicare, medicaid and social security. let's go with the table to do that. if we want to strengthen them and not destroy them. if people are aware of what the choice is, the more hopeful we can be. but in terms of actual dollars, the tax expenditures, listened to the words. they are spending. when there is a recognition by the term that they are spending. they are spending the taxpayer'' dollars to give tax subsidies to big oil and in order to drove to the tune of $48 billion. an incentive for them to grow at

a time that it will make $1 trillion in profit. what incentive do they need to drill for more than that? the list goes on. i think there is a recognition that there is money to be had there. that is a place where we can try to bring into focus and in the balance what we're trying to do. dodge the president has said -- >> the president has said today to prepare for tough politics in the democratic party. our house democrats prepared to work with him to make deeper cuts, indexing benefits? >> when i sent my people -- our caucus to the table, i knew that it was simply -- or when they went to the table, they went with the confidence of our

caucus that we have shared values and that we trust their judgment and their knowledge about what could be accomplished. everybody knows we don't have one government. but there would have to be compromises. by said -- i said to be agnostic. that is how they went to the table. they went into a wall of the closures and no revenue. i vaguely can persuade our caucus amid a balanced, bold approach that has revenue and reform, the tax code as well as making judgments about entitlements. you can't do it in isolation. these others are getting off scot-free. it has to be balanced. the house democratic caucus will not be an obstacle to reaching a balanced and bold agreement. again, we supported the president in the summer of 2011. we did not like some of the

particulars of it, but the way the equity against what you get for it. you get growth in the economy. again, you can't do it 1-sided. it exalts the wealthy and the special interests and you can see how open we are. i am optimistic that something that can be done if the judgment is that the democrats are ready to go to the table and recognize the need for spending cuts and to sustain medicare and social security. we want to see movement on the other side in terms of tax breaks for special interests and excessive deductions for the wealthiest people in the country. you can take deductions, but not to a point where they have you pay a lower rate than the other people that worked. what do you get for? to get growth in the economy that lifts everyone. it cannot be one-sided.

i'm optimistic that something can be done. are they ready to recognize we need more spending cuts? we need to prolong and sustain medicare and social security. we want to see some moving on the other side in terms of their sacred cows, which is tax loopholes for special interests. it is an excessive deduction for the wealthiest people in our country. you can take the deduction, but you cannot take it to a point where the wealthy person pays a lower rate than the people that work. >> have you been informed about the mechanics of the sequestered? how does it play out? how will people be notified? >> this is one of the manifestations of it. the saddest part of it is that when i signed on to the budget

control office, it was something that we didn't like but we had to do. i made sure there were certain things exempted from sequester. it is in my purse, because i brought it. [laughter] you don't have to do that anymore. anybody else can get my purse. [laughter] what was the question? [laughter] we try to protect as much as we possibly could it because it is across-the-board cuts, they are senseless and violence. nobody ever thought that they would happen. there are so brutal that everybody will cooperate in order to make this happen, but again, protecting special

interests and the high-end individuals with a priority more for the republicans have been to avoid these mindless cuts. we make some protections just in case. but the saddest thing i heard because it means some much all of us was that psychiatric nurses who were meeting the needs of our returning veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome, they have to be furloughed. i heard this anecdotally from some of them, but nonetheless, that is not what the american people think is the right priority for us. do we have it yet? here are some of the things that we tried to protect to mitigate the damage. social security, of veterans programs. civilian employees.

the president describes the civilian employees that teach our children of military bases, he talked about those furloughs that are hurtful. all the income tax credits will be for a earned income tax credit, and those that are important to america's working families. children's health insurance program, food stamps, this is the category of insurance like child nutrition programs, though -- pell grants, and some other initiatives. those are a few of the ones that we tried to protect. but even with that, the impact of america's working families is something that could have been avoided. we lose jobs, it impedes economic growth, it does not reduce the deficit as would

otherwise be reduced. it should have been avoided and the fact that it hasn't been is unfortunate, but i think it highlights the fact that we must work together to get this done. in terms of the particulars, people will be getting their furlough notices. you will see that unfolded it will probably be different for different agencies. one of the things we really have to do is we really have to work together to enable our defense and national security sector to be able to reprogram so that the harm that can be done to our national security can be mitigated. that does not mean that -- that is related to what is the cost? how to prioritize that?

that is not the way to cut the defense budget. not meat ax across-the-board needlessly and mindlessly. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next, chuck hagel and a pentagon briefing on the automatic spending cuts. then house republicans talk about the impacts of the defense cuts. after that, secretary of education arnie duncan and civilians -- and kathleen sebelius. >> on "newsmakers" senator ron wyden. "newsmakers" on sunday at 10

a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c- span. >> i was fascinated by her feminist view, you know. i'm paraphrasing obviously. you cannot rule without including what women want and what they have to contribute. this is 1700. >> abigail adams this monday night on c-span's "first ladies -- influence and image." she was outspoken about her views on slavery and women's rights, as well as one of the most prolific rightwriters. writes about her life in colonial america and her life with john adams. 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c- span radio, and c-span.org. >> next, chuck hagel in a

pentagon a hearing to discuss the automatic spending cuts on defense programs. he talks about furloughs for defense department civilian employees. he was joined by deputy defense secretary ashton carter. >> good afternoon. that you security -- deputy secretary carter and i wanted to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about sequestration which was announced today. many of you saw the president a few hours ago.

i will make a statement and then the deputy secretary and i will entertain questions. thank you for coming. i just spent an hour between -- between an hour and an hour-and- a-half with the joint chiefs to talk about this issue and to talk about the consequences and how we will continue to adjust to the reality that faces our country and faces this institution. in particular, i would like to address the uncertainty that sequestration is causing and will continue to cause this department. at the outset of my remarks, let

me make it clear that this uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively fulfil all of our missions. leadership at the pentagon, all of us, have two serious concerns. first, the abrupt and arbitrary cuts imposed by sequester. second, the lack of budget management flexibility that we now face under the current continuing resolution for the past 8 months, d.o.d. has begun to see the effects and consequences of that -- passed two months, d.o.d. has begun to see -- past 2 months, d.o.d. has begun to see the effects and consequences of those actions. the actions we are taking as a result of these budget restraints.

the navy will stand down gradually at least four wings. air force flying hours will be cut back. this will have a major impact on training and readiness. the army will curtail training for all units except those deployed to afghanistan, adversely impact the nearly 80% of army and operational units. later this month, we intend to issue hesitations to thousands of civilian employees who will be furloughed. these steps come on top of those the department began in january to slow spending in view of this uncertainty. those include the deployment of naval assets, hiring freezes, beginning to lay off temporary

employees, sharply cutting back facility maintenance and beginning views to delay contracts. -- refused to delay contracts. cts.wreviews to delay contra if the continuing resolution is extended in its current form, other damaging effects will become apparent. our number one concern is our people, military and civilian. the millions of men and women at his department to work hard every day to ensure a merkel's security. -- to insure america's security. i know that these budget cuts will cause pain to military families. we are all concerned about the impact on readiness and these cuts will have a cross our force.

for these reasons, the department's senior leadership will continue to work with the administration and congress to help resolve this uncertainty, specifically, we need a balanced deficit-reduction plan that leads to an end to sequestration. and we need congress to pass appropriations bills for d.o.d. and all federal agencies. we will need to make hard choices. i will do everything within my power to see that america of hold its commitment to our allies and our partners. and most importantly, to our service members and their families. today, america has the best fighting force in the world, capable of responding to any challenge. this unnecessary budget crisis makes that job much harder. i will take a couple of

questions and then i will ask ash for his response. >> the language you use is not as dramatic as that that has been used in recent months talking about catastrophic results if sequestration happens. do you think this is not a situation where the u.s. will be reduced to a second great military power? may ask a question on syria? what is your opinion on whether the u.s. should be doing more militarily to help the rebels? >> america, as i concluded my remarks, has the best fighting force, the most capable, most powerful fighting force in the world. the management of this institution, starting with the joint chiefs, are not going to allow this capacity to erode. we will manage these issues.

these are adjustments. we anticipated these kinds of realities. we will do what we need to do to ensure the capabilities of our forces. on syria, i think it is clear what our policy is. non-legal assistance. secretary of state john kerry has recently -- non-lethal assistance. secretary of state john kerry has commented on his trip around the world. >> sequestration has been described as a slope and not a cliff. in your opinion, how long can sequestration go on before there is real damage to the defense of the united states? >> we are adjusting for reality,

not just for what happened today. as i noted in my remarks, we have a continuing resolution that expires on march 27, an additional complication. i have confidence in the president and the congress that decisions and consensus will be reached at some point to avert tremendous damage to this institution. this is the security of the united states of america we are talking about. that is the highest order of any government, in the leader. we will do what is necessary, what it takes to assure that that security to assure that security -- to assure that security.

>> others in your department have expressed concerns that the budget sequestration will prevent the department from implementing the defense strategy that the obama administration announced last year. do you share that opinion? and when do you begin to start modifying that strategy? >> well, as i said, first, adjustments are being made, and we have anticipated the adjustments to our budget to assure the capabilities and readiness of our forces. as to the issue of the president's strategic guidance, that is the policy. in my opinion. i think our leadership's opinion is to do that. we have been implementing that,

and we will continue to implement that policy. >> given to your role in nato, we explain the situation? >> we have been in touch with our nato allies. as you know, we are in constant communication with our nato allies. i think they are not unmindful and not unaware of this issue that we are currently engaged in. our nato allies have difficulties as well with their economic issues. the fact is that nato represents probably the most successful collective security relationship in the history of

man. that relationship remains strong, will continue to remain strong, must remain strong. >> just to clarify something you said earlier, that adjustments will be made to avert serious damage. to you think there will be a decision on sequestration? >> i hope we will see a consensus. that is the only way we are going to get out of this. this is a partnership. this is a republic. this is every public and it is the executive and the congressional branch is working together to find a way out. listening to our leaders, all are saying the same thing, we the issue. that is the only way out. i will leave this gentleman, whom some of you may know, ash carter, who is our deputy secretary and plays a

significant leadership role on this particular issue as well as others. i ask him to come and i appreciate very much his leadership and his focus on what has been going on here and his years of service to this institution. it is a benefit to our country and it is a benefit to this institution, especially in a difficult time like this. i would not say anything more. >> a couple questions. can you flesh out what practical impact the pentagon and its forces will see during sequestration versus three or four must from now. over the next 8 weeks, what will we see? -- over the next two weeks?

>> let me start with the army. you will see the army beginning to curtail training at the national training center. if we go to the air force, you will see the air force beginning to curb flying hours. that means the nuclear capable air force, that part of the air force participating in operations in afghanistan -- we will protect them. that means the cuts costs by sequestration and the continuing resolution will fall more heavily on other parts of the combat air force. they will need to cease training, which mean they -- means they will not be ready for other conflicts, which is a serious impact. you have already seen the navy began to make adjustments in

terms of how many ships are at sea. you will see each of our program managers -- sequester a facts 2500 individual investment programs. individually. we are working with our individual partners. we will see them beginning to make adjustments, for example, in the number of weapons systems in a given category that are being purchased. a different kind of arrangement. you were weapon systems in a -- fewer weapons systems in a contract than we anticipated were being put in a contract. as the secretary and the president indicated earlier today, this progressively bills -- builds over coming months and constitutes a serious problem in readiness accounts. >> delaware the services have flexibility in their own accounts -- don't the services have flexibility in their own accounts where the bank will --

bankroll training? >> they have flexibility and they are using that flexibility to protect operations in afghanistan. we are not curbing or withholding training from units that are going to afghanistan. what that means is that the burden falls more heavily upon the rest of the air force. a lot of people ask why does so much happened so fast. you begin to see some of the reason for that. you have become addition of sequester and the continuing resolution. you have the facts that we are trying to protect the war in afghanistan. only half of the fiscal year is left. even those accounts after we moved everything around -- what secretary hagel just said, we

are doing everything we possibly can to protect national security and minimize damage. even after you have done all of that, even in the onm accounts, you still do not have enough money left to do the training that underlies readiness. that is why the readiness crisis is real and builds as the year goes along. >> you talked about the programs you are concerned about. now, which people are you most concerned about today now that the sequester is official. is there any immediate impact on personnel and their families? >> the impacts are in it in all three of the populations we depend on for national defense. the president has exempted the pay for military personnel from sequester. however, our military personnel will still feels things immediately.

for example, if you plan to fly or to train in the next few months, that is their duty, that is their profession, that is their responsibility during national security. they will not be able to do that. they will feel that immediately. second, our civilian work force. as you know, our civilian workforce is about 800,000 strong. those people are dedicated to the defense mentioned -- mission. they live all over the country. 86% of them live completely outside the washington area. 44% of them are veterans. they are dedicated to the mission, too. them will be subject to furlough.

third and finally, the contractor work force depends on us. we depend on them. we do not make a thing at the pentagon. we depend on the industrial base to make our weapons systems, second only to our people, which make us the greatest military in the world. many of them will be affected directly by this. we will be cutting back on cuts -- on contractor spending. we have to find $36 billion between now and the ends of the year. the civilian military work force will only provide a low savings even if we do drastic things, a few billion dollars. all three of those populations upon whom we depend will have immediate.

>> in your view, how many of these initial cuts will have lasting effects that will trickle on and be felt in the years ahead? >> that is a good question. >> readiness, if it is not immediate, how soon until the cuts will impact readiness for years to come? >> good question. we are doing everything we can to minimize lasting damage. you cannot eliminate it. i will give you two examples right away. when you cannot afford to begin overhaul or maintenance of a ship and you do for that maintenance, what that means -- our shipyards have their planned maintenance plan out through many years. once you have created a gap this year, that gap propagates into the future.

another example. i explained that the air force was not going to be able to afford to have any of the pilots in combat air force trained in the latter part of the year. if you stop training for a while and york -- you are a combat pilot, you lose your rating and eventually cannot fly at all. we cannot allow you to fly if you cannot fly safely. if you cannot fly safely, you cannot fly proficiently. you have to go back to the long building that process of getting your readiness back. this is not something that, even if it is temporary -- and the secretary explained that everybody hopes that, in some way, the sequester and the problem associated with the

continuing resolution will be resolved through legislation and a large budget deal of some kind -- even with that to occur some months from now, there would be lasting damage from this. it is serious. >> of all of the cuts you see potentially coming down the pipeline, which gives the pentagon the greatest applause. what are the specific threats to the pentagon that we could be seen immediately right at midnight tonight? >> right at midnight tonight, and building to the days and weeks and months into the future, we will begin curbing training for units. let me take that example and play that out.

what does that mean for national security. as the year goes on, apart from afghanistan, apart from nuclear deterrence through two missions we are strictly protecting, the readiness of the other units to respond to other contingencies will gradually decline. that is not -- reduced readiness is a serious matter. the secretary has emphasized that. >> to you have any concerns that the lack of any clear impact on national security, short of something of this intangible, will make people think the pentagon can simply of zombies custom of a lot of these are down the road -- a absorb

the cuts. a lot of these are down the road. they may not be tangible enough to sound the alarm is. >> we have been trying for 16 months to sound the alarm about sequestration. we are describing to you in all of the detail that we can help each and every part of this enterprise will be affected adversely. the people, the weapons programs, readiness. we are not going to take actions that are unnecessary just to do something obvious. all this is going to be abundantly obvious starting tomorrow and building to be here. goes on, it will be unmistakable. this is not subtle. this is an abrupt, serious curbing of activity in each and everyone of our key categories of activity in the department ofit is not subtle.

>> thank you very much. there is a country and narrative out there. i am sure you have heard it. response. we are winding down in afghanistan. the war in iraq is over. we are not in a nuclear standoff with russia. china is a competitor and not an enemy. even if the sequester is a closing tool, why can and why shouldn't this department be forced to operate on less after 10 years of so much money come your way? >> first of all, beginning a year ago, the department embarked on $487 billion in defense cuts in exactly accordance with what you just said.

begun in the efficiency initiatives. as the wars in iraq and afghanistan winds down, overall budget authority will go down. that will make a contribution to deficit reduction. but sequestration is a different matter. it is arbitrary. it is abrupt. on top of sequestration, we have the continuing resolution in force, which creates its own set of problems that i would not go into. in some categories, they are just of serious. the nub of this is something that is abrupt, and deleterious, and detrimental to

defense. we should only get the money that we deserve and that the nation needs. we understand that. we built the new strategy last year. the secretary alluded to that. this country is turning a strategic corner. that is the broader point that you are making. we are coming out of an era of iraq and afghanistan. we are trying to address the national security problems that are going to define this country's future and it's our future. we are prepared to do that. -- this country's future. this is a different matter. this is something that is not managerial from a national security point of view.

>> you mentioned before how the civilian work force has a mission with the department also. they feel they have a mission. >> yes, indeed. >> what do you say to a gs-5 or somebody contemplating a civilian career with the military? to you still think it is a good idea given the uncertainty this causes? -- we are realistic. our civilians make important contributions to defense, otherwise they would not be part of the department of defense establishment. they do real things that arethey have had their pay frozen. bahama, now they are subject to furlough. as i talked -- you say, why would anybody join our ranks other -- under those

circumstances? the reason is the reason you would want it to be. they join us and i hope they would stick with us because of committed to what we do, which is to defend the country and help make a better world. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the house armed services committee discussed cuts on the military. the committee chairman and the republican subcommittee chairman also talked about the impact on the home districts. this is just under 30 minutes. >> good morning. i'm from the 25th district in california, chairman of the house armed services committee. these are members of the committee. most of -- chairman of the subcommittees, each of us will have a few words to say.

we have the responsibility to protect our nation's defense, and make sure it those who we sent out to or have things they need to carry out their missions and return home safely. i have never in my lifetime seen such a lack of leadership and truth-telling emanating from the white house and from our commander in chief. senator reid and the democratic leadership for three years have not pass a budget, and we have given them a pass. you have given them a pass. i was watching a general this morning who said he has been chief of the department for a year and half, and never had a budget. that same thing goes for the commander -- the chairman of the joint chiefs and all of the chiefs. these men who have dedicated their life to protecting our nation, we put them in these responsible jobs and give them no financial support, no

direction. sequestration was the president's idea. when we tried to fix it he said no, if you do everything, i will veto it. during the campaign he said it will not happen. the last couple of weeks he has come out and said it is to end, and the last couple of days, he said -- he has played position. when woodward, a respected journalist, try to lay out the truth, he was crucified, and i do not what extent this white house will go to, but it has got to end. we are done cutting our defense. we are fairly intelligent. we know we can cut two sent out of a dollar.

every family in this nation has had to do this. while we have cut those two cents, 50 cents has come out of our national defense tricked the president has talked about a balanced approach and will not address the problem. where telling the president and of that meeting this morning, did not plan on cutting our national defense one more cent. i would like to turn to mike turner. >> thank you. the president has called congressional leaders to the white house has a prop with a backdrop of his game of sequester. a game that campbell's with our men and women. today the sequester, which the president said and promised the

american public would not happen and will happen with the stroke of his pen. this did not need to happen. from the proposal by the president of 2011 to the failure of the supercommittee, through his reelection command -- campaign, the president has not brought forth one proposal to offset or two and the sequester. the president has simply not turned in his homework. while the president is touring the country, talking about sequester, the department of defense, pentagon, and man and woman and -- in uniform are preparing for furloughs, is to hit people who are protecting our country and protecting our national security. while that is occurring, the only work being done on a sequester in the white house is being done in the press shop. bill that sets off sequester and replaces it with more spending. the cbo scores the bill as a $7.2 billion increase in spending the cbo scored the seventh homework as failing. the house has passed two bills and they are both on the house armed services committee website

and they both replaced sequester with responsible cuts and both system and our national security and reduce overall spending. the president's team on sequester has said it is irresponsible and reckless and wrong and dangerous. we agree. in my community, wright- patterson air force base, 3000 people are facing furloughs my community is listed as number 3 in the nation that will be impacted by sequestration, men and women who get up and go to work every day to protect our national security. the president has broken his promise today to the american sequestration which was his idea that he places for today with backs of those to protect us. mr. president, it is time to get to work and send an actual proposal to congress, thank you. >> chairman of the sea power forces subcommittee. people at our home in virginia fill there is way too much

bravado coming out of the white house may be too much coming out of congress. nobody is sitting there at looking at the concerns that the have right now when they are worried about whether or not school and whether they will have a job next month are not. i want them to know that while the house of representatives has gone home and the senate has gone on, the chairman of the subcommittees have not. we're telling you we are continuing to work because we will come forward with proposals that helped mitigate these consequences for national defense and we think we will see them as soon as next week. the second thing is, we are tired of the definition we have seen of acceptable risk and we will change that. it will no longer be acceptable when the u.s. navy can only meet 51% of all of our requirements. it will not be acceptable risk for airports to have pilots flying planes that are older

than them. to have an army cutting out 80,000 troops and it is no longer acceptable for us to find the lowest possible point we can have for our military and still argue that it is acceptable. we will begin today a new chapter that rebuilds this it can defend and protect our security and the generations beckham after us. -- and the generations after us. we are turning the lights back on to the analysis for national defense in this country for both political parties. have a journalist that starts talking about the actual facts and refined the white house -- we find washington and the white cells turning on them and attacking them, the story that has not been written the is the gag orders that began with this administration and the pentagon or individuals could not talk about the implications of these cuts that come down. even as late as last week, sought memorandum -- i saw a memorandum where people could not talk and we will change that and write a new chapter to that. -- today. i like to present the chairman of the readiness subcommittee. >> thank you, want to make sure

people understand where we are today and we have been. secretary superdelegate put in place $100 billion of reduction to our defense budget in 2011. of reductions. as we stand before the sequester, nearly half a trillion dollars, the sequester put another half a trillion dollars in place. by any measure, that is catastrophic. we are looking at our readiness, our ability to meet the threat out there and we are at a place of increased risk, our military leaders say it is a readiness crisis. we cannot beat their. -- be there. we have always stood behind our military, stood behind our men and women in uniform that defend this nation to make sure that they have the overwhelming superiority on the battlefield this nation. that is our obligation as a nation. will no longer be able to do that with sequestration. those men and women will be

asked to go into a fair fight. in defense of this nation, it is incomprehensible. we owe it to them and the men and women in dod and we owe it to the great contract and commanded that supports our to defend this nation and make sure they have the overwhelming superiority and make sure they can fight to victory and come home safe. that is our obligation as a nation and then these to be a renewed sense of urgency as members of the house armed services committee and a congress to make sure we do the job that we were sent her to do when we raised our right and to uphold the constitution to provide for the common defense of this nation and maintain and provide for its armies and navies. the job needs to start a new today and that's what we are here. thanks again and i want to welcome to the podium, the personnel subcommittee, chairmanas a 31-year veteran of the army national guard, i want to thank block mckeon for his support this is the third round

of budget cuts on the defense department. the was a $100 billion reduction followed by a $487 billion reduction in defense spending and today begins possibly $600 billion in cuts. the american people need to know that the budget is 80% of the federal budget by 50% of the cuts are applied against a fence. this truly create a circumstance and i'm grateful for the -- against a defense. i am very grateful for the leadership -- leadership of secretary leon panetta who pointed out that these cuts could lead to the hauling out of our military, putting military and military families at risk. the american people need to know that our defenses are at a low point. we will have the fewest troops

since 1939 in the army and marine corps. we will have the fewest ships since 1916. since the air force was created in 1947. there has been a survey indicating that the confidence of the american people in our national security is at an all- time low. i am hopeful that we can come together on addressing these issues and i am so hopeful, indeed, that the president will that work are peace through how we must have peace through strength and not have a circumstance of potential attacks due to weakness i'm honored to be here with the chairwoman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, martha roby of alabama. >> there is a better way to cut

spending. we are harming our military and military families. from the beginning, that is exactly what this is about, the harm that this sequester would do to our military families. i cannot help but think about husband is on his third or fourth deployment and she is sitting there watching this play out on the news and wondering whether she will be able to cook food -- put food on the table the freedom and liberty that you and i enjoy. i would just say it is unconscionable what the sequestered. we cannot tax our way out of debt. the president received his tax increase in january.

it is time he and the senate get serious about mandatory spending reforms that we can re- prioritize what happens first and that is providing for a strong national defense and it is unconscionable for this president to use our military families as pawns in his crusade for higher taxes. >> i'm from the 13th district of texas. let me close with two points -- the federal government has to get its fiscal house in order by cutting spending. and the federal government has to defend the country in a dangerous and increasinglywe do not have the luxury of doing one or the other. we have to do both. there are lots of options to do both. you have heard the house has passed a bill twice that would cut other spending and prevent the sequestration. the mcken -ayotte bill would

reduce federal employment through attrition and use those savings to offset sequestration. i introduced a bill that would delay further implementation of the health-care bill by two years. to do it anyway. not set up their exchanges if their act together, you save the taxpayers $130 billion. this will also offset sequestration. the point is, there are lots of -- lots of options out there. we need the senate and the president to adopt them. the second point is that we are not giving up. just because it is march 1, it does not mean we are folding our hands and saying this is the way it has to be. for example next week, on the

house floor, we will vote on a will last us for the rest of the fiscal year. that will not on do sequestration but it will add flexibility and it will help update the categories which will reduce some of the damage that comes from having a continuing resolution and a sequestrationwe will keep working for country, get our fiscal house in order. weneed the commander in chief to do the same period -- we need the commander-in-chief to do the>> thank you again for being here and we can take a few questions. yes? >> on the 27th of this month, you'll look at closing down parts of the government if we don't get a continuing resolution. the idea of passing a defensive preparations bell --bill does not sound like to get traction in the senate. will you guys push for an omnibus. many of these bills have been

negotiated and committees have been working together. >> veterans affairs. this would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. you can call it on the bus. you can call it whenever you want, but it does fix spending for the rest of the year. >> would you be willing in a negotiation to -- >> let's let that pass next week, and then let's see what the senate does. we are kind of used to them not doing anything, but we are not waiting until march 27. we want to get ahead of it. there is no thought about closing down the government. we have got enough problems.

yes. >> mr. chairman, you have been raising concerns about these cuts. there are some republicans in the last week or so that have indicated they are ok with these cuts for the time being in light of the bigger fight. is this something you are concerned about? >> well, i thought sequestration. i fought the $487 billion, but that is done. we accept that, and the chief said they can live with that. they have had to change the strategy since we had from world war ii. they are not able to fight two wars. looking at what is happening in korea or iran, other hot spots around the world. we have pulled back, and that is already being implemented, those cuts, but they have had a year. the sequestration gives them no flexibility. it just cut every department an

equal percentage. and it is a crazy way to do things. so i am hopeful. we knew that defense or the national security spending needed to be a part of the deal. what i am saying, and remember what i said, 50 cents out of every dollar that we have saved so far through this effort has come out of our national security. that is too much, when they only account for 18% of spending. yes? >> given that it has happened now, do you accept any responsibility for sequestration going through? >> there is enough blame to go around. many of these members voted against it. i took the leadership's promise that the super committee would do its work, that it would never happen. the president promised it would never happen.

that is passed. it happens. that vote also at that time was to raise the debt ceiling. if we had not done that, we would have had a more serious crisis. i was hopeful that given time, we would come of with a better solution. we have not done it. i am saying it has gone far enough. it has come to the end. no more cuts with national security. >> the idea of sequestration. there have been multiple plants, proposals, news releases, videos that your side has put out to try to inform members about the sequester. what would you have done differently? >> let me turn to mr. turner on that. >> the problem, at the same time

the president made a promise to the american people that it would not happen, he constrained and constricted others. today, we are standing here with the president have been broken his promise, and then having to scramble to get word out to the american public about what this means. certainly throughout the american public, there is not yet an understanding because the department of defense has not been able to hand in their homework about what this means. we have been working on this, as the chairman said. we have a better understanding of the consequences, and this is dangerous, and we agree with the president that it is wrong. >> talking about this, since august. every day. >> there is no question that the amount of articles that could have been written about the specifics of what this means to educate the american public, it would have been very helpful. we were speaking words in committee rooms and press

conferences. there is a gap between what everyone knows what is going to happen. we believe the president has broken his promise. yes? >> can you explain a little bit more about how this would mitigate things? some examples of what would not happen? >> we have two serious problems. the chiefs and how they spend their money, we are operating under a cr. this gave them an opportunity to start more important programs. that was passed and signed into law last december, but unless you fund it, they are kind of

hamstrung. if we do not a cr or an omnibus or some kind of funding mechanism that does not give them the appropriations and the authority to move funds from one area to another, it severely impacts that. one of the gravest concerns that we have is a readiness. i know that we have trees that are being trained to go to the war theater, and they are not receiving the same training just because those funds have been cut, and if we do not pass that appropriation bill, they will be cut further. i was told by the secretary of the army that he is going to have to cut 40% out of his operating maintenance account, which is where the training comes from. this cannot be allowed to happen. yes? >> is it a problem for your efforts that there seems to be a

bit of a mixed message with in your own party, with many people saying, "let these cuts go ahead. call the president's bluff." others are saying, "defense cuts. we need them." i have heard a lot of people say things that are not in line with what you are saying. >> there are 435 people. we cannot all be experts in everything. we have had the opportunity to hear from the chiefs, those on the battle lines. we have had the opportunity to go to afghanistan and iraq and the hot spots. we have the greater knowledge about how the impact of these cuts will be on our national security. most people have forgotten or did not know about the billions in cuts we have already made. i think most of the american people, when they think of cuts, they think of waste, fraud, and abuse.

we are past that, way past that, and then when you have the sequestration on top of that, we have not reached the majority of people. i saw a poll a few weeks ago that only 38% of americans knew what sequestration was, and i would guarantee that out of that 30%, a very small portion understood what the real impacts are. if they have not had a chance to visit the bases with the training is not being done that should be done. they have not seen down at the fort where the flying hours were going to be cut for the helicopter pilots. we know the problem, and we are trying to reach out to all of our colleagues to make sure they understand, but that is a process that takes some time. >> anything as part of a replacement package?

you would not abandon it all on that issue? >> we just passed $600 billion of tax increases just a few weeks ago. probably many of us voted for that. did we want it? no. the president has talked about a balanced approach, and his balanced approach as increased taxes and cut our national security, cut defense. at some point, really, if he wants a balanced approach, he had better start bringing mandatory spending to the table. if we cut all of this, we would still be running a deficit of half of $1 trillion per year. most people understand what the real problem is. and that is spending. not bringing that into the equation makes the rest of this kind of exercise of futility. >> excuse me. it sounds like what you guys are talking about is next steps on

your side, to give more flexibility to implement sequestration. do you plan anything to delay it again or turn it off? >> we wrap up with the vice chairman? >> that was the second point i tried to make. we are not saying this is done, we are going to keep after it. i gave you three different proposals that would save money and other places other than the sequestration, and we are going to keep looking for options. we are not going to say this is done. we have opportunities coming up as budget resolutions, of, with the debt ceiling in may, so there is a lot of opportunities. i would say this. as the chairman mentioned, the only area of government spending that has the authorization signed into law by the president is defense. so as we are looking at appropriation bills to pass for the rest of the year, passing

defense, which is consistent with the authorization bill he has already signed into law, that makes perfect sense. we are going to do that next week as a step, but it is not the end. thank you very much. >> my pleasure. , education secretary arne duncan and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius talk about the importance of early education programs. then, the u.s. supreme court or argument challenging provisions of the 1965 voting rights act. after that, job growth and the economy. >> imagine if we are in front of a group of 20-year-old people. a butterfly in indonesia that is in danger of extinction.

raise your hands those of you who would like to help it, saving the butterfly in indonesia, and he would find among those 20-years old, you will find some. then go and ask the same group, who wants to join me in a political party? who wants to join the republican party or the democrat party? you would see it quite a few would be willing to dedicate their time and efforts and passions in joining a political party, and i think political party is need to modernize. they need to become more attractive to young people, to young professionals, because political parties are, at their essence, the idea that you could have democracy without strong political parties -- >> the changing economic power. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, part of booktv this

weekend on c-span2, and look for more booktv on line. like us on facebook. >> education secretary arne duncan and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius discuss the importance of investing in early childhood education. they warned of the effects of early child care services, education, and public health. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] >> this school represents so much of what we want the country to be like, and i get to visit great schools, struggling schools, but this school has a high poverty rate, 35 different languages spoken, but children are doing well.

they have a great adults that take care of them. they are excited. we ask them, do they like coming to school, and they say yes. we are glad. challenges of poverty, assimilating children, and they come to an environment where they can be successful. board members, superintendents, teachers, staff -- it is fun to be here. this is a topic that we love to talk about, and government at all levels, federal, state, and local, investing in the education of our nation's teachers, our children. this is one of the best investments we can make collectively. we are thrilled at about the president's landmark plan to create new partnerships with states to provide universal for all 4-year-olds. it will provide the biggest expansion of educational

opportunities in america in the 21st century. parents who look for affordable learning programs, work opportunities, and business leaders all want children to have access to high-quality preschool. the biggest beneficiary will be our children, particularly disadvantaged children, english language learners, and children with disabilities. this is an absolutely win-win proposition. it will make america more productive, more competitive, and over the long haul, will save untold millions in taxpayer dollars, and it is past time to get our public schools out of what we call the educational catch up business. america cannot win the race by cheating children at the starting line. i know everyone appreciates this is a special moment.

it is not often that you find two government departments with overlapping responsibilities trying to work together hand in hand, and i am grateful for kathleen sebelius and her courage. she always put children's -- children first. we worked on the h1n1 virus. this was around early childhood education. the president obama plan will create new federal-state partnership to allow states to provide high-quality preschool for low-income and moderate- income families, up to two wanted% of the poverty line, and it will allow incentive for states to have others. but it would not be a new federal entitlement program. it would be an investment in states to jump-start access to high-quality preschool and to take the next states to a higher level. we would use funds to create or

expand high-quality preschool programs, administered in partnership with local school- based and community providers. the urgent need for greater access or low and moderate- income students is not in dispute today. just ask any parent or kindergarten teacher about the gas and development when children come to kindergarten who have not had those opportunities, have not had that exposure. we know that children from low- income families, and to kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their piers in reading and language skills. it does not have to be like that. it does not have to be that way. and we know that fewer than 30%, less than three out of 10, are enrolled in high-quality preschool programs. the expanding preschool is going to be the same as during our first term. the federal role in public education is support, and partnering with states to incentive 5 -- to incentivize

things. at the federal level, we should be tight, clear on goals, but loose on means, loose on the ways to get there. we should set a high bar, but it should lead to state and local leaders to figure out the best ways to reach that. states would be required to meet quality benchmarks, leading to better outcomes for children, by having high-quality state standards for early learning, well compensated teachers in all preschool programs, and a plan to implement complement -- comprehensive assessment. it will not add a dime to the deficit. some skeptics still question if we should make a major investment in preschool and a period of fiscal austerity. in the end, i believe that is absolutely a false choice. in fact, i would suggest to all of you that we really cannot afford not to make these

investments in our babies, toddlers, and our four-year-old children. high-quality preschool is the place to look, and if we want to invest wisely and save taxpayer money over the long haul, this is the best investment we can make. i just wish some of our friends and lawmakers on the hill today could have been with us when we visited a school. we have also talked to governments around the country, republican and democratic people expanding programs in their states. they get it. i understand. i wish you could have sat with kathleen sebelius and me to watch these children that have the excitement and the opportunity to explore their skills, and as we move forward, the topic of the day, sequestration, it presents some real challenges at lots of different levels, and, sadly,

too many members of congress are out of touch with parents and teachers and students, of touch with real-world consequences of their actions. here in montgomery county -- an average school spends about 80% on personnel, so sequestration will have a big impact on teachers and school staff. a couple of quick examples. sequestration would cut title 1 money for poor children. that would be by $725 million. that blanket cut could affect 1.2 million disadvantaged students, and it would require states and districts to cover the cost of approximately 10,000 teachers and teachers' aides. if that budget cut was translated into furloughs, which is another way that school districts may have to make these cuts, it would be the equivalent of furloughing 541,000 teachers

and staff for five days, a whole week of school. other cuts include $600 -- 6 $1 million for students with special needs. that would require states to cover costs for teachers' aides and other support staff. the furlough equivalent there in special education would be 433,000 teachers and other staff, again, missing one week of school. secretary sebelius will talk about the impact on headstart and on the babies we are trying to help. cutting up money to head start is foolish. president obama called for smarter government during the state of the union. sequestration, this indiscriminate approach, is an example of some government at its finest. it is actually mindboggling that washington has manufactured a crisis when educators and families are facing real challenges and doing so well

every day. these across-the-board budget cuts were not caused by some natural disaster. they are a man-made mass. and they can be fixed now. they can be fixed now by men and women who have the courage, commitment, and willingness to come together and compromise and find common ground. they can be fixed by lawmakers to do the right thing for children and to keep growing in the american middle class. this is not rocket science. it is not intellectually difficult. thank you so much. it is now my honor to turn this over to my good friend, kathleen sebelius. please give her a round of applause. [applause] >> i want to thank sap -- thank secretary duncan, the principals

and teachers and the amazing kids who we have seen so far at rolling terrace elementary. it is a truly great example of kids learning each and every day and learning lots of things that are going to make the moral leaders. i even talked to a young man here who has his eye on the maryland state house, so i have to warn governor mallee -- governor o'malley that he has got some competition. i am in grandmother, and i have a six-month-old grandson, so early childhood education, which has always been important to me, has taken on a brand new meaning, because i am seen the world through the eyes of george each and every day. secretary duncan has already mentioned that we have had some great partners and champions in the united states congress from here in maryland, but i want to particularly singled out

congressman steny hoyer, who has not only been a long term great leader, but the duty -- judy center, they are named after his late wife, and this just shows the type of energy and commitment he has had. i cannot tell you what a great treat it has been during my tenure as secretary to work with a partner like arne duncan. there could not be any better champion for children and families in our country than him. he is leading this effort at a historic moment, and we are glad to be partners in the initiatives, investing in early learning. and the kids at rolling terrace elementary and kids across the country the benefit from the early learning programs are not just getting an academic foundation. they are gaining emotional skills. they are learning how to interact with others. i just saw the new health clinic

that will help the whole family, and as every parent as any parent knows, and the science shows, the first few years of a child's life are the most critical. that is when the most important learning takes place. we have evidence that when we invest in education during those early years, the benefits last a lifetime. kids who attend high-quality early learning and preschool programs are more likely to do well in school, more likely to maintain successful careers. that is what makes this investment so beneficial. these programs benefit all of us. we all gain when our country has a stronger, more productive work force. we gained what we have lower crime rates and less need for public assistance. that is why the president has announced historic investments in programs that help put more children on that path to opportunity. in our department, we have worked to strengthen critical programs like head start with more accountability and training programs to help spread

best practices. as you have heard from the secretary, the president announced a new plan for the second term that would build on those efforts by making high- quality preschool available to every child in america. these children's needs begin earlier than preschool. that is why we are launching a new head start child care partnership. it will expand the availability of high-quality early learning and opportunities for infants and toddlers, while we are expanding programs with resources needed to help thriving on it. we have a moral and economic imperative to ensure no child has fallen behind by the first day of kindergarten. that is what the last thing we can afford right now is the self-inflicted wound that you have heard secretary duncan

describe. it occurs with blunt arbitrary cuts that congress is allowed to go into effect, the sequestration. in addition, to the cuts you have heard described, through k-12 education, we have a situation in our department where we look at the possibility of 70,000 and children losing their access to an early start through early head start, where teachers are being laid off. with those services eliminated, it makes it more difficult for those parents to go to forward, so it has a ripple effect, damaging the fact, throughout the community. we know about 30,000 low-income children and their parents would lose their child-care slots, which has a huge economic impact on working parents. that is up to 100,000 american children, some of the most economically deprived children,

whose futures are put in jeopardy, and their parents' ability to work every day is put in jeopardy. if we want to ensure the long- term prosperity of our country, we should not be cutting back on programs. we should be expanding them, as the president has suggested. that is what this administration is committed to doing. i join arne on the notion that sequestration can be fixed quickly by congress coming together with a balanced approach to continuing to make smart cuts, smart reductions in programs that do not work very well, and smart investments in programs that have a huge payoff down the future. arne called it dumb government. to me it is stupid government. we have a smart way to do things and a stupid way to do things, and what is unveiling today is stupid government.

thank you again to our host this morning, good luck with rolling terrace elementary, and the secretary and i will be pleased to answer questions. >> secretary duncan, this week on a couple occasions, you said there are teachers being laid off because of the sequester. are you prepared to say that that was an exaggeration on your part? >> that needs be clear. what i said is teachers are getting notices, and in the district we talked about, 110 teachers were getting notices. that is not what i said. ares not lose the -- they getting such notices now. that is where some of that misunderstanding is. the fact of the matter is whether it is what is already happening or what is coming across the country of the next two months, which i also said tens of thousands of teachers potentially are going to be getting these notices. the impact here is very

significant. >> both you and the secretary said this was dumb government. didn't this dumb idea come from the white house? >> actually, the idea was designed in such a way and really inserted in the bill by congress because they thought it was such a bad way to run government that it would never happen. two years ago, congress agreed to give themselves this option which should never occur in order to force themselves to actually come up with a deal. if you remember, it was the failure of the supercommittee to reach a budget agreement that produced this methodology. there have been two years that have expired, and here we are on march 1, a day that no one ever wanted to see come, and everyone agrees it is a bad idea. it can be fixed. the president is meeting this

morning with congressional leaders. he has put forward a proposal. one thing i think we need to make clear, government is being cut year in and year out. we at health and human services are operating on less resources than last year. $2.5 trillion has already been cut out a program spending during the president's administration. it is not like we are spending huge pots of money we did not have. but making strategic reductions and making smart investments in things we don't work is the way we need to go forward. >> one more question. >> how did you come up with the figures of how the impact will be felt at local schools? >> it is important for the media to understand how school budgeting works. 80% of -- 81% -- we did not plan that. on average, 80% of school

budgets are people. most of the rest of them are paying the heat, school lunches, buses. when schools have to make commitments and cuts, and between title i and well more than $1 billion, they are not too many places to cut besides people. with people, you do two things -- you lay them off, so you are talking about potential layoffs, or you do furlough days. there's not a better option. people said if you have control, what would you do? the majority of our funding from the department of education, the federal level, from the nation's most vulnerable children, to english- language learners, migrant children. the biggest part of the cuts are children with special needs and title i for poor children.

those cuts are $25 billion. if you are asking folks to choose, do you hurt more special-needs kids -- there's no choice, but no right answer. when districts are forced to cut, because our funding goes down, they have very few places to go. one of the only places they can go, the vast majority of their budget, are people. what that means is potentially a lot less children, tens of thousands of children, having access to head start, lots of children with special needs and poor children losing access to services. what we have not talked about yet is as many as 70,000 young people try to go to college will lose access to work study and to grants as well. at every level, babies, k-12, higher-ed, at every level we will be taking a step back education. it makes no sense. the economy is starting to bounce back. graduation rates are going up.

the final thing i will say, as a nation we're trying to keep good jobs. good jobs, employers want an educated population. i promise you our competitors for those good jobs, singapore and south korea and india and china, they are not going through sequestration now. that is not their approach to education. they are doing more. for us to go backwards is mindboggling. >> thank you. >> one more question. are those 70,000 new slots or slots that have to be cut? >> these are slots of have to be cut, and again, first of all, sequestration does not give us discretion. we have to take $15.5 billion out of the hhs budget out every agency, every department, every program, in seven months of the remainder of the year. it is a very arbitrary cut.

those are slots, child care slots, 30,000, and head start slots, about 70,000, that exist right now. we do not have a need budget. congress has not passed a 2013 budget. we're talking about existing slots. we have to cut services that go to public health departments -- we know thousands of children will not have the vaccines that they need. that is a cut in the program. we know mental health services to the parents and children, which actually help to support the behavioral health issues -- that is to states. this has health and wellness implications, as well as teachers, as well as having a huge impact on parents' ability to go to work. if you think about the youngest

kids, if there's lots are gone for their children to be in a safe and secure learning environment, the parents actually then have a much more difficult time going to work every day. thank you, all. >> [indiscernible] >> i want to thank you today because we are with you on pre- k. we can see all the differences that pre-k makes. and i want to say all of us are teachers, are very proud to be teachers in montgomery county public schools. we know now we are number one in the nation. i wanted to segue a little bit because all this new stuff about education is turning into all sorts of good ideas. what i want ask you is about

teacher evaluations are a big deal now everywhere. with our administration and the teachers and representatives, we have developed in mcps a good teacher evaluation system, very qualitative, more than a checklist, and we have worked with the administrators, and we feel we have a good evaluation system that states are asking for how they would put forth their evaluation statement, and maryland has 50% of the evaluations that would include performance. so we want to know in your opinion is there room for the states to have wiggle room. we are helping, and dr. starr

asked for a moratorium for testing for three years, some of which speaks to this idea, so is there wiggle room for states to go less than 50-50? >> i do not know the details, but absolutely. look at what has happened across the country. i have tremendous confidence in the board here, in the state. the folks here have to compromise, and those are complex questions, but we have never said 50%. never said that once. >> between the president and mcconnell and boehner, is this too little too late on both sides? >> i do not think it is ever too late. you have to keep working things through. i want to come back to the urgency to get this done. this is why i worry congress does not understand the real

world. you have a really good board here, a fantastic superintendent. what are they doing now in march? they are planning for the fall, try to put their budgets together for all. they need stability, predictability. in chicago, we never had enough money. i wanted to know what i had so i could plan. these guys are doing the fiscally prudent thing, planning not have this money. they're forced the plan that way. you cannot plan for money that is up in the air. they have to plan on not having that money, putting in a budget cuts, and we saw in the district in west virginia where they sent out 110 notices. we see notice is coming out across the country in the coming weeks. this has to do with the notification of the unions. four districts that to go through this trauma, why put them through that? let's fix it, fix and now, let's do it right away, today,

over the weekend, and i do not think they realize the real- world impact and stressed this is putting on working families, on teachers, on principals, on superintendents. it does not make sense. [indiscernible] >> i would like to say that i am really proud of the -- my son attends this school, and i just made it to get him into the pre-k program, and i see results that are fantastic for him. are there plans to help those middle-income people that live in high-income or high-cost-of- living areas to get into the program? >> part of what we want to do is make sure we have access for children who are living in poverty. we want to have incentives for states to make sure that middle-class folks that chance.

the majority of children who need access to the, the majority do not have that. we are playing catch-up. we have to get out of that business. if we can get babies up to a good start, status does not matter. it is a game changer for the country. on 3- and 4-year-olds, they do not vote, they do not have lobbyists. this is 8, 10, 20 years down the track. we hope the country can come together in a bipartisan way. i am hopeful for all this current dysfunction. we're seeing governors across the country, republican and democrat, invest more in early childhood education. this is starting to be a bipartisan commission, which is very encouraging. thank you very much, guys. thank you for your hard work. [applause]

>> earlier, president obama signed the order authorizing the government to begin cutting $85 billion from federal accounts agreed officially enacting across-the-board reductions, known as the sequester. the president acted just hours before the mandatory deadline. the government says the reductions will soon result in a furlough notices to employees of the government and trimming government spending on defense contracts and domestic government programs. active military personnel and anti-poverty and low income assistance programs are protected from the cuts largely. next, the u.s. supreme court oral argument challenging provisions of the 1965 voting rights act. after that, the joint economic committee discusses job growth and the economy. then defense secretary chuck hagel on the automatic budget cuts.

>> the problem with banning any book is that once you ban one, we do not know where it will stop. that road takes us back to totalitarian states. it has been banned many times, especially in classrooms, simply because sometimes the parent does not understand the novel. they have not read it. there have been cases where school boards or parents have asked to ban the novel. it turns out they just have not read it. they think words or phrases here or there, paragraph -- i'm glad

to say that in every instance where censorship of the novel has happened, every instance that i know of, the community, parents, families, they have gone to the schools and said, look, this is our literature. this is important literature. you cannot ban it because you pick a word or two or paragraph. in every case i know of, the ban has been overturned. >> more with rodolfo anaya on books and censorship. c-span looks behind the scenes of history and literary life in albuquerque, new mexico. saturday at noon eastern on c- span2. ♪ >> today, a new moon is in the sky.

a steer was placed in orbit by russian rocket. your during the actual signals. one of the great scientific -- scientific feats of the age. >> there was a very rapid mobilization of resources in the united states to catch up. we could have put the first satellite up, but we were not in a rush, until the soviets did it. for the next few years, there was a real race going on with the united states attempting to put a man in space. the russians did it first. then to put two people in space, the russians did it first. they had a succession of missions in the early 1960's. it took about five years before the united states, up to the feats that the soviet union was performing in space and began to

take the lead. the ultimate goal of the race was to go to the moon. >> from the dawn of the space- age through the space shuttle discovery, from smithsonian's air and space museum, sunday at 7:00 eastern. this weekend on c-span 3. >> the supreme court heard oral argument for a key provision on the voting rights act of 1965. the court will decide if section 5 has outlived its purpose and imposes an undue burden on states that are subject to federal supervision. section 5 requires certain states in the south to get approval from the justice department or the district court before changing any voting laws. republican appointed justices were skeptical of the continued relevance of the provision, with justice scalia calling it the perpetuation of racial entitlement. a decision is expected in late

june. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. firstll hear argument this morning in case 12-96, shelby county v. holder. mr. rein? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, almost 4 years ago, eight justices of the court agreed the 2005 25-year extension of voting rights act section 5's preclearance obligation, uniquely applicable to jurisdictions reached by section 4(b)'s antiquated coverage formula, raised a serious constitutional question. those justices recognized that the record before the congress in 2005 made it unmistakable that the south had changed. they questioned whether current remedial needs justified the extraordinary federalism and

cost burdens of preclearance. >> may i ask you a question? assuming i accept your premise, and there's some question about that, that some portions of the south have changed, your county pretty much hasn't. >> well, i -- >> in -- in the period we're talking about, it has many more discriminating --240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by section 5 objections. there were numerous remedied by section 2 litigation. you may be the wrong party bringing this. >> well, this is an on-face challenge, and might i say, justice sotomayor -- >> but that's the standard. and why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with? >> well, i don't agree with your premises, but let me just say, number one, when i said

the south has changed, that is the statement that is made by the eight justices in the northwest austin case. and i certainly -- >> and congress -- congress said that, too. nobody -- there isn't anybody in -- on any side of this issue who doesn't admit that huge progress has been made. congress itself said that. but in line with justice sotomayor's question, in the d.c. court of appeals, the dissenting judge there, judge williams, said, "if this case were about three states, mississippi, louisiana, and alabama, those states have the worst records, and application of section 5 to them might be ok." >> justice ginsburg, judge williams said that, as he assessed various measures in

the record, he thought those states might be distinguished. he did not say, and he didn't reach the question, whether those states should be subject to preclearance. in other words, whether on an absolute basis, there was sufficient record to subject them -- >> but think about this state that you're representing, it's about a quarter black, but alabama has no black statewide elected officials. if congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful section 2 suits per million residents, alabama would be the number one state on the list. if you factor in unpublished section 2 suits, alabama would be the number two state on the list. if you use the number of section 5 enforcement actions, alabama would again be the number two state on the list. i mean, you're objecting to a formula, but under any formula that congress could devise, it would capture alabama. >> well, if -- if i might

respond, because i think justice sotomayor had a similar question, and that is why should this be approached on face. going back to katzenbach, and all of the cases that have addressed the voting rights act preclearance and the formula, they've all been addressed to determine the validity of imposing preclearance under the circumstances then prevailing, and the formula, because shelby county is covered, not by an independent determination of congress with respect to shelby county, but because it falls within the formula as part of the state of alabama. so i -- i don't think that there's any reluctance upon on this -- >> but facial challenges are generally disfavored in our law. and so the question becomes, why do we strike down a formula, as justice kagan said, which under any circumstance the record shows the remedy would be congruent, proportional, rational, whatever standard of

review we apply, its application to alabama would happen. >> there -- there are two separate questions. one is whether the formula needs to be addressed. in northwest austin, this court addressed the formula, and the circumstances there were a very small jurisdiction, as the court said, approaching a very big question. it did the same in rome, the city of rome. it did the same in katzenbach. the -- so the formula itself is the reason why shelby county encounters the burdens, and it is the reason why the court needs to address it. >> interestingly enough, in katzenbach the court didn't do what you're asking us to do, which is to look at the record of all the other states or all of the other counties. it basically concentrated on the record of the two litigants in the case, and from that extrapolate -- extrapolated more broadly. >> i don't think that -- >> you're asking us to do something, which is to ignore your record and look at everybody else's. >> i don't think that's a fair

reading of katzenbach. in katzenbach, what the court did was examined whether the -- the formula was rational in practice and theory. and what the court said is, while we don't have evidence on every jurisdiction that's reached by the formula, that by devising two criteria which were predictive of where discrimination might lie, the congress could then sweep in jurisdictions as to which it had no specific findings. so we're not here to parse the jurisdictions. we are here to challenge this formula because in and of itself it speaks to old data, it isn't probative with respect to the kinds of discrimination that congress was focusing on and it is an inappropriate vehicle to sort out the sovereignty of individual states. i could tell you that in alabama the number of legislators in the alabama legislature are proportionate to the number of black voters. there's a very high registration and turnout of black voters in alabama.

but i don't think that that really addresses the issue of the rationality in theory and practice in the formula. if congress wants to write another statute, another hypothetical statute, that would present a different case. but we're here facing a county, a state that are swept in by a formula that is neither rational in theory nor in practice. that's the -- that's the hub of the case. >> i suppose the thrust of the questions so far has been if you would be covered under any formula that most likely would be drawn, why are you injured under this one? >> well, we don't agree that we would be covered under any formula. >> but that's -- that's the hypothesis. if you could be covered under most suggested formulas for this kind of statute, why are you injured by this one? i think that's the thrust of the question. >> well, i think that if -- if congress has the power to look

at jurisdictions like shelby county individually and without regard to how they stand against other states -- other counties, other states, in other words, what is the discrimination here among the jurisdictions, and after thoroughly considering each and every one comes up with a list and says this list greatly troubles us, that might present a vehicle for saying this is a way to sort out the covered jurisdictions -- >> suppose congress passed a law that said, everyone whose last name begins with a shall pay a special tax of $1,000 a year. and let's say that tax is challenged by somebody whose last name begins with a. would it be a defense to that challenge that for some reason this particular person really should pay a $1,000 penalty that people with a different

last name do not pay? >> no, because that would just invent another statute, and this is all a debate as to whether somebody might invent a statute which has a formula that is rational. >> i was about to ask a similar question. if someone is acquitted of a federal crime, would it -- would the prosecution be able to say, well, ok, he didn't commit this crime, but congress could have enacted a different statute which he would have violated in this case. of course, you wouldn't listen to that, would you? >> no, i agree with you. >> the problem with those hypotheticals is obvious that it starts from a predicate that the application has no basis in any record, but there's no question that alabama was rightly included in the original voting rights act. there's no challenge to the reauthorization acts. the only question is whether a formula should be applied today. and the point is that the record is replete with evidence to show that you should. >> well, i mean -- >> it's not like there's some

made-up reason for why the $1,000 is being applied to you or why a different crime is going to be charged against you. it's a real record as to what alabama has done to earn its place on the list. >> justice sotomayor, with all respect, the question whether alabama was properly placed under the act in 1964 was -- it was answered in katzenbach, because it came under a formula then deemed to be rational in theory and in practice. there's no independent determination by the congress that alabama singly should be covered. congress has up -- you know, has readopted the formula and it is the formula that covers alabama and thus shelby county -- >> now, the reason for the formula -- of course, part of the formula looks back to what happened in 1965. and it says are you a jurisdiction that did engage in testing and had low turnout or -- or low registration?

now, that isn't true of alabama today. >> that's correct. that's correct. >> so when congress in fact reenacted this in 2005, it knew what it was doing was picking out alabama. it understood it was picking out alabama, even though the indicia are not -- i mean, even though they're not engaging in that particular thing. but the underlying evil is the discrimination. so the closest analogy i could think of is imagine a state has a plant disease and in 1965 you can recognize the presence of that disease, which is hard to find, by a certain kind of surface movement or plant growing up. now, it's evolved. so by now, when we use that same formula, all we're doing is picking out that state. but we know one thing -- the disease is still there in the state. because this is a question of

renewing a statute that in fact has worked. and so the question i guess is, is it rational to pick out at least some of those states? and to go back to justice sotomayor's question, as long as it's rational in at least some instances directly to pick out those states, at least one or two of them, then doesn't the statute survive a facial challenge? that's the question. >> thank you. justice breyer, a couple of things are important. the court said in northwest austin, an opinion you joined, "current needs have to generate the current burden." so what happened in 1965 in alabama, that alabama itself has said was a disgrace, doesn't justify a current burden. >> but this is then the question, does it justify? i mean, this isn't a question of rewriting the statute. this is a question of renewing

a statute that by and large has worked. >> justice breyer -- >> and if you have a statute that sunsets, you might say -- i don't want it to sunset if it's worked, as long as the problem is still there to some degree. that's the question of rationality. isn't that what happened? >> if you base it on the findings of 1965. i could take the decision in city of rome, which follows along that line. we had a huge problem at the first passage of the voting rights act and the court was tolerant of congress's decision that it had not yet been cured. there were vestiges of discrimination. so when i look at those statistics today and look at what alabama has in terms of black registration and turnout, there's no resemblance. we're dealing with a completely changed situation -- >> you keep -- you keep -- >> to which if you apply those metrics -- excuse me. >> mr. rein, you keep emphasizing over and over again in your brief registration and you said it a couple of times this morning. congress was well aware that registration was no longer the problem. this legislative record is

replete with what they call second generation devices. congress said up front -- we know that the registration is fine. that is no longer the problem. but the discrimination continues in other forms. >> let me speak to that, because i think that that highlights one of the weaknesses here. on the one hand, justice breyer's questioning, well, could congress just continue based on what it found in '65 and renew? and i think your question shows it's a very different situation. congress is not continuing its efforts initiated in 1975 to allow people -- >> counsel, the reason section 5 was created was because states were moving faster than litigation permitted to catch the new forms of discriminatory practices that were being developed. as the courts struck down one form, the states would find another. and basically, justice ginsburg

calls it secondary. i don't know that i'd call anything secondary or primary. discrimination is discrimination. and what congress said is it continues, not in terms of voter numbers, but in terms of examples of other ways to disenfranchise voters, like moving a voting booth from a convenient location for all voters to a place that historically has been known for discrimination. i think that's an example taken from one of the section 2 and 5 cases from alabama. >> justice sotomayor -- >> i mean, i don't know what the difference is except that this court or some may think that secondary is not important. but the form of discrimination is still discrimination if congress has found it to be so. >> when congress is addressing a new evil, it needs then --

and assuming it can find this evil to a level justifying -- >> but that's not -- >> the extraordinary remedy -- >> what it did with section 5. it said we can't keep up with the way states are doing it. >> i think we're dealing with two different questions. one is was that kind of remedy, an unusual remedy, never before and never after invoked by the congress, putting states into a prior restraint in the exercise of their core sovereign functions, was that justified? and in katzenbach, the court said we're confronting an emergency in the country, we're confronting people who will not, who will not honor the fifteenth amendment and who will use -- >> and in 1986 -- or excuse me, 2006 -- congress went back to the problem, developed a very substantial record, a 15,000- page legislative record, talked about what problems had been solved, talked about what problems had yet to be solved, and decided that, although the problem had changed, the problem was still evident enough

that the act should continue. it's hard to see how congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did, mr. rein. >> well, i'm not questioning whether congress did its best. the question is whether what congress found was adequate to invoke this unusual remedy. >> indeed, congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the senate, for example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. it must have been even clearer in 2006 that these states were violating the constitution. do you think that's true? >> no. i think the court has to -- >> well, that sounds like a good argument to me, justice scalia. it was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a

covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation. >> or decided that perhaps they'd better not vote against it, that there's nothing, that there's no -- none of their interests in voting against it. >> i don't know what they're thinking exactly, but it seems to me one might reasonably think this -- it's an old disease, it's gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it's still there. so if you had a remedy that really helped it work, but it wasn't totally over, wouldn't you keep that remedy? >> well -- >> or would you not at least say that a person who wants to keep that remedy, which has worked for that old disease which is not yet dead, let's keep it going. is that an irrational decision? >> that is a hypothetical that doesn't address what happened, because what happened is the old disease, limiting people's right to register and vote, to have -- >> no, i'm sorry. the old disease is

discrimination under the fifteenth amendment, which is abridging a person's right to vote because of color or race. >> but the focus of the congress in 1965 and in katzenbach in 1964 and in katzenbach was on registration and voting, precluding -- >> it was on voter dilution as well. it had already evolved away from that, or started to. >> i beg your pardon, but i think, justice sotomayor, that this court has never decided that the fifteenth amendment governs vote dilution. it has said the fourteenth amendment does, but the original enactment was under the fifteenth amendment. >> well, the fifteenth amendment says "denial or abridgement." what would "abridgement" mean except for dilution? >> well, "abridgement" might mean, for example, i let you vote in one election but not in another, for example, separate primary rules from election rules. abridgement can be done in many ways. i think dilution is a different concept. we're not saying that dilution isn't covered by the fourteenth amendment, but i was responding

to justice breyer in saying there was an old disease and that disease is cured. if you want to label it "disease" and generalize it, you can say, well, the new disease is still a disease. >> well, some of -- >> but i think that's not what happened. >> some of the questions asked to this point i think mirror what the government says toward the end of its brief, page 48 and page 49. it's rather proud of this reverse engineering -- we really knew it was some specific states we were interested in, and so we used these old categories to cover that state. is that a methodology that in your view is appropriate under the test of congruence and -- and proportionality? >> no, i think it is not. first of all, i don't accept that it was, quote, "reverse engineered." i think it was just, as justice breyer indicated, continued because it was there. if you look at what was done and was approved in 1964, what congress said, well, here are the problem areas that we

detect. we've examined them in detail. we've identified the characteristics that would let somebody say, yes, that's where the discrimination is ripe. they're using a tester device. the turnout is below the national average by a substantial margin. that spells it out and we have a relief valve in the then- existing bailout. so it was all very rational. here you'd have to say is the finding with respect to every state -- alaska, arizona, the covered jurisdictions in new york city -- is the designation of them congruent to the problem that you detect in each one? even assuming -- and we don't accept -- that any of these problems require the kind of extraordinary relief, what's the congruence and what's the proportionality of this remedy to the violation you detect state by state. so merely saying it's reverse engineered, first of all it says, well, congress really thought about it and said, we made up a list in our heads and, gee whiz, this old formula miraculously covered the list. there's no record that that

happened. >> counsel, are you -- >> suppose -- suppose there were and suppose that's the rationale, because that's what i got from the government's brief and what i'm getting -- getting from some of the questions from the bench. what is wrong with that? >> if -- if there was a record sufficient for each of those states to sacrifice their -- their inherent core power to preclearance, to prior restraint, i think that you certainly could argue that, well, how congress described them, as long as it's rational, might work. but i don't think that we have that record here, so -- >> well, and -- and i don't know why -- why you even go that far. i don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out states by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper. but you don't seem to make that argument. >> well, i think that -- >> i thought -- i thought the same thing. i thought it's sort of extraordinary to say congress can just pick out, we want to hit these eight states, it

doesn't matter what formula we use, so long as we want to hit these eight states, that's good enough and that makes it constitutional. i doubt that that's true. >> justice scalia, i agree with that. what i was saying here is that congress did -- >> why? why does congress have to fix any problem immediately? >> i would like to hear the answer to the question. >> ok. the answer, justice kennedy, is congress cannot arbitrarily pick out states. congress has to treat each state with equal dignity. it has to examine all the states. the teaching of katzenbach is that when congress has done that kind of examination, it can devise a formula even if it understands that that formula will not apply across all 50 states. >> well, the formula that has -- >> so we accept katzenbach. but in terms of just picking out states and saying, i'm going to look at you and i'm going to look at you, no, that --that does not protect the equal dignity of the states. >> well, mr. rein, the formula that -- that is applied right now, under that formula covered jurisdictions, which have less than 25 percent of the nation's total population, they account

for 56 percent of all successful published section 2 lawsuits. if you do that on a per capita basis, the successful section 2 lawsuits, four times higher in covered jurisdictions than in noncovered jurisdictions. so the formula -- you can, you know, say maybe this district shouldn't be covered, maybe this one should be covered. the formula seems to be working pretty well in terms of going after the actual violations on the ground and who's committing them. >> there are -- there are two fallacies, justice kagan, in -- in that statement. number one is treating the covered jurisdictions as some kind of entity, a lump -- let us treat them. and as judge williams did in his dissent, if you look at them one by one, giving them their equal dignity, you won't reach the same result. >> well, all formulas are underinclusive and all formulas are overinclusive. congress has developed this formula and has continued it in use that actually seems to work pretty well in targeting the

places where there are the most successful section 2 lawsuits, where there are the most violations on the ground that have been adjudicated. >> well, if -- if you look at the analysis state by state done by judge williams, that isn't true. congress has picked out some states that fall at the top and some that do not, and there are other states like illinois or tennessee, and i don't think they deserve preclearance, that clearly have comparable records. and second, dividing by population may make it look it look better, but it is irrational. it is not only irrational when we object to it, but note that in the brief of the harris respondent they say it's irrational because, after all, that makes delaware, a small state, look worse on a list of who are the primary violators. it's not a useful metric. it may make a nice number. but there is no justification for that measure. >> and it happens not to be the method that congress selected. >> correct. >> if they selected that, you could say they used a rationale that works. but just because they picked

some other rationale which happens to produce this result doesn't seem to me very persuasive. >> your time is -- >> thank you. >> about ready to expire for the rebuttal period. but i do have this question -- can you tell me -- it seems to me that the government can very easily bring a section 2 suit and as part of that ask for bail-in under section 3. are those expensive, time- consuming suits? do we have anything in the record that tells us or anything in the bar's experience that you could advise us? >> well -- >> is this an effective remedy? >> it is -- number one, it is effective. there are preliminary injunctions. it depends on the kind of dispute you have. some of them are very complex, and it would be complex if somebody brought -- a state brought a section 5 challenge in a three-judge court saying the attorney general's denied me preclearance. so it's the complexity of the question, not the nature of

section 2. and might i say, if you look at the voting rights act, one thing that really stands out is you are up against states with entrenched discriminatory practices in their law. the remedy congress put in place for those states was section 2. and all across the country, when you talk about equal sovereignty, if there is a problem in ohio the remedy is section 2. so if congress thought that section 2 was an inadequate remedy, it could look to the specifics of section 2 and say, maybe we ought to put timetables in there or modify it. but that's not what happened. they reenacted section 2 just as it stood. so i think that section 2 covers even more broadly, because it deals with results, which the court has said is broader than effects. it's an effective remedy, and i think at this point, given the record, given the history, the right thing to do is go forward under section 2 and remove the stigma of prior restraint and preclearance from the states and the unequal application based on data that has no better

history than 1972. >> mr. rein, i just remind, because it's something we said about equal footing, in katzenbach the court said -- "the doctrine of the equality of the states invoked by south carolina does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms upon which states are admitted to the union and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared." that's what -- has the court changed that interpretation? >> i think that that referred in katzenbach -- i'm familiar with that statement. it referred to the fact that once you use a formula you are not -- you are selecting out. the court felt the formula was rational in theory and practice and therefore it didn't on its face remove the equality of the states. they were all assessed under

the same two criteria. some passed, some did not. but i think that that really doesn't mask the need for equal treatment of the sovereign states. >> i'm going to have a hard time with that because you can't be suggesting that the government sees a problem in one or more states and decides it's going to do something for them and not for others, like emergency relief, and that that somehow violates the equal footing doctrine. you can't treat states the same because their problems are different, their populations are different, their needs are different. everything is different about the states. >> well, i think when congress uses the powers delegated under article i, section 8, it has substantial latitude in how it exercises the power. we are talking about remedial power here. we are talking about overriding powers that are reserved to the states to correct abuse. when congress does that, it has

to treat them equally. it can't say -- >> would you tell me what you think is left of the rational means test in katzenbach and city of rome? do you think the city of boerne now controls both fourteen -- the fourteenth and the fifteenth amendment and how we look at any case that arises under them? >> justice sotomayor, i think that the two tests have a lot in common because in city of boerne, the katzenbach decision was pointed out as a model of asking the questions that congress in proportionality asked us to address. number one, how does this remedy meet findings of constitutional violation? you've got to ask that question. they asked that question in katzenbach. what is the relation between the two? and then i think you have to ask the question -- all right, you know, is this killing a fly with a sledgehammer, a fair question, because when you start

to invade core functions of the states i think that a great deal of caution and care is required. so i think that the rational basis test, the mcculloch test, still applies to delegated powers. but here on the one hand the solicitor defends under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment saying, well, if something doesn't violate the fifteenth it violates the fourteenth. and the court's precedent under the fourteenth amendment is very clear that the city of boerne congruence and proportionality test applies. the court has applied it, but i don't think we -- we wouldn't really need to get that far because we believe that if you examine it under mccullough, just as they did in katzenbach, it would fail as well. if there are no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. our questions have intruded on your rebuttal time, so we'll give you the 5 minutes and a commensurate increase in the general's time. general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset.

everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions under section 5 result in objections. so that progress under section 5 that follows from that has been as a result of the deterrence and the constraint section 5 imposes on states and subjurisdictions and not on the actual enforcement by means of objection. now, when congress faced the question whether to reauthorize section 5 in 2006, it had to decide whether -- whether it could be confident that the attitudes and behaviors in covered jurisdictions had changed enough that that very effective constraint and deterrence could be confidently removed.

and congress had, as judge kagan identified earlier, a very substantial record of continuing need before it when it -- >> can i ask you just a little bit about that record. do you know how many submissions there were for preclearance to the attorney general in 2005? >> i don't know the precise number, but many thousands. that's true. >> 3700. do you know how many objections the attorney general lodged? >> there was one in that year. >> one, so one out of 3700. >> but i think -- but, mr. chief justice, that is why i made the point a minute ago that the key way in which section 5 -- it has to be the case, everyone agrees, that the significant progress that we've made is principally because of section 5 of the voting rights act. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions result in objections. >> that will always be true forever into the future. you could always say, oh, there has been improvement, but the only reason there has been improvement are these extraordinary procedures that deny the states sovereign powers which the constitution

preserves to them. so, since the only reason it's improved is because of these procedures, we must continue those procedures in perpetuity. >> no. >> is that the argument you are making? >> that is not the argument. we do not think that -- >> i thought that was the argument you were just making. >> it is not. congress relied on far more on just the deterrent effect. there was a substantial record based on the number of objections, the types of objections, the findings of -- >> that's a different argument. >> but they are related. they're related. >> just to get the --do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to african american voter turnout? >> i do not. >> massachusetts. do you know what has the best, where african american turnout actually exceeds white turnout? mississippi. >> yes, mr. chief justice. but congress recognized that expressly in the findings when it reauthorized the act in 2006. it said that the first generation problems had been largely dealt with, but there persisted significant -- >> which state has the greatest

disparity in registration between white and african american? >> i do not know that. >> massachusetts. third is mississippi, where again the african american registration rate is higher than the white registration rate. >> but when congress -- the choice congress faced when it -- congress wasn't writing on a blank slate in 2006, mr. chief justice. it faced a choice. and the choice was whether the conditions were such that it could confidently conclude that this deterrence and this constraint was no longer needed, and in view of the record of continuing need and in view of that history, which we acknowledge is not sufficient on its own to justify reenactment, but it's certainly relevant to the judgment congress made, because it justifies congress having made a cautious choice in 2006 to keep the constraint and to keep the deterrence in place. >> well, there's no question that -- >> counsel, in the reauthorization -- >> there's no question -- >> justice alito. >> there is no question that the voting rights act has done enormous good. it's one of the most successful

statutes that congress passed in the twentieth century and one could probably go farther than that. but when congress decided to reauthorize it in 2006, why wasn't it incumbent on congress under the congruence and proportionality standard to make a new determination of coverage? maybe the whole country should be covered. or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics. but why -- why wasn't that required by the congruence and proportionality standards? suppose that congress in 1965 had based the coverage formula on voting statistics from 1919, 46 years earlier. do you think katzenbach would have come out the same way? >> no, but what congress did in 2006 was different than what congress did in 1965. what congress did -- congress

in 2006 was not writing on a clean slate. the judgment had been made what the coverage formula ought to be in 1965, this court upheld it four separate times over the years, and that it seems to me the question before congress under congruence and proportionality or the reasonably adapted test in mccull- -- or whatever the test is, and under the formula in northwest austin is whether the judgment to retain that geographic coverage for a sufficient relation to the problem congress was trying to target, and congress did have before it very significant evidence about disproportionate results in section 2 litigation in covered jurisdictions, and that, we submit, is a substantial basis for congress to have made the judgment that the coverage formula should be kept in place, particularly given that it does have a bail- in mechanism and it does have a bailout mechanism which allows for tailoring over time. >> this reverse engineering that you seem so proud of, it seems to me that that obscures the -- the real purpose of -- of the statute.

and if congress is going to single out separate states by name, it should do it by name. if not, it should use criteria that are relevant to the existing -- and congress just didn't have the time or the energy to do this, it just reenacted it. >> i think the -- the formula was -- was rational and effective in 1965. the court upheld it then, it upheld it three more times after that. >> well, the marshall plan was very good, too, the morale act, the northwest ordinance, but times change. >> and -- but the question is whether times had changed enough and whether the differential between the covered jurisdictions and the rest of the country had changed enough that congress could confidently make the judgment that this was no longer needed. >> general verrilli -- >> what the question -- >> general verrilli, could you respond to the question that justice kennedy asked earlier, which was for why isn't section 2 enough now? the government could bring section 2 claims if it seeks

privately to do. wasisn't -- he asked if it expensive. you heard the question, so. >> yes. with respect to --start with katzenbach. katzenbach made the point that section 2 litigation wasn't an effective substitute for section 5, because what section 5 does is shift the burden of inertia.

. .

investments in economically important structure is important. >> the thing you said we should avoid? >> tax increases on the middle class would be one. things that are the pressing the wages of the middle class. the biggest example would be things that would increase the taxes on the middle class. the stuff we are doing on the housing front can be thought of in that way.

>> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i am concerned about the unemployment rate of our youth. those who are 16 and 19 years old have an unemployment rate of 23.5%. those are 1 to 24 years old have 14%, much higher than the national average. i would ask you both with quick answers, are you concerned about it and what impact does that rate have on the life skills the kids learn at this very important age? >> you are exactly right. it is major and limited to a subset of that group, it is a major problem. it is very important we have a more robust economy. we agree on some things.

i do not know how to create that in a short run. we need to dramatically improve our education system. competition is one thing that can be done to improve it so they wind up at the beginning of their careers with skills that are better matched. we reform the programs we spend a lot of money on so they provide jobs. >> thank you. >> i have published on this subject. the evidence suggests the- dynamic you are describing is damaging. if you come out of school in a period in which it is hard to get a job or you are forced to take a lower-level job than you should based on your background, that sticks with you, partly because of less skill development, partly because you get trapped in a negative way. it is critically important. the most important way to do

that is to get the overall growth rate of the economy up. i think the youth unemployment is one of the weakest and scariest parts of the labor market. >> are they the higher or lower earners in our economy? >> the lower earners. >> it depends on where you are in the skill distribution. from 16 to 19, you see people who could not get jobs and they stay in school longer. >> on average, younger individuals make less money? >> yes. >> if we want to improve the opportunity for our youth in the country to make sure they learn skills in central, can we grow more opportunity for them, create more jobs for them, if we would raise the minimum wage?

>> i think the minimum wage has offsetting effects. it is not very carefully targeted in this regard. teenage children, of rich people who are working at minimum wage jobs, will get more. it is a big concern. i think raising the minimum wage is not the most effective way to deal with this problem. >> will the growth of jobs, will that help grow jobs? >> the most important word just said is the trade-off. the minimum wage has trade-offs. there are some people it would raise their wage and make it harder to get a job. others, it would raise their income. the question is really how much you think that affect the overall income.

>> will it grow jobs? >> it could, it depends. if you believe the total income is going to rise for low and middle income people, that could grow jobs. >> if we increase minimum wage, that means more of our small businesses, the places a lot of these people work in, they will have more opportunities and jobs for the youth? >> my position is the minimum wage does several things, not just one thing. just looking at the one thing is the incorrect way to look at it. >> i am looking at the one thing, job growth. >> there are two factors. what is the direct factor of the wages on people who cannot get a job, the people who are still unemployed, their income goes up, and what is the overall macro impact. that may outweigh the direct impact.

>> to invest in our work force, a good policy would be to increase minimum wage. >> it could or it might not. it depends on what the values are. >> we can continue this discussion. thank you. let me vote in the house. i want to thank dr. austan goolsbee and dr. michael boskin. thank you very much. >> thank you. we had great attendance. i think you for your leadership. >> thank you for joining us today. >> i wanted to talk to you about tax reform.

there seems to be a broad bipartisan consensus that we need some kind of tax reform, especially a tax code simplification. it was in this committee a few months ago we had a gentleman with a ph.d. and we asked if he did his own taxes, and he said he does not we asked why. he said there is no way i could know whether i was correct. i think that is indicative of how many americans feel. a simplified approach to the tax code would be better. we need tax reform. there is not broad bipartisan consensus on what that ought to look like, at least in the sense that some are less inclined than others to say we need a tax reform package that would yield more revenue when static prescored. i think most would agree, as long as we are in the world of saying, to static the score something, if we can assume we are going to be neutral, maybe we would be better to reform the tax code and leave it neutral.

at that point, some would suggest that would stimulate economic growth, leaving us free to see whether and to what extent it did lead to more revenue. would you tend to agree that

would be a good idea? >> it is an excellent idea as long it is primarily at broadening the base. a tax reform that raised tax rates would be a bad tax reform. we have not talked much about corporate tax reform or small business here. so many successful small businesses, 3% of businesses, some of it passes through. broader rates would be good for their incentive. we have the highest corporate rates in the world nominally, about 39%. the effective rate is lower. in the high 20's. it is not far out of line. the moving in this direction could be good for the economy in the short run and the long run. i do believe if it were accurately reform -- >> would that tend to have the impact? we have peaks and valleys within that period in 2011, we were in a valley of 14.5%. at times we have gone to a

little over 20%. could lowering the rates and broadening the base produce a more stable code? >> it would because the steep progression, some say the rates are too high, we have relative to the other countries, we see the most progressive tax system. they collect more, but we have a more progressive tax system. becomes more volatile. in my own state of california, we have a very progressive tax. we get into an awkward situation with our balanced budget requirements, because we wind up having revenue go in, they send that, they project more, the crisis hits, we rely heavily on capital gains and stock options

from silicon valley, the revenue collapses, it is hard to cut spending, so we try to make the tax code more progressive, so we cannot even find the basic benefits for people really hurting in california. >> that is a tough cycle. that is why i ultimately tend to come to the conclusion that where there is not consensus on everything, we have to look at where there is consensus. we need tax reform in the form of simplification. maybe we can start off with something revenue neutral and static the score and see where it takes us. that would leave subsequent congress is free to plus up or minus down where they go from there. in your testimony, you mentioned the need for permanent structural changes, not just the specific dollar cuts while discussing a credible commitment to deficit reduction.

can you speak to us briefly on the importance on credibility in deficit reduction taxing and why markets will not be satisfied in this regard with cuts and tell us why cuts will not cut it anymore? >> it turns out if you look at the history of budget negotiations, i have been involved with several, sometimes because evaporate later.-- the cuts evaporate later. if you cut tax rates, a much bigger battle than small changes in spending at the next appropriations hearing. what people want to see about

what the environment will be for investments that are paying off five, seven, 10 years, infrastructure, a lot of that should be going on in the private sector of big investments. he mentioned energy. we could export natural gas. that will require firms investing $10 billion. to do that, they have to have a notion of what the taxes they will pay on that are. credible means the rules have changed and they are harder to reverse than a single appropriations bill next year. tax rules, indexing formula, retirement savings over time, and so forth. >> these are the kinds of permanent structural reforms you refer to? >> yes.

you say we will cut $10 billion. it may happen once or it may not. the following year, it is up for debate. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have one last question as we grapple with immigration reform in congress. if you could talk a little bit about how you view this from an economic viewpoint for the country. there are many aspects. one of the parts i have been working on, and i have a bill along with senator rubio, it makes it easier for students from other countries when they study at our universities, they are more easily accessed to green cards. we are also doing more with the cap on the visas. there is another bill called, start up 3.0.

if you talk a little bit about how this fits in with the overall economy. we have been focusing on jobs training, a major part of this. a part will go directly to stem education to help train our students in these top areas we have openings right now. we will start with you, dr. boskin. >> i am a strong advocate of sensible immigration reform. three key components would be the green card provision you are talking about, it is silly we have great students that come from abroad and then we send them home. we make it hard for them to stay. they should be working here and helping us grow our economy. the visas, again, we tend to focus on what on the problems of people on the lower income

scale, we should, but we should not ignore the technologies. we need a sensible worker program. there are other aspects about making sure we have a border enforced. it is very emotional, but it is the case we have been refreshed numerous times by waves of immigration in this country. we are diverse. it seems to me if we are smart and we have an immigration policy that strengthens the opportunity for higher skilled people to stay here and improve the opportunities so people with lower skills, it could do so again. also, i would say the problems of social security and medicare and the slowing growth of the labor force, which the chairman mentioned about potential gdp, out there unless our birth rates change, we will probably need to have more immigration.

>> i appreciate those comments. one of my favorite statistics, 30% of the nobel laureates were born in other countries. >> thank you for your support and leadership in this issue. we should keep talking about it now. the president has endorsed that. i champion several of the ideas you mentioned. start up visas. you do not have to look very far, either in the research literature or just talking to business people, to recognize that immigrants have made not just an important contribution to the legacy of who we are as a nation, but to the economy.

my friend said 50% of the companies funded were born out of the united states. they are big job creators. by doing some of these things, we could have a positive impact. on visas, they do have the complications that you are tied to one employer. >> we have made some changes. >> making changes on that is a good idea. >> very good. i wanted to thank both of you for your knowledge and wisdom and everything you shared with us. secondly, the stability you said here. i had several members say, this is so unique. i hope we see more of that going for. we have to come together to solve these challenges. the american people are demanding it.

i thank you for setting a good beginning for this committee. you have seen it all, probably in many outfits and hair styles over the many years. we are very excited. we will do a number of hearings on these topics and move toward. thank you very much for being here. this hearing is adjourned. >> you're welcome. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

i is on the next "washington journal" we will talk to nancy cook. then, you karen jacobs on the merger of american airlines and u.s. airways. >> at one point he had to write a small paragraph that said, people are asking what happened -- this is after his wife joins him in seattle area when he says week, it is elayne and john. not charlie and john.

where is c? he disappeared. people asked what happened to ?harlie what they did is, the editors went in and expunged in line from the west coast. almost 30 days of her presents with john on the coast. they were basically on a vacation. >> all fire and journalist bill -- author and journalist bill steigerwald on "q&a." >> next, chuck hagel at a pentagon briefing to discuss the impact of the automatic

spending cuts on defense programs areas like reduction of training and readiness operations and furloughs for civilian employees. he was joined i get it it defense secretary ashton carter. -- by deputy defense secretary ashton carter. >> good afternoon. deputy secretary carter and i wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk a little bit about sequestration and what was announced today. many of you saw the president a few hours ago. i will make a statement. then the deputy secretary and i

will take questions. thank you for coming. i just spent an hour with the joint chief. to talk about this issue. and to talk about consequences and how we will continue to adjust to the realities that face our country. and faced this institution. in particular, i would like to address the uncertainty that sequestration is causing and will continue to cause this department. at the outset of my remarks, let me make it clear that this

uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively fulfill all of our missions. leadership of the pentagon, all of us, have two serious concerns. first, the abrupt and arbitrary cuts made by sequester. second, the lack of budget management flexibility that we now face in the continuing resolution. for the past two months, we have begun to see the effects and consequences of that uncertainty. the sequester continues and we will be forced to assume more risk. things that will progressively have far-reaching effects. let me highlight a couple of options we are taking as a result of these budget constraints.

the navy will gradually standdown at least four wings. the the first thing will stand down in april. effective immediately, air force flying hours will be cut back. this will have a major impact on training and readiness. the army will curtail training for all units except those flying to afghanistan. adversely impacting nearly 80% of army operational units. later this month, we intend to issue preliminary notifications to thousands of civilian employees who will be for load. this comes on top of those the department began in january, to slow spending in view of this uncertainty. that included deep laying -- delaying naval assets. and laying off temporary employees.

sharply cutting back the maintenance and beginning refused to delay contract. if sequester continues and is extended in its current form, other damaging effects or become apparent. our number one concern is our people. military and civilian. men and women of this to carmen who work very hard every day to ensure america's security. i know this budget cuts will cause pain. particularly among our civilian workforce and their families. i am also concerned, as we all are, about the impact on readiness that these cuts will have across our force. for these reasons, the department and i will continue to work with the administration

and congress to help resolve uncertainty. we need a balanced deficit reduction plan that leads to an end to sequestration. we need congress to pass a corporations bill for dod and all federal agencies. we will need to make hard choices. i will do everything within my power to see that america upholds its commitment to our allies and our partners. most importantly to our service members and their families. america has the best fighting force in the world. capable of responding to any challenge. this unnecessary budget crisis makes that job much harder. but we will continue to ensure america's security. thank you. i will take a couple of questions and then asked for his response. >> having laid out a number of

consequences there, not systematic things have been used -- dramatic words have been used. are you of the view that this is not a situation that which the u.s. will be reduced to a second-rate military power yet? >> america has the best fighting force and is capable, the most powerful fighting force in the world. management of this institution, starting with the joint chiefs will not allow this to pass. we will manage these issues. we anticipated these kinds of

realities and we will do what we need to do to ensure the capabilities of our forces. i think it is clear what the administration's policy is on syria. secretary of state hillary has recently commented -- secretary of state kerry has recently commented, following his trip. >> sequesters and has been described as a slope, not a cliff. how long can sequestration go on before there is real damage to the defense of the united states? >> we are adjusting for the realities, not just of what happened today, as i noted in my