to do is gather the data in every country, good stories and bad stories. my list of graduates, a cross reference that with a special designation. it was to see if there was any evidence that these graduates were associated with human rights abuses or had any activities, any behaviors' that would be deemed to illegal or immoral according to u.s. policy. my research suggests that what

we're doing is not sufficient. inneed the junior officers order to have true organizational reform. should we be looking across the board and trucking officers across the board to see if they take positions as instructors or training and doctrine commanders and look for knowledge transfer, you know, do they published? >> thanks, i would like to see that report, by the way. any comment on abreaction to myanmar? batch reaction to myanmar? >> let me just say that the fact that we did not find anything does not mean anything. burma is a black box. and the office of the secretary of defense for the first to agree. the intelligence file on the country and its leadership is

then. it is bars not because there's not enough information out there -- it is sparse not -- not there is an off enough information out there. it is because it is literally just not there. commanders mean that joins us who happen to be here in 1986 did not lead a unit and slaughter a bunch of people. it just means that nobody wrote it down. that is the problem you see again and again. less so in indonesia and thailand and pakistan, but definitely more so in burma and cambodia and other places where there is not a lot of hard, written down evidence what the history is. and then you add on top of that transliteration problems with the data that does exist and you of a recipe for a lot of misplaced assumptions. you just do not know what you are dealing with. your vote -- you have what donald rumsfeld would call a lot

of unknowns and nuns. unknowns.n a that ms.using test for who we are getting to many havethink that said that we create tremendous problems with ourselves with pakistan. not only did we shut down everything and not authorized the students in our military school, and there was a huge void in the relationship for that. officers whoor grew up during that void, they are extremely distrustful of us.

>> pakistan is unique in a number of ways. while i was in office, we knocked ourselves out to be of floods.akistan in the we sent forces there right away to help them recover from the floods. we pushed helicopters to them, all of these types of things. our senior military representative in pakistan at the time said, don't in this is going to change public opinion polls a bit. we went into that relief effort with about 15% public opinion poll rating and we came out with about 11% public opinion rating. we have had, in my opinion, a

relationship with pakistan over the decades that has been a bit schizophrenic. they go from the gallant allied to pariah and then we bring them back instantly to be gallant allied again. that we areion , ingeable, that we use them do not believe it, but from their perspective it is well ingrained and thoroughly believed. that is one case. drawing a straight line or linear projection from the pakistan case to other countries may provide some elimination, but i would be very careful about applying everything that we think we observed or the lessons we think we learned out of pakistan directly to other countries.

>> you want to comment? >> the question is causality. i think it is always very difficult to figure out what is going on causally. you do not train them. they go off commit abuses, hate and you do train them and that does not happen maybe. it is very difficult to tell. we have lavished a lot of assistance on malaysia's, but a lot of malaysian politicians say horrible things about the u.s. lavish military assistance on cambodia and is still right abusing. the causality, i do not think we haveghts would say all of the information for the causal information, but we certainly have enough to put holes in the causseaux argument that is being made -- the causality argument that is being made. i do not think we know what affects what outcome.

i think it would be good if there was no acknowledgement -- and i think there is. i was going to say that the assistant secretary and the deputy assistant secretary, the singh are- vikrim aware of this, that the cause is not renowned. i think that is a step in the right direction. >> i think at some point, we have to engage the question of whether to engage or not engage. right here in the center. >> i am from chevron. if you can pull into this. for many countries and there is

a sense that this is extremely important and things that we're concerned with, and our own efforts to work which human rights and with government , one of thehers biggest challenges is not always having the values from the top and necessarily being able to work with, whether it is the u.s. military or in the case of southeast asia, the australian military. >> thank you for the question the private sector is also stuck on that interface of

interpretations of contract law and all those things that aren't covered by the corrupt foreign practices act, which makes you -- that are covered by the corrupt foreign practices act, which makes you a very powerful component of the whole american values message. corporate involvement, private- sector involvement is exceedingly important in all of this. it is just the government working with something, then it is not that compelling. chevron's efforts from other major companies, and even minor companies, the private sector involvement means things that directly in -- affect the lifestyles and their earning power of atterbury there. yes, it is exceedingly -- of everybody there. yes, it is exceedingly important for the protector to continue

u.s.rward or promote the human-rights brand, which is i think one of the strongest components we have. the differences between john and i are about the implementation of that message, not the value of it. beening of that, we have banging on cambodia a bit, but america has got a moral obligation in this, too. we have a moral obligation to vietnam. we were there for quite a long time. the spillover of that war into cambodia and including the u.s. incursion into cambodia had a lot to do with setting the conditions for the rise of the ther rouge and the rest of nominee of this whole thing. -- the rest of this whole thing.

i was set on the efforts of the women thech young facts of life about motherhood. the khmer rouge depredations had broken the chain from grandmother to mother, etc., that did hold a traditional society. at the time that i visited, it was really broken. and the efforts of the international community, the efforts of the private sector as well as government efforts to start from a six and worked cambodia -- is to start from basics and work cambodia back to within the cultural norms, not going in there and creating an american-style stock exchange and things that we have done before. mannerg this in a supported by the international institutions and one that was appropriate in the context of where we were trying to do it and that works.

i am understand human rights objections to the cambodian military, but again, we are back to differences of view on implementation. how do we fix this? how do we get to the right and now we want? wouldst thing on that, i think that we should have learned on 9/11 that chaos in any part of the world can create a threat in many other parts of the world. and we cannot fix governments in every place at the same time. but we can do what we are able to do on the political side, the diplomatic side, the private sector side, the business side to rebuild places that are tending toward chaos, so we do not end up realizing a bigger problem somewhere down the line. >> john? >> on the private sector staff,

first -- the private sector stuff, that two biggest problems burma, cambodia, and thailand. even the said units or whole enchilada that are involved in their creation. they are in business. a lot of local commanders in thebodia are essentially -- prime minister is corporate sponsorship for military units. when there is land concession and the people have to be moved and the military has to be called in to do that, local military commanders are called in. but they're not called in as government offices -- officers. they're called in for pay. that is one of the big problems with burma. and we said to derek mitchell in rangoon and two others a million times, you've got to push not

just on military abuses, but on transparency. and on the issue of them just being involved in private business needs to be pushed, you know, the idea that it is not appropriate for the military to be in business needs to be pushed. and we are all for dialog. is not about cutting them off, but about telling them what is up and what they need to do to change. about this moral issue in cambodia, human rights watch obviously agrees there is a moral obligation to cambodia. the past peace agreements in 1991, the u.s. is party to those agreements. and those agreements obligate all the signatories to promote human rights and democracy in cambodia. but our position is, when you have someone who has been in power for 27 years -- or 10,000 days or more, who is involved

with the khmer rouge and the homicide call -- homicidal act and that were carried out and you have all of these millions of cambodians living in this one-party state without democracy, you have an obligation to try to fix that. and it is precisely by using the things like the pressure of conditionality and the appropriations act and the pentagon talking about what .eeds to happen where the ambassador is saying, it has been 21 years since the past peace agreement. if you guys do not shape up, one day, will not be there for you. talking tough is a necessity. that is consistent with having a moral obligation that you referred to. >> just one question on that. some people see a new geostrategic balance and if you

give a country those choices, you basically pushed them completely into the hands of a very welcoming china. how do you feel about that issue? >> inouye context, i would say that burma was pushed into the arms of china. they did not really liked it. and that is probably one of the things that led them to realize they should open up to the united states and to everybody else. if we are being so friendly with hang seng and he is still carrying china's water like he did at the summit last year, then why don't you push him all the way into china's orbit and see how they like it? because i do not think they will. i think it might make him more amenable to doing business with the u.s., but he is a special case. i think the solution to hong cent is only tough talk. there is no diplomacy to be had there. each contestant

time. [laughter] there will be a prize. by reverting to my natural state as a talk-show host. >> what is the prize? you aill give each of chance to make a final discussion. do you want to start? >> the questions rolled very well. i'm glad that you limited as to 10 minutes apiece because it is always more interesting to hear comments and respond that it is .o raise around landscaped -- brace around the landscape. in the days when we are becoming more inward looking and questioning what we're doing overseas, these are the right things to talk about. we need to make sure that we preserve our ability to shape

the environment, to reassure allies and friends, to promote those values that the united states likes to aspire to, and to influence friends and allies in those directions. there is no shortage of people out there, both wholesale and retail. and to the extent that we can it to affect some of this, is the right thing to do. the question was posed about measures of effectiveness on is an easyhat concept to grasp but a very difficult one to get under control. that is the way we need to go, to make sure that in our differing views of what we need to do with assistance to other countries, that we are promoting in the end what we want to

promote and making sure, as john just said, that we are delivering the right message with people who espoused views that we do not support. >> john? >> i will just close by saying that the debate is not about should exist. it does exist. the debate is about what the consequences are, krabak, and whether there are decisions the government can make -- good or bad, and whether there are decisions the government to to affect those decisions. you can just keep running everything the way it is. nobody actually thinks that needs to be done. number two, which is what i think the white house announced last friday, is to try to improve. keep doing imet and the other

programs and try to improve them in the process, better courses, better substance to the courses, picking better people to attend as opposed to cronies and unmitigated gall people. -- andmitigate mitigatable people. and admit that in some countries, everything is wrong and some programs are a total disaster and should be scrapped. i'm not suggesting that everything is wrong with imet worldwide, but there's certain contexts and places in which everything is wrong and we need cut, orlling to cut the assistance

as appropriate. >> thank you both very much. i think this discussion goes a long way toward helping us think about in -- an important institution and engagement and how we use these things. thank you very much. i hope we can carry this discussion on further. thank you all for joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> former british prime minister margaret thatcher died today in london at the age of 87. the queen of england has authorized a ceremony for the former leader. and tonight, c-span the back at the career of margaret thatcher. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we will show>> thank you both v. i think this discussion you hert to the u.s. in 1988, where she

held meetings with ronald -- president ronald reagan. prior ministers questions from the british house of commons. >> they had a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. in the halls of congress. she was always very careful to stay, my husband believes this, and my husband advocates that, but she herself was doing the pitch. one of her husband's opponents said he hoped it james were ever elected president she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said, if james and i are ever elected, i will need to keep house, nor make butter. house,ill not keep

nor make butter. >> tonight, we'll take your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. first ladies, live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span3 and also at c-span.org. >> president obama is expected to speak in connecticut about gun legislation in the lives of over 20 minutes. as the senate plans to the big gun control measures this week, connecticut's governor the sign law law last week concerning the shootings. what congressbout is doing this week from this. "washington journal." host: chris cillizza is our guest from "the washington post."

thanks for being here this morning. guest: i apologize for being slightly late. host: we're glad to have have you here. this is from this morning -- the senate is getting a house makeover. is the senate becoming more like the house? and what does that mean? guest: almost half of the senate, 48 members of the senate, 26 democrats, 22 republicans, are former house members. not terribly surprising. and make sense, but is going high number. second, the most important statistic as you have a huge number of people who have spent basically one term or less in the senate. so this is the wave of the senate, and that is not have we do things. of do not have the sort institutional wisdom from kennedy and others. you have a lot of people who have literally defined the institution for the last five or six decades gone, and in

their place there are a lot of people who are brand-new. it it is a totally different senate than even five years ago definitely than 10 years ago. host: what does it mean for americans who are watching? guest: what you are watching happen is probably a lot less than what you were watching have been in the past. it has become much more partisan chris wilson at yahoo! did an amazing thing. just type in "the senate as social networking" into the internet. he did this great thing that showed the clumping of members. he found 25 democrats had voted the same way on every single vote, every single vote, this year. they are clumped in these two clumps. you have lisa murkowski from alaska and suzanne collins from maine in between. of everybody else sort polarizing. so the senate is acting more

like the house. the house traditionally his majority rules. if you are in the minority, you do not have good options. that is sort of where we are in the senate today. now there is opportunity. you have the gun bill. immigration. the debt ceiling. and the budget more broadly. so there is real opportunity for them, them being the senate, to make change, to do things differently. but if you look at the first three months, up until they return this week, it has been the second house, for lack of a better work. host: chris cillizza from "the washington post." here are the numbers to call. republican -- you can also find chris on msnbc.

here is a recent piece in the theington post looking at president's budget. this is obama's budget would cut entitlements in exchange for tax increases. it is getting blowback from members of his own hardy. chris van hollen says i have tactical interns and substantive concerns. the president's budget. this is obama's budget wouldbre. is the president positioning himself in a way that is strategic? is there a story behind the story here? guest: in politics, you should never read almost anything at face value. i would say this, you have to remember that the president's sort of broad agenda and goals are different than house and senate democrat's broad agenda and goals. he never has to worry about getting reelected again. the house and the senate, with the exception of folks who are retiring, do not have that luxury. they will have to get reelected again. it is fascinating that he was on the record, quoted with

skepticism there, because chris van hollen is a guy who is the ranking member on the budget committed -- committee, someone who clearly has interest in being speaker of the house sunday, and someone who is quite close to the obama administration. his issue is this, democrats broadly tend to believe that barack obama usually negotiates with himself. he sort of has this public back and forth and then proposes something that is sort of 65% to 70% of what he likes as opposed to something that is 100% of what he likes, and lets republicans moves. then you wind up getting 65% of what you like. their argument is that if you start at 65%, the chances of getting 35% is much higher. cutdown entitlement, entitlement reforms, in hopes of luring republicans into agreeing to tax increases.

their argument would be, look, you just got reelected to a second term. we controlled the senate. republican approval ratings are kind of and the journalist/trial lawyer area. why are we negotiating with ourselves? let's say we want tax increases and we are not going to do increases entitlement -- in entitlements. why would we propose something that is kind of middle of the road, maybe a little bit in president obama's favor, but much more of a compromised document then either paul ryan's plan or patty murray's plan? that is the criticism. host: there is a writing about whether or not the president expects republicans to buy his offer, an idea of compromise to me giving a little on entitlements for some on taxes. what do you think the reaction of republicans will be? guest: i think republicans have

been clear, john boehner has been clear, that it has to be a dollar for revenue for a dollar on spending. look, the senate is an interesting debate, but remember, republicans controlled the house. ultimately, this is a conversation going on to join the white house anheuser -- between the white house -- a conversation that is going on between the white house and house republicans. publicans. the question for john boehner is -- we saw this with the fiscal cliff. we saw it during the fiscal cliff debate. john but -- john boehner gave his plan be. we will raise taxes on those who make $1 million or more. he wanted to go to the president and say, look, we passed something, you need to come to the table. he cannot get enough votes to bring it to the floor. john boehner, as speaker, particularly back then, is someone who may not be able to direct the caucus.

that is a big issue. we do not know what republicans want. just because john boehner says maybe we will make a deal and maybe we will not, we really are not sure what direction -- can he lead his conference? that is the fundamental question. host: we have a call on the republicans line from new york. caller: hello. my comment was -- i guess we changed what we are commenting about, but i just wanted to say that i e-mailed by senator, and under her e-mail, you can only e-mail her under gun violence. i told her the guns i have are not causing violence. they are mostly used for protection. i do not like the way -- my senator is kristin jewel brand -- chris -- kristin giller brent -- i do not like how they do not give your categories on what you can say to them.

host: how often do you reach out to your representative or senators? guest: only on the gun issue. i have not bothered sending them anything else. i would like to say that in new york state we have the safe act, and if you look at a map in new york state that shows letters asking for the safe act to be repealed, it is virtually every county in upstate new york. notonly place that has asked i guess is new york city. now the villages and towns are actually sending letters also. they are not asking for it to be amended. they are asking for it to be repealed. guest: first of all, as to how

the senator's website works, i can barely make my own website work. but he brings up something that often gets lost in the gun debate that should not, which is the passion. writing your senator is a level of intensity and passion. there are a million things people can do on a given day, and most people do not go on the website to do that or send a letter. the passion are people who want, as he does, who believe that their gun rights should be preserved is significant. since newtown, we have seen the passion on the side of folks that want to expand the ground checks, would like to -- the passion has risen. andle look at the polling, they say 85% of people want to expend the background checks. why is this an issue in congress? a couple things.

one, culturally and geographically, a lot of the members, people like arkansas, louisiana, and montana members come from conservative states were gun rights are important. and in politics, passion matters so much. it is so critically important. a lot of people see the nra and very passionate people who want to preserve their gun rights on one side. seehe other side, they people who would like gun rights to be restricted. they would like expanded background checks. they would like the assault weapons ban. but passionate verses alike is uneven when it comes to politics. passion matters so much. you look at the numbers we get every day and say, why is this happening and why is that happening? look at the intensity numbers. host: you mentioned the house and how it is a republican majority.

we are seeing gun legislation floated in the senate now, as well as a potential deal that we're hearing a a little bit about in your paper. senator joe manchin, senator pat toomey -- how much power do two men like this really have? guest: this is fascinating. i wrote about this this morning. thiste about pat toomey morning. joe manchin makes sense. this is someone from west virginia. someone who, in ads when he was running for the senate, he shoots with a weapon -- he shoots a piece of legislation that president obama has proposed. this is a democrat, just as a reminder. this is someone who comes from a cold drink -- culturally conservative states who has to distance himself from the

president. pat toomey is an interesting one. 2012, widely accepted as the gold standard -- pat toomey is the fourth most conservative senator. club the president of the for growth, a fiscally conservative and active group in washington. yousome and typically that would think of as a dealmaker, as interest dealmaker. but hat to me is smart politically. thedo not get elected to senate by accident. he is up for reelection in 2016. 2016 is a presidential election year. george h w bush, 1988 -- pat toomey looks at the electric and he says, to win, i have to do well in the philadelphia suburbs area. suburban voters are in favor of more gun control.

if he wants to be involved in a deal, he would like to be involved in it. people have to remember that politics does not exist without policy, and policy definitely does not exist without politics. that is what is going on here. toomeys find to me -- decision to get involved at the last minute as fascinating. if you can't broke -- broker a -- if he can broker a deal, you will see ads in 2016 about that. host: chris cillizza see from "the washington post." we have a call from our democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i really do not understand in listening to your guest explain how the budget is determined tom a why are people -- is determined. why are people asking the president to play games with the budget that he wants?

why does he have to go 100% and then come back to 60%, 70%, asking the republicans to play a game? the president said he was willing to compromise. the republicans are adults. they were elected leaders. why does he have to play this game with them. why does he not just tried to lead, like most people would expect him to? everythingaid no on that this president has offered. host: ok, let's get a response. guest: she points to something that i think a lot of people, and i put my parents were not political in this category -- why do you have to propose something that ultimately you do not think is going to pass just to try -- i understand that. there is a horsetrading element of politics. if you think it is new to these republicans are this president

-- or to this president of the united states, go and watch the movie "lincoln" by steven spielberg. the horse trading to get anything done always existed in washington. she says republicans have proposed something and they always say no. senate democrats, patty murray, proposed a budget that included $1 trillion in new revenue. -- and regard, they have it had no entitlement cuts. both parties, in this regard, they have proposed things that are unlikely to pass. president obama, i think he is with you, honestly. his approach is, look, i want to be the honest broker in the spirit remember what i said earlier, and this is so important, house and senate democrats want to get as much as they can are the base of the party and what is good for them and reelection in 2014, which is not that far away. president obama wants to have a legacy as someone who saw this country's long-term debt and spending issues. his lunch -- his budget is likely to be the one that moves,

frankly, but it will be more of a compromise because he wants a deal. houseot know of republicans and senate democrats actually want a deal, particularly if it looks like the other guy's package. president obama wants a deal because if he can say to people 20 gears -- years down the road, look, i figured out a way to solve it. was it perfect? no, but i brought it in. that is what he wants. that is why his budget document is that centerish piece. in the credits, chris van hollen -- democrats, of chris van hollon among them, would prefer 90% so that the horse trading which they believe is inevitable, so that when that horse trading happens, does not water it down to something they would rather almost not have pass. host: betty joins us on our independent line, south carolina. caller: good morning. i am more democrat than independent, but i am

independent, two. i would like to say one thing. i live down here in charleston, south carolina, beautiful part of the city. i am in low income senior housing. to get to the point, i only moved here for the climate. i am originally from sandy hook, connecticut. i moved here from dan berry, but i grew up in sandy hook. my daughter was working in one school that day. my grandson was in the high school, and god blessed me with my family being safe, but i have cried and cried on and off, even today, and pray for those parents. and for these republicans -- i mean, i am very, very proud of my state. my home state. areolicies and politics from connecticut. we have got the worst policies and politicians down here. host: what would you do? you talked about your emotional connection with what happened in newtown. what would you like to see

changed? caller: i would like to see them follow my state of connecticut. i am very proud of the state of connecticut and what they did. int: ok, we see this story "usa today" about 28,000 guns handed over since newtown. guest: i was born and raised in connecticut. my parents live in connecticut. that he, i love that you are from connecticut and feel that way at heart. south carolina, frankly, is beautiful. what happened in connecticut and what you have seen in states, and this is important, holler auto and connecticut -- colorado and connecticut, maryland as well, have passed more stringent gun laws since newtown. hugelyand columbine, high-profile, awful instances,

and connecticut obviously has newtown. the question is, in states not affected directly, in states where someone cannot say my grandson was in the school, my daughter teaches there, can the momentum be kept up up? that is the issue. look, we are a couple months away from newtown at this point. the assault weapons ban, which many gun rights advocates wanted included in that senate bill, is not in it. the ban on high-capacity clips, which many gun control advocates wanted in it, is not in it. everything rides on expanding background checks. that is the big killer. killer -- pillar. yes, more school funding for safety measures is in it. but the big measure is expanding background checks. the question is, does it happen? i think had to me and joe manchin talking is encouraging -- pat toomey and joe manchin talking is encouraging. i think many members of congress want this.

but this is a state-by-state, geographic, cultural issue. my in-laws live in texas. their father gave them their first gun when they were children. it is not seen in the way, and i am from connecticut, my parents, i have never owned a gun. my parents do not own a gun. but it is part of the cultural fabric. if you are in texas, you do not understand how people in connecticut thing. if you're in connecticut, you do not understand how people in texas thing. good people disagree on this, and that is why we see congress struggle so much with it. host: valentine in silver spring, maryland, our democrats line. welcome. >> the "washington journal" airs every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we go now to hartford, conn., where president obama will speak

about gun legislation. [cheers and applause] >> hello, conn. [cheers and applause] thank you so much, everybody. nicolebegin by thanking and ian for your brave words. [applause] i want to thank them and all the

new town families who come here your firstuding selectman, pat audra. nobody could be -- [applause] more eloquente than nicole and the other families on this issue. we are so grateful for their courage. and their willingness to share their stories again and again, understanding that nothing is going to be more important in making sure the congress moves forward this week that hearing from them. i want to thank all of the educators from sandy hook elementary who come here as well. applause]

the survivors, i love you back. i do. [cheers] the survivors still mourn and grieve, but are still going to work every day to love and raise those prestige tilghman -- precious children in their care. i want to thank governor malloy. [cheers and applause] in mind i'm very proud of him. i want to thank the university of hartford. [cheers] and i want to thank the people of connecticut for everything you've done to honor the memories of the victims. you are part of their family as well. one of your recent alumni,

was a behavioral therapist at sandy hook. two of your alumni of the performing arts school, jummy green and martez green lost -- lost their ana. every family in the state was shaken by tragedy that morning. every family in this country was shaken. we had our kids more tightly and ask what we could do as a to prevent a tragedy from happening like that again. and we decided as a society we have to change. we must change. [cheers and applause]

i noticed that nikole and others refer to that day as 12/14. for these families tried was a day that changed everything. i know many of you in newtown wondered if the rest of us would love up to the promise we made in those dark days. or ifhad changed, too, once the television truck left, once the ticket fares were gathered up together -- the teddy bears were gathered up together that the country would somehow move onto other things. aer the weekend, i heard woman who lost her son that day say that the four months since the tragedy might feel like a brief moment for some, but for heard feels like years since she had seen her son. and she is determined not to let

that fairway. we're not going anywhere, she said. we are here and we're going to be here. and i know that she speaks for everybody in newtown and who was impacted. and newtown, we want you to know that we are here with you. we will not walk away from the promises we have made. we are determined to do what must be done [applause] ] -- what must be done. [applause] in fact, i'm here to ask you to help me to show the way. we cannot forget it. [applause] we cannot forget. and your families are still grieving in ways most of us cannot comprehend. but so many of you have used

that grief to make a difference, not just to honor your own children, but to protect the lives of all of our children. so many of you have mobilized and organized and in addition to your elected officials with love and logic, as nikole put it, as citizens determined to write something done wrong. and last week here in connecticut, you're elected leaders responded. it was led by many of the legislators here today and they passed new laws to protect our children from gun violence, and gov. malloy sign that legislation into law. [applause] i want to be clear, you, the families of newtown, people

across connecticut, you helped to make that happen. your voices, your determination made that happen. obviously, the elected leaders did an extraordinary job moving this forward, but it could not have happened if they were not hearing from people in their respective districts. people all across the state. that is the power of your voice. is by the way, connecticut not alone. months, n.y.,w colorado, maryland have all passed safety reforms as well. [applause] these are all states that share an awful familiarity with gun violence, whether it is the horror of mass killings or street crime that is too common in neighborhoods. all of these states also share a

strong tradition of hunting and sport shooting and gun ownership. it has been a factor in the people's lives for generations. and every single one of those states, including connecticut, decided that we can protect more of our citizens from gun violence while still protecting our rights. [applause] we can pass common-sense laws that protect our kids and protect our rights. connecticut has shown the way. congress toime for do the same thing. now is the time for congress to do the same this week. [applause] it is the time for congress to do the same. [applause]

back in january just a few months after the tragedy in your town, i announced a series of executive actions to reduce gun violence and keep our kids safe. and i put forward common-sense proposals much like those that passed here in connecticut for congress to consider. and you will remember my state of the union address. i urged congress to give those proposals of vote. -- a vote. and that moment is now. as soon as this week, congress will begin debating these common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence. your senators, dick al-muthaba and chris murphy -- dick murphy, arend chris

here. and your representatives are here. they are all pushing to pass this legislation. [applause] but much of congress is only going to act if a year from you, the american people. here is what we have to do. [in distinct yelling] >> i appreciate that. [laughter] here is what we have to do. it is time to tell congress that we have to require a background check for people who want to own a gun so that people who are a danger to themselves or others cannot get their hands on a gun.

let's make that happen. [applause] we have to tell congress it is time to crack down on gun traffic, so that folks will think twice before buying again as part of a scheme for someone who cannot pass a background check. let's get that done. [applause] that isto tell congress time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that make it easier for a gunman to fire 54 bullets into a crowd in less than a minute. let's put that to a vote. [applause]

we have to tell congress it is time to strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems to get beforeatment they need it is too late. let's do that for our kids. [applause] i know that some of these proposals inspire more debate than others. beforeh of them has the it is too support of the majority of the american people. all of them are common sense. all of them deserved a vote. [applause] all of them deserve a vote. consider background checks. over the past 20 years, background checks have kept more

than 2 million dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun. a group of police officers in colorado told me last week that thanks to background checks, they have been able to stop convicted murderers, folks under restraining orders for committing violent domestic a gallon. buying in some cases, they have actually arrested the person as they were coming to purchase the gun. we know that background checks can work. but the problem is, loopholes in the current law let so many people avoid background checks altogether. that is not safe. it does not make sense. if you are a law-abiding citizen and you go through a background check to buy a gun, wouldn't you expect other people to play by the same rules? are a law-abiding gun

sellers, wouldn't you want to know you are not selling your gone to someone who is likely to commit a crime? [applause] shouldn't we make it harder, not easier, for somebody who is convicted of domestic abuse to get his hands on a gun? [applause] it turns out 90% of americans think so. 90% of americans support universal background checks. think about that. how often do 90% of americans agree on anything? [laughter] on this.90% agree republicans, democrats, folks who own guns, folks who do not. 80% of republicans, more than 80% of gun owners, more than 70%

of the nra households. it is common sense. and yet, there's only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody you would think that with those numbers, congress would rush to make this happen. that is what you would think. [applause] if our democracy is working the way it is supposed to, and 90% of the american people agree on something in the wake of a tragedy, you would think this would not be a heavy lift. and yet some folks back in washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. think about that. are not just a saying that they will vote no on ideas that

almost all of americans support , they are saying they will do everything they can to even on this.ny votes they are saying that your opinion does not matter and that is not right. that is not right. we need a vote. vote!want a !"]anting, "we want a vote >> we need a vote. now, i have also heard some in the washington press suggest that what happens to gun violence legislation in congress ais week will either be

political victory or defeat for me. this is not about me. this is not about politics. this is about doing the right thing for all of the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. it is about to them and going forward so we can prevent this from happening again. that is what this is about. aboutnot about -- it is the law enforcement putting their lives at risk. it is what this is about. it is not about politics. [applause] this is not about politics. [applause] this is about to these families and families all across the country. , let'ss who are saying

make it a little harder for our kids to get guns. these proposals deserve a vote, families in aurora and a former memory -- a former member of congress, gabby giffords, virtually everyone stood up and applauded and now they are going to start denying your families a cameras are off? when the lobbyists are off doing what they do? you deserve better than that. you deserve a vote. , look. we knew from the beginning of this debate that change would not be easy. we knew that there would be powerful interests that are very good at confusing the subject. that are good at amplifying conflicts and streams.

that are good at drowning out a debate. good debt getting up national beers -- good at getting up national beers -- fears. it is up to us. the people. saypeople to stand up and those who can't or won't. to stand up for the change that we need. [applause] is what tove that the american are looking for. what i first ran for this office, i said that i did not believe the country was as divided as our politics would suggest and i still believe that. i know sometimes when you watch cable news or talk radio or you browse the internet, you think, man, everybody just take each other. everybody is at each other's throats.

but that is not how most americans think about these issues. there are good people on both sides of every issue. so, if we are going to move forward, we cannot just talk past one another. we have to listen to one another. if that is what governor malloy and all of these legislative leaders did. that is why they were able to pass all of this bipartisan legislation. [applause] i have got stacks of letters from gun owners who want me to know that they care passionately about their right to bear arms. do not want them infringed upon. i have learned from them. a lot of those letters have also said that they are not just gun owners, they are also parents or police officers or veterans. they agree that we cannot stand by and keep letting these tragedies happen. that with our rights come some sponsor abilities and obligations to our communities and ourselves, and most of all

to our children. we cannot just think about us. we have to think about we, the people. you know, i was in colorado. i told a story about michelle. she came back from a trip from .ural ireland -- rural iowa we were out there campaigning. she said, you know, coming back, i can understand why somebody would want a gun from -- a gun for protection. if someone drove up and you were not home and the sheriff was miles away, i might want that security. what itd understand might be like in terms of somebody wanting that kind of security. on the other hand, i also talked to a hunter that said, all of my experiences with guns have been positive but i also realize that for others, all of their experience with guns have been negative. and when he said that, i thought about the mom i met from suburban chicago whose son was

killed in a random shooting. , i hated mom told me when people tell me that my son was in in the wrong place at the wrong time. he was on his way to school. he was exactly where he was supposed to be. he was in the right place at the right time and he still got shot. [applause] the kids that sandy hook were where they'd were supposed to be. so were the movie, -- so were the movie-goers in aurora. so was gabby giffords. she was at a supermarket listening to the concerns of her constituents. [applause] they were exactly where they were supposed to be. they were also exercising their ,ights to assemble peacefully to worship freely and they were exercising the rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

so, surely we can reconcile those two things. it surely -- surely america does not have to be divided between rural and urban and emma kraut and republican when it comes to something like this and democrats and republican when it comes to something like this. we have to act. now is the time to get engaged. now is the time to get involved. now is the time to push back on fear and frustration and misinformation. now is the time for everybody to make their voices heard in .very state house i am asking everyone listening today, find out where your member of congress stands on this. of the 90% not part

of americans who agree on background checks, then ask them, why not? why wouldn't you want to make it easier for law enforcement to do their job? why wouldn't you want to make it harder for a dangerous person to get his or her hands on a gun? ,hat is more important to you -grade fromn or and a the gun lobby? you know, i have heard -- >[applause] nicole talk about what her life is like since dylan was taken from her in december. one thing struck me. she said, every night i begged for him to come to me in my dreams so i can see him.

focus ong the day, i what do i need to do to honor him and make change. , if nicole can summon the courage to do that, how can the rest of us do any less? [applause] how can we do any less? if there is even one thing we can do to protect our kids, don't we have an obligation to try? if there is even one step we can take to prevent somebody from murdering dozens of innocents in the span of minutes, shouldn't we be taking that step? [applause] if there is just one thing we can do to keep one father from having to area his child -- from his child, isn't

that worth fighting for? i havegot to tell you, had tough days in the presidency. i have said this before. the day newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency. , ifi have got to tell you we do not respond to this, that will be a tough day for me, too. because -- [applause] because we have got to expect more for ourselves. we have got to expect more from congress. that, yout to believe know, every once in a while we set politics aside and we just do what is right. [applause] we have got to believe that. and if you believe that, i am asking you to stand up. if you believe in the right to bear arms like i do but think we should prevent any responsible to you inflicting harm, stand

up. stand up. if you believe that the families of newtown and aurora and tucson and virginia tech and that thousands of americans that have been gunned down in the last four months deserve a vote, we all have to stand up. [applause] if you want the people you send to washington to have just an that washe courage shown, that we are all going to have to stand up. if we raise our voices together and demand a change together, i am convinced that cooperation and sense will prevail. we will find a sensible and intelligent ways to make this country stronger and safer for our children. let's do the right thing.

let's do right by our kids. let's do right by these families. let's get this done, connecticut. thank you. they do and god bless. it got a bless the united states of america. and god bless. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] ♪ ♪

♪

>> the president speaking in hartford, connecticut. the family members of those who died in the shooting are going to return with the president to lobby members of the senate in favor of gun control measures. in the speech, the president called for an up or down vote of the proposals. senator majority leader harry reid took the first measures on begun legislation. he said that the republicans owed republicans the children that were killed a vote on the proposals. he spoke shortly after receiving a letter from urging republicans saying they would try to block senate debate on the bill. former british prime minister, margaret, died today in london at the age of 87.

and tonight, c-span looks back at the career of margaret thatcher. we will show you her state visit inthe nets -- to the u.s. 1988 when she held visits with ronald reagan. after that, the prime minister's question time. 1993, anat -- in interview with margaret thatcher after her time as prime minister. >> the fcc is actually structured the way things used to be. division andwired a wireless division. it issues an annual report that is required by congress on the state of wireless. assumption behind that congressional direction is that the wireless market is somehow separate on the wired market when, in fact, in the world of broadband, these two

are increasingly converged. >> one thing that stands in the way, for example, of the telco pushing out their networks, unlike the cable companies, they are be held to a special tax, sometimes called legacy regulations. they have two separate networks. a copy network for our grandparents and a broadband network. the problem with that is this is a diversion of their resources and it is not any kind of trivial diversion. it is a significant diversion. if they are free from these obligations, they would have billions of dollars to go back and invest in new broadband networks. >> finding a roadmap for developing broadband in the u.s., tonight on "the 2.municators" on c-span >> they had a marriage much like john and abigail. she wouldn't lobby in the house of congress. she was always very careful to

say, my husband believes this and my husband advocates for that. what she, herself, was doing the pitch. 's opponentsusband said that he hoped that it james were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said, if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep house or make butter. >> tonight, one of the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah paul. we will also look like her successors -- to look at her successors. , tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3. >> now, remarks from representatives of the coast maritime marines on security and budget cuts. it was part of the navy league

expo here in washington. it is about one hour, 20 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. panel. to this morning's first, i would like to say how pleased and honored i am to be able to moderate this panel this morning. i am usually not known for my moderation. .his is a great opportunity the older you get, the more new experiences you have. i was always told the first day that i was sworn in as secretary of the navy, never go to a ribbon-cutting unless you are cutting the ribbon. and today i broke the best role -- i broke that rule. nevertheless, it is a pleasure. it is a special pleasure. the navy league has never been more important to the country

and to world security than it is today. as the great dr. johnson said, nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of hanging. and today the senior leadership of our naval services really need our help of clear again and dialogue. this form is unique. as i look about today, and i saw earlier the quality of the people that we have attending from industry, from the public as a large, and from the services, there has never been a more important opportunity to take advantage of the three days you have here to really think the bestnd debate approaches to carry out what the navy league was established to

do, which was to communicated to the american people the importance of the sea services and what we can do to help carry that message and get toough this time of crisis see that we are not herman until he sets on a different course -- that we are not permanently set on a course from this country's great destiny. today, what we are going to do is have each of our panelists, the chief of naval operations, speak first. the marine corps, and the vice commandant of the coast guard, each speak in turn. ,nd then we will have questions first from me. one or two easy ones.

and then from the floor. and i would urge you all not the to toss fun ones at chief but to give him some high, inside fastballs as well. this is a unique opportunity. and, indeed, among the three of them, we have more than 100 years of operation of leadership. which is unique. a little while, a few more years of this, there will only be two of you who have a 100 years -- who have 100 years. first up will be our chief of naval operations. a fellow pennsylvanian. and he confessed to me this morning that he is the disciple -- of pat.

he has commanded the u.s. forces command. he has been a vice chief of naval operations and now he has become the 30th chief of naval 11.ations as of september these welcome the chief naval of operations. [applause] >> thank you. , mr. secretary. what an honor and privilege to be on the stage with the venerable secretary. back when i was a little puppy, junior officer, you are the secretary. here is what i remember. the aviators got flight jackets and we, the submariners, got

poopy suits. that's was the jargon. anyhow, we are all the better for it because you did get us a lots of submarines. that is all that matters. i am very proud to be up here with jim amos career. basically, my shipmates. my battle buddies. , we executed the maritime strategy. our current maritime strategy is a three-signature document of the three sea services. we are currently revising that document based upon the strategy that was published about one year ago. more on that later as we bring that out. phil and thenk navy league for what you are doing. this is a terrific venue. i am completely behind it and i know my colleagues are behind it.

it is in operation for conversation. challenges anded a shared opportunity. for me, what is most important, as can get solutions. we, about one year ago, got solutions for things like counter-fast attack craft and improved missile ranges by having a good conversation about payloads with some of our industry and not just worrying about the big stuff erie it -- the big stuff. i also like the theme, it is a good thing -- mary times crossroads. -- maritime crossroads. i will talk to elizabeth about partnerships. have been well, we rigged for reduced visibility for a while in the navy. what i mean by that, this budget situation has been like being in a fog bank. when things are hard, you cannot see a head. you have got to slow down and go to a deliverable pace.

it is very difficult to plan ahead. everybody, all hands on deck, to make sure that you can properly navigate through this difficult time. that is what it has been like with this budget to date. but things are clearing a little bit. as you know, we got a bill. for us, it accounts for about $4.5 billion. we still have a different challenge. we still have sequestration. it is in effect. about a $6 billion challenges in our investment accounts. as we look to the remainder of this year, our priorities which we -- will be to make sure deal with the must-paid bills. we are working with commanders of the joint staff to do that right. we need to prepare to meet the fiscal year 14 deployments.

get our priorities right in there. get the maintenance done so we are ready to meet our requirements there. we need to ensure critical support and our fleets sustainment. we will not be able to do it all, what we have to do the ones that are right with the money that we have. manpower has been exempted in this issue. to continue ae growth. we are growing in manpower in the navy as we bring in more ships and take care of gaps we have at sea. that will continue. we have a lot of ships under contract. they are under contract, under construction. one lastrought in saturday. jim was gracious enough to be the keynote speaker. thank you for that, jim. our ships that are already under contract are coming along. we will have about 13 to 16 more by the end of this decade.

my way forward, we will look through these lens. we need to operate forward and be ready. our mandate at the navy is to be at these crossroads. you can see them up on the screen. they are the things that channel and control the trade of the world, the life blood of the world. the energy, the produce, the products of the world. we need to be there at to those crossroads and we need to have access we need to be where it matters. we need to be ready when it matters. i want you to note up there on the screen that you see, looked over in asia. if is where we are predominant. -- that is where we are predominant. look at the rotation. that is an important distinction. if you are not up there, you are not cycling back to the continental u.s. you are trying to turn our potential adversaries from responding weakly.

it is happening in the northeast pacific. in northeast asia, i should say. today, the issue with north korea. i called your attention the black squares are places, where our alleys and friends allow us to rest and repair when appropriate and in some cases to bring in our ships and port our ships. if you go from left to right the important places in this world are naples, down by the red sea, the mouth by the gulf of aiden. bahrain. singapore. darwin where our partners in the marine corps will operate. the republic of korea. japan.

of course diego garcia and guantaunmo bay. very important for southern command operations. these are places around the world where strategicly and when i look at my mandate today those are the places we operate in and around near the crossroads of the world. now if you look ahead to tomorrow, our current strategy emphasizes 10 key missions. hen i walk my way through it tells me our navy has to be present. where it matters and be ready when it matters with relevant capability. that is what we build our budget on and what we today in and out. regardless of the budget, the size may vary but that is the main strategy and the main focus out there. if you look ahead to where we

are today and where we will be at the end of the decade our presence grows around the world. it shifts forward. what do you have in place where it matters so that you are able to react when it matters. as we rebalance the pacific, that will continue. our pace will be dictated by the budget but it will continue. we have finite resources and it will require an efficient generation of presence. what i am talking about are things that you see we go from to 20 from 47 to 52 nonrotational forces and from 54 to 62. it is an increase around the world as we bring into four destroyers in and literal combat shifts to bahrain and into singapore where freedom is on her way today leaving the philippines in a day or so to head down there. the 283 ships we have today

service the global force management allocation plan, and a lot of that is the deployed naval forces and shifts around the world. if we didn't have these schemes and means to use what we have most efficiently i would need 376 ships to do the presence of today if all that we did was rotational deployments. that is how many ships we need. to keep one ship forward for the continental united states takes four total. one is there. one is on its way back. one is getting ready to go over and one is in deep maintenance. that works pretty well as you look through the different ship types that we have in our navy. capabilities matter in a huge way. this is representative as we look at unmanned systems and look at the aircraft and look

at the payloads that we bring on the ships. putting in the most suitable ships with the right payload is what matters as we rebound and move forward. the combat ship as i mentioned before is go to singapore and she will go through the concept of operations for what we need to use, how we will use that ship and what its potential capabilities are. the new maratime control aircraft. the first is established and second will soon be established and she will deny the western pacific this year. one is in little creek. she will go into shake down operations. i think we will do a piece of that to see what we can do, just as we do with freedom. the second one is on trial. our maratime landing platform, the first one will be delivered

later this spring and the second is over half done. these are important ships that have a capability that we will put forward in the future enabling us to put those types of ships and then move the destroyers that we have today. move the ships that we have there today towards a more relevant location in the world while still accomplishing the missions we need today in the future. increasing our cooperation with nations. we are doing it today. the australian counterpart will be here later this week. i will be traveling the asian pacific later next week and i will see all of my counterparts out there. on into japan and in korea and rim pac in 2014. the chinese agreed to join us. the russians were there last year and i expect they will be there again this year. we are growing out there in the asian pacific.

there are new challenges. what you see depends on where you are looking from. if you are from canada. if you are from a north nato country you say what about the artic. the artic is a challenge and a future challenge. i call it a two or three-year challenge for us. i need to develop an approach where you can see a maritime crossroads is probably the bering strait. the polar ice cap shrinks and there is passage out there and commerce and we will need security. next i would like to talk about partnership. we have a great partnership with my deleegs up here in their services. our co-star will go and i showed you the area of the world we need to watch closely.

but we have a unique qualification, the marine corps and the navy. we operate forward together. we enable immediate responses to crises. it gives us an opportunity as i mentioned these new ships. our little combat ship and mobile landing platform. our high speed vessels. the integration and the opportunities as we taylor them with our brothers and sisters will be an important piece of the four. we will need to plan, train and deploy together. we need to find common concepts and equipment and procedures as we meet with our naval board at ur headquarters as they meet with marine forces down in norfolk. we have a tremendous amount last year. it has been 10 years since we

had a fleet exercise out there with our marine corps brothers and sisters and it went well. it will be a synthetic exercise where we will improve our competence. it will roll into 14, another live exercise on the east coast. on the west coast, same philosophy, bringing together our capabilities and looking towards our future. i mentioned we brought in nother lpd 17 class, a quantum leap over its predecessor. when you asked the number one thing i need today that is brought into the fleet it is amphibious ships. we need them badly. increase our command and control with our naval operations. satellite phones. lithium phones.

as we look to the future in the near-term. our landing craft utility replacement is on track and we are continuing our landing craft air cushions as we look to the future. our partnership with the marine corps remains the cornerstone of who we are and how we will move ahead operating forward. today it is time to move ahead and set the pattern and look to the budget challenge, keep the main thing to main thing. make war fighting first. operate forward efficiently and effectively with what we have and solidify our partnerships as we look to the future. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause]

through gotten there leadership at every level. he was commissioned from the university of idaho. since that time he has commanded at every level. he has two tours commanding squadrons. he commanded the marine air group, 31. he commanded the third marine air wing. force and the ne marine combat development command. he has many staff assignments, oint assignments and so forth.

he has progressed steadily up to his appointment where he served from 2008-2010 before being chosen by the president. general amos. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i do remember being a young captain and you were walking around in dwrour flight jacky and the inspired all of us. just suck it up, john. we look forward to coming back here. it is an opportunity for us, the service chiefs to kind of share what the latest is and what is on our minds and then field questions. i am excited about that and ook forward to your questions.

this is reality. this is the world that we live in today. this is not a hypothesis. this is actually the "washington post," "new york times," "los angeles times" and "san francisco chronicle." all places in the headlines, even yesterday when we opened up the "washington post." you look at all of those hot spots just from our south border, yet to be seen how that will play out in our own nation. but it is an issue and it is something that our nation will have to deal with. you move down to south america, they are fighting and there is an insurgensy going. they have been fighting the greatest success story in this part of the world with regards to fighting the terrorists down in columbia. it is yet to be seen what will happen in venezuela.

by the way these are all just the really hot ones, below the levels of all of these nations that you see on there, there are literally hundreds of other spots around the world that quite honestly caught the attention of our government and of our allies as it relates to global stability. you look at all of those on there. those are areas where we are focusing. we are focusing our diplomacy and military attention. these are areas that we have global interest in. piracy in the gulf of aiden. the entire naval force of the world force you canned on trying to eradicate piracy. it still continues 400 miles off the coast of africa. afghanistan. pakistan. that entire area is still playing out.

we are not sure how that will play out yet. we have a vision. we have a plan. i will talk about it in a second. the same thing with iraq. you know we spent a lot of our nation's treasure, not only money but the sons and daughters of our country and our allies in iraq. it is yet to be seen how iraq will play out now. i am not sure exactly what iran will turn out over the next several years. look at what is going on in syria. every day the papers are full of the headlines and all of the issues that the world and that the rest of us are figuring out how do we participate. is there something that we should be doing with regard to syria in that part of the world. swing farther to the east and is cross over and there i talk sues there

about epic national disasters. often you are asked what is our interest in the asian pacific area. we have five of our nations most long lasting, enduring treaties in that part of the world with our allies. 70,000 people a year died in natural disasters in the asian pacific area, tsunamis, earthquakes, $35 billion worth of disaster that cost every year in the pacific. so, we have our international trading partners in the pacific. 100% of the oil going to china comes through. 100% of the oil goes through the straits. our great partner in sthrail yeah, look at where australia lies and you realize how

significant australia is to that part of the world. we have a great partnership with them and we are go to continue to develop that partnership with them. swing farther north and you are between ith the area japan and china with regards to the islands. then you go farther north. we have island disputes between south korea and japan. there are territorial issues there. continue to watch carefully what is happening with the 29-year-old supreme leader in north korea. you read the same papers that i do every day. there is no sense of stability, ladies and gentlemen. up at the top i say reality, you know. there are and there will be these types of issues that our nation is going to have to face. now at the bottom box, i give what i think is part of the

solution. and that is the forward deployed naval forces. you know as we come out of afghanistan, and we were 20,000 strong just a year ago and we are down to 7,000 united states marines and sailors in southern afghanistan. back out of ient afghanistan, there is plenty of opportunity to reengage forward deployed and a forward deployed status around the world to be that presence. the actual presence matters when you are dealing with our allies and our friends. we are the stabilizing force in many parts of the world. in the asian pacific area our partners look at us with a sense of confidence that we will be there with them. you can only do that if you are forward. you can't do that virtually. you can't sit back and will it

to happen. you have to be deployed forward, building partnerships and building trust. you can't surge trust when a crisis begins. so the advantage of forward deployed naval forces. that is what we do for a living. we bought the ships. we bought the sailors. we step lightly on our friends and neighbors and bring with us what we need in that environment. we bring everything from engineer to life saving a lities to be able to quell crisis. i made comments on saturday at the commissioning of the u.s.s. arlington and i said the mere esence of a naval task force off of the coast of a brewing crisis loaded with united states marines has a calming so this is the world we

will live in. we can be forward deployed. not all of america's arsenal needs to do that. not all of america's department of defense needs to be forward deployed but we do. we sail on the seas of the ocean as john talked about and that is our job. just came back from afghanistan a bit ago and spent christmas there and went back again in february. i want to tell you that i am pleased to report and i watched it now for the last four and a half years as we have drawn down from 20,000 to 7,000 people tend to be critical and say that is the wrong plan. i will tell you that is absolutely incorrect. the campaign plan general john allen has administered so killfully.

that same plan actually is working. february 10th i was there when john allen turned over command. john allen looked at his coalition partners from around the world and said given the opportunity to let this campaign plan complete at the end of 2014 we will be successful. i talked to all of my commanders on the ground. looked them in the eye and said how are we doing. how are the afghan forces doing. the answer answer was uniform and resounding. sir, the afghan arm and he police are overmatching the taliban in every area. so, i feel good about it. if completed our mission by the end of 2014 we will be successful. success will be what our nations believe it to be in that part of the world. next slide.

i want to give you a sense for some of the major operations. let me explain a sense of order and magnitude. the yellow dots are areas within the last year where naval forces, marines and navy partnered up to operate everything from down in haiti and operating out of cuba all the way down to peru. around the world the yellow dots are where we engaged in what we call theater security cooperation. those are areas we are building partnership and building trust and confidence in our allies and friends. the red and green dots are the areas where we have operated off some of our shore bases and did named operations. we have done that over the last 10 years. red and green. gives you a sense of magnitude. i put the radius on there, the

green radius that you see on there. it is the radius. agine a ship pulling through that is the range. imagine naval forces operating in that part of the world with that type of reach. i mean it is pretty significant. next slide. here is the newest warships. we christened it about a month and a half ago. it will commission, i believe, later on this year. it is an absolutely wonderful ship. it is an aviation enhanced large deck amphibious ship. there are two of them. they are built without a well

deck. they were made and designed so that they would enhance the aviation capabilities of the marine task force. imagine that ship with something like 16 f-35 airplanes on it. imagine the capabilities that ship would have if it had that many f-35's and could carry that many or a similar complement of other aviation assets. it is an enormous ship. it is absolutely wonderful. the lha-7. i saw pictures of it last night. lha-8 is in the engineering design. we are reengineering the well deck. we absolutely have to do that. we have been working to make sure that we insert, in this design, the well deck back into lha-8. they reduced the island. they have taken all of the lessons they learned and

reduced the island on top of the roof of that wonderful lha-8 ship and given us six morelanding and parking spots. significant capability. we are looking forward to lha-8 and its well deck coming back. u.s.s. arlington. we commissioned it on saturday. absolutely a wonderful ship. take a look at it. it does not look like your fatherary or mother's amphibious ship. that is a stealingty, state of the art ship. we are building 11 of them. we ought to figure out industry needs to help us figure out how it can become affordable. we ought to figure out how to take that ship and that design and make it affordable so we do not have to redesign a new hull and come up with new engineering specifications. we ought to take what we

learned from that and make that its replacement. next slide. game changing aviation platforms. 13 years ago i was in the pentagon and we launched our two airplanes. the whole world were particularly critical of the mb2 2. yet today it flies marines all around afghanistan. t is a game-changer. several other countries now are looking at buying that airplane. it is phenomenal. it increased our capabilities in the marine corps and it is a game changer. last year the f-5 lightning. we have the training squadron own in panama city, florida. 16 airplanes training the brits in the u.s. marines.

we stood up our first fleet squadron in yuma, arizona. they have six airplanes. they will have 16 by the end of this year. those were game-changing capabilities for the knave and he marine corps team for the future. when you start thinking about the fiscal crisis and challenge, but this will force us to make sure that we spend our money wisely and cause us to make business decisions such as we have the capabilities our nation will need to be able to operate in the next two decades. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause] [applause] >> in the navy, there is the old saying that the navy is made up of young studs, old thugs and lieutenant

commanders. i have always considered myself never having left the young stud category. so it came as a jolt when referred to as venerable. well, it will take me a while to get over that, it would take a lot longer to get over the official title of the vice admiral who is officially the coast albatross of the guard, the longest server in the coast guard today. ongratulations, sir. that is a lot better than venerable, believe me. as our previous panelist did, he served at every level of leadership in the coast guard. he hails from westbrook, maine

alumnist of the university of southern maine. he was designated a naval aviator in 1977 and he is also engineer. ical he has served in six different coast guard stations before moving on to higher levels of demand in the coast guard. it would be a long extra 10 minutes to read all of his accomplishments in the coast guard. but it is quite an impressive record. he has over 6,000 flight hours in fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. welcoming me in

him, vice admiral of the coast guard. [applause] >> actually mr. secretary i was going to take exception about venerable, but i think i will reconsider that after that introduction. when i assumed my role i was also the longest serving aviator and with that came that title. i thought now i have enough juice maybe i can get it changed to senior albatross, but it did not happen. , in the , admirals navy league phil, dale, the real stalwarts in your support of the navy, marine and coast guard. you have our real thanks. it is a privilege to on this panel. other distinguished colleagues and leaders of government and

industry, it is an honor to be in the presence of these two service leaders. i believe we americans owe them a real debt of thanks. our patriots have been called upon to make untold sacrifices to ensure the security of this ation. our demand signals for services certainly have not diminished. how we plan to take our services forward so we can

waste not with the services we need to operate. thanks for the opportunity to be here. the theme of maritime cross roads is very appropriate. my coast guards had a very successful year despite a variety of challenges. like other government agencies we faced a period of i did minute shg resources. it's no secret the country has been under did you ress from an economic perspective for a northbound of years now. our challenge is to best accomplish critical present day missions while continuing to build the coast guard of the future. we must ensure that our people are ready and our assets are capable. to do that we must instill a culture of efficiency so that every precious dollar is used to its best advantage at the tip of this sphere. we must ensure that our people

are supported including their families such that each service member can devote him or herself totally to safe and effective mission accomplishment. we must intill a culture of profession lism building on proficiency both in leadership and the operational arts which we must insure that risk in our mission set is recognized and managed so that when our people are called out they are fully prepared and ready to accept any challenge. i can tell you from experience the only cons stance in the first response business are the presence of uncertainty and risk. over the past year our people have been challenged by hurricane sandy, operations of the arctic regions, challenged by drug cartels particularly off san diego and off port rick

coe. n the eastern pacific and crib yeen those still exist. from piracy cases and distress at sea, thousands of calls which we continue to answer the call as we have in the tradition of our forebearers for over 240 years. r marine and navy team are unparalleled in protecting force to this country, there is no power that can stand up to the connect i can force that this team can bring to bear. this defines however, one end our mer time cape abilities spectrum. slide two pleesms a full range of capability must be applied to the mer time thets that the ountry faces on a daily basis.

the slide you see depicts how the coast guard plays in this mission space. certainly few of these require the application of combat power but they still represent real threats to the economic viability of this nation. i'd like to thank the c.n.o. for his inclusion of coast guard interest capabilities and capacities in the faming of his maritime strategy cs-21. a couple of facts to consider when you are looking at this slide. 90% of the world trade is carried on board ship. the great circle routes are artries for the economy of this nation which maritime trade has doubled since 2003 despite the economic challenges. u.s. ports account for 8% of

the glonal shipping second only to china. the u.s. has the largest economic zone on the globe and it includes outer continental shelf and bio mass and resource and exploitation issues. the eastern pacific and the western crib yeen as i mentioned are some of the most powerful and ruthless trance national organizations, the drug cartels. the political stability of many south american nations is tied directly to the security of maritime transportation. reasons te many more our nation interest is the security of maritime. insuring that requires a robust cape ability to address the security end of the maritime threat spectrum.

that's where our mission space lies. this fact is recognized not only by us but by many other nations as well. it's striking that many countries across the globe have navies what one would mirror coast guard in size. they see the implications of unsecured water ways and ports. it's interesting to observe how the countries with competing sovereign claims in various areas in the western pacific are engaging in law enforcement or coast guard in trying to resolve conflicts short of open hoss tilt. the threats depicted on this slide are real which they exist on a daily basis and they pose a real challenge to our country. only through the partnership of all three maritime services can they be met and defeated.

slide three, please. i'll take a minute to discuss an area not often considered but nonetheless important. the natural resources present in the arctic region are being surveyed for exploitation. every arctic nation has made claims of sovety, some quite visible. just last summer shell drilled two exploratory wells. i personally flew up there and let me tell you those drill rigs look loan some out there in the arctic ocean. all aspects of commerce, mishing, on land mineral development and even eco tourism are expanding at a fast pace in the arctic region. we ran a deployment there last summer. although the coast guard had a long history of presence in the

arctic the results were quite revealing. there will likely be a high ate us the this summer from drilling in the arctic, make no mistake that industry will fully engage in the near term. the arctic is gaining attention at the national level which we are proposing a service level arctic strategy that will detail how we plan to engage further and what resources will be required. i highlight this as it will likely receive more attention in the near future. it also presents perhaps a non-traditional soft power vector we will have to address from the maritime services perspective. many states are claiming sovety to the arctic. in closing, i'd like to say that the theme of the conference is very proirpt, maritime cross roads strategies for action. if i haven't adequately addressed that, let me close

with this. our strategy is to build a forward looking coast guard, one that peers into the outer edges of our head lights, one that doesn't la meant how we looked in the past but builds strategies toward the future given the realities of today's economy. we will be aware of our proud past but we will be committed to building what we need in the future based on the challenges and our nation's need. our service level strategy will be to max mice what we bring to the nation through a culture of professionalism and efficiency. we're a component of homeland security and because of that we bring the cape abilities necessary to face an array of threats during a maritime do main which we bring the capabilities of the entire

department of homeland security which is growing every year. we proud to partner with the navy and marine colleagues as we meet not only future maritime challenges, any that our country faces. only through a coordinated joint effort can we fully defeat this threat spectrum. i look forward to your questions. [applause] admiral. ou very much now we're going to go to the question and answer period and i'm going to limit myself to just one question. but while i'm doing that i'd like those of you who have questions to start to move forward the microphones because since the visibility is not

that great, i can't call on you individually so i'd like you to come up to the microphone and we'll just go left right and leave most of the time for you all. so we're looking forward to that. my question has to do with this crisis and what we make of it. as some of you in this room know, i'm kind of the crazy uncle in the attic on the issue of overhead and bureaucratic bloat. it's my considered judgment that the greatest threat we have to our defense cape bility is precisely that constant growth in overhead. today in constant dollars, even with the sequester, we are spending more money than we spent at the height of the reagan administration in the

defense budget. and we have less than half the size force that we had in those days. we are producing considerably output in alf of the aircraft and bullets. this is a real crisis because gradually we have lost the common sense line account ability and efficiency that one the cold war. we have been losing the industrial base as a result of that. the numbers for the suppliers, the thousands of suppliers for instance on the aircraft carrier will soon be 80% sole source, that is in the entire country 80% of the suppliers that build that ship will be

sole source. the prices are escalating well above what happens in the civilian sector. secretary of defense did a tremendous service in providing a two year effort to establish what ground truth really was in the growth of the bureaucracy nd in the fwroth of overhead through the board and that data base is available today. 970 thousand civilians in the department of defense. some 250 joint task force taffs, almost half of the army never deemploys because they have to deal with their bureaucratic entities. 40 different entities in the joint and combatant commands

that can write requirements and that have the ability to block, hold up, slow down program after program. the average of a cat one programs from origination to . rst fielding is 22 years and we now have a crisis that everybody is focusing on and has to focus on the near term. but we people referred to as venerable tend to take a longer view. d we must use this crisis to get at that threat of overhead and bloat that has prevented the application of common sense doubled the price of ships and

aircraft and are unilaterally disarming us. and luckily we have today n my judgment, the perfect alignment of forces to enable that to happen. n ash carter and shawn stackly, we have probably the best senior acquisition officials since the 1980's. they get it. and the opportunity for the chiefs to really take advantage of that and come up with realistic and hard initiatives to cut through those lares, liminate layers. break down the stove pipes is complicated. figure how you will adapt to the cuts upon us.

nerls don't miss this opportunity to fundamentally change and get back to the line of accountability we used to have in the services. i would like each of you to comment on and perhaps suggest a line of attack in this going forward and i'm particularly interested in the thoughts of the ancient al batross since he was in charge of acquisition in the coast guard. admiral, would you like to start off? >> thank you. i would. i think first icon cur with the vast majority of your comments. in my opinion we need to look at acquisition. i as a service chief would like to have more authority and more accountability in the acquisition of systems. i define the requirements, that system needs a total review. there are too many people touching requirements that i'm

accountable for. therefore i should be held accountable and define my staff and just be held accountable to it as a service chief, me. that handoff or that continuation should stay as much as feasible through acquisition. we need to look at gold water nick cols and what it was designed to do in this regard and consider altering it. it can start in our department. i enjoy a relationship with an acquisition professional, actually two that enables us to get through things f. we did not have that, it would be a nightmare. if i may, one more which is the means to quickly get important issues programmed and budgeted. dr. carter has an initiative called the fast lane which say very good program, very hard to work and requires tremendous oversight and his personal

effort and the effort of a service chief. and in the last year working on mining and small boat defense that were quick important, urgent needs to the fleet requires just a an amount of attention and we should have a process to do that. in the budget environment that we see ahead, a very complicated, maybe another continuing resolution with sequestration, it's inevitable that you need to reprogram. and we need to be able to program and reprogram quickly and have a means to recognize it. thank you. >> secretary, a couple of comments to begin with then i'd like to dip into this a little bit deeper. stuff cost more. and that's a truism. that's not a hypothesis. i'll give you an idea. in 2003 before we crossed the oard into iraq, the standard

united states infantryman. at he wore from his boots to his cammies, at that point it was a flak jacket. his helmet and weapon cost about $1700. today to out fit that man it's almost $10,000. it's almost four to five times fold the difference in cost. why is that? >> that ceramic body armor she wears on the front and back and side. that body armor itself cost around $4,000. heaven help us if our family finds out we don't have the right body armor and they lose their son or daughter. this is just the fact that stuff cost more. a couple of things with regards to acquisition. i agree with you. i think we have i use the term

constipated the acquisition process. i think the service chiefs need to get back and be in charge of the acquisition process. i remind everybody as often as i can congress doesn't give the program manager a dime. congress gives the service chiefs the money which they allocate it into service budget every year through the appropriation process. it's our money. these are our programs. the service chiefs need to get back in as john talked about to reign down this requirements growth, reign down all the different things we are bog told we have to do or the testing we have to v. there is plenty of blame to go around with regard to the acquisition process. let me give you a sense of magnitude. when i took this job two and a half years ago. i was head of requirements so i had watched the expedition nare

fighting vehicle as it was in and out of issues and rebaselining the program and all of that. i made the decision when i took the job that we could not taffered vehicle in its current state. i talked to the secretary of the navy and secretary of defense and the program was cancelled. before i did that, i sat with my team and i said this does not mean the requirement for a surface born vehicle goes away. that is part of our character. it's a core competency for our nation. so we have to have that. let's look at how we will design it and when it will come in. this was 2010 ladies and gentlemen. i was told by the acquisition field that it would be 2023 before i would have a vehicle that would be what we call initial operation cape ability. 13 years to design a vehicle,

do all the stuff that you have to do and actually have it stand up where you have half a dozen of them say i'm an i.o.c. the process is broke. it's constipated so we need to fix that. the last point i'd make is you said what do we do. i coined this phrase from chairman dempsi. he said never allow a good crisis to pass that you can't get in there and change bad behavior. i think that's where we are. we are at a crisis, we're at a fiscal crisis. so let's look at this thing and capitalize on it and force ourselves, industry and to us actually begin to make good decisions and decisions that are in line with our fiscal resources. and i'll give you an example. in our service, we said we are in the period of austerity and i think we're going to be in it

for the next six to seven years, maybe longer if you look at historical signways. i said okay that's good enough. the days of being flush with cash are gone. what is good enough? our vehicles that we were going to take and send to the bone yard put some place else we are sending to the depot right now. we are going to live with the equipment we have. the balance of course is you cannot turn your back for seven years on modization. there has to be a balance between what is good enough and modization. so that's where we are right now. that's where we are with 44-year-old helicopters turning into m.p.-22's. things here we are with we've extended service lifmente we have to do a balance of

modernization. we are trying to balance our books. you're not going to be driving around in some of this new stuff. you are going to be driving around in what we v. but we are in the process of rebalancing and modernization. >> thank you mr. secretary. i have a little bit different take on this respectively to my two seniors here. i look at acquisition as a system that was built probably since the civil war based on abuses. every time there was an abuse it was highly visible and it resulted in another procedure or another regulation or more oversight or all of these things that can be described as overhead. i think there is a compelling need to act because of the resource base that we find ourselves in. the deck cre mental budget that is we're going to be in. and the need for recapitalizing

this hardware. it's going to take a lot of courage. it's going to take a rethinking of how we buy things. if you adhere to the d.o.d.-5,000 series and we do. it forces through process the management of risk and cost and until we come up with a streamline system that doesn't just look at a major systems acquisition that break it is threshold and becomes project x, but looks at each one of them in isolation for their real requirementleses, their real areas of cost growth, their real areas of risk and we have the discipline to control requirements and we have the ability to go to congress and get stable predictable funding, then i don't think we're going to succeed at this. it's going to take significant courage on the part of not only

government but industry. but until we can come to a way, a methodology where cost and risk exposure can be shared, we go into the acquisition with stable requirements full well knowing we may not come out with everything we want, but we come out with most of what we want and that's good enough. until we come to that understanding, we're going to be chasing our tails on this. it just won't happen. the processes are so ingrained d so institutionizelized we're going to have to break some china. the way forward is to look at pilot acquisitions. push them through and do an assessment. not a study but actual systems acquisitions and reframe how we do business based on that experience. thank you, sir. >> that was outstanding.

now we'll go to the questions from the floor. and do we have the first question? >> navy's ship contractor. my question is for the admiral. do you think the navy will postpone decommissioning any frig gets until the new legislation has passed? >> no, i don't. i think those ships regrettably, they would need remodernizing. so i think your question the only reason i could imagine postponing ship retirement would be to assure ourself we have a hot transfer. that can be done on a case by case basis if we have a clear way ahead to a hot transfer, meaning you transfer it while

it's still active. is that the essence of your question? >> yes. >> case by case but as a policy to say fundamentally we will extend all the ships this year while we wait for the transfer legislation, that's really not good business. but case by case. >> thanks very much. >> next question. >> thank you. 'm from the navy league london england. my question is you spoke general about new platforms for the u.s. marine corp but you did not mention the munford point and three class of ship which i'd be interested on your take as how you visualize the capability offered by that ship which is pretty unusual and different. >> i want to make sure i answer

you correctly. i think i understand your question. the issue is the m.l.p. and what do we think of it? >> and what are you planning on doing wit, sir? >> i'll tell you, i was there at the krisening of the mon ford point about a month and a half ago. and i sat and looked at that. it's a strange looking ship. but don't be confused by that. i've had the advantage of looking at all the power point breefs, the slides that talk about different cape abilities ow we would use l cax and pull alongside and do sea basing off art of an lmsr with an lating ramp in sea state three and take tanks and 7 on the trucks and all our combat

vehicles off load that stuff on a ramp and put it down on that ship down in the center part writ looks like it's missing part of the ship. and that rascal will sink using ballast and will drive l cacks up and we'll take those things to shore. this will be the first time that we've had the ability to do at sea sea base loth sticks in a combat environment. we won't need a port with this ship. as i sat there next to it during the krisening my imagination ran away with me and i thought about all the things you could do with this ship. and we're about 10% there. you put this in the hand of sailors and marines and our men, i think we're going to over the next five or six years whether it be some type of

natural disaster, some type of combat operation, we're going to uncover ways we're going to be able to use this ship in the future that i think are going to be stunning. i'm really bullish on this and i think we're only 10% where we can use that ship. it's going to be a heck of a combat multiplire. > next question and please speak slowly because it's difficult to hear with the acoust i cans in the room. f-35, despite progress toward i.o.c., problems remain and considering its importance, is it time now to start looking forwards investment in alternatives as well as the ontinued commitment to the f-35 program?

>> the question is what is your support for the f-35 and is it time to look otherwise because it's having problems? >> speaking for the navy i need the fifth generation strike fighter and that provides it. we're all in. but it has to perform. it is problems. it is making progress. i believe it will come in at an acceptable amount of time in the track it is currently on. when you say should we look for alternatives? i'm always looking for alternative payloads that i can put on any strike fight tore enhance and make the entire air wing better. but i do not believe at this point that it is time to look for an exit ramp in the navy for the f-35c. >> there is no alternative for he united states marine corpse

f-35 b that. airplane is performing well. i think it's important for tove remember we're in developmentle testing. so you bring a new whether it be a ship or airplane, you bring that vehicle or that cape ability in and you -- capability. and you go through d.t. you can go through modeling and simulation prior to that. but you're not going to discover 100% of everything. there will be issues and you'll deal with them. it's been that way with every platform we've built. name every airplane we're flying and those had issues and we worked through them. we're going to start operational testing sometime soon. i think the airplane is performing well for us and i'm very bullish on it. >> next question.

you all refer to the difficult fiscal situation that 're in right now and the reductions that we've had that have affected procurement. but as well, we've also had some reductions that are impended as far as end strength of the marines and the army and others. and you could have somebody who has 18 years in who suddenly find he is out of the service and he also loses his retirement. and i was wondering how these realities of the fiscal difficulties are impacting your ability to support the force and the family to encourage people to reup, to stay in and

to continue making the military their career? >> general? >> the question is concerning the targeting i think throughout congress and executive branch of the run away growth in cost of personnel. and today the pentagon has to per active thousand duty person blended rate to fund the entitlements for retirement and pension and family services sooned forth. d so this is clearly a major area that is being focused on for cuts which how do you protect the 18 year veteran,

the family, the people that get cut? >> thanks secretary. that's a good question. last year the service chiefs worked pretty faithfully with the secretary of defense and proposed some ways we could reduce the personnel cost overhead which let me give you a sense of the magnitude of what i'm talking about. cents of ce, for 64 every dollar is for personnel cost. it's not because marines cost more. actually marines and i've got all the strategies. we're the -- statistics. it cost less for a corporal than a sergeant or colonel. it's a function of the growth

in healthcare and a lot of the entitlements so we proposed last year a series of ways we could get that balanced again. as you know, everything from armacy going online taking a look at tri carry, tri carry hadn't been adjusted since 1996 since i recall. no other healthcare program in america has been that way. so there were those kind of initiatives. and quite honestly, many of them did not get passed did not see the light of day through congress. i think we're going to have to go back and do this again. it's important to remember we have an all volunteer force. that all volunteer force is an expensive force. there is a balance between caring for those that we are about to bring in that force, those that have served or are

currently serving. there is no intention by the service chiefs or the chairman or anybody toles go in and take benefits away from folks that have served faithfully. an example is one of the recommendations was to take a look at the retirement system. the recommendation for all the joint chiefs was if you go back and do that our recommendation, our position is that we tuth grandfather everybody that's on active duty. let's not go in and muck around with the retirement system for those of us on current active duty. but there is recognition that whether it be retirement, healthcare, things like bachelor allowance for housing, this is a great example of the kind of misinformation. bachelor allowance for housing, what we get for housing grows at 2 to 3% a year automatically.

so all we did as service chiefs last year, we said let's shallow that ramp and make it grow at 1% or you could level off the growth for a year or two and then start it back up again. and that was not accepted. so you start taking a look at those kind of things. and there is a lot of money tied up in there and without breaking faith with our service men and women there are things we need to do as we look at sequestration. quite frankly america has a military to do its national defense bidding. so we need to keep that in mind. >> one final brief question the secretary asked me to field the last question. >> good morning, gentlemen. i'm a d.c. lawyer and you might add in this town, what else. first of all i'd like to

applaud the general for remembering and correctly pronouncing the name of the islands off the coast of asia. my question is a quick one. if i remember correctly nobody on the panel this morning has used or mentioned the name carrier battle group. is there any reason for that? thank you. >> the carrier battle group, all of these things believe it or not have a definition. and the ships that make up carrier battle groups, if you will, they are called carrier strike groups now. and it's nothing more than a definition al. the context that i used it in was deployment and what you deploy and where they need to be and how you rotate or non-rotate. >> i'd like to thank everyone for being was. and remind everyone we have

46,000 members around the united states and overseas and these individuals are going to be made more aware of the importance of the industrial base as a component for defending the united states of america. my deepest thanks to the service chiefs this morning for being with us. enjoy sea air space. captioning by the national captioning institute www.ncicap.org-- >> margaret thatcher died

today. tonight c-span looks back at the career of margaret tratcher. starting at 8:00 eastern we'll show you her visit to the u.s. in 1988 where she held meet wgs ronald range. after that the prime minister's question time. margaret terview with thatcher in her time as prime minister. ashton carter spoke today on the impact of budget cuts on the rebalance. >> sequester was never intended to be implemented and is very disruptive because it gives us very little flex ability where we take the adjustments we have to take this year. wherever we have flexibility we are favoring and protecting the

rebalance. we revise our plans for the 2013 budget in the face of sequester. and in the face also of increased cost of the afghanistan campaign and the fact that we only recently got an appropriation. back in january i gave rection about what is exempt from or protected by sequestration and they are implying that guidance. it direct it is protection wherever possible of activities related to the rebalance this year. the main point is that the arbitrary cuts that sequester imposes under the budget control act are temporary lasting through october of this year. in other words, sequester is an artificial and self-inflicted political problem not a structural one. hopefully the turmoil and gridlock will end and the u.s. will get back to normal budget

process. now when it does, congress and the president will decide what d.o.d.'s budget will be in the year and beyond 2013. the president has been clear about holding defense spending steady in the wrong run or reducing it by a few percentage points and improving efficiency in defense spending. if the drastic cuts that began with sequester this year were extended in their levels for a decade, u.s. defense spending would be cut somewhere around 10 percentage points this. is the range under debate today. none of these political scenarios change it is math i described earlier. the defense rebalance to the pacific is not in jeopardy. that said, there is obviously considerable uncertainty about where an overall budget

agreement which is needed to tend current turmoil will lead. and what is clear to us in d.o.d. is that we need to think and act ahead of this uncertainty and not in reaction o it >> that was part of an event held earlier today. >> bobby delivered remarks today at the opening of the state legislature in louisiana which he discussed income taxes and what his top priorities are for louisiana in the coming year. his is 15 minutes. > thank you. thank you very much.

mr. president, mr. speaker, statewide elected officials, familiar lirks friends, people of louisiana. it is my privilege to stand before you again. even before i start my remarks i'm going to ask you join me for a moment of silent prayer for a friend of ours. i was with senator john smith. i know he's with news spirit and thought. speedy recovery. he will join us just as quickly as his doctors allow him to do that. please join me for a moment of ilent prayer for john smith. >> it is my honor to stand

before you as i've done each of the five years before to start the session of the legislature. we've worked hard together through the past five years to address the big challenges facing our state which we've take on the task to make louisiana a better state to raise our children. i made the promise we would do everything we could to make louisiana a place where our sons and daughters could pursue their dreams instead of having to leave home to find good paying jobs which we got rid of burden some business acts and debt on utilities. we revamped the training programs and came back and worked together to past historic education reforms to give every student in louisiana a chance to get a great education. what motivated us to take on those challenges is we want to make louisiana a great place for our sons and daughters.

business leaders said the most important things we could do to attract investment was crack down on corruption. to nt the world -- word the world that who you know doesn't matter anymore in louisiana. our neighboring states didn't charge those taxes on debt and new equipment. their new equipment in louisiana was often older than the new equipment else where. 70% of the companies want to move here or expand here told us one of their top two concerns was finding a skilled worker. time and time again we took on the big challenges. we did it. i want to thank you for that. the victories weren't mine or yours. they were for the people of louisiana. the people who sent us here and can bring us back home. [applause] and we're beginning to see

results here in our great state. indeed you see more kids graduating from high school, you see fewer failing schools which you see an economy where our unemployment rate continues to be below the national average every month during the national recession. our per capita income has gone up despite the recession. our per capita ranking is the highest its been in more than 80 years. our gp has grown by tens of billions of dollars. the last five years in a row we've had more people move into louisiana than leave the state. business highest in pub bli indications. we have passed tougher laws to crack down on sex offenders and the list goes on and on. we are indeed bringing our children home.

[applause] and that might be a fine point to stop the speech. that might be a fine point stop there and say everything is great in the state of louisiana but we know that's not true. we know there are too many louisiana families struggling to find good paying jobs. there are too many louisiana families struggling to make ends meet. as long as that is true, our work is not done. we cannot become complacent. indeed, i imagine a new louisiana. i see a new louisiana where not only our sons and daughters pursue their dreams but children from other states come here for opportunities which i envision a louisiana where the governor of texas is complaining of sons and daughters of texas moving to communities in our state and we can do that. and that is one of the reasons

that we have proposed a bold plan this year which we've said our top priority this year is not to stay still but get rid of income taxes in the state of louis louisiana. we have talked about competing with texas and florida. and every one of us know families and friends that have gone to the state after they retire, they go to florida or texas. we have talked about catching up with those states. it is time to do more than talk. it is time for us to be bold and get rid of the income taxes. look at what is going on in our tax code today. the single biggest obstacle and step we can take to make louisiana a better state for our jobs and families is to have a tax code that looks like it was written on purpose which we've got a tax code that has 468 complemses loopholes and credits in it. we have a tax code that is too

unfair and unstable. you go back to 2011, we paid out more than we elect collected in corporate income taxes. that same year we collected $2600 on average on a family of four in louisiana. we took tax paying dollars from hardworking families and turned around and gave that to companies doing biz in our state. it is time to get rid of the income taxes. look at what is happening in the states without income tax. in the last ten years, nine states were responsible for 0eu6r% of all the jobs created in america. those are the nine states without an income tax. over the last ten years those nine states saw their populations grow 60% faster than the national average that. is what we want for louisiana. we want more economic growth and more population growth. we want others to come here and

recognize louisiana as the land of opportunity. [applause] there are many reasons to get rid of the income tax to insure our people a level playing field tofment make sure it's not rigged by special interest and to give louisiana families more control over how and when they pay their taxes. just by getting rid of income taxes we could create 12,000 new jobs in our state. over $180 until business investment. $910 on average for each louisiana household. 12,000 new jobs. over $1.8 billion more for our families just by getting rid of the income tax. that's why i've made the repeal of these taxes my proirptty and we've presented a comprehensive plan. that includes raising the sales

tax. now i want to take a moment here and do something a little different in this speech. i want to talk to you a little more personally than normal. it has been said by maine my mom is here. i've been hearing this my entire life that i speak too quickly, that i move too quickly. some of you have told me that. some more polite than others but some of you have told me that throughout the years which my entire life i've been told i need to slow down. i've thought about this. i think it's true. i see it as a good thing but others see it as a criticism and i see that. i am impatient. i told my staff we will run out of time before we run out of things to do. i am an impatient reformer and i wake up every day wanting to move forward and improve our state. i've spent a lot of time

traveling to states talking to people about my ideas to get rid of the income tax which we've invited every single legislator over the last several months to talk about these ideas. we were listening. i listened to what you had to say and the people of this great state told me. they said we do want to get rid of the income taxes that is great. but we are worried you are moving too quickly and we are not sure your plan is the best way to do it. that's not what i wanted to hear but i heard those comments. let me do something that politicians don't normally do. i've heard those comments and we're going to adjust our course. we're going to park our tax plan. we're going to pull that plan. but at the same time, i'm not the guy that wants to take my ball and go home and complain. i know several of you have filed bills to phase out the

income tax. i'm here to tell you, as we park our plan, let's work together, let's pass a bill this session. let's get rid of the income tax once and for all in the state of louisiana. [applause] send me that bill to get rid of those taxes. send me that bill to make louisiana the best state in the country to create jobs, to raise a family. send me that bill. we don't want to just compete, we want to win the contest for new jobs and new investment to bring our sons and daughters home. send me that bill. we must not leave this session without getting that work done. the time for talking is long past due. we can make louisiana the great state we know that she is. i want to close on a personal

observation. a little over a week ago we celebrated the wonderful holiday of easter. i hope you had a joyful celebration with your family and loved once. we have three beautiful children. we went to church and sat in that church for two hours. i know because my little girl asked me every five minutes how much longer we have to be here. i told her we're going to be here as long as the preacher wants to talk. i told her it was an important day of the year. she was reeger to go home and find her eggs and she wanted to get out of there. it was joyous for our family for another reason. i have another brother, two of us born right here. my little brother came home and brought his wife and newly born son home as well. it was my nephew's first visit

to louisiana. my kids had so much fun to play with him. at that age he wasn't ready to throw a football. we had family and friends that came in for the holidays. we had to wake up at the crack of dawn on monday morning to put them on a plane to go back home. because my brother like so many before him left this great state to go get a good paying job. they now live in a different state. my wife's brother and his wife, my brother-in-law born and raised here and their girls live in a different state. now the good news is we get to see our nieces and nephew at easter. we'll probably get to see them at thanksgiving or christmas. but we're going to miss him watching -- watching him take his first step and going and watching them perform in the school play.

too many of us have family friends, children and grand tcharne don't live in louisiana anymore. too many of us have to put them back on bus and planes and cars and say goodbye once the holiday was over. the reason i am so passionate about this is one day i look forward to when all of our children and family and friends are living in louisiana every day which they are not getting on a bus or a plane the day after the holidays. we don't just see them once or twice a year. we've made great progress. our sons and daughters are beginning to come back. we can't afford to stop pushing forward. that is why it's so important we get rid of the income taxes. let's bring our children home. ay god bless the great state of louisiana.