has gone for openly gay soldiers and sailors to be able to serve alongside the colleagues? >> i do not really know. i know that it is something, when i go to the troops, i do not ask questions about it, but maybe i should very maybe i will as we go around with more traveling this year. we have not done the lot of traveling the past few years. we used to do that to visit troops and leaders of nations, and that is something i should probably ask about. the leadership seems to think that it is moving ok. i think in our bill we put that there would be automatic reviews of this of and reports back to us.

i have not seen one of those yet, so i cannot give you a solid answer based on any criteria or facts. >> why do you represent -- support representative thornberry as your successor? >> did i write that one? [laughter] that is an easy question. thornberry and i came on with the armed services committee at the same time. i was elected in 1992, but i did not get onto the covidien my first term. we came onto the committee at the same time, we sat next to each other for many years now. i've had the opportunity to watch them, visit his victor, see how he relates to the people in his district. i see how he relates to the other members of the committee. he is very articulate, very smart.

he has good leadership skills, very serious. he has also a member -- been a member of the intel committee for a long time. i think he would make an outstanding chairman for the house armed services committee, and i strongly support him. i could give you many more reasons, but if you know that copy you -- the facts, you know he competed the last few times, and i only beat him by, well it was close. he is the one that is ready, he is been my vice-chairman now for five years. have i been chairman five years? [laughter] time flies when you're having fun.

we do not train chairman, you just compete for the job, and then you find out you get the job, and you start trying to find out -- you are a congressman coming all the things you're doing in other areas, but you do not know about the budget and how that works, and how you put people on different -- all the things you have to learn when you become chairman, i have tried to make sure mac knows those things. we have worked closely together on everything we do. he will be ready to transition if he is selected, and i'm confident he will be. i think it would be a seamless

transition. not quite like what happened to me. i found out that i was going to be the new ranking member 15 minutes before we had a meeting to prepare for the next day mark of of our bill. it is not going to be that way. thank you. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first, i would like to present our traditional mpc -- npc mug to our guest. we hope you find it useful. i would like to acknowledge his excellency, the afghan ambassador to the united states. your excellency. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. [applause]

well-deserved applause. finally, there is a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club, including upcoming legends --luncheons on our website.

if you'd like to get a copy of today's program, please check out the program website. we have time for a final question. you're leaving congress at the end of the year. what can be done to make future congresses less mired in gridlock, and more successful in tending to the nation's affairs? >> thank you. the ambassador is a good friend, grew up in california, he is a good guy. i wish i could wave a wand and make congress very responsive. i think our forbearers, when they fled from kingdoms, and wanted to establish democracy did not want to see another kingdom, and any one person have too much power. they did an inspired, outstanding job of making it difficult for us to do anything. it has gotten worse the last few years. partisanship has gotten deeper, and more difficult to work together. i think that finance reform passed years ago that took -- basically neutered the parties and gave the opportunity for outside groups to raise unlimited funds, and to come in and play in the process has had a very drastic result. to the point where i was talking to a democrat where he lost the election in the primary, and

most members say that they cannot work anymore with the republicans unless they get taken out of the primary. the same has happened on the republican side. it pushes the republicans more to the right, and democrats to the left, and the opportunity for people to have meaningful discussions, and really come together on agreements to make things happen becomes very difficult. i think the fear that most members of congress have -- i think the fear that most members of congress have is not the other party, but being taken out in a primary. that is very difficult. i have watched leadership struggle this year was trying to get something done. it is just very difficult. i don't really know the answer to that. one way would be to fix campaign-finance reform again, but because of what is happening

-- i mean, i was being a little facetious when i said it, but really, the only bill that passed last year was the national defense authorization act. early this year, we did get budget and we did get -- well, we got the budget passed last year at the end of the year. that was big. at the makeup the spending bill passed this year. we have the farming bill this year. maybe there is caused to be a little more optimistic that it will be a better year. we already have our budget number to work on is here. the appropriators will be working and i think they want to get back into the game. they have been relevant in the last few years because everyone is just waiting until the end of the year and how long the cr is going to be and that kind of stuff. with the appropriation bills

done in getting back closer to order, and we have many embers of congress that do not even know what regular order is. they have never seen a budget passed, the 1213 appropriation bills passed, and the government funded on -- by september 30 the way it is supposed to be. we need to get back to that, and forget some of the stuff that we fight over that does not really matter much. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, chairman mckeon. i don't know if it is going to be retirement, but we wish you the best for the future. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here today. we are adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if you missed any of this, you can watch on our website www.c-span.org.

>> we will hear more about proposed budget cuts and scaling u.s. armyize of the on washington journal. americans for tax reform president, grover norquist, will ieigh in. way you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

washington journal is lied each morning on seven eastern on c-span. chuck hagel announced that the pentagon will reduce the size of twoarmy from 522,000 the 2015s part of budget cuts. dempseygel and martin spoke for about an hour. >> good afternoon. let me ignore to thank chairman dempsey and the vice chairman

and the cheeks and secretaries who are here as well as the and our acting assistant deputy of defense. the work they have put in over the last few months in particular to get us to this point where we can have a budget present to going to congress next week. i want to talk a little bit about that today. remarks dempsey has his . i am very grateful. i know president obama is very grateful to these men and women who spent an awful lot of time and the people that they represent and the services. thent to acknowledge comptroller. this be his last budget, unless

we call him back into duty after he goes to find an island somewhere and does not return calls. appreciativearly of his willingness to stay through this budget which was .ot an easy task to bob hale, thank you. we are very grateful. i'm announcing the key decision that i recommended to the president for the 2015 budget and beyond. these recommendations will adapt and reshape our defense enterprises. we can continue protecting this nation's security in an era of unprecedented uncertainty and change. budget inbe the first

the transition that the dod is making after 13 years of war. the longest in our nation's history. focusing on strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future. new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that grows more volatile and unpredictable. in some instances, more threatening to the united states. the choices ahead will define our defense institutions for the years ahead. worked inempsey and i a pragmatic and collaborative balanced force for the future. i worked closely with the chairman, the vice chairman, and the chiefs to develop this process in strategic choices in management review. i want to recognize the senior enlisted leaders in each of the

services for their contributions and their involvement and to their leadership and what they continue to do every day for this country. particularly, their help and input in crafting this budget. our recommendation is guided by an updated defense strategy builds on the 2012 defense strategic initiative described in the upcoming quadrennial report. strategy is focused on defending the homeland against all strategic threats, building security globally and protecting u.s. influence. and, remaining prepared. the dod will continue to shift for key allies in the middle east and europe. it will continue to aggressively

pursue global terrorist networks. there are two new realities to be made clear. first, the development and proliferation of more advanced military technologies by other nations means that we are entering an era where american dominance in the skies, seas, and space can no longer be taken for granted. -- is not expected to reach the levels projected in the plan presented by the president. we must adapt and make difficult decisions to ensure that our military remains militant -- ready and capable. the consequences of large budgets is that our future force will assume risks. we prioritize strategic interests over budget resources.

this requires difficult choices and further reductions in troop strength in every military service. sustain readiness and tactical superiority and protect critical abilities, like special operations forces, we chose to terminate or delay some modernization programs to protect higher priorities and procurement, research, and development. we chose to slow the growth of the military compensation anyway that preserves the quality of the all-volunteer force and reallocate critical funds for training, readiness, and modernization. before i get into the specific recommendations, let it get -- let me address the fiscal realities. ae year ago, this week,

brupt spending cuts were placed on dod under sequestration. cuts came on top and there was a ten-year spending reduction. sequestration was imposed in the fiscal year 2014 that would repeal these cuts in favor of balanced deficits reduction. that would give dod resources needed to fully implement the 2012 event strategy and maintain a relevant modern force. two months ago, rather than fully repealing sequestration, congress passed a bipartisan budget act that provided relief

in the fiscal year. that's thed bipartisan budget act health in the next fiscal year. but, that spending remains significantly below what the request is for the five-year budget plan. plan, dod hasding 490 billion for this fiscal year. that is $31 billion below what is requested. 2015aw limits spending in to $496 billion. that is $45 billion less than what is requested and the president budget's request last year. the relief that the budget act provided has forced us to cut over this two-year period.

the $37 billion cut we took last year and the budget control act's ten-year reductions of $487 billion. the sequestration level cuts remain the law for 2016 and beyond. the president will submit a for fiscal year 2015. the military will still face significant readiness challenges. to close these gaps, the president will offer an opportunity growth and security initiative that will detail a proposal that is part of the president's budget submission and will provide an additional $26 billion for the defense department in 2016.

the additional funds will be paid for with a balanced package of spending and tax reforms and would allow us to upgrade aircraft and weapon systems and make needed repairs to our facilities. it brings unit readiness and equipment closer. i strongly support the proposal. the president's proposal for 2015 contains a five-year defense budget plan. plan has years, this one hundred $15 billion more in defense spending and sequestration levels. the reason we are requesting this is because the president and i would never recommend a budget that compromises our national security. cutsnued sequestration copper mines how national security or the short and

long-term. cuts soation requires abrupt that we cannot shrink the size of our military back enough. in the short term, the only way to admit sequestration is to sharply reduce spending on readiness and modernization. that would certainly result in a hollow force and one that is not ready and capable of fulfilling missions. after trimming the military enough to restore readiness and modernization, the resulting force will be too small to fully execute the president's strategies. the 2015 budget offers a more deliberate and responsible approach that protects readiness and modernization while maintaining a force large enough to fulfill our defense strategy. need ton balances the

protect our national security with the need to be realistic about these reductions. dod has completed a detailed levels foruestration 2016 and beyond. resourcesy of reduced and a challenging and changing strategic environment requires us to prioritize and make difficult choices. some of those choices, we must make them now. other choices, particularly those that require the ultimate sacrifice of our armed forces are decision point in our budget and we will make these decisions when we have clarity on future spending levels. baseddget has flexibility on different fiscal outcomes. before we recommend any changes in the military capabilities, we focus on and lamenting management reforms and reducing

the overhead and operating costs will stop last summer, i announced a 20% cut in the dod major headquarters operations budgets. is expected to save in the operating costs over the next five years. these efforts began in the office of the secretary of defense and the joint staff. back contracts targeted cutsking and civilian personnel and financial information. we are taking other steps to become more efficient and are lamenting $200 billion in the last 300 -- last three budget proposals. andave overhead reduction we are not cutting costly infrastructure. dod will ask congress for another round of base closures

in 2017. i am mindful that congress did not agree to back those requests in the last two years. if congress intended to block these requests, even as they slashed the budget, will have to consider every school in our disposal to further reduce asrastructure and dod already reduced infrastructure where we can. authority is not needed and we have reduce our infrastructure and the european consolidation review is this bring. dod will pursue it. reducing overhead will continue to be important and the potential savings will not be enough to meet the targets under the president's budget. to meet the reductions of the skill required, we had to carefully examine the military structure. modernizationand

proposal has three realities. aq and afghanistan, we are no longer doing long stability operations. with theemain technological edge over adversaries. to military must be capable respond to all contingencies and decisively defeat any opponent. recommendations are for a smaller and more capable force and a rapidly-deployable one against advanced adversaries. we reserve all three legs of the nuclear triad. want a say, securable, and affective nuclear force. we can project power over great astances and carry out

reality more relevant to the president's strategy. building hardship capacity and the feeding asymmetric threats. we are sustaining security commitments and our engagement. our recommendations seek to protect capabilities that are uniquely suited to the most likely missions of the future, most notably the special operations forces and the crisis response. accordingly, our special grow from forces will 66,000 today. let me for the air force, an emphasis on capability overcapacity mean we protect the key modernization

of graham including the new bomber, the joint strike fighter and the new refueling tanker. we also recommended investing $1 billion in a next generation jet technology which we expect to produce cost-saving to produce fuel consumption. this new funding will help ensure our robust industrial base. a strong and important base itself, a national strategic place. to fund these, the air force will reduce the members including the entire fleet. savesng the a-10 fleet $10 billion. it will call for replacing the a-10's with f-35's.

talk is a venerable platform. it was a tough decision. it is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks and cold war battlefields. cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft for defenses. and as we saw in iraq and afghanistan, the advent means that many more types of aircraft can now provide even active support from b-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft. these aircraft can execute more than one mission. the a-10 is also making it more difficult and costly to maintain. significant savings are only possible to eliminate the entire fleet because of the fixed cost of maintaining support apparatuses associated with that aircraft. keeping a small number of a 10's .ould delay the trade-offs

in addition, the air force will retire the 50-year-old u2 in favor of the unmanned. calldecision was a close as the dod had recommended hogining the u2 over the over cause issues. dod has been able to reduce the operating cost with is greater range and endurance, the global hawk has a higher attitude reconnaissance a form for the future. systemsnal of unmanned that while effective against insurgents and terrorists cannot operate in the face of enemy aircraft in modern air defense. instead of increasing around-the-clock air patrols of predator and reaper, the air force will go to 55. still a significant increase given the continued drawdown in

afghanistan, this coverage will be sufficient to meet our requirements and we will still combat areasrve 71 of. buy the more capable reapers until we have an all reaper fleet. aree sequestration levels returned in 2016 and beyond. the air force would have to make a more significant cuts. the air force would have to retire 80 more aircraft including the entire kc-10 and as well as slow down purchases of joint strikers -- through 2019. and itbat air patrol a return too take

readiness. next, the navy. under the budget plan, the navy will lunch and aggressive and ambitious plan to reduce cost and maximize resources available to buy available ships. inventoryenable our to continue to grow over the next five years to support global demand. the spinet levels propose under the budget would enable the navy to maintain 11 carrier strikes. make a, we would have to final decision in the future on the george washington aircraft in the 2016 budget. if sequestration levels remain 2016,ce for fiscal year she would need to be retired before her scheduled nuclear refueling and that would leave the navy with 10 carrier strike

groups. keeping the george washington and the fleet will cost $6 billion. we would have no other choice than to retire due to sequestration levels be reimposed. at the president's budget a level, we would pay for the overhaul and maintain 11 carrier's. inventoryo keep the ready and modern under the president's plan, half of the cruiser fleets or ships would be laid up and reduced while they are modernized and eventually returned to service with greater capability and a longer lifespan. this approach enables us over the long term to sustain the modernize of our fleets of cruisers which are the most capable ships. fleet would navy's be modernize under our plan which continues buying two destroyers and two attack submarines per year as well as

one additional floating base. we preserve the fleet's modernization program and provide for increased in inventory over the next five years. ship, i amhe combat concerned the navy is relying too heavily to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. therefore, no new hundred negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. with this decision, the line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions. it was designed to perform certain missions such as mine sweeping. in a relatively permissive environment. we need to closely examine has ar the system protection and firepower to operate and survive against the more advanced adversaries and

emerging new technologies especially in the asia-pacific. if we were to build out of the program to 52 ships as previously planned, it would of our future 300 ship navy a given fiscal restraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources to a platform that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum. additionally, the navy will submit alternative programs for lethal small surface combatants generally consistent with the capabilities. i've directed the navy to consider a new design of ship design and a modified lcs. these proposals are due to meet later this year and time to inform the budget. if sequestration spending levels return in 2016 and beyond, will be forced into much tougher

surfaces on the navy fleet. six additional ships would have to be laid out and we would have to slow the rate in which we by destroyers. the net result of sequestration level cuts would be 10 fewer large service combatant ships in the navy operational by 2023. spending levels, the navy would hold procurement of impairment for two years. the marine corps inherent agility and crisis response capabilities and maritime focus makes it well-suited to carry out many priority missions under the president's defense strategy. if the presidents levels are sustained in the next five years, it would avoid reduction and beyond those already planned. numberthe marines 190,000 and they would drawdown

to one hundred 82,000. if sequestration level cuts are reimposed in 2016 and beyond, the marines would have to shrink to 100 75,000. under any scenario, we would devote 900 more marines for enhancement around the world. finally, the army. we seek a highly ready and capable army. able to dominate any opponent across the whole spectrum of operation. to achieve this, the army must accelerate the pace and increases scale. 520,000here are about active-duty soldiers which the army had planned to reduce to 490,000. the strategic choices in management review and the qdr determined since we are no longer holding stability operations, an army of this size

is larger than required to meet the demand of our defense strategy. given reduced budgets, it is also larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready. will decided to further reduce active strength to a range of 44 0-450 soldiers. i've accepted the army's recommendation to terminate the current ground combat vehicle row graham and redirect the funds to developing the next generation. i've asked the leadership of the army and the marine corps to deliver new realistic vision for a vehicle modernization by the end of this fiscal year. the changes would result in a smaller army, but would help ensure the army remains well superior inclearly arms and equipment. while the smaller capacity and risks, if wenal

simultaneously had ground operations emma our analysis showed this force would be capable to defeat aggression and eater asajor combat th it must be supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary. reimposed in 2016, the active-duty army would have to drawdown to 120,000 soldiers. the army national guard and reserves will also drawdown in order to maintain a balanced force. today, the number is about 355,000 soldiers in the reserves soldiers.5000 by 2017, under our recommendations, it would be 335,000 soldiers in the army inional guard and 195,000

the reserves. returns, theion army national guard would continue drawing down further to 315,000. army reserves to 185,000. where protected the national guard and reserves from cuts to the extent possible, but in order to maintain and be ready and capable force and time of fiscal constraints, no component of dod can be entirely exempted from reduction. recommendation and guards and soldiers is smaller than the 13% reduction in active-duty soldiers. and mindful that many in the community and congress have argued that the reserve component should be protected from cuts because they provide more troops at a lower cost. if our priority was having the largest possible force in the event of a large-scale prolonged

war, that would be reasonable. however, our defense strategy calls for more than that. capacity is just one factor. readiness,prioritize capability, and agility. while it is true that reserve units are less expensive when not mobilized, our analysis shows in the reserve unit is roughly the same cost as an active-duty unit would mobilize -- would mobilize. they perform well in afghanistan and iraq and we cannot have achieved what we did without them. express shows the specialties require greater collective training to combat. -- it should reside in a full-time force where the capabilities will be more ready and available to commanders.

what best serves our national security is when the guard and reserve units complement the active forceful stop that is why he be given topac active duty. the active army will transfer black hawk helicopters to the national guard. they will bolster the needed capabilities in areas like disaster relief and emergency response. to the guard helicopter fleet are part of a broader realignment of aviation designed to modernize the fleet and make it highly capable and affordable. jetfourth will retire its ranger used. the active army overall fleet would decrease by 25%. it would be significantly modernize under the president's budget plan. the fleet of helicopters would decline by 8%. blackhawks andew

light utility. if sequestration is reimposed, the army would have to cut 50 of these helicopters from the guards. while any reduction has risk, a future guard force would still serve as an important operational and strategic wellmmate -- complement equipped for requirements for homeland defense. and support to civil authorities. in making these difficult decisions on the guard and reserves, we affirm the value of a highly capable reserve component while keeping the focus on how our military can fast meet future demand. we made choices based on strategic priorities, clear fact, unbiased analysis, and fiscal realities.

with the bottom-line focus on how best we can defend the united states. beyond modernization, there's the challenge of dod's personnel cost. it makes up half. dod has complied with congressional direction to reduce our civilian personnel numbers and work to reshape our civilian workforce so that it has the skills needed for the future. given steps taken to reduce civilian personnel costs including three-year pay freeze, no realistic effort to find further significant savings can avoid dealing with compensation. that includes pay and benefits for active and retired troops, both direct and in-kind. primary way to reduce overall payroll spending has already been discussed, reducing the total number of people in uniform by breaking down the military core structure.

small a force at it too much risk to our national security interest, we must address pay and benefits for 2001ce members which since has risen about 40% more than the growth in the private sector. one of the reasons is that congress has boosted pay increases above the levels requested by dod and budget submission. nuven if this increases in pay -- new benefits and increases in pay went beyond what expected or had been promised when joined the military. as a united states senator, i support these proposals, it was the right thing to do at the time. given the burden on our service members, the recruiting and retaining challenges, and the fact we had few constraints on spending. but today, dod faces a vastly different fiscal situation at all of the service continued to

meet recruiting and retention goals. this year, where concluding combat operations in america's long to war. a war that lasted 13 years. we must consider fair and responsible justice to our conversation package. for 2015, we will recommend a one percent raise in basic pay for personnel with the exception flight officers hold pay will be frozen for one year. basic pay raises beyond fiscal year 2015 will be restrained and races will continue. we are also recommending a number of changes. will slow the growth of tax-free housing which currently cover 100% of housing expenses until ofcovers an average of 95% housing expenses with a 5% out

of pocket contribution. in comparison, the average out of pocket was a two percent in the late 1990's. we will no longer reimburse for renters insurance. we will reduce by $1 billion to annual subsidy provided to military which totals $1.4 billion. we are not shutting down, series. will get free's rent and pay no taxes and can provide a good deal to service members and retirees just like our post exchanges. which do not receive direct subsidies. oversees and a remote locations will continue to receive direct subsidies. we will simplify and modernize our health insurance plan by consolidating plant and adjusting deductibles and co-pays in ways that encourage members to use the most affordable means of care such as

military treatment facilities, preferred providers, and generic prescriptions. what as retirees and some active family members to pay a little more in their deductibles and co-pays but their benefits will remain affordable and generous as they should. vulnerablethe most under this plan, medically retired service members and ofilies and the survivors members who died in active-duty would not pay the annual participation fees charged to other retirees and would pay a smaller share of the cost for health care. our proposals do not include any recommended changes to retirement benefits for those now serving in the armed forces. we are awaiting the results of the compensation or retirement commission which is expected to present its report in february 2015. we will await the commission's

pursuing reforms in this area. the dod continues to support the le of grandfathering for any changes in the future. the adjustments to compensation presented in this year's budget plan would allow them to invest more critically important modernization and readiness while allowing them to recruit and work can -- and retain generous, competitive, and sustainable benefits. the savings will enable us to have a well-trained and ready, agile, and motivated and technologically superior force. although these recommendations do not cut anybody' as pay, i realize they will be controversial. congress has taken important steps to control the growth of compensation spending but we must do more. and comprehensive of

approach must be taken to compensation changes. continuing piecemeal changes will magnify uncertainty and magnify doubts about our service members and with our service members about whether promised benefits will be there in the future. instead, we must keep faith to our men and women in uniform and fulfill the promises that we have made to them. america has an obligation to make sure service members and their families are fairly and appropriately compensated and care for. we must also have a responsibility to provide our troops with the finest training and equipment possible. so the whenever america calls upon them, they are prepared with every advantage we can give them so they will return home safely to their families. the president's budget fulfills both of these promises.

our proposals would carefully crafted. -- our proposal were carefully crafted and we recognize nobody serving our nation in uniform today is overpaid for what they do for our country. on thewe continue current course without making these modest adjustments now, the choices will only grow more difficult and more painful down the road. we will inevitably have to cut into compensation even more deeply and abruptly or deprive our men and women of the training that they need to succeed in battle. would ber way, we breaking faith with our people. and the president and i will not allow that to happen. the recommendations i have described will help bring us into balance over the next decade and position us for strategic and fiscal uncertainty.

will log the military to protect our country and fulfill the strategy. but, with some increased levels of risk. we should be clear about these risks. over the near-term because of budget limitations even under the budget ax, the military will continue to have gaps in training and a mad dash and maintenance diminishing -- and maintenance even as we sustain a heightened posture in areas like the middle east and africa. $26 billion provided to dod by the president's fund would allow us to continue to restore readiness and help mitigate the risk. we also face the risk of uncertainty in a dynamic and dangerous security environment. budget reductions in everett will he reduce the margin of error in dealing with these risks.

as other powers are continuing to modernize their weapon portfolios to include anti-ship systems and anti-air and a smaller force strained our risk to respond to contingencies. with the president's budget, our military will still be able to go against any aggressor. we can manage these anticipated risks under the budget plan. they would grow significantly if sequestration level cuts return in 2016. if our reforms are not accepted, or uncertainty levels over budget cuts continue. as i have made clear, the scale and timeline of continued sequestration level cuts would require greater reductions in the military's size, reach, and margin of technological superiority. under sequestration spending levels, we would be gambling that our military would not be able to respond to multiple contingencies at the same time.

that is why our recommendations beyond fiscal year 2015 provide a realistic alternative to sequestration level cuts, sustaining readiness and modernization most relevant to strategic priorities. but this can only be achieved by strategic balance and reforms and reductions that the president and i will present to the congress next week. this require congress -- congress -- to partner with the department of defense in making politically difficult choices, which i will address more specifically when i testify before congress. as i waive these recommendations, i have, as i often do, look to the pages of american history for guidance. in doing so, and admonition by henry stimpson stood out.

writing after world war ii, roosevelt secretary of war during that time said that americans must act in the world as it is and not in the world as we wish it were. stimpson knew that america's security at home dependent on sustaining our commitment abroad and investing in strong national defense. he was a realist. this is a time for reality. this is a budget that recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the american military's unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today's volatile world. there are difficult decisions ahead. that is the reality we are living with. but with this reality comes opportunity. the opportunity to reshape our defense enterprise to be better prepared, positioned, and equipped to secure america's interests in the years ahead.

all of the dod leaders, these men and women sitting here today, and i have every confidence that this will be accomplished. thank you. >> as the secretary has laid out in detail, this budget proposal represents a response, and more important, a realistic way forward. in my view, it represents both sound national security and fiscal responsibility. it provides the tools for today's force to accomplish the missions we have been assigned, rebuilding readiness in areas that were, by necessity, deemphasized in the past decade. it modernizes the joint force for tomorrow, ensuring that we are globally networked and can deliver options for the nations. and it reflects in real terms how we are reducing our cost, the cost of doing business, and working to ensure that the force is in the right balance. in short, this budget helps us

to remain in the world's finest military, modern, capable, and ready, even while transitioning to a smaller, more affordable force over time. the chiefs and i will never end our campaign to find every way to become more effective. we will do things smarter and more efficiently, more in line with the sorts of security challenges that we face, and in line with fiscal reality. we will seek innovative approaches not just in technology, but also in how we develop leaders, aggregate our formations, and work with our partners. we will improve how we buy weapons and goods and services, streamline our headquarters, and with the support of our elected leaders, shed excess into structure and weapons systems at we no longer need and simply can no longer afford. at the same time, this budget recognizes the imperative of getting our personnel costs in balance. otherwise, we will be forced into disproportionate cuts to readiness and modernization.

i know this weighs heavily on the minds of our men and women in uniform, and on their families. our force is extraordinarily accepting of change. they are less understanding of piecemeal approaches. they want and deserve predictability. the chiefs and i also continue to strongly recommend grandfathering any future hanges to military reand support wounded warriors and those with mental health issues. we will be able to reinvest the money into closing some of the dire readiness gaps into other capabilities that will allow us to meet the nation's needs for the future. i said before that we must be clear about what the joint force can achieve, how quickly and for how long and at what risk. to be clear, we do assume higher

risks in some areas, under the f.y. 15 budget and we'll have to manage those risks. however if sequestration level cuts return in 16, the risks grow and the options we can provide the nation dramatically slink. we're all willing to take risks but none of us are willing to take a gamble, because at the end of the day, it is our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardsmen, america's sons and daughters who'll face the challenges with the restructuring that we face they must be the best led, the best trained and the best equipped force in the world. thank you.

what do you say to critics? >> well, let me answer your question this way. framed up in my remarks the realities of the kind of world that we live in. i also noted in my remarks what we collectively, the leadership the department of defense believe is going to be required. to deal with the threats and challenges that the real world presents to america and our allies and our partners. as i have said, we believe that we will present a budget that can fulfill the commitments that we have to this nation, our people, to keep them safe and secure and also the commitments that we have to our allies and

partners around the world. there are difference s of opinion on how we do that. but at the same time, we owe it to the american people and our congress, individuals who represent the american people, the risks involved and further cuts to our budget. so we have tried to present a budget based on the balance of those realities. we have done it in a collaborative, pragmatic way that we think we can defend and i understand there are many audiences here. but i believe, as i said in my closing remarks, that this country should be assured that we will retain the capability to defend our country and our interests around the world. i believe that our allies, as well as our adversaries, will

understand that. there is no military in the world that is anywhere near as capable as the american military. by any metric applied whether it is the quality of the people, it is the institution, it is the technological edge, it is the resources we apply. i have confidence in this budgetened aconfidence that we can defend the interests of this country. >> i have a question about the $26 billion opportunity fund. could you clarify it a little bit? it was implied this is a done deal. you're going to get the money automatically? what events have to happen in domestic scregsry spending and tax revenue increases in order for you to see any of that money? >> as i said, and i think in your prebriefing that you received is that we will present the $26 billion in the budget that will be presented next week

to the congress, o.m. sbmbings working that issue as part of a total $58 billion package on behalf of the entire administration. the d.o.d. part of that is $26 billion. i hope i didn't reference any point about guaranteeing anything. no budget is guaranteed. but this is $26 billion that we collectively believe needs to be put back in to get us back up to a standard of readiness and buy back much of the operational shrinkage that we have had over the last two years. get us back on a track that we have fallen back from over the last two years of these cuts. so that is what it is about. the mechanics of that will be presented in the budgets and through o.m.b. and through the president's larger budget. >> i have a capabilities question.

why wasn't the f-35, the largest weapons program in history, touched in this budget. advertise nickeled a little bit in the plan. why wasn't more money taken from that program to preserve the army and marine corps? >> did you just say that i have critics out there? [laughter] look, this was all about trying to balance capability, both today's capability and future capabilities based on emerging threats and you're well aware what the f-35 brings as a fifth generation fighter with capacity, size and readiness. in that equation and with the collaboration of the service chiefs, we managed it and it wasn't managed exactly the same by each service, by the way. this has been a year-long process. >> mr. secretary, on pay and benefits, you and other secretaries have done this

before, tried to slow the growth in pay and benefits. congress has pretty much rejected most of this. what makes you think you'll be any luckier this time and i know you met with the veterans service organization this morning in sort of lay this out. how tense was that meeting and did you make a sale? >> you'd have to ask them. i wasn't there to make a sale on that particular meeting. i was there to, as i have been since i've been here as secretary of defense, this is the fourth time that i have met with them and it wasn't a sales job. it was first of all, to explain to them how we came at the decisions and the choices and what we used as reference points. give them a clear understanding of that, then i want to hear from them. i wanted to get their opinions. and we listened to them. it suspect just four times a year. e listened to them all the

these represent veterans. this is the whole universe of the people who do so much for our country and have done so much. so i wanted to hear from them. i wanted to get their feedback on what is possible and what is not possible and also explain. they know this better than almost anyone. there are tough choices out there. they get that. i want to assure them that i want their input. i need their input. we all do. but we're going to proceed as i have used the term a number of times in my speech, a fairway sis. -- fairway sis. an promote basis that we can sustain. something that is really important. i mentioned this briefly. whatever decisions ultimately are going to be made on pay compensation, retirement, it needs to be done once so that our me and women and their

families in uniform, those who have served and those who are thinking about serving, don't constantly live under this cloud of uncertainty and threat. what are they going to to us next year? they are going to take this out next year. i don't want that. we can't have that and we won't let that happen. so it was a number of things, tom, that we talked to them about. theo your initial question, only thing i can say in answer to past secretaries, this secretary, efforts have been made before. i said in the speech here and everybody here knows this. this is a different time. in ourn't seen this time budget, threats in the world, what's going on in the world, certainly like every year is different. but this is the first time in 13 years we will brent -- be presenting a budget to the

congress to have united states. that is not a war budget. now you might say so what? budget is a defining because it starts to reset, reshape. marty's comments rebalance, redefine our enterprise for the future. so what we have that we're dealing with and i use the term reality because reality is what we have. it is a different time. it is a different situation. it doesn't mean that we're going to accomplish everything that we have proposed. time. different it means that we're required to deal with that different time in a very responsible way. >> last question. scrage hagel. you mentioned that we need to be clear about the risks. in 2016, the army might go down to 460,000.

does that mean the army is going to have difficulty preavailing in a major conflict? wlar the risk is and the chairman noted this and i have noted it in mine. others, we have talked to not just the chiefs and the secretaries here, is that any time you bring force structure down and capability down and resources down, that is going add to the risk of the dimension of the missions you're expected to carry out. fewer troops, ships. red jins not the same standard. of course there is going to be risk. that means there is risk across a whole horizon of responsibilities. that's what we're talking about. it cannot be any other way if you're going to fulfill president's defense strategy guidance and protect our interests around the world and fulfill the commitments we have for our own security interests

and to allies and partners. >> i need add something to that. there is always this tendency when you look at what's happening to the budget to look at what's happening to each individual service. but don't forget we're a joint force. let me just take, for example, you mentioned the army's end strength and what effect it would have on the army. it would also have an effect on the joint force. the army provides a lot of commander control signals, things a the other services fall in on that the army provides. the army falls in a things a the other services provide. this will have anfect on all the services if we go all the way to sequestration levels. when you add to that the human dimension to this so that for example, inside of a force structure of 420,000 about 1/3

of it is the institutional support to itself, school, houses, medical programs, all the things that make a service a service, it really begins to limit in some significant ways that which is available to deploy and r into combat. i'm telling you 420 is too low. >> >> that's all details that will come out as we discuss this budget, i think. >> thanks, everybody. >> thank you. >> the department of defense announced budget cuts and we're joined by leo shane who reports on congress for the military times group. there have been disagreements about ending some of the programs. do you think we'll see the same conflicts with the new round of cuts? >> absolutely. we're seeing a lot of cuts that congress has rejected in the past or voiced strong opposition to. i expect to see the same battles

here, pay raise, military benefits. congress has made it clear they are not fond of it so the d.o.d. has their work cut out to convince them that this is absolutely needed. >> chuck hagel mentioned cutting specific programs like to a-10 aircraft. the u2 spy plane. do you see congress wanting to keep either of those? >> just last year the a-10, congress made sure no money was used to tend program. i expect to see the same fight there. u2, i don't know how much fight there has been on the hill for that. we're seeing this in some of the cuts they suggested and pay raises they suggested. the d.o.d. keeps coming back saying these have r-absolutely necessary moves and congress says they are not things we prefer. >> why is that? why do they want to keep these programs that d.o.d. says they

don't want? >> some of the folks who have -- at the bases in their backyard. there is a lot of old veterans who support these and who talked to their congressmen and want to keep them as well. in some parts, it is just election politics. that is what we have seen up until last year, we have seen whatever pay raise the d.o.d. has come up with, congress has come up with one that is a little bit higher. the folks at the pentagon have had to do a sales pitch to tell them no, we can't afford to keep giving a little bit higher pay raises. >> are there certain regions of the country that would be more affected by others by the proposed cuts? >> some would be hit harder as some equipment is moved from guard units to active duty units and the army and some of the

other services. there certainly would be some of those effects. right now we have seen the real top line big picture sort of items. the biggest things that are jumping out to us are those general pay and benefit issues that will affect everyone across the force. there are associated force reports secretary hagel wants to decrease the size of the military from 522,000 to about 50,000 soldiers. any opposition there from congress? >> we have heard a lot of folks say it is really getting too small already. that 50 number is one that -- 4 50 number is one that scares them. the pentagon has countered they people cost money. they can't afford to keep that many people on in a nonwar-time footing. so there will be fights. there will be a lot conversations about what is the right number for each of the services. we're talking about significant cuts to the marine corps as well. i think we're going to see

fights on just about everything as it gets up to the hill. have we seen plans similar to this before like donald rumsfeltfeld prior to 9/11? > i'm not sure about that far. 9/11 changed everything overnight. we saw secretaries gates and pennetta change with some of the benefit roll backs. they were met with mixed success. it is very easy for congress to give it extra money when it looks like they are being magnanimous when it comes time to paying for it, it becomes tougher for everyone. >> what happens to the budget proposal from here? what can we expect? where does it go now? >> next monday we'll see the full rollout of all the budget proposals. we'll get into a lot more detail tail into what this means. some of the bigger ticket items, some of the themes of the budget.

you'll see everybody attacking the nitty-gritty specifics as of next week. the house will have first crack with some of the appropriations and authorization bills. actually chairman mckeown of the house arled serviceskey said he is making sure his committees work on this bill to get it done by october 1, the start turnover fiscal year. that would be only the second time they have been able to get the budget on time. we'll see. there is usually plenty of fights, not just between d.o.d. and congress but the house and the senate. >> leo shane, you can raze his time -- army armytime.com. >> eric holder is expected to touch on a number of topics including recent settlements with the mortgage and loan industry, human trafficking.

live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. later in the day on c-span 3, the house and senate veterans affairs committees will hold a joint hearing on disabled military veterans. we'll have live coverage starting at 2:00 eastern. >> what we're told, both as students and as a nation in terms of popular imagination is that there is all kinds of sit-ins and marches and demonstrations that occur, and they are really done by these famous iconic people. basically it is rosa parks who was so tired she refused to get up on the bus in montgomery, alabama and this young preacher from georgia, dr. martin luther king jr. who sort of leads the masses of african-americans from racial oppression.

so this notion, rosa and martin could do this stuff and jesse could run and bar rack, all of these thing, they sound good but they really simplify a much more complicated history and that really involves so many african-americans, women and men, who proactively dismantled racial segregation, including rosa parks. she was an activist. she didn't just refuse to give up her seat by accident. it was a concerted strategic effort to try transform democratic resolution. peniel joseph on what he calls black power studies. his latest will be in bookstores march 4. sunday he will take your questions in depth live for three hours on c-span 2's book tv.

>> ukraine's ambassador to the united nation's spoke to reporters about the political situation in his country. ukraine has appealed for international aid after its russian-backed president was ousted from office over the weekend. -- media keeps speaking about. viktor yanukovych's resignation shocked everybody, including his own party. quite a strong statement by more than 100 members of his party in the parliament and they called him a traitor. someone who has to answer for everything that happened in the ukraine. you may find the full statement

n the sides of -- regions. people was betrayed and forced to -- and all responsibility is in the hands of viktor yanukovych and his circle. all members of the parts regions strongly condemn unlawful orders which led to human losses, political and economic crisis and put ukraine on the threat of ollapse. there could be differences. the goal is common. united, strong and independent ukraine. more than 100 national deputies will continue to serve people. we have full trust in them. the party of regions condemns the detrail and criminal orders of viktor yanukovych which put

ordinary people, soldiers and fficers under the bus. lies nd to stop spreading about the nature of political change in ukraine as a coup. creating a government of national trust. we accept the support of all of those difficult but necessary democratic changes that this government should bring in ukraine. an opportunity i would like to thank all the governments here presented by the distinguished delegates and ambassadors for their support, their solidarity. i would like to thank all the embers of the security council who give their voice in favor of ukraine today during the briefing of the o.e.c.

presidents. i answered in my statement that -- took the position on december 1 the huge manifestation of ukrainians, americans. they were -- they invited me to make a statement and i made a statement. i told them that my mission, my -- was them. we condemned at that time, if you remember, the statement sounded like that. force shocked with -- the against the peacefully demonstrating people. we were shocked at their constitutional rights, too many were violated. i said that we demand an

investigation for the --petrators not only for the the police force but also those who threatened directly students to be excluded from universities. it was exactly our statement. looks like i'm what we did from the very beginning, we -- the office of the secretary general and other institutions here. raising awareness of what is going on. i answered somebody here that look how many times the secretary general made statements and strong statements. he visited and mitigated. it is also part of the job. of us d of -- if all

resigned, what i am explaining to my colleagues. because they asked me, look, two days ago, some of the missions they made -- they took the position. we did it. three months ago. more dangerous situation and then we continued our job. that's why repeating that, i feel that i explained my position and i will keep working not for any government, as -- not for any. we are here not to work for the government, but we're here to work for the state and its people. this is what i answered today. yesterday, sorry, at the front of the

consulate general. despite the fact that he is serving the government, he made something and he told about what i told you. from the very beginning, i told him no. i'm -- i'm serving the people and the state. >> following a meeting at the white house with the president, a number of governors disagreed on a number of issues including the minimum wage and the keystone pipeline. that is next on c-span. en maria of the fox news network moderates a forum on the economy and jobs. we'll hear more about proposed pentagon budget cuts and scaling down the size of the u.s. army on our next "washington journal." then americans for tax reform

will weigh in on efforts by house ways and means chairman to overhaul the tax code. later, chris murphy, who chairs a european affairs subcommittee will discuss the political situation in ukraine and the u.s. role there and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern on -span. president obama and vice president biden spoke to the nation's goffers at the white house about the minimum wage and the economy. the national governor's association is holding its annual meeting in washington. [applause] >> >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much.

thanks for making the cabinet stand up for me. [laughter] i appreciate it. it's great to see you all. and i don't know about you all, i had a great time last night and got a chance to actually do what we should be doing more of -- talking without thinking about politics and figuring how we can solve problems. you've observed by now the reason the president and i like doing this every year is it's nice dealing with people who know they got to get a job done, and they get a job done. and i've gotten a chance to work directly with an awful lot of you in the days of the recovery act and even when we were working on the gun violence, rebuilding from that super storm sandy, which hit my state as well, and tornadoes and floods in a number of your states. but it never ceases to amaze me how you all mobilize. you just mobilize. when crises hit your states, you mobilize and you rebuild.

and you rebuild your infrastructure not to the standards that existed before, but to 21st century standards. you balance your budgets, you save neighborhoods, and you bring back jobs to your communities. and the other thing i pick up -- and i may be wrong. i'm always labeled as the white house optimist, like i'm the kid who fell off the turnip truck yesterday, but i am the youngest here -- and new. but it always amazes me your sense of optimism. you're the one group of folks you go to with all the problems you have that you're optimistic. you're optimistic about it being able to be done, getting things done. that is not always the mood up in the place where i spent a large portion of my career. and last night i got to speak to a bunch of you, particularly about the job skills initiative the president asked me to lead, and i had a chance to speak with some of you specifically, and i'm going to ask to -- i'm going to get a chance to see more of you this afternoon.

but this is more than just -- at least from the president's perspective and mine -- more than just a job skills initiative. it's about literally opening the aperture to the middle class. the middle class has actually shrunk. and we always have these debates with our economists -- is the middle class $49,820 or $52,000? the middle class to me, and i think to most of you, it's really a state of mind. it's about being able to own your home and not have to rent it. it's about being able to send your kid to a park where you know you can send them out, and they'll come home safely. it's about being able to send them to school, that if they do well in the school, they're going to be able to get to something beyond high school if they want to do that. and you're going to be able to pay for it. and in the meantime, you may be able to take care of your mom and dad who are in tough shape and hope that your kids never have to take care of you. that's the middle class. and before the great recession, it was already beginning to shrink. so together, we got to open --

mary, you and i have talked about this -- about opening the aperture here for access to the middle class. but we'll be speaking a lot more about that in the next several months. a couple of you invited me to come out your way, including some of my republican friends. and i'm going to be working with all of you. but today i just want to say thank you. thank you for what you always do. you come to town, you come to town with answers. you come to town with suggestions. you come to town to get things done. and believe me, we need that and the american people are looking for it. and i want to welcome you back to the white house and introduce you now to my friend, your president, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. please, have a seat. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. welcome to the white house.

i know that you've already been doing a lot of work, and i'm glad to be able to come here and engage in a dialogue with all of you. i want to thank mary and john for their leadership at the nga. i want to thank my outstanding vice president, joe biden, who is very excited i think about the jobs initiative, and is going to be -- the job training initiative, and i think is going to be doing a great job on that. michelle and i had a wonderful time hosting you guys last night, and i hope all the spouses enjoyed it. and i know alex enjoyed it. [laughter] one good thing about living here is that you can make all the noise you want and nobody is going to complain. [laughter] and i enjoyed watching some of you with your eyes on higher office size up the drapes and each other. we don't have a lot of time today, so i want to be very

brief, go straight to q&a and discussion. we're at a moment when our economy is growing. our businesses have now created over 8.5 million new jobs over the past four years. but as i've said several times, the trends that have battered the middle class for a couple of decades now are still there and still have to be addressed. those at the top are doing very well. ordinary families still feeling squeezed. too many americans are working harder than ever and just barely getting by. and reversing those trends are going to require us to work together around what i'm calling an opportunity agenda based on four things. number one, more good jobs that pay good wages. number two, training more americans to be able to take the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs that are created. number three, guaranteeing access to a world-class

education for every american child all across our 50 states and our territories. and making sure that hard work pays off, with wages that you can live on, savings that you can retire on, health insurance that you can count on. and all of this is going to take some action. so far, just in the past few weeks, i've acted to lift the wages of workers who work for federal contractors to pay their -- make sure their employees are getting paid at least $10.10 an hour. we've ordered an across-the-board reform of our job training programs, much of it aligned with some of the work that mary has done during her tenure as head of the nga. we directed our treasury to create a new way for americans to start saving for retirement. we've been able to rally america's business leaders to help more of the long-term unemployed find work, and to

help us make sure that all of our kids have access to high-speed internet and high-tech learning tools in the classroom. the point is this has to be a year of action. and i'm eager to work with congress wherever i can. my hope is, is that despite this being an election year, that there will be occasions where both parties determine that it makes sense to actually get some things done in this town. but wherever i can work on my own to expand opportunity for more americans, i'm going to do that. and i am absolutely convinced that the time is right to partner with the states and governors all across the country on these agendas, because i know that you guys are doing some terrific work in your own states. there may not be much of an appetite in congress for doing big jobs bills, but we can still grow selectusa. secretary pritzker's team has put together a terrific formula where we're attracting investors

from all around the world to see america as an outstanding place to invest. and i mentioned this at the state of the union -- for the first time last year, what we're seeing is, is that world investors now see america as the number-one place to do business rather than china. and it's a sign of a lot of things converging, both on the energy front, worker productivity, our innovation, our research, ease of doing business, and a lot of that work is as a consequence of steps we've taken not just at the federal level, but also at the state level. so we've got to take advantage of that. secretary pritzker has been helping a belgian company create jobs in stillwater, oklahoma, helping an austrian company create jobs in cartersville, georgia. so we can do more of this, and we really want to engage with you over the next several months to find ways that we can help market america and your states

to businesses all around the world and bring jobs back. since i called on congress to raise the minimum wage last year, six states have gone ahead and done it on their own. last month, i asked more business leaders to raise their workers' wages. last week, gap said it would lift wages for about 65,000 of its employees. several of you are trying to boost wages for your workers. i'm going to do everything i can to support those efforts. while congress decides what it's going to do on making high-quality pre-k available to more kids, there is bipartisan work being done among the folks in this room. you've got governors like robert bentley and jack markell, susana martinez, deval patrick -- all expanding funding or dedicating funds to make that happen in their states. and we want to partner with you. this year, i'll pull together a coalition of philanthropists, elected officials, and business leaders, all of whom are excited

and interested in working with you to help more kids access the high-quality pre-k that they need. and while congress talks about repealing the affordable care act or doing this or doing that to it, places like california and kentucky are going gangbusters and enrolling more americans in quality, affordable health care plans. you've got republican governors here -- i won't name them in front of the press, because i don't want to get you all in trouble -- who have chosen to cover more people through new options under medicaid. and as a result, millions of people are going to get help. states that don't expand medicaid are going to be leaving up to 5.4 million americans uninsured. and that doesn't have to happen. work with us to get this done. we can provide a lot of flexibility. folks like mike beebe in arkansas have done some terrific work designing programs that are right for their states but also

provide access to care for people who need it. and i think kathleen sebelius, a former governor herself, has shown herself willing to work with all of you to try to find ways to get that done. on the west coast, you've got governors brown, inslee, kitzhaber who are working together to combat the effects of climate change on their states. we've set up a task force of governors and mayors and tribal leaders to help communities prepare for what we anticipate are going to be intensifying impacts of climate change. and we're setting up climate hubs in seven states across the country to help farmers and ranchers adapt their operations to a changing environment. in the budget that i'll send to congress next week, i'm going to propose fundamentally reforming the way federal governments fund wildfire suppression and prevention to make it more stable and secure, and this is an idea that's supported by both democrats and republicans. and finally, i want to thank those of you who have worked with michelle and jill biden on their joining forces initiative

to support our military families. at your meeting here two years ago, they asked for your help to make it easier for service members and their spouses to carry licenses for professions like teaching or nursing from state to state, rather than have to get a new one every time they were reassigned. at the time, only 12 states had acted to make this easier for spouses. only nine had acted to make it easier for service members. today, 42 states have passed legislation to help spouses. 45 states have made it easier for service members. we've got a few states remaining. let's get it done for everybody, because it's the right thing to do for those men and women who are working every day to make sure we stay free and secure. the point is, even when there is little appetite in congress to move on some of these priorities, at the state level you guys are governed by

practical considerations. you want to do right by your people and you see how good policy impacts your citizens, and you see how bad policy impacts your citizens, and that means that there's less room for posturing and politics, and more room for getting stuff done. we want to work with you. and i'm committed to making sure that every single member of my cabinet, every single person in the white house, every single member of my team will be responsive to you. we won't agree on every single issue every single time, but i guarantee you that we will work as hard as we can to make sure that you succeed, because when you succeed, the people in your states succeed and america succeeds, and that's our goal. so thank you very much, and i look forward to having a great discussion. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] >> after meeting at the white house with president obama, a

number of governors spoke to reporters. >> good. i am from governor fallon of oklahoma, and i am the national chair of the governor's association. i am joined by governor hickenlooper of colorado, and our fellow governors joining us. we appreciate the president, the vice president, and his administration for meeting with our governors. we think it is important to have a line of communication and collaboration between our states and the administration and the federal government itself. we believe the governors can provide great ideas to solutions facing our nation, especially at a time when we see in action in washington, and governors have to balance their budget, have to

come up with solutions to problems. our people expect them to take action on issues that are important not only to businesses, but to their everyday lives, so we had a productive conversation with the president, talked about numerous issues from jobs, economy, work force, our national governors association initiative which is called america works, education and training for tomorrow's jobs, how we help employers find a skill sets to fill the jobs that are important to america so we can continue to grow our jobs, our economy, and our states. we also talked about the importance of our role as commanders in chief of the national guard, how concerned we are about some of the reposed cuts coming out of the pentagon and how we feel that could weaken our abilities to be able

to provide the force we need within the national guard, especially during times of disasters, which is the time we had more tornadoes in oklahoma and john hickenlooper has had wildfires and flooding in colorado. governors have experienced a lot of national disasters. our men and women are being called up to serve at a time of war, too. protecting the strength and the court and the capability and having the right type of equipment for the national guard is important. we talked about drought and water concerns, especially in our western states and how important that is to us all. we talked about transportation funding. as we know the federal highway transportation bill reauthorization needs to be done by the end of this fiscal year. we are concerned about the national transportation fund running out of money and the trust fund itself, and so we had a great discussion about how

important it is for governors to have certainty with their infrastructure, how important if your structure is to commerce and trade and the traveling and safety of our public. we talked about health care and our governors have worked very hard with a committee, bipartisan committee, to offer the president and the administration some concrete ideas on medicaid reform, being able to look at cost containment of a growing sector of our state budgets, and that is medicaid, but also being able to provide access and affordable care within our state. that is a brief overview for me, and i know the other governors have a lot of things to say. >> i cannot help but notice it is brisk out here. in colorado we refer to this as spring skiing weather. i want to make sure i get that plug in. i thought we had a great four days.

we are ready to go back to our states, but we saw and openness from not just the president, cabinet, and the willingness to reach out to how we can work directly work together, and if we are going to build a big infrastructure project in colorado, oklahoma, how can we get that going, how can we compress that to one year, and make sure that the public gets a chance to review it and environmental concerns are addressed. how do we get all that done consecutively instead of doing it in parallel? that kind of reaching out is going to pay big dividends. there are a lot of places where we disagree on things, and governors have worked on a number of different projects, and we do it. i think having the cabinet looking at and reaching out with the president's authority will

allow us to do stuff that we have not done before. all the other things that the governor talked about was a breath of fresh air. we are delighted to hear. i want to recognize governor fallon who has done a great job leading this organization and making all that happened. questions? anybody else? >> governors? >> were there areas of sharp disagreement, would you say? >> what the governors try to do is find areas of agreement. we know there is going to be different ideas, principles, that the political parties stand for, and on those areas of disagreement we agree to disagree. on the areas we can come together to work to move this nation forward, to find solutions to problems, to share

our best practices -- and there are a lot of great ideas from republican and democratic governors -- we take those ideas back to our states. governor hickenlooper and i worked a lot on energy issues. there may be a difference of agreement on some on which forms of energy, but we all agree that having a stable, reliable source of energy is important for economic development, for the traveling public, and governor hickenlooper and i worked on that, talked about natural gas, and we have been talking to the president and his administration about cost savings from compressed natural gas vehicles. that is one example of how we work together. there are disagreements on some issues. >> there is some disagreement, but for every place there is disagreement, there are 10 places where we say we can work on that. i recognize that is not news,

but that is a change in direction and a very positive trend, not just for states, but for our country. >> [indiscernible] >> how did the president respond -- >> governor you have been such a great leader on the national guard. why don't you start? >> the president put it out there is going to have to be significant cuts in the budget. obviously, he is getting a lot of information from the pentagon. we, as commanders in chief of the national guard in our state, working with our adjutant generals believe that the buildup that occurred after 9/11 was primarily in the regular army. and that is why we think the reduction should the primarily in the regular army. the national guard has not only a state mission, but also been

deployed again and again in iraq and afghanistan, and they have done a phenomenal job. we think that they are very important to the national defense of this country, as well as to helping us in times of emergency in our individual states. i had a really good conversation after the meeting with vice president biden, and he is going to follow up with me, and he wants get more of that details from timothy or my accident general. i, along with governor o'malley, are co-chairs of the governors' council. we will meet this afternoon with leaders from the pentagon and homeland security to talk about these issues. we were disappointed the last meeting we had in milwaukee, the leadership of the pentagon was not in attendance, and we did not feel we had received the kind of consultant of process

that was envisioned. i am hopeful this afternoon's meeting will be much different, and i have been assured that will be the case. >> [indiscernible] >> i want to give governor o'malley -- >> thank you. i do not have much to add come except to point out the reason for these cuts is because of the sequester, and that is the situation in which we find ourselves. our guard does important work, and we would hope that congress would be mindful of that when they have to make cuts. the fact of the matter is president obama has reduced spending growth to its lowest levels of any president since dwight eisenhower. the fact of the matter is he has cut the annual deficit down to half of what it was when he came into office. to have to manage these sequester cuts on the backs of our national guard will be a challenge, and i look forward to

the meeting this afternoon with the governor and the leadership of the department of defense. >> did anybody suggest a revenue source to replace the shortfall in the gas tax? >> the president did talk about corporate income tax. he talked about the possibility of some loopholes. he did not give specifics on that at all. it will be up to congress to make those decisions. anybody else want to add anything to that? >> he looked at tax reform as one possible place, but even with that, he was clear that with more fuel-efficient vehicles, we will have less money for our roads and vehicles, even if we get a one-time bonus from corporate tax reform, we are going to have to address that shortage ongoing in different ways as well. >> i want to add a piece to the conversation about -- i'm from vermont -- we governors have to

get things done. it is not like congress. we have to make decisions, make things happen. the fact is what we are looking at is governors, short term, the transportation shortfall is we are actually signing contracts, rebuilding roads and bridges. we have contractors millions of jobs that should be out and being taking place, building roads and bridges, starting in may and june, for which we governors are going, wait a minute, we might be out of loot here because the transportation fund is dead, flat broke, in september. how are we going to pay our contracts for the federal money we have been promised/ we do not sit around and do partisan bickering. we are united in saying, listen, congress, did as one together. you will kill millions of jobs, you will make it impossible for us to rebuild crumbling roads and bridges if we do not get this short-term problem fixed.

>> did the issue of the keystone pipeline come up, and to the present give an indication of when he will make a decision? >> in oklahoma the keystone pipeline was connected from oklahoma down to the gulf coast because it was in the united states. i asked the president when we could anticipate a decision on the keystone pipeline, and asked him to use his executive order power to do that. he said he anticipates an answer in a couple of months. we hope that we will know one way or the other what the answer will be. i am a supporter of the keystone pipeline. we have an abundance of oil and gas in the united states, and in canada, that is important for building our national economy and roost -- and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

anybody else want to say anything? >> i want to comment on the keystone pipeline, because i asked about that as well. the president talked about using his pen and his phone to take executive actions and bypass congress. i made a few suggestions, and i have additional suggestions on how he could do that if he was serious about growing the economy. incresing drilling and leasing activities on federal lands is another. educational choice. the reality is the president has a choice. i heard a question of whether he mention the minimum wage. yes, he did, repeatedly. i worry that this president and the white house seems to be waving the white house of surrender. the obama economy is now the minimum wage economy. we can do better than that. i think america can do better than that. there are things that he can do with executive action. there are other things he can do. we asked him about reining in

regulation from the epa, adopt a regulatory budgets, repeal outdated relations. there are things we can do instead of waving the white flag of surrender, declaring this economy to be a minimum wage economy. i think we can do better. >> until a few moments ago we were going down a pretty cooperative road. [laughter] let me say that we do not all agree that moving canadian oil through the united states is necessarily the best thing for the united states economy. that not to say we do not want to make sure that we are maximizing our access to american gas and american oil. there are clearly differences here, quite frankly, and many states, we do not get revenue from those oil substances. let's be clear that there are differences here, and you just heard what i think ended up

being probably the most partisan statement that we have had all weekend. let's be clear. there are many people like myself who support the minimum wage and an increase in the minimum wage. we did this once in our state already this year. we have a plan to get to $10.10. i do not know what the reference was to a white flag. let's be very clear that we have had a great meeting and we did not go down that road and it just started again, and we did not start it. thank you. >> i think -- i would like to respond quickly. if that was the most partisan thing he has heard all week, i want to make sure he is hearing a more partisan statement, and going back to the essential point i made. the reality is if we are serious about growing our economy, we should not accept a 3% economic

growth. we should not accept the minimum wage which the cbo says will destroy 500,000 jobs. obamacare will result in more than 2 million fewer americans working. america can do better. america cap can grow our economy. i want to say that president was gracious in meeting with us. he took our questions, and bipartisan does not mean we have to ignore our substantive, philosophical differences. we think we can grow the economy, do better than a minimum wage economy. >> [indiscernible] >> i think we should invite governor jindal to join the nga again. we are glad -- >> i apologize. we are out of time. as you have heard, there are

issues we do agree, we agree to disagree. >> yes, absolutely. >> can i just say, if raising the minimum wage is going to cost fewer jobs, is raising the wage of economists who comment on it cause us to have fewer ?omments -- economists [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> attorney general eric holder will inter a -- address attorney general's from around the country at the annual meeting tomorrow. he is expected to touch on topics like the recent settling with the mortgage