and that is still happening. that is why that agreement gave a certain hope, but what ensued is hard to describe. ,his is lawlessness, terror complete chaos, and lack of power. these are unprecedented some of those that were subject to physical violence had stones thrown at them. they were intimidated. they were take care to the square where they took an oath of loyalty.

cannot be called the job of the parliament. this is done by opposition forces. they were pressed by the gun man and the seal of the to parliament -- parliament. that calledrnment the cabinet of it to read. three over the ukrainian people? have been a government of national unity. that is what we were discussing back then. difficult to find the proper words to describe how the power is being fought today into its in the power. the names, which became name -- known across the world, these

promotepeople who violence. beyond the ukraine, they are well known around the world. they insight fear. i believe the ukrainian parliament is not legitimate. i still maintain the sacrament which was not the filled, given the condition that it will be for sale could have called down and would have launched the legal process of resolving the political crisis in the ukraine. that was the way out.

the radicals have forced us into these dead ends. >> the second part of the question about the judges. >> this is unprecedented. not just for the ukraine but for any country of the world. the state itself is destroyed. we should not allow this to happen. i do not know if the microphone is going to work. i'm going to give the floor to him who has a loud voice. give him the microphone.

>> do you feel ashamed? ashamed. furthermore i would like to offer my apologies first and veterans, therde ukrainian people, for what happened in ukraine. for the fact that i did not have enough strength to maintain for they and to allow mess to happen. >> please introduce yourself. february, you signed an agreement with the opposition. you may concessions to the

opposition. suddenly you fled the country. could you please explain in detail why you fled the country? speak directly to people straight away? why did it and you asked the eu for how? >> thank you for the question. please keep to one question of possible. >> i did not flee anywhere. i went from kia to another city. during that trip when a still in , i wase -- kiev exposed to gunfire from automatic weapons. this was subject to gunfire. did not leave alone.

we did not flee. we were supposed to meet with and ourthe activist supporters from the regions. there was a for a that was supposed to take place, a conference. we arrived there late at night. we had to do that. when we arrived in the city of city, february morning tofrom early and the radical elements.

it was not about fear. . did not have any fear i needed to comply with the maintainnditions to these conditions. it is not my job to accept security rules. i accepted the decision. the speaker of the ukrainian and i asked them to fly to another city. we had a plane ready. and gathered the supporters thatll them everything

what had been happening in kiev. i decided to take a trip. we took two helicopters and dispatchers warned us strains theto direction. they said it looked like we were heading toward russia and that signal fighters to ground as. those tours are law abiding people. they decided to turn back and in another city.

here is the explanation of the situation. this is how it started to move around the ukraine. into which you crime year -- krimear eventually. the intentions i had were real threats.e new they said even the youngest grandchild was put on the blacklists. went to then kindergarten and preschool and took him away. he said i cannot risk the lives of my family. that is what the situation was like.

>> keep your cool. i would like someone from the bench to speak now. gentleman in the black jacket. could you speak on the current situation in krimea. i represent to the moscow. what do you think is going to happen in crimea in the near future? >> i am here now. a friend of mine lives near the this city.

find a temporary refuge here for a wild. , everything that is happening in crimea today is a natural breeze wants to the regime change that took place this year. the power that was done by radical mobsters. if you compare them to the 45 million population of ukraine. do not want to obey, and will not obey nationalists.

of course i sympathize for what is happening with the militia units. they want to defend themselves, their families. their homes. of the a natural dseiresire people. i know that crimeans can hear me. i would like to address them. urge restraing. t. please, avoid any conflict. of theneeds to stay part ukraine. of course by maintaining a broader area. >> ok. the next question will be yours. lee's.

please. [indiscernible] to come back to the ukraine? when is this going to happen? >> what about the second part of the question? >> when are you going to come back to ukraine? believe that any military actions in this situation are unacceptable. i am not going to request any military assistance. i believe that ukraine needs to stay united. possibility am i coming back, i will return to once the conditions of

my security and the security of my family will be insured. like the young man to speak up now. how did you get to russia? did you get here by plane? did you meet president putin? there are very few ukrainian journalists here. i would like to ask some more questions. you said you're going to fight for the future of ukraine. partiesnow all of your have fellow mps call you a

traitor? why do you think about the situation currently going on in crimea? can you please repeat the first two questions? how did you get into russia. that is one. did you meet with putin. that is it. please sit down. no more questions. here is how i came to russia. came by the officers. that is the way i am going to put his. they did their duty. they helped me to stay alive. number two, i did not meet mr.

putin. when i ended up here in russia i had a phone call with him. that once i have an opportunity once the president of russia has opportunity to meet, i do not know when this will happen. >> please keep pom calm. the lady with the mic or the young man. president, the agreement that you signed that no one is speaking of today. the agreement that you sign has

made no mention of at all today. don't you think that you have been deceived when you were made to do this assignment? this?uld you count for how did they decide so harshly? >> i do not quite get the question. >> i was not just deceived. they deceived the ukrainian keep will. situation i would like to get a raise on from those who also signed this agreement. they act did as guarantors of the agreement. short that this would be

met. we have no contacts with them. we talked over the phone. no reports or any desire to talk to me over the phone. the media were available. this is not enough. issue. to discuss this this issue -- this issue is still on the table. >> what was the second question about? how do you account for the division? i also reply to your question unione question in the news agency. i am not a judge.

let god judge them. judge their behavior in these times. pub -- thendemn the forced.ho were in their houses were burned. steps becauseke they were threatened with weapons. i had a chance to stop -- to talk to some of the mps when i was still in the ukraine. what i heard was really terrifying.

i will hope and i will pray to be will the powers that come to their senses and stop the violence that is taking place. >> thank you. let's not ask somebody from the last row. how do you think the youth training came to this free default situation? why is the treasury empty? your opponents are saying it is thisse you have take inn -- taken this money on shores. are you planning to take part in the presidential election in may? thank you. >> as for the pre-default any inon, i do nothing

the world will deny the fact rose when thetion situation was in the ukraine. ukraine stayed with that. we did they -- pay pensions and salaries regularly. we had an intention to continue. the ukrainian people are aware of that. we work hard to ensure that all the social development problems will be resented.

theill get ready for election. there is no secret about that. we will do everything in our power that is better to leave and a stable country that has a great prospect of development. wasnumber of our supporters the biggest. different political parties. people believed in that. we will have implemented that. now the full responsibility goes with those who lead our country to this crisis and the chaos and full-blown disaster.

if they are responsible for that. they are to blame. as for the presidential election, i will not take part in them. every election has to take place in compliance with the ukrainian lower constitution. you can have the microphone. please introduce yourself first.

>> could you please speak a little more slowly? you have already said today that the ukrainian people betrayed you. now you're talking about your future plans for the election. rely on in going to your election campaign? >> i think you got the statement wrong. to take part in the elections. in any clays, are you going to continue to be in politics? in any case, are you going to continue to be in politics? i did not get the question.

>> you said you are going to fight for the future of ukraine. what means are you going to use? are you going to organize some resistance groups? method?ave some other this is by the international mediators. personal safety is ensured, i will come back to ukraine as soon as possible.

secondly, i do see the ways of solving this crisis. first and foremost is the federal agreement that was first signed in unilaterally breached the west needs to take full responsibility for that. we need to come back to this issue. by item gather a reply from both sides. i believe the responsibility for knots implementing these agreements rest with the west. they initiated that. send their foreign ministers to kiev -- if they send their foreign ministers to kiev. they have approved all of the items that were on the agenda.

the councils of ministers added in brussels that day. that is my position and i will maintain it. >> thank you. question. mr. president, yesterday the swiss mass media reported the swiss government arrested your assets in swiss banks as well as the assets of some of their members of ukrainian x government. there's also a criminal case brought against some of the former members of the ukrainian government. the second question will follow later. >> lisa down. -- please sit down. i do not think there is a senior person in this audience who

of theake the pleasure supporters happening in kiev. it is the other way around. you can understand how my supporters feel. and the people who are suffering today. because of the lack of power in chaos that ensued. that is what i have addressed and i would like to address once all those who were responsible for the lawlessness that is taking place.

it is changing direction with the patrons from the west. mr. president, have you talked to her? how would you comment on this in general. would you like to offer some apologies to the police who stood to protect you. it toey have subjected insults and threats. those who are members of the unions.

they were cutting through a lot of cocktails at them. from small arms. some of them were killed. i would like to apologize once again. innocent. men were they were innocent people. -- these great men were innocent people. they were innocent people. they suffered. i do not know what is her destiny.

the ukrainian court took passed the verdict that the decision was in force. that was enforced. verdict the decision was enforced. she was there in quite good conditions. issue is an which can be considered from a legal standpoint. we can generalize why she was released.

i never meant harm for her. i was vocal about that. any personal negative feelings toward her. the agreement she signed with billion in about 20 losses. the ukrainianden people. west and president 's press different points of view. they disagreed with my position and the position of the court. it is up to them. the training court risk on the

to that question. court responded to that question. >> please take your seats. i would like them to answer the question first. thank you for the opportunity. mr. yanukovych e.g. not have this from law enforcement struck yours. you do not have the opportunity to go back to ukraine. that youu prove now are the real and genuine and legitimate president of ukraine? i have facts to prove that. passed willt were

never be accepted by me. i did not sign them. this means that these laws were not passed into action. proof whichlegal means that i am the legitimate president. if i am alive, as you can see, and if this president has known by the president, he is the legitimate incumbent president. what we saw in the parliament cannot bee of force

called an impeachment. accept that. >> they are concerned over this. what kind of role can russia play in this conflict? this? you see ukraine is always been a strategic partner. it is always be a variety of reasons.

they have the authority to act. i shall -- i believe that russia and since i know the character of mr. putin, i am surprised why he has and so restrained. why he has cap silent -- so restrained, why he has kept silent. welcome. i'm talking about you. you will share this later. ok. here's my question. introduce yourself, please. first mass media has been reporting that you met with the right sect or her.

there were these talks about the road test. a to confirm this. -- they do confirm this. do you regret ever conducting any of these talks on the inuation in ukraine and kiev particular? negotiationsficial with the representatives of the opposition. you know there were a lot of them. the goal was to end bloodshed and violence.

they were not able to find peaceful soul illusions. -- peaceful solutions. itould like to reaffirm that is not acceptable for me to see alternative to a peaceful solution. this has been due to the actions of these people. never gave any orders to the police to open fire. without anyas

weapons until the very last moment when they were under threat and people started shooting at them. according to the law, the police has the right to self-defense, especially when there have been massive acts of attacks to the police. regressive lead. remember 2004 we had a similar situation. 40,000 people came to the railroad station. they could have been a clash of bloodshed. i went to the railroad station.

i stopped be people. i prevented bloodshed. i talked to those who brought them. i said they will never forgive if blood is spilled. >> please take your seat. i insist. >> hello? i have a question. if this is under way, are you ready? what happens?

what if this happens? what would you do? do they recognize you? here is my point of view. there is an independent investigation. or someone from the authority. after this independent investigation, maybe we can talk about the courts. not to comment on these questions. i'm very often provoked. how i'm going to put

it. i am convinced that the time will come and the truth will travail. everyone will know the truth and this was a show of history on next. i was more interested. there's no person more interested in avoiding blood children -- bloodshed than myself.

it was written somewhere outside of ukraine. >> we are always in touch. there is the free trade agreements that was prepared and initial. there were not discussed in the

parliament. it is not passed the procedures. we did not discuss it with the manufacturers. the institutions were never seen by the president or prime minister. when we saw what would be the real consequences of signing this agreement. government tohe have a close look at it. the decision was simple. we suspended the talks. we needed to find a way which trade relations.

russia was preparing a similar agreement with the union. done overas being several years and was finished. . there was a chance of finding a common approach and a wide range of items. between russia, ukraine and the european union's. this was really critical. this was a lot by our trade over with russia. over the past 18 months there

was 15 billion. these could have continued. whats hard to estimate would be the depicted losses in the near term. this is about 30% of subsidies. they will not be competitive. they worked in this. they were in the machine building. they cannot mention the you standards.

it was on track. of course, the defense industry have been recently left out. these losses would be the biggest for the ukraine. russia would take protective measures. it resulted in my addressing the to put theovernment

talks with the eu on hold to renegotiate. a mutuallyd acceptable solution, you can meet us halfway. they have compensation measures. we did not have the time to hold these negotiations. you did not offer any steps. we have been working for an hour already. if you do have any questions,

this is nothing to do what we i wouldy discussed. like the young man who was wearing a pullover to ask this question. >> i would like you to introduce yourself. putin be concerned that they consider you a legitimate action president? you said you were surprised by russia's reluctance to act. what are you asked acting from russia? >> i repeat. i'm the president of ukraine elected by the people. they were free and democratic

words. i remain the president of the ukraine. i have not had any meeting with vladimir putin. once i have this meeting i will andrstand these attitudes maybe we will have some kind of discussion about the situation. then i will be able to replace your west and. as for the steps that need to be taken by russia, it'll not be to say what russia needs to do. russia cannot say aside and

cannot be different to the destiny of such a big partner as ukraine. russia needs to use all the to prevent the chaos, the terror that is unfolding in the ukraine. it is hard for me to give any kind of tips. i do not accept any attempt to break the sovereignty of the ukrainian territory. collects sankey -- >> thank you

for your questions. let's reports. i would like to a dress those. they claim to be the incumbent power in ukraine today. think twice before you make the next move. stop the violence. you can see the end is near. they will never accept that. they will never agree to leave with you that kind of country.

they do not allow more violence and more grief for the ukrainian nation. alike to offer apologies to all those who will suffer. power do everything in my until the take steps remaining days of my life.

we will stay with the ukrainian will. -- people. the ukrainian people are nothing. they do not treat them as will. -- as people. the truth will prevail. in key. -- thank you. >> thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> jay carney earlier today was circumstances of

the ukrainian president leaving that country. here's what he had to say. he has accused the united states of meddling in the ukraine's affairs. the u.s. is saying do not meddle. does the white house have a response? >> we have make clear that he lost legitimacy and advocated his responsibilities. he fled the capital of the country in an orderly fashion. he packed his belongings and left. also important to note that the ukrainian parliament acting responsibly to fill that vacuum elected a new government after mr. got a code which -- yanukovych fled the scene. security forces under his

control used snipers in downtown kiev to kill dozens of ukrainians. i think that goes to the loss legitimacy. he packed up his belongings until this recent of conference review for not known. contains parliament members of parties that take withn with votes substantial majorities including votes to stabilize the situation in ukraine and move forward with a plan to have plan to have early elections. and is all appropriate

fluid. briefing earlier today. the un security council met a short time ago to discuss the situation in ukraine. the meeting came hours after ukraine said russian troops took up positions around the postcard face. any action by the security council is unlikely. russia is a veto wielding permanent member to block any of forceful measures. the creamy ambassadors vote reporters after the meeting. we are planning to bring to your remarks later this afternoon here on c-span. >> these continue to decline. that's have increased almost 70%. at this rate, and 35 years, 16 million will have the disease. the third reason i am here simply is to show people that they are not alone.

so few people share their personal stories. those toople have relate to. if weise also limit me talking about this it would probably help us feel less alone. americans wister the word -- was for the word alzheimer's because the government does. although a whisper is better than a silence, it is still not enough. i dream of a day when my charity is no longer necessary and i can go back to the lazy self-involved manchild i was meant to be. people look to the government for hope. seth rogen on capitol hill advocating increased awareness and support for alzheimer's treatment. sunday, pineal joseph will

take your comments on what he calls black power studies. the national gallery of art to learn about the 54th massachusetts volunteer infantry sunday at 6:00 p.m. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. that offer complete gavel-to-gavel coverage. created by the industry 35 years ago and funded by your local television and satellite provider.

the average american men and women and the average american taxpayer. to best take advantage of our time today as well as this audience, i thought it would be useful to provide the broader context, thought processes and strategic shifts underlying the opposable. role, mission, and available resources. the past decade has been dominated either land wars in the middle east and central asia. today, even as the fight winds down in afghanistan, the military's focus is preparing to counter a variety of security threats. recognizing that america was entering this historic inflection point two years ago,

president obama issued strategic guidance to the defense department that articulated our top security priorities. because these priorities weighed so heavily on the recent budget shore says, it is worth revisiting them briefly. they included shifting operational focus to the asia-pacific, sustaining commitments to key allies in the middle east. being prepared to defeat a major adversary in one part of the world while denying victory to an opportunistic adversary elsewhere. reducing the fourth planning requirement to conduct counterinsurgency and stability operations. terroristly pursuing networks that threaten the homeland. enhancing capabilities in cyber and missile-defense. maintaining a smaller, but credible nuclear deterrent.

presenceg a military in pursuing security cooperation in multiple regions, though at reduced size and frequency. that list is not a short one. it reflects the president chief objectives of protecting the american homeland and fostering stability overseas by supporting traditional allies, cultivating new partners, and deterring adversaries. ets --all ofgic tenant the reviews and deliberations have brought into sharp focus two historic realities. as you can see from that list, the world has gotten no less dangerous, turbulent, or in need of american leadership. there is no obvious peace dividend.

a stronghere is possibility that under current law, most notably the return of resourcesin fy 2016, may not reach the levels in vision to fully support the president strategy. consider the recent fiscal history. the budget control act of 2011, it even before the sequester provision was triggered, reduced defense spending over 10 years. the next two defense budget submitted by the president stayed on this fiscal course, the last year's request added $150 billion in reduction. as director of the cost assessment organization, i worked closely with the services , joint staff, and the secretary. no government official in or out of uniform likes having their

projected funding reduced, most senior military leaders considered the 2013 and 2014 budget plans supportive of the military's mission and global obligations as defined by the defense strategic guidance. of course, the department, along with the rest of the executive branch, got hit with sequester. military compensation, which represents one third of all defense spending put off-limits by sequester, the operation, maintenance, received disproportionately steep cuts. more delayed modernist -- modernization. some relief and certainty arrived in the bipartisan budget act signed in december. 2015, it still reduces defense spending by more

than $75 billion relative to the budget plan submitted by the president last year. by without bipartisan action the congress, sequestration will return in fy 2016, cutting defense by more than 50 million -- 50 billion. this brings me to the defense department's response. sternur leadership warnings about sequestration appearing to fall mostly on deaf ears in the congress last year, one of secretary hegel's top priorities is to prepare the department for an arab when defense budgets -- for an era when defense budgets could be lower than wanted or needed. he recognized that those of us charged with helping to prepare the u.s. military for the future have to you with the world as we find it, as it is, not as it -- as we would like it to be. in the current political

environment, we are not likely to return to levels of spending favored by the most ardent proponents in organizations like aei, on the hill. the budget plan announced monday would provide more over the next five years. we think it is a realistic proposal that reflect strategic imperative as well as the resources the department might ,easonably expect to receive albeit with strong leadership and cooperation in the congress. they will help remedy some of the damage caused by sequestration. mitigate the impact of potential cuts in the future. if the 26 billion dollars provided by the administration's proposed opportunity growth and security fund is also approved

for fy 2015, the military near-term readiness picture improves significantly. and associated proposals provide a sustainable path towards shaping -- fulfilling the president defense strategy. as the department assessed our strategic environment, we have drawn upon work from outside organizations. aei has made some important contributions to our understanding on all of these issues. i will dive into a couple of areas most frequently debated and close by addressing one overriding concern on which we should all be in violent agreement. there was a recent exercise in which aei in three other think tanks presented alternative to the department's budget. given concerns about potential near-term threats, the department's budget plans put more than an emphasis on

recovering a protecting readiness. otherwise, there was a good deal of overlap with the overall trust of your recommendations. we found that in order to ensure adequate funding for new procurement, research, and development, there was no choice but to also reduce core structure -- for structure. shrinking the future military contains real risks. no matter how ready or gohnologically advanced, can to fewer places into fewer things. especially when confronted by multiple contingencies. however, attempting to retain a larger force in the face of potential sequester level cuts would create a decade-long modernization holiday on top of the program cancellations and delays already made. all the odds of a major conflict against another technologically advanced military power are relatively low, the consequences of being unprepared for such a

contingency could be catastrophic. we also have to consider how these cuts to investment funding would impact the viability of the private sector industrial base. decisions,nt budget we were guided very much by the lessons of past major john downes. after world war ii -- major fraud downes. .- draw downs in each case, the u.s. military kept more for structure that could be adequately trained, maintained, and equipped. the defense department was forced to cut disproportionately into account that fund readiness and modernization. the worst example was the hollow military of the 1970's. that is why for many parts of the military, secretary hegel chose to reduce capacity. forces.tity of in order to ensure those forces

were properly trained and clearly superior in arms and equipment. i also know mckinsey and others have written about the need to pare back the overhead cost. the idea being that squeezing more savings out of that back office could obviate the need to shrink the military further. during last your skimmer, we took a hard look at the pentagon bureaucracy, office of the secretary of defense, joint staff, defense agencies, and feel that unity, and found that some reductions are necessary and some savings are possible. achieving savings in the military's proverbial tail take several years and produces significantly less in bankable savings that is commonly believed. the analysis shows that the od headquarters -- dod headquarters

-- when all is said and done, and enterprise of the u.s. global reach requires a substantial administrative and support operation. these backend functions can certainly be done more efficiently with less duplication, fewer contractors and with fewer executives, generals, and admirals. that is why secretary hegel announced that he would cut civilian and contractor .ersonnel by 20% the total savings, however, are a fraction of the reductions required by either sequestration or of the president's budget. the efficiency efforts extended to the services, and their operations maintenance as well, the navy, for example, is pursuing aggressive cost savings initiatives. achieving better pricing initiatives to maximize the possible size of their ship inventory. if these efforts generate fewer

savings than planned in our budget, there will be little choice but to further reduce the size of the navy's fleet. the various reviews and resulting proposals of recent years have been criticized as budget euros -- budget drills. when confronted with major spending cuts, especially on the scale and schedule of sequestration, there is no avoiding the imperative to seek savings. i would suggest that the notion of crafting a strategy totally devoid of risk and totally diss encumbered from resources is a logical fallacy and historical fiction. a relevant strategy is not a set of goals and preferences put together on the assumption that the money will just follow. a symbioticuires relationship between resources, outcomes, and courses of action.

in the real world, our military is provided with a certain level of funding from the as was the case in each of the major conflicts and during the riskiest. of the cold war. periods of the cold war. these results are linked with the major defense by or to use as outlined by the president. each strategic element informs one another on the path to final decision. the results of this feedback loop is a strategy that is neither budget driven nor budget blind. even the largest defense budgets will have limits. as will our knowledge and ability to predict the future. they always contain some measure of risk. when talking about risk in the pentagon sense of the term, at issue is not the ability of the u.s. military to prevail against any adversary, but how long it takes and at what cost.

material, financial, and human. that does not mean that we can there or rationalize strategic consequences of slashing the resources available for national defense. if we don't like the strategy that results, additional funding is required to allow for a different set of trade-offs. addedis budget plan, we 115 billion dollars above current law in order to have a reasonable opportunity to fulfill the president strategic priorities, albeit with higher risk for certain military missions. the specter ofto sequestration slated to return in fy 2016. as a result of the last few months of analysis, we were able to identify with some precision, what the post sequestration would look like over the next decade.

that means significantly fewer navy ships, including at least one less aircraft carrier, trapping the army down even further to 420,000 active-duty soldiers. cutting more air force squadrons, the landmark curtailing the purchasing of .trike fighters shorting combat units of spare parts, basic maintenance, and the ability to conduct complex and realistic training. consider the kind of military and the kind of world that could follow several years of sequestration. the u.s. could not respond decisively to simultaneous aggression by two states. not respond tod disasters overseas or other contingencies that require america's leadership.

some allies and partners would be more likely to hedge their bets and cuts ideals with their larger and more aggressive neighbors. finally, america would remain the world's leading military power, but would no longer be the guarantor of global security that can be counted on to protect our values, interests, and allies. these are the kinds of scenarios we need to consider some of the kinds of discussions we need to have. after looking at these issues , iefully, with real data know this much, pretending that i return to sequester is not harmful is the most harmful thing that we can do. there needs to be a serious national dialogue on what a sensible sustainable and strategically sound defense budget looks like. we believe that we have proposed that budget this year.

if our elected officials and body politics conclude they truly want a diminished role for the u.s. in the world, we can start rushing back the correspondent -- corresponding military and force structure. let's drop the illusion that by , the u.s. military can absorb cuts of this size and immediately without significant consequences. -- the media c without significant consequences. we must make sound choices. to country as a whole need understand the strategic and human consequences of reducing drastically the resources available for national defense and in so doing, reducing america's role in the world as a global power and the force of stability. it is up to all of us in government and out to make the case and make the choices

necessary on behalf of the men and women in uniform for our country security and credibility as a global power. thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you so much. i will briefly kick it off. generous and is a busy woman. thank you for those remarks. i think we are in violent agreement on every meeting -- i'm pretty much everything. clarify a little more for the audience. there are two budgets, but there is one -- that is correct, but in that budget that is coming over that is slightly higher,

150 billion that you outlined, they are basically off ramps for policymakers. some of them are in and some of them are out, but you have a long list of options. it may not be clear to policymakers right away. you clarified yesterday at the pentagon that a consequence of sequestration is an army that drops to 420,000 active-duty soldiers. you hope that you do not have to do that. there are other things like the aircraft carrier in the budget, but you could take it out. could you walk through a little bit more for everyone? >> if we tried harder, we couldn't have made this budget more complicated. it is very hard to explain. there are multiple budgets embedded in the submission.

i could walk through the list. first of all, we will include a description of the force i touched on of what the sequester force will look like. time -- that is the first time we actually have the detail necessary to clearly show, ok, do you like this picture? if you do, keep going. that will be not submitted in budget level detail, even though we have that, but a description is included in the budget. that leads me to the actual budget. planning, complex force structure takes time to get out and is hard to plan for. ringing the army down smartly, not the way we have done it before, but an army that remains capable as you bring it down is

hard. it takes a lot of time and a lot of planning. the army and the marine corps both did that planning. we know where the off ramps are. if we get assurances that we are going to the president's budget level in 16, we will plan that offramp and we will put that into the budget submission. the aircraft carrier is another one. carrier outake the at sequester. you have to plan refueling and all of that. the navy did all of that planning. that planning is still in the hold., but in 15, we will we will put the ship in the yards and start the actions you would take whether you will refuel it and put it back into service or taken out of service. we have time. if we get some assurances that the budget is going up instead of down in fy 16, we will keep the carrier.

if we go back to sequester, we have no choice. the budget is higher, $115 billion higher. what we try to put in were things that we could reverse were quickly than those complicated things i just mentioned. or parts of our structure you would take out readiness, which we put a lot of investment in. it is a complicated story. thank you for the question. >> i will offer one comment. as sequestration hit and fiscal year 13, and the comptroller sent over his report, you are coming off the continuing

resolution and sequestering, and then there was a budget. and then there was sequestration. they all three came in rapid succession. just to look back a year ago, it is very complicated to get a clear sense of what the impact of last year sequestration. i know we are talking about the moment. if we have trouble at the think tank, i know congress really struggles with this to be sure. in greatust say sympathy to you that this is a very cloudy budget to share. my only worry is that because it hard tomplicated, it is get capitol hill to be sympathetic because it is very confusing. i know that is not your fault. you mentioned very specifically arehe comments, if there , youinly a year contracts

would have to make other decisions to free up funding. could you elaborate? package ofbroad acquisition related efficiencies that the navy has proposed. we have all pushed on efficiencies. 200 billion to date and we have another package this year. when it comes to acquisition efficiencies, it is difficult to count on them. you want to have efficiency because you are going to be tougher in your contract negotiations or you're going to get more stability and be a partner with industry or you will live with fewer support contractors. the navy did some detailed work on that this year. i have projections. --they have productions

projections. if the whole department could do that kind of thing, we could do even better with the money that we have. i did want to mention, we are counting on those predictions. they were able to keep for structure slightly higher because of those efficiencies. it reinforces the point that you have made on the value of efficiencies. on the other hand, there is a bit of a gamble. i am excited the navy has given it their best shot. i looked kendall and at it hard and we are in support of them and hoping their successes will migrate across the whole department. >> that is fantastic. we will open it up for questions from the audience. we will start with george. we have about 15 minutes. >> [inaudible]

>> please wait for a microphone. >> i am a policy consultant. i was on capitol hill yesterday at the senate armed services committee. , thef the questions .oncern about retiring the a-10 the senator from new hampshire is adamantly against. the issues right now with the .rmy, reducing the guard if those change, what kind of impacts are those going to have on the budget? where's the money going to come from? >> thank you for that question. this is our annual challenge and has been since the first $487 billion reduction.

we take -- we work very hard in the department. we take a holistic view and it is a tightly crafted package. if you do not get this, something else comes out. it goes to the hill. i wish i had a magic solution. to do everything in our power to explain those trade-offs. if they force us to keep things we do not want to keep, something else happens. we are at the point, even with 150 billion additional, or a few places it can come out. it comes out of readiness or we end up slipping and sliding and sliding in making our programs even more expensive. we are up there trying to make the case. i am trying to do a lot of that myself. establishasked me to

a tiger team with the guard and the army to put together the facts and come up with a balanced fact-based rationale behind all of our reasons. things like that, we are working as hard as we know how. frankly, we also need your help. if you force us to keep something we don't need, there is not slop here. we have to take it out somewhere else. >> absolutely. >> richard from the british embassy. you mentioned the up humming qdr. are -- upcoming cuti

there does seem to be some uncertainty of what sort of budget you could base a strategy on. clearly, you need to have a strategy. can you give us some kind of ofication given that extent uncertainty? beqdr is supposed to fiscally unconstrained, the strategic aspirations of the department. we did not do that. that is the bottom line. we made a choice to make this fiscally constrained. it looks to achieve the defense strategic guidance, slightly refreshed, but in a resource informed, more austere way. to articulate clearly what we updated since two

years ago, looking at what the support and where the risks are. it tracks very closely with the kinds of remarks that i just made. wayid it in that iterative because we did not want to put forward that it did not match the reality we are living. i am with the naval postgraduate school. one of the things that has struck me in the last two years is the importance of storytelling. what i find is people who are a part of the inner circle, when they write it, they can understand it. .hey do not test it

it is kind of like the problems we had with the health care. they did not go out to see if it worked for those of the bottom. my suggestion is you might want to bring a random collection of people together to look at it to see what they don't understand. i just went through something like this last week with the navy admiral. although they said and, when he presented it to him and the audience got it. it makes a real difference doing is test with people who don't understand the details. suggestion,errific thank you for that. we should do that. we are not communicating. we were not able to communicate the impact of sequester last year. we talk about readiness and nobody knows what readiness is. i had the opportunity to do an npr interview. yourked about having

teenager drive to ohio in a snowstorm. you want to make sure they can drive. you want to make sure they can drive in snow and that their car works and it has been serviced. that is what readiness is for all of our ships and airplanes. it worked. word,le longer than the but those kinds of points you are making, so important. we forget it and we go into pentagon speak. trying out our story on these particular parts with outside groups is a terrific idea. more questions, i was thinking about our conversation this morning and yesterday. i was literally, i am so frustrated with the pentagon's inability [inaudible] people focus on the hardware, but it is about

the national guard, retiring fleets of aircraft's and other priorities. i was thinking in terms of, what would that be like? son, what if ild taken to the hairdresser and i say, you need to cut an inch off his hair, but you cannot take any of the back the front or the sides. i sympathize and i understand the messaging component to this. it is something the give great thought to here at aei. do we have any more questions? >> my question has to deal with, our conventional forces

are going to be superior to any of our adversaries. what you are really looking at .s terrorism, cyber warfare we talk about needing a next or aircraft carrier. is there a discussion that in putting money into current weapon technologies that are probably built for an enemy that does not exist, is that going to hurt us 20 years down the road when a conventional adversary such as china may arise? >> are we living in the past with air force? should we move to the future? we could debate this a lot. we have to move to the future. -- wedget does protect took out more air force

structure than we would like to protect a long-range bomber. we are protecting cyber. the aspects of the force that we see as clearly vital for the future are protect did. -- protected. things like the aircraft carrier, we thought we would have to go down to nine or even eight with sequester. your study took the carriers done more. the outcry of going to 10, i have not had any more calls on anything than that. admission, i am an aircraft carrier analyst myself. i have a lot of experience with this and i get it. it is an incredibly important capability, it is a huge symbol. china is announcing they're trying to push up their aircraft carriers. we are putting the president in a position where he has to look the global community in the eye

and say we are bringing carriers down at the very time china is trying to build them. if we have to think about keeping that more viable for the future, we think it is important, it has to be able to play. it is not the first time carriers of had this problem. in the whole cold war, the soviets put enormous energy, in norma's money into taking out the aircraft carriers. -- enormous money into taking out the aircraft carriers. that is how i cut my teeth in this business. none of those things would work in today's world, but we have to be creative again. we are so used to do dominating in the sea and in the air. anywhere neard the money we should on things that can make a huge difference. in this budget environment, we can afford things like that. we need to be more creative.

joint strike fighters and other programs -- another program that suffers from the same challenge, how can we talk about shorter range in a world where they are pushing us further and further out? i think the same point comes in their. -- there. that ishe only jet built from the ground up to be survivable in a challenging environment. that is a tremendous capability. we have not even started to figure out what we can do with that capability. there are phases to any conflict. the early phases -- eventually, you can get in there. you have to think of it across the spectrum. i think your point is very good. it is not lost on us. we have to make sure the platforms we have today can work tomorrow. --are trying to predict

protect those investments in our budget. briefly, last summer, we conducted a review and we have the opportunity to discuss that with you. this winter, it was a shadow 2015 budget/qdr. we had to cut further than sequester levels and the budget so that you could free up money to make investments in electronic warfare and other enablers. combat logistics was another high priority for us. you take things down even further than sequester asked for. it is a difficult situation and all the more reason you are looking for the additional help in funding. >> that is very true and very few people understand that. >> i am mary walsh with cbs news

. i wonder if you could expand on your remarks drawing down the army smartly. you have a force that is highly skilled in combat. i recently had some training. and you have combat veterans conducting training, it is a totally different aim. -- different game. though seasoned veterans are potentially the ones that will be taken out of the army, forced to retire. how do you draw down the army smartly? is extraordinarily capable right now in counterinsurgency operations. one of our challenges for all of the force is that we have to -- innce the forces addition to the challenge that addhave raised, we have to

readiness investments to the army to help them recover their full-spectrum capabilities. this is a readiness challenge we face across the entire force. we want to have the money to keep the army we have at the and repurpose think for globally available force on we cannotf conflict just let them leave the force. if we were to be sequestered and we took the army down immediately, we will lose all of those people and we would not in the way we described. that is what we mean by smart. we want the force to be capable and the next year, it will get a little smaller.

we are not going to have the readiness dollars to keep the whole force capable, but we have to try to manage through that. the quicker you take down the force, the more you break it and you lose the very talent that you need. it is a really tough set of trade-offs. howry to make the army -- do you bring it down relative to the budget you expect to have keep it as ready as possible until you reach that end state where the money is enough to keep the force that you have modern and ready for today's world. that is just going to take time. the more time we have, the smarter we can do it. >> we will take our last three. >> good morning.

challengesbout the of trying to cut from the tail instead of the tooth. looked atring how you things like dod schools, base operations, and from the services perspective, how they are looking at more battlefield setting type things and whether that is falling -- type things. >> we looked at everything. everything is on the table and has been for a couple of years. schools are on the table. we have looked at schools. all the way to very aggressive. we turned it over to the chiefs and the joint staff and they concluded that schools were really important to the quality of life of the military families. their kids are jerked out of schools all the time.

dod is going to make sure we provide for their families education. it was judged as important to the future force. we honor their perspective, obviously. want you at it and i to know we looked at everything. you talk about the logistics and i would put things like that pos and things like that in there as well. there are lots of things we could do and would like to do to reduce the base infrastructure, we have about 25% more bases and installations than the size of our force would require. we have been told it is dead on arrival, but we need it. to consolidate -- an awful lot of our identified deficiencies

for logistics have to be part and parcel. we put it in the budget. in the early years, it cost money. , not a lot ofsion savings. we put the money in to pay for it because we feel we need it so badly for the very reasons you suggest. >> right here, up front. how would it affect the presence on the korean peninsula? said he wants to

-- do you want the ?llies to contribute >> the importance of our relationship with korea and the importance of our commitment to south korea and the troops on the peninsula is not affected by our plans. it was one of the strategic imperatives as resize the army and other forces. there will be no impact at all on our agreement or commitments to korea. we made sure of that as we went through. the challenge for the smaller 4 hundred 50, we believe it is manageable. , we believe it is manageable.

protect the homeland and do something else. the smaller the force, the less else you can do. it is not korea. hawk, generally speaking, anytime time we can work closely with our allies and share capabilities and equipment, it is a good thing. onhave been back and forth the decision and i would say that it has always been a close call. when we look at it this year, the operating costs have come down significantly. perhaps because we said last year, we were not going to keep it. we are appreciative of that. the air force has worked very hard themselves.

costs down, it makes sense to keep the global hawk and the implications to our allies is something i look forward to working with you on. >> thank you. very quickly, last question. a similar question. mentioned, what kind of onact will this budget have the region of southeast asia? >> if i understand the question you're asking, you're asking about or strategic imperative to rebalance to the asia-pacific and does the board -- does the

budget support it? the shorter answer is yes. intend to continue to do a lot of the things that we are already doing. m ring core art of -- the marine corps are deploying to australia and doing operations in australia for the first time in a long time. theirgapore, we have to and two more are going -- we have two there and two more are going. kinds ofrd to the critical capabilities that we need to operate successfully in that region, we protected those kinds of capabilities. 60% of our fleet is oriented towards the asia-pacific. the rebalance to asia is

very real. i know it is a continuing question and concern. is a part of everything we are talking about for managing the secretary's travel plans to the inputs that we made to the budget. >> that is a great question to conclude with. i have learned so much more about the defense budget spending this time with you. thank you so much for your time and your willingness to take questions from everyone this morning. let's thank secretary foxx. [applause] >> my pleasure to be here. >> we are live in the white house press briefing room. we await president obama, scheduled to make a statement on the ukraine very shortly. you can see some of the network reporters. as we wait for president obama to make his way to the podium, that show you today's state

department briefing. topics included the political unrest in ukraine. uganda's new loft for and -- to imprison people for being gay. >> he expressed his deep disappointment for uganda's anti-homosexuality bill. it complicates the relationship with uganda. the discriminatory law poses a threat to the safety and security of uganda's lgbt community. thetwo also discussed

negative impact on public health efforts, including those to address hiv aids as well as tourism and foreign investment in uganda. call --at click that would be an interesting historic start to a briefing. but did he raise the possibility when he says it complicates the relationship, did he raise the possibility of any specific sanctions that might be imposed? >> it was not a call about specifics. we remain in the same place we have been, which is that the signing of this bill complicates

our relationship and we continue to look carefully at what steps we will take. >> essentially, he basically repeated what your position has been since he signed the law. there was not anything new as far as u.s. policy question mark >> that is correct -- u.s. policy? that is correct. >> other than secretary kerry is call, have there been any other ukraine related conversations at the senior level? has the secretary spoken to any ukrainian officials? do with theto russians on this one? >> i do not have any additional calls to read out for you. the call that vice president biden had with the interim ukrainian prime minister.

this is an issue that is being closely watched and looked at and discussed internally in the administration. >> i want to make sure i am accurate. the secretary spoke today? yesterday? specifically about ukraine and let russia may or may not be doing there. are those the only two calls he has had this week? >> those are the two calls he has had this week, yes. onspoke with him also sunday, which you were aware of. and saturday. >> he has spoken to him four times in six days. >> that is correct. they also talked about syria and middle east peace.

>> today? >> yes. moscow could try to have a heavy hand on what is going on in the ukraine? >> this is an issue we are very closely engaged with. secretary kerry called the foreign minister this morning to discuss reports of russian military activity in crimea. he stressed the united states has concerns that all parties avoid any steps that could inflame tensions and he made very clear touring that call that any intervention in ukraine mistake.of -- be a is an issue the united states government is watching closely. we are concerned about the reports. our focus remains on encouraging ukraine to take positive steps

forward regarding economic reforms, collections, but also we are closely watching what is happening on the ground. any independent confirmation within the administration that there is yet any russian intervention in moscow? it is a little confusing. i am sorry, in crimea. it is confusing to work out exactly what is happening on the ground. >> i do not have any more details to share with you. we are concerned about the same reports that you have seen. >> no independent knowledge of any russian intervention? >> i do not have any independent information to share with you. >> whether you have seen the ,ress conference by yanukovych what your reaction was to his

contention that he remains president of ukraine. in the same place we have been in, which is that we believe yanukovych has lost his legitimate see, as he dashed legitimate see, as he abdicated his responsibilities. and he has left a vacuum of leadership. we continue to believe that he has lost legitimacy and our focus remains on the path forward. >> the secretary said the russian foreign minister assured intention ofd no violating ukraine's sovereignty. his next sentence began, nevertheless, i made the following points to him. do you doubt the foreign

ministers statement? >> i think the secretary said yesterday that of course, we take the russians for what they are conveying, but in almost any conflict or international event, you want to verify words with actions and we are watching closely to ensure that their actions back up their words. >> do you believe, when he started out, he acknowledged there is an agreement between the government of ukraine and russia that gives the russians certain rights of access. do you believe that what has been reported as far -- thus far, including the allegedly transit of military helicopters, the surrounding of a border post , do youan soldiers

believe those might fall within russia's rights under that agreement question mark is that conceivable? >> i am not in a position to give an analysis of that, but clearly, some of the reporting is of concern. that is why we are looking at it closely and discussing what it does mean. we know there is a base there, what the question is whether these activities have extended beyond. >> [inaudible] you don't think to date russia has violated -- >> i am not giving an analysis of that. we are looking at it. >> you are looking at it to determine if they have or if they might or have they already or in terms of what they will do in the future? there have been reports.

a you have not yet made determination on what was reported to have happened today, violating that calls? >> i don't want to be too cute here, but our ongoing discussions. i don't have independent confirmation of those reports to share with you, so we are looking at it. that means we are looking at the last 24 hours and events in the future, which is what the secretary said today. >> you said in one of your answers that any international event, it is important that actions back up words. in that line, when u.s. rficials, like ambassador colleague at, your the white house say it would be a grave mistake for russia to intervene, what does that mean, really?