it hits both defense and nondefense. my focus today will be on the defense end. that additional $500 billion, gets close to $6 munn billion when you incrude interest. it's done in an across the board fashion so everything gets cut. there's no strategic thinking to the way it would be implemented and therefore we do everything insufficiently and if you listen to what our military leaders say about it, starting with secretary panetta he has said we would be shooting ourselves in the head to allow sequestration to go forward in january. he's described us as devastating, catastrophic. it would inflict severe damage to our national security for generations. and to understand why our military leaders are so concerned about this, again, i've been particularly focused on making sure that we maintain the readiness of our forces to prevail in the conflicts that we're involved in today. and when that deterrence fails to defeat our enemies decisively, that's why our -- we have one of the most competent and battled hardened military forces many the history of our country. i k

the defenses were tested in july of 1864. before i say that, there were raids on the forts by the guerrilla forces like moseby where they would come in and steal horses and supplies or whatever, but the only real attack, and it wasn't really an attack, it was a resonance in force took place on july 11th and 12th in 1864 when jubal early, he had marched up through the valley, fought out near frederick, maryland, and then watched -- marched towards washington coming in on the northern side and eventually came up and faced these forts up there, the main one ft. stevens where abraham lincoln actually came out to watch what was going on. he was not successful. he realized he couldn't do what he wanted to do and eventually turned around and went back down into the valley. and after that, basically nothing really tested the fortifications after that. besides the forts themselves, you had the batteries that were on both sides or in the rear or whatever of the forts. you also had trenches that connected the forts all the way around th

>> if the sequester goes through both on defense and non-defense it doesn't change our approaching 100 to 200% of gdp, debt to gdp ratio except for two years. so instead of 2032 it would be at 200% it would be at 2030, with 100% of those taken from the smallest parts of the budgets, about 35% and the largest and growing part untouched so it was stupid fiscal policy, economic policy, i had the misfortune of having spent ten years on wall street, now defunct and i could not imagine a more fragile time to be doing silly things with soars subjects and i think this is a silly thing. with approximately 1 million lost jobs in civilian and non-civilian areas in a two-year period and there were people with bigger numbers, but the fact is that starting this august when the unions and the companies are talking about warrant notices and earlier in new york and i'll start there, people are going to be scared and the economy will continue to slow down as someone who collaborated with us on our report said the sequester has already started. you're starting to feel it. that's why cbo reduced the growt

the administration asked the defense counsel under the secretary of defense requisition, will this work? we went to congress and said here is a new plan and congress is screaming you broke your promise. it is largely designed to attract the president's impressive accomplishments on investing in the nuclear complex in a reasonable way and congress will finally do what is right for the nuclear deterrent. >> to general jameson and jon about how we move forward in the next two years. with russia, the next step in boosting u.s. and russian stockpiles below the new s.t.a.r.t. levels which are 1550 deployed strategic warheads and that ceiling is to be met by the year 2018. new s.t.a.r.t. creates verification system that will be in place until 2021 and given the difficulties of a formal negotiation with russia and given the challenge we have with the next round of negotiations the need to deal with, not just deployed strategic weapons but tactical nuclear weapons and non deport weapons are their simple alternative approaches? might there be a way as george w. bush did in 2001-2002 period to use

we have a provision in the defense bill that requires the defense department to tell us what the impact is specifically of sequestration, and that's fine, but every department, not just the defense department, every department should be informing the public, informing congress, what the effect would be of sequestration would be ofn should it happen. i'm all for require the defense department to do that. i joined in the language in the defense bill, an amendment on pending legislation to try to do that and if so, it ought to apply to every department and impact on education and on health care and on other important programs as well as defense. >> the impact on private industry? >> of sequestration? >> weight of sequestration. >> there's been so much written many by you of the paralysis that one sees on the industry side. i don't know how many hundreds of billions or trillion dollars of cash on corporate balance sheets and the reality is that corporations aren't going to invest this capital until they can get some sense as to environment that they are investing into. this continued turmoi

>>> this morning i would like to welcome the honorable leon panetta, secretary of defense and martin demp see, chairman of joint chiefs of staff testifying on the budget requests for 2013. gentlemen, you assume these positions at a very challenging moment in history. our economy, our country is facing a budget deficit and you have been tasked with significantly reducing the department of defense budget plans in an effort to cut down spending. in these budget reductions come at an occasion when we are fighting a war in afghanistan and the counterterrorism threat worldwide. at the same time, the world is changing rapidly and the department of defense is being called upon to respond to threats ranging from cyberspace to weapons proliferation, rising powers, instability in key regions such as we have witnessed with arab spring, d.o.d.'s fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $604.5 billion and this, the subcommittee oversees. this is a decrease of $28.8 billion over last year's enacted budget, mainly due to the draw-down of operations in afghanistan and iraq. however, over the next decad

testify about defense spending. colin. .. >> that's on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> defense secretary leon panetta says, automatic defense budget cuts set for next year would be a disaster and would, among other things, reduce health care for veterans. mr. panetta and joint chiefs chairman, general martin dempsey went before a senate appropriations subcommittee for two hours. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] >> this morning i would like to welcome the hon. leon panetta secretary of defense and it general martin dempsey chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to testify on the administration budget request for 2013. gentleman, you assumed these positions during a very challenging moment in history. our economy, our country is facing a budget deficit, and you have been tasked with

unfortunately the defense budget cuts have not been al gated to defense. that's the big elephant in the room. we're cutting defense and the military is owning up to it and they're patriotic and the chiefs are standing up to it and saying we're doing it for debt reduction. actually, that's not the case. the president's budget that's on the hill right now proposes a generous net increase for every other federal agency and $1.5 trillion in new taxes. so d.o.d. is the only federal agency taking any sort of spending cuts. as you know, the debt's not coming down. but i agree with her broad points. i was just at a meeting with a senior air force official. it came up in one of the questions earlier. the discussion was about the active component cuts and the component cuts in the air force. it just serves as a great anecdote and example of how -- of what a knife's edge the u.s. military is operating under. high budgets aside. most of those budgets go to people. let's just talk about -- michel had me here talking about that other times before, and that's not what i

sorry. >> aol defense. good morning, sir. >> hi. >> the army, especially the institutional army, has had a very rough time getting their acquisitions done well over the past 12 to 15 years. given the stakes over the next five years, the reset, replacing the m 113s, et cetera, et cetera, how confident are you that the army has fixed itself and that it will do a good job and what are you doing to ensure that happens? >> well, you are right, and i think everybody in the army and everybody associated with the army acquisition would say that they are disappointed in the performance of the last decade, determined to do better. i know this is true of john and ray odierno and heidi shu and the whole team over there. i'm now out of my previous job it was a big priority of mine and my successor, frank kendall, i know will be working especially with the army to improve their tradecraft in acquisition and also to put together their portfolio of investment for the future, and this is a big change for the army. i said be

now again, i just -- i stress, look, defense department is not a jobs program. it's a program to defend the nation. but clearly it would -- that kind of sequestration cut across the board would have a serious impact on not only on men and women in uniform, but on our personnel and the contractors who serve the defense establishment. >> when you speak of deteral of maintenance of equipment, can you give us something beyond that? >> let me have bob heal, our comptroller speak to that. >> we haven't done a detailed plan, but i think one of the options we would have to look at is cutbacks in depot maintenance and that would mean we'd push out the availabilities of ships, for example, our planes. we would try to do it in a sensible manner, but i think it would inevitably delay some maintenance activities. i can't give you details, but i think that's an almost inevitable result of sequestration. >> the way the formula works under sequestration is it takes a percentage across the board out of every area of the defense budget and means that what it's almost about 20% cu

from their defense. we need to have capabilities on the ground so that when we had a nuclear exchange to block tanks from coming through the gap, that russia wouldn't then -- you know, they'd have to lunch at us, and it wouldn't just be a nuclear war in europe. all that of is just out the window and useless in terms of american strategic thought, european strategic thought. does anybody believe that somehow a tactical nuclear weapon from europe on russian territory would not be seen as a strategic threat to russia? so, i mean, if we think we need to challenge russia in a strategic way we have lots of submarines, we have lots of icbms and the tactical nuclear weapons don't have a role. >> pardon me for interrupting. the question that overall strategic levels, their level of 300, 200, is there some level of u.s. having strategic nuclear warheads that begins to make some allies and probably some sooner than others nervous? maybe poland or turkey get nervous before germany and denmark do. >> and i think if a

we have a provision in the defense bill that requires the defense department to tell us what the impact is specifically of sequestration. that is good for every department. every department should be informing congress what the effects would be of sequestration, should it happen. so i am in favor of requiring the defense department to do that. i joined in the language in the defense bill. there may be an amendment on the pending legislation to try to do that. if so, it ought to apply to every department, the impact on education and health care and other important programs as well as defense. >> the impact on private industry? >> ? of > >> trying to avoid sequestration -- of waiting to avoid sequestration. >> there's paralysis on the industry side. there's i don't know how many trillions of dollars of cash on corporate balance sheets there is. corporations will not invest their capital until they can get some sense of the environment they are investing into. and so, this continued turmoil and uncertainty continues the paralysis. if we are looking for private- sector investment to have a

waiting for secretary of defense leon panetta. as we wait, the house and senate have passed a bill that's aimed at salvaging 2.8 million jobs. the measure cleared the house on a vote of 373-52. the vote in the senate was 74-19. it now goes to president obama's desk for his signature. it would spend money on highways. the house is expected to do the same shortly. you can see the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. >> this might be a good time to turn around obscure what are otherwise concealed -- >>> good afternoon. as you know, it's now been one year since i was sworn in as secretary of defense. it truly has been an honor for me to lead the men and women of this department. and to do so during a very historic time for the united states military and for the country. i have been very fortunate to have an outstanding partner in the chairman, the vice chairman, all of the chiefs and the service secretaries and the combatant commanders and all my civilian leadership. let me, if i can, recognize some of the highlights of th

i think defense has to contribute. we have to be very careful about the draconian approach on the fence or other important programs like education, health care, and so forth. >> i am from south korea. [unintelligible] the u.s. needs to adjust spending in korea. [unintelligible] >> we have to reduce some of the plans for housing. we cannot afford to be spending a figure like $10,000 a month for family housing that was planned in order to have families come over and be with our troops in korea. we cannot afford that. i would say that in terms of the number of troops, the first thing we ought to do is turn over responsibility for wartime control operations to the koreans. it is long overdue. we keep saying we are going to do it and we do not do it. the question is who would be in operational control. should have been decided that the koreans would be an operational control years ago but the request of the korean government has been delayed a number of times. there could be some progress in terms of north korea to allow us

spending and a >>> welcome to "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. a majority of americans want 4kv spendings than the pentagon or congress support according to a new poll. will their views be heard in washington? plus a powerful new film documents the troop surge in afghanistan from the perspective of a single marine platoon. first, full notion photos from platforms have become the most powerful tools in the u.s. military arsenal, allowing commanders to preanl watch military enemies and strike them but surveillance video can be shaky, fuzzy, blurry and jittery, making it difficult to pick out key intelligence. fixes these problems has been expensive. that's where motion dsb comes in, a california startup company that has considered kena that can stabilize, sharpen, clarify and enlarge épgd do in real time. here to talk about the new technology is shawn vera, the ceo of motion sensor dvb. welcome. >> thanks very much. >> what your computer programs do is really fascinating, is really amazing and you're the only guys doing it in realtime. what are som

or non-defense. it sounds like you are concerned about the budget deficit is so great that it from its whatever ugly issue might forecast in the way the sequestration ax is going to hit. >> i completely agree with that. i think we do need defense cuts. we need cut in domestic discretionary, and you were right, that have been increasing quite rapidly. we can find ways to do it that would be ok, but everybody knows we are not going to make serious progress until we do something about revenues and entitlement. it relieves the pressure a little bit, but that is nothing compared to what we could get. so we need to reform entitlements. we need more revenues. republicans are going to have to come to the table. they cannot continue to avoid it. so yes, i am guilty as charged. >> we don't want to be preaching just a single message. so let me press the same point with david. you summarize the different types of cuts we are seeing, first of all in it were spending. more than $100 billion a year. it is headed do

we have a defense budget that's being eaten up. if you look at the lines across, this is what we spend for personnel. this is what we spend for everything else. they're about ready to cross. we'll spend more money for personnel and benefits that we'll spend on all of the rest of the stuff we do including the stuff we spend overseas and more. that's been the problem that people don't want to wrestle with. when we started this thing, chuck wald said you know they'll burn this building down, don't you? that's the building where we are. i said, who? >> he said the vfw, and he meant it. those were the people that are going to be upset. the people that get the benefits now and had promised to get benefits forever and oppose any benefit change. so i think you really have to look at the budget in discreet pieces and say, what are you going to do about the hollowing out that's already occurring because of all of the money we have to spend on benefits? so i think it's a more complicated subject and i don't think it's one sequestering will so

unfortunately, the defense budget cuts have not been allocated to defense. that's the big elephant in the room. we're cutting defense and the military is owning up to it and they're patriotic and the chiefs are standing up to it and saying we're doing it for debt reduction. actually, that's not the case. the president's budget that's on the hill right now proposes a generous net increase for every othefe

secretary of defense has said no, we're not. maybe later in the summer o and b will have to request we take a look at it but i don't want to mislead you here. planning has a certain rational tone to it. but congress in writing the budget control act, did not design sequester to be rational. sequester was supposed to be the trigger, a trigger so irrational that the prospect of it would drive and force the leadership to do what was needed which was to put together an overall budget package for the nation's finances. sequester was designed to be irrational. and indeed, aspects of sequester defy reason and any reasonable management of the nation's affairs including its defense. as secretary panetta made clear, a sequester would have devastating effects on our readiness and our works for and disrupt thousands of contracts and programs. under the law, d.o.d. would have limited flex built how the cuts would be applied so. the size and nature would nullify the strategy for the war of the future that we so carefully put together a few sh

very quickly, rivlin/domenici, their proposal, slightly different defense number. came in around roughly the same amount, however. basically would freeze the defense budget for five years and grow it at the rate of inflation. seems reasonable, if you do it the right way, of course. but still, pretty big bogey. you're looking at doubling the 487 roughly. you know, senator mccain referenced one other plan we're all going to dust off, or at least those policymakers and politicians are going to dust off as they think about how to come up with a deal big or small in the lame duck and beyond for figuring this out. the other one is the super committee. yes, it failed. there was a lot of work done on the staff and the member level of the super committee. there were a lot of negotiations. a lot of these members have already come to agreement in theory. they just haven't taken that vote. that's why we're waiting on the lame duck. it's all about taking the vote. people's hearts and minds are already there. in large part, there's a large center already there are to do any numb

defense does have to play the role. at the same time, we have a responsibility to protect the strongest military in the world and help defend this country. on the larger issue, senator, you know this as well as i do. i think that every member of this committee knows this. you are dealing with a very serious deficit issue and debt issue. you cannot keep going back to the same while to try and resolve those issues. you can not keep going back to domestic spending. you cannot keep going back to the discretionary side of the budget in order to solve a multi-trillion dollar problem that faces this country. if you are serious about taking this on -- it is about what we had to do at the beginning of the reagan administration, what we did in the bush administration, we did in the clinton administration. if you are serious, you have got to put everything on the table. you have to look at mandatory spending, revenues, and how you cap domestic discretionary. but you will not solve this problem with the domestic discretionary budge

firstly, our troops acted in self-defense. secondly, i would commend the way in which our soldiers handled the situation. and, thirdly, i can assure you that they will continue to implement the united nations' mandate to maintain a secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. and conducts its operations in a status neutral and impartial way. i strongly regret that we saw violence in recent days. i urge all parties to do their utmost to stop violence and ensure peaceful solution to the problems in the region, but i can assure you that kafur will continue to implement fully the united nations mandate. >> we have another question from ko kosovo media. >> yes, the newly elected serbian president is sending very dubious signals to the region, telling the few towns that belong to serbs, denying genoci genocide, during the air strikes in 1999. from the perspective of having a mission in kosovo, what do you think should you be more cautious now that there is a new political elite in belgrade? >> first of all, on srebinica, i

you are bring something jobs back into the department of defense. in your earlier testimony you said you need to reduce the service support contractors. so it seems to me that there has been documented waste when it comes to these service contracts. when it comes to the contracts for big ticket items, i will tell you the cost overruns on the f-35 equal 12 solyndras. i haven't heard too many press conferences on those. but it's an indication to me that there is money to be saved there and i know that you would take that personally and want to do it. how much is built in your cost service and cuts when it comes to this potential overspending on contractors and cost overruns on projects? >> obviously, on the efficiency front, this is an area of principal focus. we did 112 -- or $125 million last year? >> on service contracts? >> on efficiencies. >> $150 billion last year with regards to those efficiencies. we are adding another $60 billion on top of that. a lot of that is aimed at trying to reduce the contractors and to try to gain greater efficiencies

half of that is defense.say, look, we can't wait till january 2nd or even a week before. we have to give 60 days notice to our employees. 60 days before january 2nd is november 3rd. that is three days before election day. strange coincidence? the contractors go republican. a million people getting laid off three days before the election. in heavily swinging states. we did some digging. we said this can't add up. but it does. it is one of the largest payroll processors in this country. they told us, quote if you're going to lay off 500 emplies or more, you have to give 60 days notice. that means, whoa, john avlon is here. john saw the politico article. it caught your attention. this means. so this means three days before the election, a million people could get layoff notices. >> potentially. i mean, this is the ultimate. this is not even an october surprise. here's the question. this whole thing is the cost of the super failed committee. is this going to light a fire under congress to come up with a grand bar

half of that is defense.s say, look, we can't wait till january 2nd or even a week before. we have to give 60 days notice to our employees. 60 days before january 2nd is november 3rd. that is three days before election day. strange coincidence? the contractors go republican. a million people getting laid off three days before the election. in heavily swinging states. we did some digging. we said this can't add up. but it does. it is one of the largest payroll processors in this country. they told us, quote if you're going to lay off 500 emplies or more, you have to give 60 days notice. that means, whoa, john avlon is here. john saw the politico article. it caught your attention. this means. so this means three days before the election, a million people could get layoff notices. >> potentially. i mean, this is the ultimate. this is not even an october surprise. here's the question. this whole thing is the cost of the super failed committee. is this going to light a fire under congress to come up with a grand b

is approach to the defense budget, the defense establishment. and the defense industry that secretary carter called the sixth leg of service. this is the circumstance that we're in. they have to have a serious calculated plan and approach to it. and that is not sequestration. the room for error in the defense industry is actually much smaller than many people a few years ago would have told you. despite a real diversity in the folks on the panel, there's been a fair amount of consensus around a couple of core points. the main one being the insanity of the predictment that we have placed ourselves into. placed ourselves into in the long term. but also placed ourselves into in the short-term. we may have disagreement on what to do next. that's a big take away. nobody is supporting this meat ax like approach. and the second is the notion that these lean times will force politically painful choices. but not necessarily stjically painful. that's when they call for leadership. leadership, which we heard was lacking in the context, is about two things.

the discussion we're having right now is basically a neat ax approach to the defense budget, the defense establishment and the defense industry that secreta secretary carter called the sixth leg of service. this is an effort and circumstance that we're in. deficit and debt reduction that has to have a very serious, calculated plan and program approach to it. that is not sequestration. the room for error in the defense industry is actually much smaller than many people a few years ago would have told you. >> i'll end on three quick points. first, december piet a real diversity of folks on different panels, there has been a fair census around and the main one being the insanity of the predicament that we have placed ourselves into. placed ourselves into in the long term. but also place ourselves into in the short term. we may have disagreement on what to do next. but i think that's a big take away from me is that no one supporting this me ax-like approach. the second is the notion that these lean times will force politically painful choices. but not necessarily strategically painful. and t

now, the defense attorney, the lead defense attorney who was so pessimistic earlier. listen. >> the sandusky family hav is y disappointed by the verdict of the jury but we respect their verdict. you may recall for those of you who have been with the case from the beginning that we said that we had a tidal wave of public opinion against jerry sandusky and the charges filed against him. that he had been determined to be guilty by the public and the media from the very outset of the charges and that we had an uphill battle. i used the analogy that we were attempting to climb mount everest from the bottom of the mount. obviously we didn't make it. we always felt, we always felt that jerry's fairest shake would come from a center county jury and we still believe that. the jury obviously believed the commonwealth's evidence and the commonwealth witnesses. that is clear from their verdict. i have been asked to already inside is that a surprise and no, actually it was the expec expected outcome because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against jerry sandusky. you may als

so ultimately a defense attorney has to do what his client wants him to do. >> mark geragos, as a defense attorney, what is it like having a conversation with a client where you want them to take a plea and they seem unwilling to enter into that decision. >> my father who was my partner for many years often said look, if they made good decisions, they wouldn't need you. so there is a certain amount of resignation to it. i've gotten into some of the most heated arguments i've ever had in my life with clients over trying to give them or force them into making decisions that a lot of times they don't want to. it's very difficult. when marcia was talking about a class of defendants who have never admitted anything, there is some truth to that. there are certain kinds of alleged or convicted people who are accused of crimes who never can deal with it for numerous reasons. and when have you that discussion, you try to give a reality check. but at the end of the day, the duty of the defense lawyer, you are their confess sor, you are their counselor, but ultimately you're their advocate and you'r

these cuts that we're facing are automatic cuts in the defense budget. there are 3,000 accounts which would be automatically cut. the president has a little flexibility when it comes to pay but that's about it. so under what we're facing now, what's looming before us, what will happen in january in addition to the other parts of the train wreck, will be sequestration, automatic reductions, perhaps 8% to 10% in 3000 accounts. this is the kind of mindless budgeting which i think needs to be avoided if we're going to have a chance to answer general cartwright's questions, and i hope we do, and i think we have begun to struggle with them. we struggled with these questions for a long time. one of the questions which the general kind of left us with is in the previous wars, our reductions afterwards were 15% or so but the real problem is that we're in the middle of a conflict, however we want to describe it, which is not going to end when our troops come out of afghanistan. or most of our combat troops come out of afghanistan in 2014. the general's questions a

defense has to play a role. at the same time, we have a responsibility to protect the strongest military in the world and defended this country. -- and to defend this country. you know this as well as i do. you are dealing with a serious deficit issue and debt issue. you cannot keep going back to the same well to resolve it. you cannot keep going back to domestic spending or the discretionary side of the budget to solve a multi-trillion dollar problem facing this country. if you are serious about taking this on -- it is what we had to do in the reagan administration. it is what we did in the bush administration. it is what we did in the clinton administration. if you are serious, you got to put everything on the table. you have to look at mandatory spending, revenue, capping domestic discretionary. you will not solve this problem with the domestic discretionary budget. >> when we brought the experts in to talk about where we might save money, the most darling testimony came when we asked about private contractor

again, i stress -- the defense department is not a jobs program.t is a program to defend the nation. but clearly it would -- that kind of sequestration cut across the board would have serious impact, not only on men and women in uniform, but on our personnel and the contractors to serve the defense establishment. >> when you speak of deferral of maintenance and equipment, can you give us something beyond that? >> let me have bob hale, our comptroller, speak. >> we have not done a detailed plan, but one option we would have to look at is cutbacks and maintenance. that would mean we would push up the availability of ships, for example, or planes. we would try to do it in a sensible manner, but it would inevitably delay maintenance activities. i cannot give you details, but that is an almost inevitable result of sequestration. >> the way the formula works for sequestration is that it takes the percentage across the board out of every area of the defense budget. that means that it is an almost 20% cut in weapons systems. it 20% cut with regards to trai

defense. professor russia's nuclear arsenal is capable to break through the end time miss shield that we see now built in europe at least that's what the rest nutria saying but as experts say the face for the shield which is expected to be deployed by twenty twenty should be something different and make me pose a threat for the russians that's what the military says i'm the next where i'm quoting with what i read in the press so what i'm worried about is you say you're the former u.s. defense treaty that this is not a threat to russia. first thing and second thing is that it that it really is not some real help and protection against against nuclear missiles so my question is why can't the americans give russia some see this is different because as far as i understand all russians want something in writing that this is not aimed at these missiles i'm not a that you know well and this is no one. is a game that i would say but is that make it very clear statement first of all the us b.m.d. syste

>>> welcome to "this week in defense news," i'm vago muradian. the united states coast guard is america's multi-function maritime security force charged with protecting the world's largest exclusive economic zone. from inland waterways at home to the far reaches of the pacific and the world's frigid poles, the coast guard and its 42,000 active and 8000 reserve coast guardsmen execute 11 statutory missions, including maritime law enforcement, environmental and fisheries protection, marine safety, drug and migrant interdiction and search and rescue. despite universal admiles an hour etion for its capabilities and can-do spirit, it's a force that's been underbudgeted at the best of times, much less when all government spending faces cuts. ron oroark every the congressional resource service, one of america's top naval analysts in a recent report warns that even with 244 cutters, 800 boats and 200 aircraft, the air force has only 60% of the equipment it needs to do its legally- mandated missions. america's oldest continuously sea going force has been

those of us in the defense industry certainly do. the looming problem with debt has to be addressed. it's going to have to be an addressment that comes in a multi-dimensional, detailed, and time-phrased approach. that's not what we're looking at right now. i think mackenzie has laid out several reasons why that's a major challenge, as has rebecca. there's two ways to get an airplane on the runway. a landing or a crash landing. this one is going to be a crash landing unless something is done about it. i get asked all the time, you're the strategic planner for general dynamicdynamics, so whao doing to plan to get ready for sequestration, should it happen? my boss has made the comment a couple times. i don't know, what do you do to get ready when you hear an asteroid is hitting the planet? it's a hard thing to do. despite the length of the legislation, there are an awful lot of unknowns out there that make plans rather difficult. just, for example, what's the baseline that's going to be used for this? is it going to be a continuing reso

there's been almost $5 billion in defense cuts. has this shifted in rotations which is an expensive way of doing rotations. has that been factored in? >> absolutely. we have budgeted against that defense strategy and a corner stone of that strategy is our rebalancing to the asia pacific region. so the short answer is yes. >> when secretary panetta was in new delhi, he game the latest defense secretary to explain frustration with pakistan as an ally saying pakistan wasn't doing enough to combat on its own soil and undermining the country as well as allied efforts in afghanistan, pakistanis are adamant they are doing everything possible in order to do their part in this and that they've taken heavy casualties in doing so. clearly, the relationship is partly derailed. the negotiator torres reopen supply routes to return back to the united states. you have secretary panetta saying what he's saying publicly. other lawmakers are talking about restricting funding. what's the pentagon's next move in this critical relationship? >> principal

the defense famed paterno defense was praying on boys he encountered through second mile, a charity sandusky established to help needy children. after it came to light that assistant coach mcqueary told paterno what he had seen in the team shower, sandusky att0-year. many people made up their mind about him early on, after he agreed to a televised phone interview. >> are you sexually attracted to young boys, underage boys? >> am i sexually attracted to underage boys? >> yes. >> sexually attracted, no. i enjoy young people. i love to be around them. no, i'm not sexually attracted to young boys. >> that clip was played again for the jury. and they did not believe that statement on television or in the courtroom. there's no doubt that they didn't believe that jerry sandusky is a monster. that's what they said in this skrerkt. he will spend the rest of his life in prison. >> tonight in this courtroom, an ugly chapter in college football history ends, jerry sandusky on the way to jail. his wife, dottie was in the courtroom just behind him. she did not cry tonight. she instead shook her head, cold

and now the european missile defense program under the spotlight here are not. length. hello again and welcome to spotify i'll do an album today my guest on the show is that you get put on. the looks of issues that are dividing us i mean the people living in russia and people who know us and whenever we watch television when we watch politicians speak on television we see for answers to questions like for example is there still a compromise possible around the a.b.m. miss south shields that the beautiful images are building on the continent from for example what's the future of the you raise new nuclear program and all that fuss that's around the issue in the one another job and issues of course syria and is there a possibility that russia and the west act together somehow to cope with the crisis . to also do this and other questions my guest today is he going to give on the former russian foreign minister and he's also the president of the russian international affairs council a man who's very active today in building informal bridges between russian and foreign expert