by around the time i retired as secretary defense in the summer of 2011, defense had already been cut by nearly $900 billion over the next 10 years. that was before we had to deal with the nearly $600 billion in reduced defense spending authority that would result if sequestration takes place. in short, contrary to konk -- popular conception, the defense budget has been cut and substantially. what remains in our military modernization accounts are much needed capabilities leading -- related to nuclear deterrence, maritime access, safe and cyber warfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, capabilities that our nation's civilians and military leadership deemed critical for our nation's future. i believe the threat america faces today and down the road are in many respects more dangerous for their complexity, variety, unpredictability, and likely lead. let me be clear. not every defense dollar is sacrosanct. one need only spend 10 minutes walking around the pentagon or any major military headquarters to see excess and redundancy. that is why i initiated an eff

programs for the elderly or defense. those are big choices in your federal budget. >> you laid out the number from the planned obama of budget. what is your rough scenario for a plan that you previously said if you carried it out it goes up by 40%. how does that change those numbers? >> haven't projected the other categories because a lot of programs, social security and medicare and medicaid on autopilot because they are mandatory programs. congress doesn't have to appropriate for these programs each year. they stay on the track they are on now which means they will grow. it is inflation and federal spending. if revenues -- they stayed about the same. and eliminate deductions so it balances out so you have the revenue side of the equation basically the same and spending going up in all categories like social security and medicare. medicaid would go down under romney i would suspect if you look at the ryan plan that is what they're talking about doing. then the 14% for all non-defense discretionary spending includes forei

defense. i wrote the bill to prevent the sequester from happening because we think those devastating defense cuts will dramatically weaken our national security. we think the president's been wrong on iran, and we think he's dragged his feet on iran, and as a result of his poor iran policy, they're that much closer to a nuclear weapon. now, the president has had some success. osama bin laden is a perfect example. but by and large, i think what the president is doing here is he can't run onaise record. so he's going to be offering us this kind of rhetoric. >> you can explain how do you have more foreign policy experience than senator obama did? he was on the foreign relations committee. >> i've been in congress for 14 years. he was in the senate for far, far less time that that. i voted-- you know, norah, i voted to send men and women to war. i've been to iraq and afghanistan. i've met with our troops to get their spfs. i've been to the funerals. i've talked to the widows. i've talked to the wives and moms and dads. that's something. that matters. i take this very seriously. i've done doing this f

the u.s. population. reducing defense spending by saeb in 15 to 20% in the near term would reduce the current annual budget deficit by just one tenth. 10%. the cuts on that scale would require dramatic reductions in size, reduction of the overall size readiness and overall capabilities of the u.s. military. and we need to be honest with the president, with the congress and the american people and with ourselves about what those consequences are. they are smaller less ready in less modernized military will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things and the risks to our men and women in uniform will only increase. if our elected officials and body politic truly wanted diminished role for the united states and the role then we can start paring back missions and ratcheting back with the corresponding military investments for structure. if future defense reductions cannot be avoided they should be phased in slowly, methodically and strategically in a way that protects our core security interest and does right by

the u.s. population. reducing defense spending by, say, even 15 to 20% in the near term would reduce the current annual budget deficit by just one-tenth. the cuts on that scale would require dramatic reductions in the size, reduction, and overall, size, readiness, and overall capabilities of the u.s. military. and we need to be honest with the president, with the congress, with the american people and with ourselves about what those consequences are. that a smaller, less ready, less modernized military will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things. and the risks to our men and women in uniform will only increase. if our elected officials and body politic conclude that they truly want a diminished role for the united states in the world, then we can start paring back missions and ratcheting back the corresponding military investments and force structure. if future reductions cannot be avoided, they should be phased in slowly, methodically, and strategically. in a way that protects our core security interes

governor romney would spend 70% of the federal budget on defense. -- 17% of the federal budget on defense. 4% of gdp think about it would be military. the gulf between a obama anne romney grows much wider. -- obama and brown negros wider. -- grows widers. >> either candidate is going to have to come up with some innovative programs. neither one has the money. governor romney's aspirations are less. they are both looking at defense plants that are going to need to be rethought. we need some innovation in how we deal with defense. sometimes, old-fashioned issues need to have the belts tightened. new ways of operating military forces. instead of making the navy fleet bigger, we may have to keep it at its current size or make it a little smaller. he might do that by having crews fly to the united states to replace each other. tank hass think developed this idea. it is hard to do in fairness to the navy. it is already being done on some ships. that is the kind of idea that needs to be expanded. we need more innovative ways of using the resources we already have. >> regardless of who is preside

so within the defense budget, the cuts would have to be made, a lot of them are what i would call defense entitlement programs and that has to be done carefully with the two wars we still have going on, and it has to be done considering the troops ask their families, over time. so yes we can cut it, we must cut it, as we do everything else. but if you just cut defense, and you don't do something about health care, you don't do something about the entitlement programs, if you don't restrain the growth, that's where the budget is really growing. the defense budget is large as it is, is not the main problem we face in the overall federal budget, it entitlement program that are simply unsustainable. >> governor romney just got this trouble for the remarks he said about the 47% of the nation. you mentioned en titlement programs, a lot of them go to defense, a lot them go to seniors, things like that. is there an appetite in congress to actually tackle this? >> i think there are a number of people who are working together and one of the things we're trying to do with our coalition csis, the bip

what does this mean for the global aerospace and defense industry. >> i don't think the absolute scale of it or the rank of them has a big significance for customers or shareholders. it's a matter of prestige. i think it excel rates the attention -- excel rates the attention cooperate strategists and regulators planned to give to restructures. it gets a ball rolling i pected to take a few more years to get rolling. i think that's the first big significance. >> and what are some other sort of knock off effects we will see from this do you think? >> first,. >> where are they in the process because twoness it was disclosed and both companies contermed itthey stopped talking. -- confirmed it they stopped talking. what are the next phases whenwill they formally announce it. >> i will observe that the amount of detail that the companies were able to quickly reveal about the transaction and about the structure of it once the news of it had been leaked suggested they are probably eminent to announce a formal definitive agreement between the two of them. so i don't think there will be a long de

he opted not to take the stand in his defense. us. >> the problem with this case comes down to one word. investigation. a rookie detective working his first homicide, a fellow in the medical examiner's office not doing a thorough autopsy. >> more infuriating, he said, was the prosecutor's claim saying she was only standing by him to see her grandchildren. that outraged lina's mother. one of the prosecutors in the closing went after your family and basically said that your mother-in-law was a captive of your family, could do nothing to express her real opinion because otherwise she'd be left out in the cold. >> how dare he. go after lina's mother. lina's mother who bravely came in that courthouse and stood up for the son-in-law that's charged with second degree murder of her daughter. >> his mother-in-law's show of loyalty was striking, but would it be enough? to impress the jurors and save adam? >>> coming up -- >> i know i had the truth on my side. >> it was strangulation. the proof is there. >> we the jury of miami-dade >>> near

but what the sequestration on defense will do in the words of the secretary of defense is devastate our national security. but most importantly, our uniform leaders who have said if this half trillion dollar cut in defense spending on top, all ready of some 460 billion cuts that are all ready in train, that it will jeopardize national defense. what's our most important obligation? defending the nation. what's the president's most important job in commander and chief. we are begging the white house to sit down with us and try and avoid this. so far, no answer. >> is it irresponsible for this white house and this congress to leave town for the election right now without having this done. >> of course it is. you have to notify defense workers two months ahead of time. there's a likelihood on november first that lay off notices could gout go out to hundred of thousands of employees in the defense industry. we don't want to do that to people. >> you've walked in mitt romney's shoes of course as the nominee four years ago. what do you see happening there? is it slippage way for him. >> i thin

a high-scoring game was exact ped in the northwest and defensive battle. at's the official game. >> kirk: oh, yeah, yeah. >> brent: what i'm surprised, arizona for now stopped oregon from scoring. i think the ducks defense -- think about what they see in practice during spring and summer. pretty familiar with rich-rod. he has an idea what rich-rod wants to do with matt scott. i'm not shocked to seeregon's defense playing well. at least they had a good defense. arizona stopped mariotta at this point. that's a shock. >> brent: they're good hands in florida state. they know what's coming. onside kick and it is -- brought down by the 'noles with a penalty. let me see what this call is. >> kirk: got a little early start for clemson. >> referee: kicking team. 5 yards, first down. >> brent: final 2 minute, reminder stay tuned for the ford wrap-up. coming off tonight's game. it was quite a day in college football. some of you, of course, knows that central michigan scored five points ohio state struggled. beat uab. 29-15. they go to a conference game in east lansin

one of which is missile defense. when the obama administration came into office in 2009 and 2010, they did not cut funding for missile defense but they kept at about the same level, about 10 billion figure but they shifted how we allocate those resources to focus much more on theater missile defense. so these are systems like aegis, patriot, that's where they tend to put the money. theater missile defense is good for helping protect our forward deployed forces overseas, or in other theaters we're getting into complex. national missile defense systems are really focused on protecting the homeland. the continental united states in particular. also, the obama administration changed our plans for european missile defense to use, to leverage existing aegis ballistic missile defense system and eventually put that system ashore, first in romania and then in poland. they also curtailed the ground-based midcourse defense program. we plan to buy 44 of those interceptors based on the west coast and alaska and california. they stopped it

one is missile defense. when the obama administration came into office, they did not cut funding for missile defense. they kept it at about the same level, about $10 billion a year. but they shifted resources to focus much more on other things. these are systems like patriots, it is good for helping protect our forces overseas were -- now, national missile defense systems are really concerned with protecting the united states in particular. the obama administration changed our plans for european missile defense to leverage the existing missile defense system and put that system sure first in romania and poland later on. they also curtailed the ground-based midcourse. they stopped it at 30. i think the wrong administration would actually probably go back and change the balance again, much more in favor of national missile defense systems and we have actually seen in congress, republicans have been pushing the idea of deploying some of these ground-based and interceptors on the united states disclosed. another area of

the board? are there specific areas of defense you would avoid the most anticipating these cuts, or how do you play this? >> when we look at defense sector right now, what we've been recommending to clients is to take a concentrated niche focus in high priorities of the defense budget. we're looking at un-manned systems, intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. within that, we like aeroenvironment best. we have a buy rating at a $27 price target. >> how significant will the layoffs be? >> they're questionable. right now it's looking like 2 million in total nationwide, including government employees, from some reports. that number may be a bit inflated. the reports are coming from industry. we question whether or not there's a bias to those reports. >> the timing -- you're item id -- itemizing. this is before congress goes back to work to fix this crisis. is it possible notices go out when they do just to highlight what could happen as a scare tactic to get congress back to work? >> congress is already on a recess. they're on a recess all the way through the elections. actually, the government empl

and the compromise has got to be there. defense is tangential, by the way. i mean, this discussion, defense is, you know, gordon adams over at simpson says defense is just the whipping boy in this particular issue. it's just -- and the domestic spending, also, will become that, although few people are talking about it, which is really interesting. but the point of the matter -- which may allude to the fact that people do believe on that side there needs to be some spending reductions, and everybody agrees there needs to be. but the point of the matter is that until you, until they all accept, until people are willing to take some political risk, and the only time that might happen is right after the election. the only time that people may feel some sense of security may be right after the election. of course, house members have to start running for office almost immediately because it's every two years they're up. so compromise it's -- again, i'm very pessimistic. >> do we want to do some questions in this session? all right. you need to use this mic, right?

that the defense themselves served up on a silver platter. with me now from milwaukee is harry smith an attorney with the firm of smith and fuller. harry, thanks for being with us this evening. >> thank you very much for having me. >> judge jeanine: all right, harry. the question that everyone has is why would the defense call you thoughing full well what you were going to say because your testimony has been a matter of record for years. why do you think they called you? >> you know, this is a question that i think you and i both had in the trial because as i was being asked to leave for the first or second time during my testimony you looked as shocked as i was. i perceive that they had a thought in the case that followed along the lines of monetary in investment or incentive for kathy peterson and that they were going to show that stacy and kathy were just concerned about money and would say whatever they could to get the money but that is not how it played out. >> judge jeanine: clearly, if you think about it, harry, to put a witness on the

the u.s. population. reducing defense spending by, say, even 15 to 20% in the near term would reduce the current annual budget deficit by just one-tenth. accounts on that scale would require dramatic reductions in the size, reduction, and overall, size, readiness, and overall capabilities of the u.s. military. and we need to be honest with the president, with the congress, with the american people and with ourselves about what those consequences are. that a smaller, less ready, less modernize military will be able to go fewer places and be able to do fewer things. and the risks to our men and women in uniform will only increase. if our elected officials and body politic conclude that they truly want to diminished role for the united states in the world, then we can start paring back missions and ratcheting back the corresponding military investments and force structure. if future reductions cannot be uploaded they should be phased in slowly, methodically, and strategically. in a way that protects our core secured interest

the defense represents 20% but gets 50% of the cuts.but the house of representatives, and the democrats have been down here attacking for the last couple of days the -- quote -- "ryan budget, the house-passed budget. at least they had a budget. we haven't had a budget for three years in the united states senate. mr. mccain: isn't that known as chutspa to come down and attack the other body's budget when you haven't had one? i congratulate my friends on the other side of the aisle who come down and attack the other side's budget when they haven't done one iota in three years. congratulations for new levels of hypocrisy. ms. ayotte: would the senator from arizona yield? i would also call that hypocrisy. i mean, really, when you have no plan yourself for the fiscal state of the country, when you're unwilling to actually do the work of the budget committee, when you call it foolish, when by the way when the president's own budget gets zero votes from the members of his own party -- mr. mccain: the president did have a budget. it got see row

if the defense hawks of the military industrial complex want to increase defense spending -- is that not cry out for tax increases? if he was significant spending -- if you want more spending even though we did not have a major threat by the soviet union facing us, does that not require -- let me mention some some balls. i. simpson bowles calls for cuts in defense. >> people thought a lot of figures. on a few of them are right. defense spending is only 20% of the discretionary budget. the defense of the country is -- we do have to see that that is being maintained at an adequate level. no one suggest we are in less dangerous times. the reverse is true. cyberwarfare. thing about north korea. -- think about north korea. we have the kind of unlevel playing field that has worked so well all this time. we're not going into a period that is fatal. how do you balance your budget is a bigger question. that is what we elected our members of congress to do, to make those tough decisions about entitlement spending. we're spending in a way that cannot sustain social security, medicaid, and medica

after the play, personal foul on the defense, no. 93. ty will be enforced on the kickoff. >> ian: that's tommy kelly for the extra curricular activities following the recovery. >> ian: take look at it to see exactly what happened but looked like brown got stripped just before he crossed the plane. >> ian: pittsburgh has 30-21 lead. antonio brown fumbling the football, just before he hit the goal line but recovering it somehow amidst that crowd piled around it. >> dan: has had unusual calls today. by and large they have done solid job. >> ian: agreed. >> ian: ben roethlisberger is celebrating, wait a second, is it going to work out. not sure, yeah. is it, i don't know. this was the penalty afterwards with kelly. richard seymour was in there and officials got in there as well. >> referee: confirmed, touchdown. >> ian: raiders fans have to hear it for a second time. >> dan: i'm not sure why it took so long but it d. here we are. still have 1:31 to play in the third quarter. >> dan: lot of time for the raiders. they seem to have found rhythm

instead the nebraska defense holds. opportunity there for the cornhuskers. [ male announcer ] whether it's kevin's smartphone... mom's smartphone... dad's tablet... or lauren's smartphone... at&t has a plan built to help make families' lives easier. introducing at&t mobile share. one plan lets you share data on up to 10 devices with unlimited talk and text. add a tablet for only $10 per month. the more data you share, the more you save. at&t. t's $10 any pizzaa you share, the more you save. deal i can get everyone their favorite pizza. any size, any toppings for just ten bucks. pepperoni lover's, meat lover's... dad, what about veggie lover's? you know, for jacob? yeah, i had that one delivered to his house. announcer: pizza hut believes you should get exactly what you want, so we created the $10 any pizza deal. get any size, any toppings on our pan, thin 'n crispy or hand-tossed crust. now, add four stuffed pizza rollers to any pizza for four bucks more. pizza hut. make it great. >> charles: 29-27, ucla. now let's go to

behind the line of scrimmage. ben gardner, defensively. >> charles: usc trying to get stanford to overrun with a pass rush towards barkley. >> gus: under a minute. second and 12. barkley in trouble! and a flag on the play. matt barkley lucky to get that one off. >> charles: i think that's got to go against tyrus hobbi. watch the middle. it's all he can do. >> referee: holding, offense, number 69. penalty declined down is three. >> charles: all he can go dense josh mauro, number 90 who ran him over and opened up the gate. >> gus: hobbi in for holmes, a redshirt freshman. this will be a game he'll remember for the rest of his life, because he's had a rough debut. third down and 12 at the 48. as they back it up. now the ball spotted at the 42. there's colin holmes. shoulder pads off. second and 22 at the 42. curtis mcneal. here comes the blitz. barkley -- goes out again for the fourth time! and a time-out called by sc. their final time-out. it's about the friends you go to bat for. the ones who'll be there when they say they will. even if be

if the defense hawks of the military industrial complex want to increase defense spending -- is that not cry out for tax increases? if he was significant spending -- if you want more spending even though we did not have a major threat by the soviet union facing us, does that not require -- let me mention simpson bowles. i think simpson bowles calls for cuts in defense. guest: people thought a lot of figures. on a few of them are right. defense spending is only 20% of the discretionary budget. another fundamental is the defense of the country is the most fundamental responsibility in our constitution. we do have to see that is maintained. the defense of the country is -- we do have to see that that is being maintained at an adequate level. no one suggest we are in less dangerous times. the reverse is true. cyberwarfare. thing about north korea. -- think about north korea. we have the kind of unlevel playing field that has worked so well all this time. periodot going into a that is fatal. how do you balance your budget is a bigger question. that is what we elected our members of congres

this week, the debate over what needs to be done to bolster the country's defenses against cyber attack. this week, wells fargo found their banks under attack. the suspect iran. they deny it. but republicans and democrats left town without coming to a deal on this. now they think the president may act on its own. an exclusive bloomberg analysis examines the options. they include telling authorities to establish new cyber standards for utilities, pipelines to banks. creating a realtime system to monitor private threats. that means connecting private companies to government networks. and they may ease limits on sharing information between government and the private sector which is raising privacy concerns. joining me now is someone that knows the debate over how to defend against this. general michael hayden. he is now a principal with a security firm in washington. thank you for joining us. >> yes. >> peter: how prepared is the country for the cyber threats of today? >> not as well prepared as we need to be. my successor at the national security agency, general alexander was asked a simi

if we take a look at some of the sectors, we're in this defensive mode. the effects of qe3 already waning. energies, material lagging. also technology. take a look at some of these technology movers because they have been notable. we've talked about apple with potentially supply and demand issues here. demand for the iphone 5 less than what some expected. the supply potential issues with that employee scuffle at foxconn. we're still sorting that out. pressure on pc makers as well with intel trading around a year-low. dell at multiyear low. microsoft also struggling. google closing at historic highs. moves we haven't seen in quite some time for this -- forever, really, as we're talking about google for an all-time historic high. also moving beyond technology. some of the pharma names. we saw the nyse acca pharma index hit a ten-day high. some big movers, pfizer, novartis, lily. >> thank you. we have much more ahead on the "closing bell." >> announcer: would you be willing to receive less from social security to help fix the nation's financial problems? that

behind the line of scrimmage. ben gardner, defensively. >> charles: usc trying to get stanford to overrun with a pass rush towards barkley. >> gus: under a minute. second and 12. barkley in trouble! and a flag on the play. matt barkley lucky to get that one off. >> charles: i think that's got to go against tyrus hobbi. watch the middle. it's all he can do. >> referee: holding, offense, number 69. penalty declined down is three. >> charles: all he can go dense josh mauro, number 90 who ran him over and opened up the gate. >> gus: hobbi in for holmes, a redshirt freshman. this will be a game he'll remember for the rest of his life, because he's had a rough debut. third down and 12 at the 48. as they back it up. now the ball spotted he 42. there's colin holmes. shoulder pads off. second and 22 at the 42. curtis mcneal. here comes the blitz. barkley -- goes out again for the fourth time! and a time-out called by sc. heir final time-out. it's about the friends you go to bat for. the ones who'll be there when they say they will. even if being t

defenses not the problem. -- defense is not the problem. the supercommittee was not able to carry out their mandate. we all understand that. we understand the political pressures, but the fact was it didn't happen, and so sequestration that was supposed to be so terrible they could never be actually put into place is getting closer. we are now one month -- for three months away from full implementation. i contend that we are already in sequestration. the jobs already been lost. the decisions are already being made to slow things down or cut things off, and people are losing their jobs. there are two impacts. one is a big cut on our defense which puts our security at risk. the second side is the impact on our economy. as the ceo said, if this thing goes there, that we will go right back into another recession starting next january. so this is very, very serious. the sequestration, the way it is outlined if you should take full effect in january is another five, 600 billion out of defense, and it is without any thought or any planning, just y

the line. you have democrats blaming republicans for making defense cuts, the sacred cow even though coburn and rand paul call for defense cuts. you have mitt romney attacking the defense cuts at that his running mate paul ryan voted for. it seems as though everyone is willing to make defense spending a political football, and i can't think of a sadder commentary on the state of washington politics than on this day to be having that conversation. >> you're spot on. we can do much better as sprg a 21st century military instead of holding onto to too much of a cold war military. take the example of an aircraft carrier today. within 24 hours it can strike eight times of the targets that it could do just over 15 years ago. so instead of procuring another aircraft carrier, another hull for $11 billion, how about take half that money and help put it into the south china sea and insonify that entire sea with a sensor system that can give us real time information so we can target it in real time. that's what our aircraft can do on an aircraft carrier today because they're netted to the drones and the s

you can make the defense department go away. it will not even take the deficit and our spending away. not even talking about debt. you have to have revenue on the table but it is a politically perilous position for any republican terry look at orrin hatch. -- for any republican. look at orrin hatch. eisenhower talked a lot about the defense industrial complex and saying the only way you truly get any reductions or any new planning out of the defense park -- department is simply to cut it. the republicans are applying that same policy to reduce a we need to reduce and rethink how we do things because the growth rate are not sustainable. there is a legitimate argument that seem to be accepted by all sides that it is difficult to sustain the kind of growth. there has to offer the cuts on that front. when people are digging in, it becomes increasingly difficult to find a deal. defense is tangential. defense -- gordon adams says the fence is just a whipping boy in this particular issue. and the fat -- domestic spending will become tha

the defense is saying no way, this is what happened here. you had evidence back then in 1984 that amos norwood had a sexual relationship. >> the victim. >> the victim, with terrance williams and not only that, you also had evidence back in 1984 that amos norwood, the victim in the case, had been abusing other boys as well, and you didn't turn that over to the defense. well, the judge listened to both sides and said to the defense you're right, this evidence should have been turned over to the defense back in 1984. the jurors should have had an opportunity to hear that when they were making their decision. jurors didn't have an opportunity to hear that and, ashley, you know this. i interviewed one of the jurors from 1984 just last week. they said had i known then what i know now, i would not have voted for the death penalty. >> not just that juror. already other jurors and actually isn't it the widow of amos as well has come out saying i am not so sure i am comfortable with this death penalty? do i have my wires crossed? >> the widow came out

a little lesson the defense side. it is just going to say, we're going to take x percent from each one of these categories. so this is a little way that some politicians are trying to jam the white house and, you know, make them produce something. and they will. they shouldn't be late with it. i'm an advocate of transparancy, i just figure you are not going to learn a lot from it. whether agencies can plan for this? you know, the agencies, in my view, it is not that hard for the agencies to plan for this. what is really hard, is the results. ultimately, these dollars go out into the country and they fund stuff. so again, an example from scott lilly. the f.a.a., which is a -- an administration, the federal aviation administration, which gets funded through appropriations annually has a bub bunch of projects in play. according to scott's calculations, he was looking at a particular airport that is in arkansas. this airport is probably going to have to close because they won't be able to fund their air traffic control sta

the u.s. defense industry prepares to slim down. >> susie: the latest census numbers are in, and a record 46 million people remain below the poverty line. >> tom: that and more tonight on "n.b.r."! >> susie: thinner, faster, taller. we're talking about apple's hotly anticipated iphone 5. it was unveiled today in san francisco, and investors were impressed, juicing the shares up to $669 a share. but does the new device live up to the hype? erika miller takes a closer look at whether the new iphone will be fruitful for apple. >> reporter: this is the new device that could upset the apple cart in the smartphone industry. apple c.e.o. tim cook unveiled the iphone 5 in san francisco. and it has new features designed to fend off competition from rival android phones. >> it is an absolute jewel. it is the most beautiful product we have ever made bar none. >> reporter: now the nitty gritty: the phone is made entirely of glass and aluminum. so it's 18% thinner, and 20% lighter than the last version. it has a l

budget control act. >> that included cuts in the defense spending. >> are you mistaken. i do not support the obama budget or the obama $478 billion in cuts suspect so number one that is half of the trillion we don't support, our budget rejected-- reflected that. number two we passed legislation to reflect what we want, as part of the budget control act, which is to cut spending in other areas of government instead of the pentagon. that bill is sitting in the senate right now. president obama has done nothing to support it, to oppose it, he hasn't even shown us how he's going to implement the he is quest jerdz congressman ryan told o'donnell he would be happy to work with obama but said the president hasn't been acting on it. if the president wins a second term he might still face a republican house including john boehner as speaker and ryan as chairman of the house budget committee. would compromise be possible? scott pelley ask thed president in an interview for tomorrow's "cbs evening news." >> if you win will you be willing to compromise? what ar

where is the california defense? give the bears defense they almost upset the buckeyes. 35-28 = final score at ohio state. >> this is a huge day and a huge night for stanford college football team. both against national powers and one of them just pulled it off with this late breaking news. also, the a's have a huge chance for the world series with the baltimore orioles. surprisingly competitive. the new the latest and the giants. >> huge college football. the cardinals are hosting second ranked palo alto. stanford just won the game 21-14. upsetting the u.s. sea. that is a big game the defeat of usc. and take a look at the cal bears in columbus. that is the only person sleeping in the entire stadium. the third quarter, look out for brendan bigelow. one of the best runs all year. 81 yds later. to not call him deuce bigelow. 20-14 final score and the bears are thinking that just four different but 160 yds. two different touchdowns. and his second touchdown of the game tied it at . the band got into it at ohio state sco

with nfl mobile from verizon, no one will know the game better than you. best defensemost no one. i will eat you. get coverage of every nfl game and nfl network coverage 24/7 on nfl mobile and experience football on verizon 4g lte. greatness is not given. [ grunts ] greatness is taken. ♪ taken in the summer. when no one is looking. ♪ [ male announcer ] 40 years of hydration science in every bottle. so you can take what's yours. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] start with a simple idea. think. drink coffee. design something totally original. do it again. that's good. call in the engineers. call in the car guys. call in the nerds. build a prototype. mold it. shape it. love it. give it a starting price under 16 grand. take it to the track. tweak. tweak. tweak. stop. take it to the car shows. call the critics. call the marketing team. get a celebrity endorser. he's perfect. i am? [ male announcer ] yes, you are. making a groundbreaking car -- ithat easy. ♪ >> chris: next week the nfl on fox, the buccaneers and cowboys, the rams will take on the bears and chicago, the later game, eag