in. second, i feel that we have to do it in order to protect our economic base. we have to have a strong industrial base that supports the defense department, and for that reason, my instructions are to do everything possible, not only to get obviously better competition and better savings, but to make sure that we keep our industrial base busy serving our needs. >> that is so important because once that industrial base is gone, you never get it back and once those trained workers go on to other fields, you've lost them forever and that would weaken our capabilities. i agree. thank you for that response. thank you mr. sherman. >> thank you. senator hagan. stomachs before mr. chairman and general, mr. panetta and mr. hill, thank you for your service and it is good afternoon now. thank you for your leadership

particularly during this time made the ied proliferation is a key concern of mine, and it certainly has been for quite awhile. i support anything that we can do to counter them and obviously protect our troops, and i also support anything we can do to improve the detection rates and interdict the row and reported last year in afghanistan they cost over half the u.s. military deaths and the ied will continue to pose a threat to our military men and women to be the and i believe we need a capability to counter the threat. however we have to ensure our countermeasures we deal with the types we face now and in the future along with the environment they will likely be legalized in and our efforts must be geared towards countering than in any locale and my figures show that we have spent approximately $17 billion

on the various initiatives and equipment not counting the 45 billion spent on drug-resistant vehicles. i see these soldiers all the time with a loss of limbs. we host the wounded warrior luncheons in my office. i see them at the airports, and i really want to do everything possible what we can to contradict the ied. but at the same time, we are spending billions of dollars to find a technology that is currently costing the in many tens of thousands of dollars. so i'm wondering how do we figure out how to alter this investment ratio, and what investments will the department began developing effective countermeasures in order to protect our troops into the same time avoid restricting their freedom of movement? >> welcome center, the ied challenges the enemy's asymmetrical tool, and i think

that you are correct stating that it has been the biggest killer in the battlefield and it's likely to remain so and there will be true wherever we are deployed. i feel we are so capable but they will find ways to attack us and typically now that is the next challenge will be the precision rockets and missiles, but we will get to that one. the point about the ied, the way we are trying to address the cost ratio is by expanding -- and we have been doing this, expanding the aperture. defeating the in to device is important under the enwraps as you say, the mine detection, deep penetration, radar, ground penetrating radar, but it's also training to identify signatures, and i will explain it briefly in the second, and then also

attacking the network so you have to do all three, identify signatures coming and that is to say the components, the chemicals, and then find ways to identify those components and attack the supply chain and then its attacking the network that includes the finance years and those in place and finally it is deceiving the device, and we have gotten actually quite good at it. but this is the enemy principal munition that he uses against us and it doesn't continue to incur casualties. so we have to stay with it. i don't have a better answer than that. if i could, just to follow up a little bit on that. one of the best things that was developed was the mrap and it saved a lot of lives and rustam on an expedited basis and was a good example of trying to produce something needed by the men and women on the fast pace, and we are continuing of the ghastly to do that kind of research to try to develop the

best ways to try to protect our young men and women. all i agree with you, anybody that has seen the result has to shoulder at the devastating wounds that result from that. the of a piece of this though relates to the supply network and in some ways the relates to the safe haven pakistan that continues to supply a lot of this committee that is an area that we believe we have urged the pakistanis to address. we think that whole issue needs to be addressed if we are going to be effective to try to cut back on these. >> that was my next question coming and i know we've discussed this before but what is the department doing to put pressure on pakistan networks in the distribution of the ammonium nitrate? pnac we have made very clear to them that where these threats emanate from we've identified locations, we've directed them to specific sites, we urged them

to take steps. >> in some cases they are and we try to impress upon them that they have to be part of the answer to deal with this issue. >> i think that would help tremendously and hopefully slowing the number of the ied this place. secretary panetta, i also wanted to thank you for lifting the marine corps variants of the strike fighter probation. the decision i believe is the essential for the marines to operate and move seamlessly from the c code the shore and the air and it's also a key to preserving the strategic dhaka to of our invidious capability. the airlift capable of the short takeoff and vertical landing of a great exceed was when the fighter pilot crashed in libya and they were able to within about 90 minutes takeoff from the large ships, rescue the

pilot and have him back on board. so obviously there was a critical need. and i also understand that the regional joint strike fighter procurement originally was currently planned at 2,430 aircraft and then in light of the new defense strategy and budget, the joint strike fighter program perhaps is looking at being restructured which may include fewer aircraft spread out over a longer time frame, and according to the deputy secretary defense, the department will slow its approach to the full rate production of aircraft. do we have a project timeline to complete the necessary testing and implementation of the developmental changes in order to start buying the aircraft in the half year quantities? and how has the department conveyed this to the defense industrial base with what center collins was talking about? >> we think it is extremely important to get the fifth

generation fighters out there as soon as we can. obviously it's taken time. there's been a lot of testing. they've had to readjust. there were five areas that were identified that put it on probation. they dealt with all five areas. it's tested well. now we are basically in the software testing and one of the reasons we wanted to slow it is to make sure we knew what the problems were and we could get ahead of it rather than go ahead and produce these things that cost even more if we are catching up with some of the problems. so we think we have set the right time frame. i think our hope is that by, what, 2017 we will begin to produce these planes? >> there will be aircraft as well we've just slowed the ramp so we don't buy so many and then have to fix them leader which is expensive, so we are buying them by the 29 aircraft in fiscal 2013 and i don't have it in my

head the number but will be substantially higher than that. so just slowed down. >> mai tais for questions is over, but i did want to emphasize at and it's important to invest in the science and technology programs and the research and development initiatives. these are the seeds that we need to plant and nurture in order to ensure that our military remains the best and post technologically advanced in the world especially when dealing with the emerging threats. i don't think we could emphasize enough the need for the research and development. -- before mr. chairman. >> senator cornyn? >> thank you. gentlemen, think you for being here. you have my respect and admiration. you also have a very difficult job, which we have talked a lot about but let me start with a quote from the director of the national intelligence james clapper who two weeks ago said never has there been in my

almost 49 year career and intelligence, more complex and more interdependent a ray of challenges the and we face today. capability space technologies, noel, communications of environmental forces are confined by borders and can trigger the transnational disruptions with astonishing speed as we have seen and i doubt that you would disagree with these comments. i don't know anybody who would. but the challenge to think that we are struggling with me and senator lieberman and others have expressed this is our heartfelt desire to have the mission to determine the budget and not the budget the mission, and you are of course constrained by law the congress passes and the president signs, so we realize that this is our responsibility to meet your responsibilities to try to minimize the risks and maximize our national security given the money appropriated by congress,

and i appreciate general deinze talked about looking beyond the budget window to the long-term risk. but let me talk about the near-term risk and something that has already been diluted to, and that is the -- we have made the statement, secretary panetta, you and others, that there are certain red lines with regards to iran blocking the streets of hormuz, building a nuclear weapon. this is important to us and it's important to the region but it's an existential threat to israel, our ally, and i don't believe that they are going to wait on anyone else in determining what determines the right to continue to exist and the people's security, so if iran is hit by israel, which of course iran has

already been telling americans in afghanistan and iraq in the low-grade war against the united states and other nato allies, but sort of retaliation would you anticipate against italy israel but other countries in the region and american personnel in the middle east? >> the general suggests that we ought to look at a closed session to really address all the implications of what that may or may not mean. obviously we are very concerned about it. we are looking at all of the implications and consequences that could result. but it really involves intelligence, and we should be in a closed session. >> i respect your judgment on that, secretary and general dempsey, and i look forward to the further briefing on that. but it strikes me at a time we

are already -- i know we are not calling this, we are not saying we are cashing the peace dividend, but we are certainly needed disproportionate cuts to the department of defense and of the national security expenditures when my view is this is the number one responsibility the federal government house. a lot of other things we can do we could put off or do without. but this is it. this is the most important thing that the federal government does and there are real and not near term and long term potentialities that could embroil not only the united states, but the police and our allies in a full-fledged war that would have dire economic consequences to our country and obviously to our allies more than economic matter of life and death and existence.

>> senator, without getting into the particular school let me just assure you that we have very strong capabilities in place to deal with any circumstances that could develop in that region. we feel fully prepared for whatever might take place. >> i am sure that would entail -- i'm confident we've done everything you know how to do to prepare for our military and defense department has and will not be without cost, it will not be without casualties and will not be without serious consequences is my only point. and so, it troubles me at a time when our national security apparatus is asked to do more with less and the world is getting more dangerous, not less dangerous, the we have a budget that unfortunately i think in cages in the most charitable words i can use this phantom savings, phantom savings come

some might call it budgetary gimmicks and the like. for example the so-called trillion dollars of savings from the drawdown in operations in afghanistan and iraq that are not currently planned, which have been funded by the borrowed money in the past ten years and which really represents one headline in the national journal it says pentagon budget revives war spending voodoo, and like i said, the phantom savings is the most charitable thing that i have seen, but it strikes me as an extraordinarily dangerous at a time when the risk is deadly serious to have a budget proposal which makes a trillion dollars of savings on expenditures that we never anticipated spending in the first place at the same time i will grant you we don't know what the risks will be in the

future. let me close on this item. it's a little more concrete. it appears from my reading of the budget that there is a decrease of about 50% in the budget for training and equipping of afghan security forces from 2012 to 2013. i would like first leg is a confirmation that my reading is correct, and number two, you're nodding it is correct, so i would just ask you if in fact our withdraw from afghanistan is conditioned on the ability of the afghans to defend themselves and maintain stability there, how is the cutting of the budget by 50% from 2012 to 2013 consistent with that? >> i will take that one, center. the afghan national security forces fund was front loaded when we had to develop a lot of their infrastructure.

we purchased a lot of the equipment and what you are seeing in the budget is most of the capitol investments in our terms have been made in the previous years. so the reduction is the reflection that we have what we need a and most of the fund now is for the replenishment and training and operations, but simply answer to the question is a front loaded the investments and the capitol investments. >> of the chairman will permit me in terms of the size of the force and to become a do you see that getting larger or maintaining the status quo? >> we are committed to building the afghan security forces ought to three did 502000, 195,000 which is the army. there will be completed in the next 90 to 120 days. we haven't decided how long we will keep it at that size, but that is a question that we are looking at as we determine how to get from here to 14 and deliver the lisbon objectives.

.. of taking over security. we just have to make sure we continue to train and we continue to make them capable to be able to take that responsibility. >> chairman, could i respond -- >> i'll >> likely. very quickly. very quickly. article,"national journal" stticle, i don't, i don't ascribe to its conclusionsve because i have been so involved with the process. some of the changesth will havew will have an effectil on our bae budget.

some of those effects will beats mitigated in the near term by oco. that's what he's talking that we've kind of a part over thepri problem.th. i don't accept that.ular,s the army in particular has 10 to 12,000 nondeployable soldiers directly resulting from repeated deployments, and we pay that out of oco because it's related to that. >> we don't know what the expected challenges and threats the country will face in the future is my point. >> we do not, and i accept that, but that's what contingency funds are for. >> senator mansion. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, thank you, mr. controller as well, and i understand you touched on the value of the garden reserves and how important their services have been serving in afghanistan and iraq. with regard to your air national guard strategy, your air --

excuse me, your air force restructuring strategy, about half the cuts have come out of the guard even though the only represent a third of the cost, and i believe the joint chiefs did a -- who did the report? yeah, vice chairman of the joint chiefs did a report talking about managing budget issues and actually made the point that guard and reserve provide capabilities at a lower cost than would be the case where nation relies solely on full-time forces. i have a question with the air national guard and specifically because of the assets new york has and we have specific assets and strategies and resources in our states we think are particularly important for our national security, but one thing that a lot of our bases and assets has are the reserve and components that have been effective in iraq and afghanistan. i would urge you to look at restructuring to see if there's cost savings by maintaining

reserve components as they are whether it's in niagara, they are important aspects. the second issue to highlight with regard to new york specifically is the cyber mission we do. we do such an important mission for sib -- cyber security and research vital for the cutting edge of technology and research and development, and one thing i want to bring your attention to is what makes new york so good at doing some of this is the public-private partnerships that developed with the private sector. a lot of the dod contracts are done by private developers, researchers, and scientists that developed as a hub across new york. we have the nanotech center, a lot of research and development that complements the work the military's doing, and i understand there's interesting consolidations and cutting, but

you'll lose that synergy, that effort of collaboration and clueserring that's so important in the -- clustering that's so important in the sector, and i don't want you to lose how valuable that is for the military. last, the assets in new york, 100% staffed, no environmental issues, we have a work force and communities that are so dedicated to the mission that the armed services have placed on these men and women that you will lose some of that e mori nows benefit to the extent you have to consolidate or restructure. we'd love to gain missions, particularly with the national guard reserve training with unmanned aircraft and with cyber, so i wanted to just give you that background. >> yep. senator, just a couple thing, and then i'll yield to the general. first of all, on cyber, we are making increased investments

there of $3.4 billion and more in the out years because cyber is extremely important. obviously, partnering with private sector is extremely important in being able to develop the technology capability that we're going to need to have for the future, so i think that is important to remember. secondly, with regards to the air reserve and i understand the concerns. the air force made the decisions, and some of the planes in the past came out of the active duty force and that's one of the reasons they try to look at where some of the reductions could be made based on the age of these planes as well as their capabilities, but they are trying to do whatever they can to mitigate against those, you know, what impacts it because, again, we have to depend on the reserve to be there. they have responded in dramatic fashion over these last few years. every time we called upon them to come forward and take their

place alongside other fighting men and women in the battlefield, and they've done a great job. we want to be able to maintain that for the future, but that was the reason some of the cuts were made in those areas. >> all i add, you mentioned cyber, and i want to mention for the record, we support the lieberman rockefeller legislation to get us in the proper place in dealing with the cyber threat that's significant and growing and as well as the senator feinstein amendment to the legislation. i'd like to say that, and also as one of your constituents, how about them giants 1234 >> go giants. thank you, all, for your service. i wanted to make sure there's nothing else you need in the cyber bill as well that you have reviewed it, and that it is providing that assets and resources you need to enhance your mission. >> i think the general's correct. the bill that i know is put

together by senator lieberman and others reflects all of the issues that we think are important to address so we'll continue to work however with the senate and with the congress to make sure that if a bill does emerge, it addresses our concerns about trying to make this country better prepared to deal with the cyber issues i think are growing every day. >> i request you look at the legislation with an eye towards making sure you have all the authorities you need to support this growing mission, and also the resources necessary to do adequate recruitment because obviously we want the strongest pipeline for cyberdefense that ce could create and the flexibility to bring in the talent you're looking for. we want to ensure whether it's civilian talent or through the normal course, we want to sure you have the flexibility and ability to recruit, train, and keep thee best and brighter to

do that. last, if i have time, mr. chairman, a separate issue, but one i feel strongly about that i'd like your commitment. i've heard you already speak to the issue of sexual assault in the military, and the ability of the military to respond effectively to those concerns to allegations and to making sure we have the best fighting force we can have, and that means that we create the right protocols and the right ability for women to be able to report such incidents and to be heard on those issues. i'd like your comments on your views on that, and i would like to work with each of you on developing stronger protections for our women who are serving. >> senator, we look forward to working with you on this issue. you have provided great leadership on the issue, and it's an area that concerns me

greatly, that the incidents of sexual assault have grown and frankly, my concern is that we've got to be able to take action in these situations. one of the keys, as you know, i announced a series of steps to try to improven our response -- improve our response to sexual assault. one of the most important things is to make sure the command structure that responds to the situations because the longer they take to respond, it inhibits the ability to bring a case, and that's what hurt us in being able to move aggressively. we have to do a broad education effort to ensure the command structure understands how important it is to respondent in these situations. we also need a legislative package, and i'd like to work with you in addressing the legislative needs that we're going to need in order to really be able to get this problem in control. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

>> thank you, senator gillibran. senator shaheen. >> thank you for your stamina, we appreciate it. i want to begin where you began, mr. secretary, where we have to do everything possible because i certainly agree with that. i share the concerns we heard expressed from my colleague, and you don't have to respond to this, but i certainly hope we, in congress, would do what you all have been willing to do, put everything on the table and put aside our posturing and come to some agreement that addresses the long term debt and deficitness of this country. it is inexcusable that we are in this position now with you and all of the men and women who are serving in defense and in our military and across the federal government, not knowing what

we're going to do because we have been unable to act, so i would like to go in my questioning, i'd like to start with where senator left off, and that is with the guard and rereceiver, and i was very pleased, mr. secretary, to see in your statement that you talked about continuing a national guard and reserve that's equipped and ready, and i know the decision to transition our gad and reserve -- guard and reserve units from a strategic reserve requires investment and a change in strategy, so general dempsey, i wondered if you could speak to the original rationale for that transition. >> well, i think it's important to roll back the tapes, maybe all the way back to 1973 when coming out of the vietnam war, there was no joint chiefs at the time, but the service chiefs all realized that one ofhe