the department came out with a new policy. and it came out with this policy, of course. it affects soldiers who are deployed today to kuwait or afghanistan, changing the number of days that you can get as a reward for extended periods of service. and you can have a negative impact of over three or four weeks in some cases because it's new policy. so i am -- i understand the department is perfectly allowed to make policy changes. but i'm very concerned it looks like there is no provision for grandfathering those that are overseas now. and we have a part of a brigade combat team of the famous red bulls out of minnesota and surrounding states that are over in kuwait right now. and there is a lot of confusion

about what the policy's going to be. i think it's important that we keep faith, that we not change things around during the middle of a deployment. so we don't have our soldiers sitting over there wondering, and their families wondering what this policy is going to be. so i have a question for you, mr. secretary. will you grandfather this new policy so that the soldiers are deployed now, get what they thought they were going to get when they deployed. and this applies to all. i'm particularly talking about members of the garden reserve who are making decisions based on these sorts of policies. so if you know that answer, i'll take it now. if you don't, i'll take for the record. i actually sent you a letter a month ago, january 18th to be exact, requesting the answer to this. and i understand from talking to your staff that that's in the works. and i'm going to get an answer. but i just think it's really, really important that we keep that faith and we not change

policy. we not have that kind of an impact on our men and women in uniform. that's my first question. >> congressman, if i could just respond to that. we are looking at that program. it is an important program. and i'm looking at the implications of what happened with the policy change to determine whether or not we should make any adjustments. we're not going to make any promises to you. but i will assure you that i will take a hard look at this before we get you the answer. >> please do. and i would just reiterate from in my opinion, from where i'm sitting, looking at my own experience in talking to many of my constituents and many people in minnesota who have been really impacted by these deployment, the red bulls have the longest deployment of any unit of active national guard of any service. i think it's really important that we keep faith with those men and women. now i have another really quick

question. i know you have answered this before. but i see we're talking. and general dempsey, you mentioned that or the secretary, both of you talked about modifying the retirement system for our men and women in uniform. i just want to underscore again that any such changes will not affect those already serving. is that correct? >> our position, strong position here is that all those that are currently serving would be grandfathered in under the present system as the commission reviews future changes, they're not going to be affected. >> thank you. my time has expired mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. before i say anything else, i do want to conquer with mr. klein. iowans are in that red bull group as well, and we have many of the same concerns in iowa when it comes to the reserve. i want to thank all three of you for your service. i want to quote from the defense

strategy. i quote the concept of reversability, including the vectors on which we place our industrial base, our people, our active reserve component balance, our posture and our partnership emphasis is a key part of our decision calculus, unquote. the strategic guidance also states that dod will, quote, make every effort to maintain an adequate industrial base, unquote. i strongly believe that a critical part of our industrial base is in fact organic base, or arsenals. certainly our ammunition plants and our depos. they provide i believe a critical function or a readiness and our ability to supply our troops in the event that we have another conflict. we're drawing down now. but in the event we have future conflicts, we've got to maintain i think the capabilities of the organic base to respond to future contingencies. there is no doubt about it. and allow for reversability, highlighted in the strategy. and i strongly believe that the department must ensure that

we -- that this organic manufacturing base be preserved, but that it be actively supported. secretary panetta, chairman demp circumstances has the department actively engaged the military services to develop a plan to sustain our organic industrial base, including our organic manufacturing capabilities, and if so, what is that plan? >> well, that's part and parcel of the whole strategy here, which is to maintain that industrial base that you talked about. the industrial base i think does include the areas you just defined. we need to have that as part of our ability to be able to mobilize and to be able to reverse any steps we've taken in order to be prepared for the future. we are looking at a broad strategy here as to how best do we do this to make sure that as we fund the industrial base, we

do it in ways that obviously are cost savings. but at the same time, maintain those areas in place. it's sometimes not an easy balance. but my goal is i do not want to put anybody out of business in that area. i think we need to have it. and we're going to do everything we can to ensure that they're around. >> thank you. general dempsey? >> i can assure you, congressman, that as the service chiefs have briefed me on their plans, they've also briefed the secretary. and it's always part of the conversation. >> thank you. strategic guidance also states, quote, the challenges facing the united states today and the future will require that we continue to deploy national guard and reserve forces, unquote. i guess i have a couple of questions related to that. both secretary panetta and chairman dempsey. can you explain what role dod total force policy will be implementing policy across each of the services? and can you explain further how the total force policy will be

implemented in light of the total reduction as i mong the services and within that how well the experience and readiness of the operational reserve will be maintained? that's a big question, i understand, kind of a series of questions. >> yes, sir, it is a very big question, and one that is a work in progress. what we're taking a look at is -- it's fundamentally how do we balance active guard and reserve. >> right. >> and within that subset, as you balance the force, how much of it is operational? that is to say ready to go today. and how much is strategic ready to go in 30 days, six months or a year. as the service chiefs come and appear before you, they are doing that work within their rotational schemes. every service has a rotational scheme. and they'll be able to articulate what portions of each of those components need to be available in those bins, now, 30 days, 60 days, a year. may not be able to give you the details, but that's what we're working toward. >> right. >> mr. secretary? >> it's really -- it's really essential here.

we've -- we have learned a great deal over the last few years in our ability to make the fullest use of the reserve and the guard. i mean if you go out to the battlefield, you can't tell the difference between national guard units and active duty. >> right. >> they're out there doing exactly the same thing. and they're getting tremendous experience, they're getting tremendous capabilities. i want to be able to continue that capability so that they're ready to go. and you know, the services are working on plans to make sure that we have that kind of rotational ability. >> i just want to echo that. fantastic, not just in iowa and minnesota, but throughout the country, and they've done a great job in the operational -- in their operational roles, not just strategic. thank you very much to all of you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i appreciate the gentleman's concern for the workforce and would encourage you to look at my bill because they're going to be making layoffs, you know, planning for next january's

sequestration that could be avoided if we can fix that problem now. mr. rogers? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm on your bill, by the way. and i share the gentleman from iowa's concerns. i have spoken repeatedly in recent months with general stein and general dunwoody about this very issue. and i'm sad to say general dunwoody retired, by the way. she is a class act. one of the things she has assured me is that y'all are determined to not get caught like we were caught offguard going into iraq and afghanistan when it came to our depot's capabilities. and i believe -- believe her and general stein when they say that then i look at tbudget just proposed, 82% of last year. last year the funding was in oco, this year, this year 93% of last year. all this funding last year and this year is oco. the numbers for depot maintenance for the army reserve is 57% of last year, for the

national guard is 64% of last year. and my question is if we want to make sure we're ready -- by the way, obviously we're still in a war. and we have other theaters threatening. a wise depot maintenance has been cut so much and why is there no funding in the traditional accounts, general dempsey? >> the demand is going down. yes, we remain in conflict. but iraq we went from 50,000 a year ago down to roughly 300 uniform personnel now. and when that demand goes down, so too does the demand signal back into the depots. as you correctly point out, there will be a period of residual recapitalization retrofit and so forth. some of what you see there, this wasn't done as a budget drill, it was based upon the demand signal and how we have to take action. but let me ask mr. hale to comment. >> some of what we're seeing as

we shift to the base as the iraq war ended, some of those units, some went to afghanistan, but some are coming home. and we need to get their funding back into the base budget. that's some of what is driving the trends. and then as general dempsey said, we're seeing lower requirements in some case because the tempo of operations will be lower when we're out of iraq. >> those are just much larger percentages of reduction this quickly. we still have some real significant redemands that i understand in maybe '14 and '15 we may see larger reductions. but those are awfully sharp hill turkey, my knowledge, reset is a difficult issue. and it's hard to predict. and it's hard to know exactly when their equipment will be available. well are very mindful that we need to fix or repair this equipment that is coming out of iraq and that will come out of afghanistan. and we'll do everything we can to work with you. i think we have 9.3 billion if my memory serves me right in a

fiscal reset '13 budget. we're trying to do our best to make sure it works. >> it is your plan to do the reset in the depots, all of it? >> it's a combination. in some cases the equipment is so bad we have to replace it. but where it's fixable, yes. >> all the reset will be done in our depots. >> yes. >> great. while the army is downsizing, the decrease in depot maintenance may seem to be a little severe given that we're still in afghanistan. do you envision a flattening off of this? i go back to when i was first here, right when we went into afghanistan and iraq. it was 18 months before we were re should have been. i'm concerned that this downsizing, y'all plan to continue it, rather than reach a plateau and make sure that we're ready with this depot infrastructure. give me some reassurance that we're not going to keep whole that we have to be ready toquic.

and i want to be able to have the facilities i need in order to do that. that's one of the requirements i basically made to the service chiefs and all of them to make sure that we have the base on which if we have to go, we've got them, and they're in place. closing those facilities is going to hurt us. and so my point is let's try to do what we can to maintain what we need in order to mobilize quickly. >> and that's what i'm looking for reassurance on. these numbers, you're confident with these cuts, you're still going to be able to maintain that core capability. >> that's correct that. >> we need in the event we're in north korea or iran six months from now. >> yes, absolutely. >> and with these numbers, i share the secretary's confidence and commitment he just made to. sequestration, i cannot make that commitment. >> i agree. have i more questions. my time is up and i'll submit those for the record. thank you, gentlemen, for your

service. >> thank you very much, ms. tsongas? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for your testimony. it's quite an array of issues you have to deal with. so i give you great credit for being so responsive to all our questions. i just wanted to note that past testimony before this committee has rightly noted that our nation's fiscal crisis represents a threat to our national security. as secretary of state hillary clinton and former secretary of defense bob gates have both noted, our rising debt has implications for both our influence around the world and our ability to project strength. to that end, i commend the diligence with which you have prepared the department's strategic guidance, along with the fiscal year 2013 budget, which was shaped by that guidance. and the initial round of cuts that has been required by the budget control act. a ranking member noted, ranking member smith rightly noted it's a decrease in the increase. and we actually had a witness

last week. i'm sorry, i can't remember his name, who said that strategy without fiscal constraint is not a strategy. so i think that forces have combined to create a strategy that acknowledges the constraints we deal with, but also the world in which we live. you also noted that as you're doing this, you noted the fundamental importance of keeping faith with our military personnel. so i'm going to go to an issue that we have discussed before. in your last appearance before the committee, secretary panetta, we talked about the fact that the military's rate of sexual assault among service members is much too high. in 2010, there were 2,670 reported sexual assaults in the military. by the pentagon's own estimate, as few as 13% of sexual assaults are reported. and in your last testimony, you committed, despite budget austerity measures to absolutely

work to confront sexual assault, to encourage survivors to come forward, and to continue to fund programs that prevent it. as we restructure the force in the coming year, this is a problem we must continue to work to address. as we all know, a climate of trust is fundamentally important as to how our military operates. and failure to address it truly does erode that climate. in january of this year, you publicized policy, some mandated by the miss school year 2010 ndaa, giving victims who report a sexual assault an option to quickly transfer from their in order to remove them from the products commitment of an alleged perpetrator. you required that the dod would require the retention of records of sexual assault for a period of 50 years to make it easier for service member to claim veterans benefits. you also announced that $9.3 million would be spent on training to give rape

investigations and prosecutions more teeth, to provide service members with the protections they deserve. i want to thank you for all your efforts and your commitment to sexual assault prevention and response. and i am particularly encouraged by the near doubling of the department's budget request for the sexual assault prevention and response office for fiscal year 2012. you have many tools now in your tool chest that didn't exist in prior years. but these policies will only prove effective if we make sure that military commanders and leaders at every level are aware of these policies and are able to appropriately respond to it. we must make sure that every person that a rape survivor could turn to is ready to appropriately respond to protect that service member. and we've been learning as people have been coming to our office that some of these changes are not making themselves known on the ground. lower level leadership is the key to changing the culture and the military that has allowed

this problem to exist for far too long. and that's why i'm encouraged to hear that you are conducting an assessment on how the military trains commanders and leaders. still, we have much work to do. so my question, secretary panetta, is going forward, how do you see this coming together to continue to create a continued strategic approach, institutionalizing prevention of and response to sexual assault, making sure at all level of the mill -- all levels of the military are aware of the tools in the tool box and guidance in their response. and i left you with very little time. if i have to take an answer for the record, he will. >> congresswoman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. this is very important to me. i think we -- we have to take steps to make sure that we have a zero tolerance with regards to sexual assault. and you know the problems. all of the steps you outline that i presented, we are pushing

on every one of those fronts to make sure that we do everything possible to try to limit sexual assault. so i've got the final thing is really what you mentioned, which is we have got to get our command structure to be a lot more sensitive about these issues to recognize sexual assault, when it takes place and to act on it, not to simply ignore it. that's one of the important keys. >> thank you. and we'll follow up in future hearing. thank you. >> thank you. mr. franks? >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. general demp circumstances secretary panetta, mr. hale. secretary panetta, first of all i would like to echo the concerns of mr. thornberry regarding the administration's consideration or potential proposal of reducing our nuclear or strategic inventory by as much as 80%. i have to suggest to you i consider that reckless lunacy.

and your response, in all deference to you, sir, was really a nonresponse. and it did little to assuage my concerns. and i just have to tell you, for the record, given the need for a broad umbrella that america represents to the world in terms of our nuclear deterrent, given the tangs of being able to demonstrate in the mind of any enemy, even those that are not all together sound of our overwhelming capability to respond and overwhelming aggression on the part of someone with nuclear capability. i just to go on record that there are many of us that are going to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction. so with that said, let me shift gears and ask you a question related to missile defense. as you know, homeland defense is listed as the first policy priority in the ballistic missile defense review. and furthermore, the

ground-based mid course defense system is currently the only proven missile defense system that protects the u.s. homeland from long-range ballistic missile attacks. and yet with that said, the fy-13 budget request is $250 million less than was enacted in 2012 which is a followon to a decrease of $180 million in fy '11. the budget cuts to these systems makes it very clear to me that the administration is willing to diminish our only system that protects our only proven system that protects our homeland from long-range ballistic missiles. and furthermore, the budget request increases funds for several of the european phased adaptive approach systems, which to the casual observer might indicate that the administration has actually subordinated

protecting the continental u.s. from ballistic missiles to that of protecting europe. and now unless you or your department or this administration has assessed that the threat to our homeland from long-range ballistic missiles has declined such that gmd is no longer the critical system we all thought it was, or unless somehow the administration's commitment to protecting the homeland has in some way declined, i guess i'm in the middle of a conundrum here, mr. secretary. so my question is this. would you explain in your mind, and the policy of the department whether gmd is indeed a critical system to protect our national security. and if so, how does this rathere systems reflect that commitment? >> first and foremost, congressman, i obviously share

your concern that we have to do everything possible to protect our homeland. and for that reason, we maintain the full nuclear deterrent here in the triad. every aspect of the triad is maintained because i believe that is extremely important to our ability to protect our homeland. with regards to the specific decision on the funds there, even though it's less than what we've provided, the fact is that it meets our needs in terms of upgrading the missile system that we have our missile system is in place. it is ready to go. it is effective. we're not going to reduce that effectiveness in any way here. the soul point here is to try to do what we can to obviously achieve some savings, but at the same time, make sure that it doesn't impact on our readiness. and i can assure you that

nothing in this budget impacts on our ability to respond and protect this country under the nuclear deterrent. >> well, mr. secretary, i don't doubt for a moment your commitment to this country, i would just suggest to you that the policies that we're hearing here should alarm us all. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, chair. thank you all for you time today, your testimony, and for your service to this country. secretary panetta, i truly appreciate hearing the steps of the dod has taken towards a sustainable defense budget and how it relates to the president's new guidance. with emphasis placed on the need to keep the agile and flexibility military force, i'll be interested to hear thou they serve the needs. specifically the navy already has built into its force which would help target operations.

in addition to reevaluating our strategy after a ten years of war, i do belief we must continue to provide our service members and their families the support that they need. i'm pleased to hear you speaking than today. we truly need to keep our promise to the honorable men and women who have earned their benefits. i'm also pleased to hear that it is a priority of yours, and i was very pleased with the testimony of my colleague, ms. tsongas, that it is a priority of yours and general dempsey to take care of our military as well as addressing military sexual trauma. and i agree with her that there is still a great deal that needs to be done in regards to that. i want to talk a little bit about afghanistan. after the deaths of bin laden, anwaral awlaki, our testament to the effectiveness of the small rapid missions instead of the nation-building of the past, the emphasis based on a lilly pad strategy will continue to help us address our national security

issues as well as draw down unnecessary troop levels in europe, for example. secretary panetta, i'm here -- i was pleased to hear you announce a few weeks ago that the drawdown from afghanistan would begin as early as mid 2013. although i appreciate accelerating the drawdown slightly, i would like to hear more about the number of troops that will be withdrawn in 2013, as well as the schedule set for the pace of withdrawal of the 68,000 troops who will remain. as a long-standing opponent of the war, i also have serious concerns that the lessons learned from iraq are not being implemented fully in afghanistan. as the dod attempts to rein in costs, i am puzzled why contracting in afghanistan has not been more closely scrutinized, especially since many of the contractors overlap in both iraq and afghanistan. the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction has highlighted over half billion, $640 million to be exact, that could be used more effectively

elsewhere, and almost a third, $217 million of which were payments to contractors for reimbursements that were not supported by any documentation. for example, inspector general stewart brown specified that an audit of lmmlc which has contracts in afghanistan and iraq totalling almost $4 billion revealed that they overbilled dod by at least 4.4 million for spare parts, including $900 for a switch valued at $7.05. now i know i have asked a lot here today, and there is a limited amount of time available. but let me ask a skoum of questions, and if you're able to discuss it, that would be great. if not, i would take my answers for the record. my questions are what steps have already been taken to implement the lessons learned from iraq in the case of afghanistan. has it been successful? and what more can we do at this time of the important budget cutting that is currently going on.

>> congresswoman, there is no question that a lot of lessons were learned in iraq, and many of those lessons were being applied in afghanistan. i think the good news is that 2011 was really kind of a turning point. in 2011, the level of violence went down. we weakened the taliban significantly. more importantly, the afghan army really came in to its own operationally. it started really being effective in terms of providing security. we've again through several tranches of areas where we're transitioning to afghan security and governance. the second tranche, which we just have gone through and announced, when we complete that, over 50% of the population will be under afghan security and afghan control. we're going to continue those tranches through 2012 as well as into 2013. in 2013, our goal is that when the final tranche is completed, that the afghans will take the

lead with regards to combat operations, and we will be in a support mode, although we'll be combat ready, operating and support through the remainder of 2014. we're on track now, according to lisbon, to be able to draw down with our isaf forces by the end of 2014, and then the discussion will be what kind of enduring presence we have there. but bottom line is i think we are on the right track with regards to completing our mission in afghanistan. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. mr. conaway? >> thank you, gentlemen. and thank you for your long service and demonstrated patience this morning with being here. leon, i want to add my comments to what rob andrews said. thank you for your forward lean on the audit issue and sustaining and audit and properly resourcing that. bob hale and your team, the ripples that your comments have made and the