and hopefully better fashion. it seems to me that the best way to go about that, as we saw through the process is to do it through an independent body. if it's the opinion of this congress to do it differently, that's something you can talk about with the administration. let me just say why we looked at this health care proposal. >> mr. secretary, i'm down to about 45 seconds, and i apologize, but again, as a reduction in benefits to those who protect our personal freedoms and individual liberties and economic opportunities for other americans, but the president refused to make any proposal to deal with the entitlement benefits of those that aren't contributing. the traumatic brain injury is certainly an issue that which have done a better job of that. i want to commend you for the work that's been done there. some of the gentleman that i

have met with spoke positively about the use of the hyperbolic chambers, the same way you would treat bends and the benefit they had from using those machines but the v.a. has refused to pay for that. i would appreciate if you would work with us to make sure that the v.a. and those service members that do have that brain injury can receive that treatment. >> we have five programs in the department of science, including the army, that are working at the efficacy of that. i've said if those programs prove promising, i'm not going to wait for the fda or anybody else. we'll authorize that treatment. >> thank you so much. >> mr. schilling? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i would like to thank you for your dedication to not only our country but to our war fighters. just a couple of things quickly. what i was wondering, i've been aware of a study that's been

done, been ongoing to address the organic base in the future, i was just wondering do you know when we might see that plan or when it's going to be released? >> i believe you're referring to the department of defense's st -- s2t2 analysis. these issues are relevant and current and we're working, as all the services are, with d.o.d., to bring it to the conclusion so we can make some decisions. >> thank you, sir. and then general, one of the things i'm concerned about is that as we do the cutbacks, and i'm sure you're concerned also, but one of the things that's really important is the rock island arsenal, which is one of the areas that myself and then mr. lopes represent. but bark in 2006 when our troops

were faced with the ieds, the arsenal was the group that were basically stepped up and took this challenge and within three weeks they were able to turn these doors around, the frag five kits is what they call them, which allow the private sector or the folks outside to get these things out. that's one of the main concerns is just because the turn around was faster than the industry could ever do, and that's one of the things when it comes to the war fighters is to keep those warmed up, of course. >> again, it's about having that organic capacity that enables us to respond quickly and it's about developing the core capabilities that we want to sustain within our organic capacity. that's what we're watching. that's something we will not sacrifice and don't want to as we move forward. >> thank you for your service. i yield back.

>> thushgs mr. chairman. mr. secretary, general, always a pleasure and privilege to be in your company. john, for your service here, many years and in allowing me to fulfill your shoes on the committee when you went over to the department. and general, i think i first met you in kircut many years back and i've been amazed at your great leadership and humbled to be able to work in any capacity with you. we're a blessed nation because of both of you in your service to the nation and to the men and women in the army and their families. they're all in good hands because of both of your leadership. i'm going to try to be quick. i think the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes, may have raised the issue of the modernization of the bradley

fighting vehicle. they build an incredible piece of equipment in the bradley and the concern that was raised, i would just echo in looking at the '013 budget request for the bradley, it looks like it would require a shutdown of the operating line at some point. my worry is what the cost will be to restart it, but maybe even more importantly, the ability to restart it because of the loss of that skilled labor force that is incredible, including many veterans of vietnam and wars since. i usually run into guardsmen who are back on the line building the vehicles that they and others benefited from in the combat theater. so i guess i would first echo his concern and encourage any

and all efforts that we can to find a way to not allow that line to shut down and the consequences that may come from that. related to that, it's my understanding that the army's engineer forces, that their bradleys are not the most upgraded and comparable to the bradleys or m 1 tanks found. is it possible to look at those upgrades to bring them up to par so we're all on the same level as also a way to prevent that shutdown and the consequences? so i appreciate your consideration of those concerns as you look at how to balance the books and make it work. i know you have a difficult assignment and take that assignment seriously.

a final issue related to upgrades is the four-year testing schedule for the howitzer system and if there's any ability to expedite that, that seems like a lengthy process for what is basically an upgrade of a current system, not a new system. appreciate your service and leadership and having the privilege to represent the army war college. it's been a remarkable honor to serve on this committee. in my final years, i'll leave congress at the end of this year and see what happens next. serving on this committee and having the privilege to interact with true american heroes such as both of you in your service has been something i'll always treasure. so if you would like to respond to those concerns, i would be grateful. >> first of all, i want to wish you all the best in the future.

i have truly enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you and you do great work. your effective representation was very moving to me personally. we share your concerns on the industrial base. the bradley program is turning down and we're working as we are in other facilities to try to find ways to fill those gaps, particularly for the higher end employee positions, and whether as i mentioned before, through ppps or foreign military sales, you mentioned the other services. obviously we're willing to consider all kinds of solutions to this. one of the reasons we're working with the department so we can have a cross services approach to our industrial based challenges and the secretary

made this a critical issue of his and we're working with him diligently to try to ensure that we have some answers. >> just very quickly. thank you for your service and continued service to the nation and what you've done. i wish you the best of luck. there are some things that we're looking at. there are some programs that we're trying to put in there to help sustain that base and we'll continue to work that over the next several years to sustain a readiness level there. with the paladin program and the testing, this is something we're looking at throughout all of our programs is the cost and amount of testing we were do, is it sometimes redundant? so we'll work to reduce the cost and length of some of our testing that is required. >> i know we're in good hands as you try to make this all fit and

work to have the final product be what we need for our army and our nation's defense. we do plan to be back in theater at least once or twice more. i think it will be number nine to afghanistan and 12 to iraq if that works out. >> bring lunch. >> mr. chairman, with that, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. thompson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, general, thank you for joining us today. the new defense strategy and budget requests reflect the hard work and forward thinking of president obama, our d.o.d. civilian leaders and our senior military commanders. i've been saying all week that ominous and exaggerated fears about the national security consequences of reduced growth in the defense budget are

certainly unfounded. there's no way a 1% reduction in the pentagon's base budget from 2012 to 2013 could mean the difference between the greatest military known to man or a hollowed out force and the american people i think understand that. in fact, i believe there's room for further savings in the department's budget, though i strongly oppose the cross the board cuts that would be imposed by sequestration. general, is it your assessment that afghan national security forces are on pace to self-sufficiently defend afghan's sovereignty and defeat insurgents by the end of 2014? and also i would like for you to respond, general, to the

february 1 quote of secretary panetta when he said that hopefully we could reach a point in the latter point of 2013 that we could make the same kind of transition we made in iraq from a combat role to a train and assist role. what is your interpretation of secretary panetta's remarks? >> thank you, mr. johnson. first, i think that we have seen continued increase in capabilities of the afghan security force. i was there just before christmas. i'm encouraged by the progress that's been made by the afghan security forces. i think as you see us move forward, we are putting that more and more in front. i think we'll continue to do that. as we learned in iraq, it's important to do this slowly and do it right and be sure they're ready to take over. i think we're on the right

track. in terms of secretary panetta's comments, i would say all along our strategy is to turn over responsibility to the afghan security forces. i think that as we continue to make progress, general allen and others on the ground will make the decision when this happens. but i think we all agree with secretary panetta that over time we're going to turn responsibility over to afghan security forces and move back from combat operations and allow them to take the lead. we will do that when the time is right. at the end of 2013 might be the time we do that. that will be a continual assessment that goes on. we've had open conversations with secretary panetta on this. i know that's his judgment, as well. i think he was stating what his estimate would be right now and we'll continue to assess that as we move forward. >> thank you. mr. secretary, the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization required the department of defense to provide congress with

a full analysis of alternatives for the ground combat vehicle. we still have not received that analysis of the alternatives. when will we get? >> we're working through the dictates of the congressional mandate and what would be our normal procurement. part of that, as you just noted, is analysis of alternatives and analysis of developmental platforms, as well. our current plan calls for 2014 on the next step for that. so hopefully at the end of this year we'll have some input for you and get back to you. i don't recall that the -- i don't recall the legislation had a specific deadline. >> but i will say we're aggressively going after this. it's not only developmental, but we do want to look at

nondevelopal items in this, and that's part of the process we'll go through. once we meet milestone a as start of, that it will be nondevelopmental capabilities that we could accept at this time. that's part of this open competition that we continue to have. >> thank you. and general, how much is the ground combat vehicle going to cost and at what unit production cost would the gcb become prohibitively expensive? s i'll have to get back on the prohibitive part. we'll have to wait until they give us what we think the capabilities of the vehicle will be before we understand those costs. but i can give you more of a ballpark and get back with you on that. >> thank you. i'll yield back. thank you, both, for your service to the country. >> the chair will now recognize himself for possibly the last question, as long as no one else

walks in. but thank you both for being here. i have two questions, but they pertain generally to readiness and reset. obviously the first question is to what extend is it important to maintain the current funding level for reset of equipment for home station training? despite the planned reduction and over 100,000 army and marine troops. and the second question is, what is the rational for the army's decision to increase reset funding over the appropriated levels despite personnel reductions under the fy-'12 budget. >> a couple things. first, the increase has to do with, as we reset, it's about resetting the equipment coming out of iraq and afghanistan and

that equipment will be used to continue to properly man and equip our active and reserve component forces. so if we don't reset this equipment properly, we will not be at the right readiness level. so it's essential that we get this reset dollars. the reason it's increased is coming out of iraq, more equipment coming back, the equipment coming out of afghanistan, coming back. so it's important that we have this funded this year. it's very high on the priority list for us. >> the other thing i would mention on training, we have some risk and training funding through this program through '17. but one of the advantages of taking a five-year look is that each year we have the opportunity to reanalyze where we are and make sure we're financed across the array of

needs and training is an important part of that. so we'll have to be working that hard going into '14, '15, and it's something we're focussed on carefully. >> just to piggy back off of that, as we have the need for the reset and say the mechanics to do that, and we're reducing personnel, is that well within your vision, you're very aware of that, that could be a legit problem where you have a lot of equipment to fix and you don't have the personnel to do the maintenance. >> part of this is to fund it in our organic capability that we have in the army, and that's where we see most of the reset work being done. that's why it's so critical to have the funding, so we don't get the appropriate funding, we will not have the people that will allow us to conduct this reset. it would be done by mostly

civilian, governmental employees that operate within our arsenals that will conduct the majority of the reset work. >> that really goes back very effectively to the conversations we've had a number of times today with respect to how do we sustain our organic deppos, how do we keep places up to speed. a great share of that reset money will come out of those accounts and not just while we're in a theater of war. we need that line for at least two years, we hope two to three years after the cessation of hostilities. >> well, thank you. and that's all i have. we're all alone in here, so i thank both of you for being here, for your testimony. this committee looks forward to working with you as we service the men and women of our armed

services. with that being said, the hearing is adjourned. a quick lock at the numbers.

the overall army budget request of $184.6 billion is down from the $203 billion budget in 2012. in large part because of the withdrawal of the last american troops from iraq in december. the total defense department 2013 budget is $525.4 billion, a 1% decrease from 2012. coming up on c-span3, we continue our look at the president's 2013 budget with testimony from the white house acting budget director, who appeared before the house budget committee earlier in the week. and later on, the former counselor for former president george bush, speaks about conservatism and the demographics of the hispanic vote. this sunday on "newsmakers," chairman fred upton of michigan will join us to talk about the president's 2013 budget request. the contraceptive mandate. and the house and senate passed

compromise on extending payroll tax cuts. he'll be interviewed by