deferring those projects, projects that might otherwise have gone to some of those brigades. we hope to reinvest those dollars in the 14 and 15 president's budget when the outcome of our fore structure determinations is resolved. our active component mocon includes $400 million at seven installations. $173 million to complete army moch latery force including modular battalions and aviation structure. asking fors 3ds 23 million for 17 test, range and training facility projects. direct contribution to readiness, and then finally asking for $165 million for eight new fore structured projects. seven of which are associated with our new great eagle uas companies. and then finally the past accounts, not a sophisticated name but to us it's the money passes through us. the organizations don't really belong to or report to the united states army.

the financial management executive agent for chemical demilitarization. $1.5 billion included in this request for ongoing demolition of ammunition and ammunitions. and the oco request of $7.8 billion is a dramatic decrease over the last two fiscal years and that reflects two things. it reflects the final fy 1 investment in the iraq -- investment in the iraq security forces fund. and it's a decrease of $6 billion to just $5.7, and that did come up earlier in the afghanistan security forces fund. there's also a small amount of $400 million included in the afghan instfrastructure fund. funding commanders emergency response program projects to help with economic and physical infrastructure with our -- with

our -- our presence in afghanistan. so finally, the fy army -- the army's fy 13 budget request, it does begin to take into account the discretionary spending caps, but it does so without any risk to continuing to support our essential roles. as has been said and i will add my foot stop to it, the army is the best led, best train and best equipped ground foersz in the world and nothing our leaders or department would allow to do anything to preclude that. so we are continuing to meet our commitments in afghanistan and around the world. we're developing the army for the future. we're continuing to care for soldiers and families. one of the most important commitments we could possibly have commensurate with their sacrifice and service. hopefully doing this in a measure waand with solid attentn how to restructure our force to

be a more capable force than before we grew the army and before the drawdown began. we're supporting the transition by using base budget dollars for the first time of the reserve component active -- army national guard and the united states army reserve into and operational force and we are supporting as i've described our modernization and systems and with that, i would open it up for questions. >> questions about the network. you're putting $103 million into net war here. among the things that have been test the out during the nies are the incorporation of commercially available smartphones to see if they can get in the network. with all this money going into net warrior, being smart, but not a phone, replicate some of those functions, should we read this, especially given the reductions coming in the future, as moving away from experimenting with smartphones and net warrior will be the end

user choice for the network? >> i don't believe that's the choice. i think we're going to stay with the technology. the reduction for net warrior reflects the economy's fishl efficiencies we able to identify but i don't think it means moving away from that technology. >> what about cleheaper to shut down the production line and build it back after that as opposed to minimally funding it during that period? >> yes, we do. >> you said there were eight cancellations but only listed five. what are the other three? >> yes. listed the largest ones. let me flip back. to -- let's see. looifted emars, recap, fmtb, mountsed soldier system. jpals. davis.

>> long-range -- lrap 3 and -- >> long-range advance surveillance systems. >> and underare arm -- >> night targeting under armour fors 300 million. >> thank you. >> $5 billion in savings. over the -- >> over the -- 4.7 is the number we're pro expecting. >> a separate question on the fore structure review. you said it was going to take a while. any idea on the time frame and will that feed into, you know, what's going on with brac at this point? >> we still don't have a time frame. it could be several months. again, i mean, the army staff has a lot of work to do, because, again, we are looking at not only the, when you start to look at the fore structure and look at the basing part of it, but when you start to take that fore structure down, what type of brigades are there going

to be? icbt? hbct? a striker? you do that and take them down, there are different skill sets in there. so, and different grade sets in there as compared. so it's going to be a very complicated and long process as we go through it. >> i would just follow on to that, because you asked about brac as well. the army benefited tremendously from the last brac round on the active component, and we don't see a significant change in the army's footprint that's going to result from the fore structure drawdown. right now we don't see a lake. as the general said, until we know what the brigades will look like, navy forces and stationing, we can't say that for sure. >> excuse me. basically, if i get -- understand right, everything above 490,000 personal snenel i personnel carry on oco, not in the base budget. how much is that saving you --

it's obviously going to save you. taking from one pocket to the other, from the base to the budget to oco over the -- in this particular? >> we haven't done it over the fidet, because it's -- we only do oco a year at a time. so we're counting continued funding of what is said about 49,700 left. >> and also a reserve reduction? >> very small and not in fy 13. >> 4.1 billion affected by that from base oco? >> active component, appropriation, yes. >> from bloomberg news. i want to ask about the personnel, the fore structure review. if i understand you correctly, that the result of that might be additional reductions in the overall and strength levels in some of the out years and, also,

have you done any calculations, any projections, ballpark, about what pro portion of the currently projected reductions might require involuntary separation? >> i want to first make sure that i did not misspeak, and it's not additional. at the end of the day, we're going to, we're ramping down to the 57,000. really, for the army leadership, what's most important is, not the forward 90 but the rampdown to make sure we do not put ripples in the force and we have the ability, we have reversibility. if something happens between now and the next five, six years as we do this rampdown, that we have the capability to reverse that and bring that back up. there are many things we can do for it, and so we can start to put a lot of our mid-grade majors and lieutenant colonels back into the regenerating force.

we need to pull them out, we can do so. it's just the amount of risk that the army leadership will want to take as we start to do the planning for this. >> the involuntary separation, ballpark proportion you might require for that? >> i wouldn't -- i would probably not even estimate, because, again, you're going to have retirements. there are so many tools in the tool kit. we can do retirements. can you do early retirements. you can assess, assess less. you can -- you can extend promotions. there are so many things we can do, but the key is we really want to put that minimal stress on the force as we do the rampdown, and that's the reason the army leadership is so -- believes it's so important to make sure we get the ramp correct. and so we -- they will not be rushed in that. >> in the last qdr it called for the army to build a 12 and 13 combat aviation brigade.

is the army still moving ahead with those plans for both brigades? >> yes. the 12th is field and the 13th will be fielded next year? >> they are resourcing it. >> resourcing the 13th now. >> -- aviation, i'd like to ask you two detailed questions about the post command chief aviation plan from way back when. one is the determination of emars. the re-birth of acs. can you tell us how you plan to accomplish that mission without emars? does that involve extending the lives of arl? guard veil? embark on a new program at a future point? on the other end for the scout helicopter, the failed airage program, can you talk to us what your plans are, how this budget support, supporting that mission after this fiscal 12 demo that's supposed to be done this spring? >> i'll take them backwards. face one of the alternatives it

complete. the next step is going to be an rfi proposing a -- i don't think the technical name, flyoff, a flying demonstration this summer i think is the timeline and then the determination will be made about the way ahead on that. >> that's fy 12 money, though. is there a wedge in fy 13 and beyond to support something to come after that? >> there is not. for -- there is not. huh-uh. >> many for -- based on the analysis of flyoff and the ala, they can divert other money to -- >> we don't have any to cost until we see what happens to phase two of the aoa. i think the answer's all of the above, to what you said. we are continuing investment, i think in everything that you mentioned. and i can't really speak to anything further on recon aircraft. do you have anything to add? no. but we'll be happy to get back

with you if we have something. >> thank you. if the army believes it's better to shut down the abrams production plant, request $9 million for it in fy 13? >> oh. that's for abrams upgrades. not new production. >> okay. and then a quick follow-up on the humvee recap. i understand there is some money left over from previous years in that account. do you have that number handy, by chance? >> we received a very, very large, almost $1 billion for humvee recap very late in '11. you remember, a year ago talking about the challenges of many continuing resolutions. i don't know how much of that, almost a billion, we've ex-pended to date, but that's going to carry us for a while. we can get back to you on that. >> something in here about leased family housing. there's some -- i take it a reduction. where's that coming from? can you talk a little more about

that? leases for -- >> page 15. >> yeah. >> we have about 7,500 leases out there. government owned. rci housing and housing will there is no rci and just no army corpses available and we do leasing of those. we've done that for years and years and years and we try and bring them down as we continue with the rci. most of those are in europe. >> yes. which will not transition to a cr -- >> the last question. >> questions about two of your slides that mention things that are kind of small i suspect in your budget, but very large in the amount of tension attention from the public. one page 15 on the facilities slide pap whole line not included in our copy of your thing and the first thing mentioned is arlington national cemetery. can you give me any numbers on how much is going -- the army is

going to spend on arlington national cemetery and whether that's going to be an increase or decrease over the fy 12 enacted or the fy 11 actual spending, and my other question is about page 7, there's a brief mention of suicides prevent. do you have any numbers on how that spending is going to go? similar? >> i'll take the arlington question. $48 million enacted in fy 12. asking for -- and this is something new for us. i want to mention that. this is our army's effort to support the improvement and expansion efforts at arlington national cemetery. we're planning $84 million for site surveys, expansion efforts. and then $19 million for a total of $103 million for planning and development, for planning and design, pardon me, for future efforts. so it's about double what we got last year. >> and then for the health

promotion risk reduction and suicide prevention, back a little bit. fy 11, 234. fy 12, 235 and then fy 13 is sitting at 21.1. >> so basically, soldier health and suicide prevention is going down by roughly 14 -- is that million or billion? million i would say, right? >> no. actually, if you look at the program, a particular program, the answer would be, yes, on that one. look at it holistically, the answer is, no. for fy 12, if we look at comprehensive soldier fitness, suicide prevention, sexual harass mant assault response, fy 12, 81.6. fq 13, 101 million. going up dramatically. just of those four programs, where those dollars are being put. a lot of it has to do with efficiencies and whether we can

get more efficient going through it. much more money being spent. almost $20 million more in almost 13 of those projects than spent. >> thank you very much. >> thank you all. >> thank you. in just a couple of moments a congressional hearing on the army's 2013 request. a budget that stands at just over $525 billion. a 1% decrease in discretionary non-war spending over last year. the budget has $ 88.5 billion to fight wars, nearly $27 billion less than in the previous budget. quick reminder. you can see the entire budget online at c-span.org along with hearings and briefings and links to other related web pages. president obama is traveling today coming up at 2:30 eastern he'll be in miami talking about

gasoline prices. we'll have live coverage of that for you on our companion network c-span. primetime programming across the c-span networks today. join us tonight at 8:00 for speeches from the recent world economic forum from davos switzerland. topic, the global economy on c-span. c-span2 at 8:00, book tv focus. tonight the focus is on african-american lives, and here on c-span3 at 8:00, american history tv examining the lives and times of george washington. at the 1968 olympic games, john carlos and tommy smith raised their fists in the black power are salute. >> they said black power. they intimidated so many people. white people in particular, by using that phrase. black power. because when they use that word or that phrase black power, it made many people think that black power meant destruction. blow up the statue of liberty or

ground zero. destroying america. there wasn't anything about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having an america to have a new paradigm in terms of how we could truly be with each and every one of us doing that pledge going to elementary school and junior high school about the land of the free, the home of the brave. we all wanted to be great americans. but as young athletes, we found something was wrong. something was broke, and we wanted to take our time to evaluate and then take our initiative to fix it. >> discover more about african-americans hadtry during black history month on book tv on c-span2, and online at the c-span video library. search and share from over 25 years of c-span programming at c-span.org/videolibrary. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the

american story on "american history tv." get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. the obama administration submitted its 2013 budget proposal. that document is then broken down, debated and discussed by various oversight committees. up next, the house armed services committee hears about the army's 2013 budget proposal. this is just over three hours.

the hearing will come to order. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us today as we consider the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the department of defense. to put this budget in context, it's critical to examine the strategy that has informed its submission. in less than three months after the submission of a budget request. however, i do have serious concerns about the trajectory that this new strategy puts us on. although the strategy is framed as making the military for nimble and flexible, it's not clear how slashing the arms forces by over 100,000 during a time of war, shedding force

structure and postponing the modernization makes that so. the president must understand that the world has always had and will always have a leader. as america steps back, someone else will step forward. >> and so the debate continues on capitol hill. the comments of representative buck mckeon, he's a republican and chair of house armed services committee, as defense secretary panetta and general adam dempsey testifying on capitol hill about the president's budget that includes spending increases in many areas, including health care and transportation. and rather sharp cuts in military spending. this is hour two of "washington today." i'm steve sculley. thanks for being with us. we'll have more on this and a number of related stories about how defense lobbyists are lining up to try to protect certain areas of the pentagon budget. congressional negotiators are trying to finalize a $150 billion measure which will extend a cut in the payroll

taxes through the end of this year, provide additional jobless benefits for millions of out of work americans. republicans retreating and now supporting the proposal. there is no pay for this measure which means that the proposal will go forth and likely add to the overall debt in deficit. it does cut the social security payroll tax by 2 percentage points. had congress not acted by the end of this month it would have meant an average of $40 to $50 per month for the average taxpayer. transportation bill until after next week's congressional recess. law patients out for presidents' day. a spokesperson for the house speaker saying more time is needed to work for the 300 proposed amendments, also to

find money to fund the bill. other lawmaker in this both parties saying the real reason for the delay is a lack of support. we talked about this in the last hour. it was a single bill now being split into three separate measures. the president beginning the day in milwaukee at the master lock plant talking about jobs pivoting to asia, a theater where naval as ses and airlift are decisive, the budgets calls for retiring nine ships, remove 16 more from the new construction plan, and cuts our airlift fleet by hundreds. this isn't the only place where the president's public statements and missions seem to diverge. we cannot neglect the war. the president was committed to counter insurgency strategy in

2009 yet inexplicably announced our withdrawal date and to pull out the surge forces before the end of the next fighting season. mr. secretary and chairman dempsey, before the president makes another announcement about troop withdrawals, i implore you to heed our commanders advice. we're seeing success. let's not make a decision to pull some of the remaining 68,000 troops before we see what happens this fighting season. let's wait to re-assess any more forced level decisions until the end of the year. i have more questions but with that i'll conclude and thank you, again, for being here. i look forward to your testimony. i call now on ranking member smith for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary and general dempsey for being here. and i applaud you for the effort that you've put in, of course, over the last year. this did start quite some time ago with a major strategic review of our military and national security needs, a very

holistic transparent process where you brought in all military leaders and sat down and thought about what our national security needs are going to be for the next ten years, the strategy without question is where this who process started and i applaud you for that and you've laid out a very clear and coherent strategy. when it comes to budget numbers it's important to take i step back and have a little perspective. the defense budget has doubled over the course of the last ten years. the budget that's put before us, as the chairman points out, will be increasing the defense budget. every year from this year forward. we hear about these cuts, these cuts are from what was projected to be needed to be spent, a year or two ago. they are not actual cuts. the sole exception of the year. after doubling the defense

budget over the course of the last ten years, not even counting the overseas contingency operation's money this one year we go from $530 billion last year to $525 and it goes up every sipgle year for the next ten. it's part, i guess, of a washington thing that when you increase the budget you call it a cut. it's a decrease in the increase, perhaps, but it is an increase, nonetheless so we have to keep this numbers in perspective. anybody who would argue that we can't go back and look at our acquisition and procurement process and do it much better, do it in a way that's actually going to deliver more capable pieces of equipment at less money. that's what these gentlemen have done. they'll like at the last ten years and figure out how to do it better.

i won't be overly critical of the last ten years. 9/11 happened and we had to respond. we had to fund the military. when you have to act that fast, mistakes will be made. i know the people making those decisions back then did their level best at a very difficult time. but to not learn from the experience ten years later and figure out how to spend the money, that would be a betrayal of our job as tornado the job of the people and of the pentagon. we had a budget that put the strategy first and puts us in the right direction. and i'll point out, this is the law. the budget numbers that we projected for the next ten years and secretary panetta and general dempsey had to live under were passed by this congress. some members voted for it and

some didn't but it's the law of the land passed pi the house and senate and the $487 billion reduction in the projected increases is the law. these people had to follow and that we passed and gave to them. so as we hear today about various different programs in areas where we thid that this budget is cutting too much, it would be most helpful and i doubt this will happen but i'll ask anyway, as people are making those criticisms, they point out where they'd like to find the money. either within the defense budget you can say, your strategy is all right but you should have spent more money here and less money there. if you don't think that's possible within the defense budget, then by all means, let us know what taxes you want to raise to produce more money. if you don't want to do that, what other programs, preferably, with some specificity instead of generally saying we'd like to spend less money on government, that you're going to cut.

otherwise, this is an exercise in imagining that we have more money than we actually do. these gentlemen didn't have 245 luxury. they had to put the budget together on the law we gave them. they put out a strategy that understands how the world is changing, main threats we're going to face are going to be asymmetric, nonstate, threats. iran, korea, missile technology, we need a different military to confront that than the one that fought two major land wars the last ten years. this strategy reflects those changes. special operations command will keep going up because we know how critical they are to the fight we face. they'll increase that. isr capability, through unmanned aerial vehicles and other sources, also going up, to make sure that we meet the needs that are in front of us. there are a lot of other things tharnt going up but that's because things have changed. we need a new strategy to confront those threats and in a difficult budget environment you guys did that and put together a good strategy. i hope we have a realistic conversation. if more money needs to be spent, tell us where to balance it out. because never forget it's also in our national security interest to have a strong economy and a strong fiscal government.