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 really up and running like we 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 declining. >> well, my whole point here is that we have to be ready to mobilize and surge quickly. 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 id 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 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 dempsey, 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 tangibles 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 follow on 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 rather specific and direct cut to these

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, anwar al 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 couple 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 efforts that have gone forward since october, i'm seeing them felt all down through the organization, which is where it's got to get done. so thank you for that. and i appreciate it. we still don't know yet from general allen, you said yesterday to the senate, how we're going to bring home the 23,000 that are scheduled this year. i'm just worried that your comments of the last few weeks were a little premature. i don't think anybody says it's gotten a whole lot safer in the east of afghanistan. and i understand that the glowing comments you were just

making about the afghan army. concern that the fighting season in 2013 is split by ramadan, and we would have our folks in a position to allow something to go on in the second half, right off ramadan's, the last half of the fighting season in 2013 that is counterproductive to what we're trying to get done. can you help me understand? i'm in a position to have some information on intelligence as to what is going on, and it didn't -- i was a bit shocked with your comments, because it's not marrying up with the evidence i had at that point in time from things improving on the ground to that rapidly to and since then that questions of certain folks who should know, and make sure, maybe you were misquote order maybe overstated with respect to that. but i am concerned that we -- and then one final question. >> sure. >> rumors recently, more recently, that even more accelerated drawdowns are on. the question yesterday in the senate is that no decision was made. does that imply that those kinds of conversations are going on within the administration separate and apart from what general allen is telling you and the commanders on the ground are telling you that would be great concern to us if these are political decisions driven in the white house for whatever reason, that they would start

having those conversations. can you help me understand what is going on there? >> yeah. first and foremost, after 40 years, i'm never responsible for any headlines on any article and comments that you make. my comments were perfectly in line with our commitments under lisbon. to prove it, all of the defense ministers in the last meeting i attended, all of them concur in the same strategy which is we're in together and out together by 2014. and we are all following exactly the same process here. we're doing the tranches. we're doing the transition to afghan authorities. obviously we are watching it closely to make sure that it's working. so far it is working. the afghan army is doing a great job. we've got to continue to put them in place. we've got to make sure that they're able to achieve security. everything is conditions-based when you're in war.

that's a bottom line here. so we're going to be tracking this very closely as we go through that process. with regards to other decisions, obviously we are in the process of how do we draw down to 23,000 the surge, and general allen will present a plan to general dempsey within a few months to be able to show how that be accomplished. and then beyond that, frankly, no decisions have been made because we are looking at the situation on the ground, what we're going to need in order to achieve the mission that we're interested in achieving. >> so we're still set on what the mission is, and no instruction is to change the battle plan to reflect levels of american troops beyond the 68,000? none of that is in the works or pushing forward at all. okay. thank you for that. one minor -- one issue with respect to the budget. i think there is also a $600

million decrease in defense funding because of the switch or the adding $600 million for green energy or renewable energy efforts. that's a cut to defense spending. it's not your core mission. you know, we're going to pay and mabis is bragging on the paying $15 a gallon for jet fuel to fly fa-18s is a demonstration project, i guess. and it just makes no sense in these kind of budgetary constraints that we would pay $15 a gallon. and even if you ramp that industry up as good as it's going to get, you're going to be paying twice nor that blend of algae and fossil fuels over what just straight fossil fuel. so i'm not real keen on spending that $600 million. i think you could find a better place to spend $600 in defending this country as opposed to demonstration projects that might not yield the benefits that we want. so again, appreciate your long service to our country.

i yield back. >> gentlemen, time expired. mr. critz? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and secretary panetta, general dempsey, secretary hale. thanks so much for being here. thank you for your service to this country. secretary panetta, the air force recently announced four structure changes in light of the new national defense strategy. these changes include major aircraft reductions to both combat and mobility forces. and announced the closing of an air reserve station in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, outside a brac process. the base serves 1400 active reserve and guard units of both navy and air force and has tens of millions of dollars appropriated for improvements. can you tell me if the decision to close the base was made in coordination with your office or with other stakeholders, and how

many other bases are being identified for unilateral department of defense closure outside of the brac process? >> congressman, i really recommend that you ask the chief of the air force that question, because the decision to make that decision was in his hands as part of the strategy that was being implemented to kind of fulfill the strategic goals that we were after. so on that specific decision, i would recommend you ask him that question. >> okay. thank you. and it plays actually into a larger role. because as you know and are aware, that the air force's restructuring plan propose as reduction of 65 c-130 tactical airlifters getting us to a total fleet projection of 318 aircraft. part of that is because we're going to be lowering the army to a structure of about 490,000 members. my concern is that pre-9/11, the army was at about 480,000. so very similarly sides. we had 530 c-130 tactical airlifters. i'm just curious as to the air force's new restructuring plan isn't realistic given previous demands for tactical airlift and future demands in this new strategy. can you elaborate any of this?

or general dempsey? >> i cannot elaborate on that specific issue except to say the collaboration between the air force and the army on their lift requirements, that has been accomplished. and you will have both of them here at some point in the near future. this is about accounting rules. so if you have x number of airborne brigades, how much x number of ground brigade, how much lift do you need? and those accounting rules have been adjusted over time based on lessons learned. do you want to add anything? >> i do want to add the c-130 very important us to. but all studies show we have too many, frankly. so what you're seeing is adjusting in tough budget times to go down to what we believe are the minimum requirements that meet our war-time needs. >> and part of my concern is that we're actually adding i guess duties to the air force's c-130 because they're going to

be doing the c-127j lift as well. i look at the c-127j. it was going to be sort of a pickup truck and the c-130 might be more like a tractor-trailer truck. i'm curious if the c-130 is going to be able to get into the same airports as the c-27, and is it really a cost savings, or are we going to start saying well, we can't get into these places so, we're going to up the tempo for the chinooks to do what the c-130s can't do. and i guess my question is long-term. this is a short-term savings. is it also a long-term savings? have we looked at the 20, 30-year life cycle of these aircraft? >> i think -- i think they have looked at the long-term savings that we be achieved here. and part of the goal in developing our strategy was obviously to ensure that we had not only agility and ability to deploy quickly, but that what we were using was multimission and designed to accomplish a series

of missions, not just one. and the problem with that one aircraft was that it was kind of single mission-oriented. >> right. >> and that's why i think the air force recommended that we move towards the c-130s. >> okay. i'm a little suspicious of -- i've just heard from some of my army friends that they like the greens, they like the same uniform and the aircraft above them. it makes them a little more comfortable. >> that shocks me, congressman, for the record. >> my last question in a very short amount of time is that we have used the national guard at a level in the last ten years in oif that oui never used in the past. the future defense plan, does it maintain that same tempo of use of the national guards or are we going to see -- i don't want to

say diminishing, but much less use of national guards in foreign operations? >> what we do, sir, is we respond to the demand. so as the combatant commanders put a demand on the system, the chiefs meet it. the answer is we will have active component and notably guard and reserve in an r-4g en cycle. if demand goes down there, will be fewer than demand. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. whitman? >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary panetta, mr. hale, thank you very much for joining us today. i want to go back to some of the statements you made about this effort of budget reductions driven by strategy and ask you this. i know that part of that strategy is an increased operational capability and presence in both the middle east and the asia-pacific. within that context, we're looking now about an additional

ssn being moved outside the fit-up. and we know in that particular theater, especially the asia-pacific, the ssn is a very, very frequently utilized asset. also, we're going to be pushing the ssbn next few years down the road. so it's not going to be operational or deployability until at least the 2020s, and we'll have a significant period of time where we have a reduced number of ballistic submarines in a time when we know it's a critical deterrent to our triad. looking where we are reemphasizing our efforts, that seems to be counter to that. and i would ask this. with that in mind, have we looked at and can you tell me from the perspective of china, you tell me how many subs they are building per year and how many subs they will have in fy-'17 and beyond, just to have a comparison as to where we're going to be strategically? >> if i could, congressman, we should take that for the record and make it in a classified setting. >> okay. >> but clearly, our goal here was to not only maintain but to strengthen our presence in the pacific. that's reason frankly we maintained 11 carriers. the navy assures me that we have more than adequate submarine fleet to be able to accompany our fo t