cloudy and 37 degrees at the airport. 38 at barksdale. you're listening to shreveport news and weather station news radio 710. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv explore the history and literary culture of shreveport, louisiana. saturday starting at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2, author gary joyner on the union army's failure. the red river campaign of 1864. and then a look at the over 200,000 books of the john smith nobel collection housed at the lsu-shreveport archives. then a walking tour of shreveport and boesh bowser -- city. then we'll have a look at the base's role on 9/11 plus a look at the b-52 bomber. plus, visit the founding father's exhibit. and from the pioneer heritage

center, medical treatment and medicine during the civil war. shreveport, louisiana, this weekend on c-span2 and 3. defense secretary lee on panetta wednesday said he is counting on congress to enact further budget savings in order to avoid automatic defense spending cuts in 2013. those cuts would happen as part of the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. he testified before the house budget committee along with martin dempsey and david hail. the president's 2013 budget plan slightly decreases defense spending putting the pentagon on course for $450 billion in savings over the next ten years. >> the committee will come to order. excuse me. first off, let me just start by welcoming our secretary of defense, former budget committee chairman, secretary panetta.

as you see, where you see your face here in the budget committee room and i don't know when it is the last time you've been in this room. it's a real pleasure. you have respect on both sides of the aisle here. we want to tell you how appreciative we are of your time. we haven't had this meeting in a while. and this is a topic that is so much more budget relevant these days than ever before. we're so appreciative of you being here. i want to welcome everybody to today's hearing to examine the budget request for the department of defense and explore how the federal government can meet the highest priority, providing for the common defense and strengthening our national security. as i mentioned, we have secretary panetta here who is no stranger to this committee. in addition, to his extraordinary background as secretary of defense, cia, he served as chairman of this committee.

we also want to welcome martin dempsey. in the 38 years since graduating from west point, he led troops in combat, served as a combatant commander and most recently as the chief of staff of the army. thank you for your service, general. welcome to the committee. we also welcome the department of defense's comptroller, robert hail who is no stranger as well to this committee from his years of service. welcome back, secretary hail. relative to last year's request, the president's budget calls for a $487 billion reduction in base defense spending over the next decade. this comes on top of already planned spending reduction for the global war on terrorism. our troops remain engaged in a fierce enemy overseas. it's difficult to square this reamount. the timing of the cuts raises serious concerns that the decisions are being driven by budget airy concerns as opposed

to strategic priorities. mr. secretary, i think you have a unique perspective on the tension between meeting our national security requirements and getting spending deficits and debt under control. our friends across the aisle called for a balanced approach. of course, budgeting is about setting priorities. such calls assume that all of government's activities are equally important. the blind with support for a clear headed analysis of our priorities and responsibilities as policymakers. like all categories of government spending, defense spending should be executed with efficient and accountability. yet, many fear that arbitrary and deep reduction that's the president has proposed and the defense budged would lead to a dramatic reduction in our defense capability. i commend you for your efforts to fund defense priorities within a rapidly shrinking budget. your predicament is due to failures elsewhere in the federal budget.

according to harvard's neil ferguson, a financial historian, the fall of great nations is the result of their excessive debt burdens. and their path to decline, defense spending is always the first casualty. the failure by the administration to deal honestly with the drivers of debt, specifically whether it comes to government spending on health care, is a failure that imperils our economic security and now our national security. the president's budged in my personal opinion charts a path to decline. in addition to examining the deep defense reductions, i hope today's hearing informs us of the consequences to our security that would result from the disproportionate cuts the defense spending under the budget control sequester. congress has a solemn obligation to ensure our troops fighting overseas have the resources they need to successfully complete their missions.

every citizen owes a debt of gratitude to the families that continue to make untold sacrifices for our security. and for the freedoms that we cherish. we are in deep gratitude. we want to make sure that we honor them with the right kind of priorities, with the right ti kind of defense policy. before that, before hearing testimony, i would like to yield to ranking member mr. van holland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i twobt join chairman ryan in welcoming you back, mr. secretary, to the budget committee. welcome, general dempsey. welcome secretary hail. i thank all of you for your dedicated service to the united states of america. i want to extend the appreciation to our men and women who serve in the military. our country is secure and free because of the sacrifices they and their families make every day.

along with the state department and intelligence community, we deserve a great deal of credit and the important work they have done over the last many years. we have successfully redeployed our troops from iraq. captured or killed countless terrorists actively planning attacks and greatly diminished al qaeda's cape acts. we forged a coalition that helped the people of libya and dictator gadhafi's brutal 40-year reign that included the lockerbie bombings that killed innocent americans. we must continue to support the strong military that is second to none. and as president obama made clear, the size and structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around.

after this difficult fiscal period, we have to be more smarter and efficient in how we shape our defense budget. the strength of orge part on th strength of our economy and the long term strength of our economy depends in large part on putting together a plan to reduce our debt in a credible and predictable way. last year the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen warned policymakers of this risk. he said, our national debt is our biggest national security threat. from 2001 to 2010, the base pentagon budget, separate from the war effort, nearly doubled. in 2010, the united states spent more on defense than the next 17 countries combined. and more than half of the amount spent by those 17 countries was from seven nato countries and four other close allies, japan,

south korea, australia and israel. last year admiral mullen argued that the flush defense budgets had allowed the pentagon to avoid making difficult choices. he said, and i quote, with the increasing defense budget which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. it hasn't forced us to prioritize. it hasn't forced us to do the analysis. we can no longer afford to have taxpayer resources spent without doing the analysis, without insuring that every dollar is spent efficiently and infectively invested. as we figure out how to get our finances back on track even this committee where agreement is sometime difficult to come by, voted last year on amendment to

emphasize the defense spending should be considered as we strive to bring the deficit under control and last august as our colleagues know, the congress codified that consensus bypassing the budget control act which capped discretionary spending including security spending. the sequester beginning january 2nd, 2013, if we do nothing, the defense department will be cut by another $500 billion over the next nine years in addition to the cuts under the caps. no one believes that across the board reduction is the preferred way to get the finances in order. however, any effort to return off and replace the sequester must be done responsibly by reaching a agreement on deficit reduction plan that is balanced and lays a strong foundation for our security. we have time. the president's budget 2013 provides an alternative. i hope that will become part of

the discussion here in the house. the president's plan responsibly replaces sequester with even greater deficit reduction through a balanced plan that calls for shared responsibility. ut puts pry orlt on key investments rather than protectsing loopholes for special interests and tax breaks for the very wealthy. it is built on a forward looking strategy developed by our top civilian and military leadership. it maintains our unparallels military strength as general dempsey has said. it's a military with which we can win any conflict anywhere. some have criticized the cuts in defense and the defense budget as being too deep. i think it bears reminding that under the president's budget the spending levels remain high by historical standards. we'll still spend more in 2013 in real terms for defense than during the peak years of korean

war, vietnam war, and the cold war, even if you exclude war funding, even if you exclude war funding, average annual defense expenditures will still be higher in real terms than the average annual expenditures during the korean war, vietnam war and the cold war, period, under president ronald reagan. in addition, the reductions in the president's defense spending are only half, half of the amounts recommended by the bipartisan simpson-bowls commission. when you were sworn in you said that a choice between fiscal discipline and a strong national defense is a false choice. i agree. and we can insure that we have the strongest military in the world. thank you all and i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. let's start with you, secretary panetta and then you, general dempsey. >> make sure your mike is on, if

you don't mind. pull it close. >> got it. >> chairman ryan, congressman van holland and members of the budget committee, it's a real honor and pleasure to be able to have this opportunity to appear before you. this is home. i spent 16 years in the congress and a good chunk of those years in the budget committee. so this is a place where we fought through a lot of the same battles that you're fighting through right now in the '80s and '9 o's. as a former chairman of the house budget committee and former omb director, i have a deep appreciation for the very important role that's played by this committee in trying to achieve fiscal discipline and helping set the federal government's overall spending priorities. as you know, i had the honor of working on most of the budget

summits and proposals during theary 80s and '90s with both republican and democratic presidents, president reagan, president bush and president clinton. and the work of all of those efforts ultimately produced the balanced federal budget. believe me, i know firsthand what a tough and critical job you had in this committee. particularly given the size of the deficits that you're working with that unfortunately face our country again. it is -- it is no surprise that there is a vigorous debate here in washington about what steps should be taken to confront these challenges. we went through many of the same debates in the '80s and '90s. thankfully both parties were willing to make very difficult decision that's had to be made

in order to reduce the deficit. today, you face the same difficult choices. the leaders of both branches of government have a duty, a duty to protect our national and our fiscal security. i know that as i lekted members of congress, particularly the members of this committee, you take this duty seriously. as i do, as secretary of defense. i do not believe, as i've been quoted, i do not believe that we have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. i believe we can maintain the strongest military in the world and be part of a comprehensive solution to deficit reduction. the defense budget that we have presented to congress and the nation seeks to achieve those goals. the fy-13 budget request for the

department of defense was the product of a very intensive strategy review. conducted by senior military and civilian leaders of the department with the advice and guidance of the national security council and of the president. the reasons for this review are pretty clear. first of all, we are at a strategic turning point after a decade of war. and we have been through a decade of war. and at the same time, during that decade, there was substantial growth in defense budgets. second, congress did pass the budget control lack of 2011 which did impose spending limits that impacted on the defense budget to the tune of $487 billion over the next decade. we decided that fiscal situation that we were confronting presented us at the defense department with an opportunity

to establish a new defense strategy for the future. we developed strategic guidance before any budget decisions were made. we wanted them to be based on strategy, not the other way around. we agreed that we are at a key inflection point. the military mission in iraq has ended. we still have a very tough fight on our hands in afghanistan and 2011 did mark significant progress in reducing violence and in transitioning to an afghan-led responsibility for security. and we in our nato allies have committed to continue that transition through the end of 2014. last year successful nato operations did lead to the fall of gadhafi. and as pointed out, targeted counter-terrorism efforts have significantly weakened al qaeda and decimated its leadership.

but even though we have had those successes, unlike past drawdowns, let me stress that, unlike past drawdowns, and i've been through most of those in recent history, where the threats that we confronted receded. the problem today is we still face a very serious array of challenges, of security challenges. we are still at war in afghanistan. we confront terrorism even though we've reduced the threat in the fatah terrorism exist in somalia, in yemen, in north africa, and elsewhere. and make no mistake, they still threaten to attack this country. we face the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we continue to face threats from iran and north korea that destabilize the world. we have turmoil in the middle east. any one of those situations

could explode on us in terms of conflict. we have rising powers in asia that continue to challenge international rules and international stability. and growing concerns about cyber intrusions and cyber attacks. we must meet these challenges and at the same time meet our responsibility to fiscal discipline. this is not an easy task. further, we did not want to make the mistakes of the past. every time these drawdowns have occurred in the past, what has happened is we've hallowed out the forest. our decision was we want to maintain the strongest military in the world. not to hallow out the force by just simply cutting across the board and weakening every element in defense. that required we take a balanced approach to budget cuts and put everything on the table that we have at the defense department.

and most importantly to not break faith with troops and their families, those that have deployed time and time again to the war zone. the president's budget request $525.4 billion in fy-13 for the base budget and $88.5 billion to support the war efforts. in order to be consistent with title one of the budget control act, our fy-13 base budget request had to be roughly $45 billion less than we had anticipated under last yaear's budget plan. over the next five years, defense spending will be $259 billion less than planned for in the fy-12 budget, a difference of nearly 9% and over ten years starting in fy-12 it will be reduced by $487 billion. to meet these new budget targets, and our national security responsibilities, we had to fundamentally reshape our

defense spending priorities based on a new strategy. the department of defense has stepped up to the plate. we have met our responsibilities under the budget control act. but with these record deficits, no budget, no budget can be balanced on the back of defense spending alone. based on my own budget experience, i strongly believe that all areas of the federal budget must be put on the table, not just discretionary alone but mandatory spending and, yes, revenues. that is the responsible way to reduce deficits and the responsible way to avoid the sequester provisions contained in title three of the budget control act. the sequester would cut another roughly $500 billion from defense over the next nine

years. these cuts would hollow out the force and inflict severe damage on our national defense. the president's fy-13 budget does put forward a proposal to avert sequestration and reduce the deficit by $4.3 trillion over the next decade. i recognize that people can agree or disagree with those proposals. we come up with a large balanced package of savings. the savings come from four areas, efficiencies, trying to improve the way the defense

department operates to make it more efficient, four structure reductions, comes out of manpower, procurement adjusts, procurement reforms dealing with modernization and weaponization and compensation, a difficult area to confront but an area that's grown in the defense budget by almost 90%. let me walk through each of these areas. first of all, with regards to efficiencies, secretary gates had proposed about $150 billion in efficiencies in the fy-12 budget. and we are in the process of implementing those efficiencies. but we made the decision that we could add another $60 billion on top of that. primarily from the following, extreme lining support functions, consolidating i.t. enterprises, rephasing military construction programs, consolidating inventories and reducing service, support contractors. as we reduce force structure, we have a responsibility to provide

the most cost efficient support for the force. for that reason, the president will request the congress to authorize the base realignment and closure process for 2013 and 2015. as someone who went through brac, and i did in space, a reservation was closed in my district. it represented 25% of my local economy. so i know what it means to go through that process. and, yet, as difficult as it is, it still remains the only effective way to achieve infrastructure savings in the long run. achieving audit readiness is another key initiative that will help the department try to apply greater discipline in the use of defense dollars. we do not have department wide auditability at the present time. and that's a shame. for that reason, i directed the department to achieve audit readiness by the end of calendar

year 2014. so that we can speed up the process of being able to face the american taxpayers and tell them exactly how their funds are being used. but efficiencies are not enough to achieve the necessary savings. budget reductions of this magnitude require significant adjustments to force structure, to procurement investments and compensation. those choices reflected the strategic guidance and vision that we worked on and were the basis for the decisions that follow. let me just summarize those if i can. let me also make clear that this strategy has the full support of all of the service chiefs, the service secretaries, all of the undersecretaries, the defense department is unified in the presentation of the budget strategy that's i'm about to summarize. one, we know that the force of the future will be smaller and

leaner. that's a reality. but we have made the decision that that force must be agile, it must be flexible, it must be ready to be deployed and it must be technologically advanced. we knew that coming out of the wars that there would be a drawdown. but we also knew that the force we wanted had to be truly agile and mobile and in addition to that the force structure that we had we wanted to be able to afford to properly train and equip. the very definition of hollowing out the force is to maintain a larger force structure and then cut training and equipment and weaken that force. and that's something we didn't want to do. for a savings of $50 billion over the next five years. the adjustments include we're

resizing the active army. we're going from 562,000 as a result of the ramp up during -- after 9/11. we're going to about 490,000 soldiers by 2017. we'll transition down in a gradual way. and we'll reach a level that is still higher above the level we had prior to 9/11. we maintain our capabilities on airlift as well. the navy, while it will protect its highest priority and most flexible ships will retire seven lower priority naval cruisers that have not been upgraded with

ballistic missile defense capabili capability. secondly, we felt we have to rebalance our global posture and focus on those areas that represent the greatest threats to our national security. so we will emphasize asia pacific and the middle east. the strategic guidance made clear that we must protect capabilities needed to project power in asia pacific and the middle east. these are the areas where we obviously, as you know just by picking up the newspaper, these are the places that can represent the greatest threats to our security. for that reason, we maintain the current bomber fleet. we maintain our aircraft carrier fleet at a long term level at 11 ships and 10 air wings. we maintain the big deck amphibious fleet. we enhance our army and marine corps in the pacific and a strong presence in the middle east. third, for elsewhere in the

world, and we have responsibilities elsewhere, we can't ignore europe or latin america or africa. what we have recommended is that we built innovative partnerships and strengthen key alliances and partnerships in those areas. it makes -- the strategy makes clear that even though asia pacific and the middle east represent areas of growing strategic priority, the united states will strengthen its key alliances, nato, the other alliances that we have in the pacific build better partnerships. and one of the recommendations is to develop innovative ways such as rotational deployments using the marines, using the army, using special forces to sustain u.s. presence elsewhere in the world. fourthly, we need to insure that we can confront and defeat aggression from any adversary anywhere, any time. we have to have the capability