we probably should go back to what we did over the last century. he said the average. in fact, it was right on this number in times of war in times of peace for 100 years in this country that we spent 5.7% of our -- gdp on defending america. and at that time, it is dropping down precipitously. this is after the clinton administration. now we are looking at about half of that. so i guess what i am sake. not asking any questions. here. you are doing a great job. we are doing a lousy job. we are not dealing you with a hand. with the hand you have you are playing it right. you need to have a better hand. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. i'm going to resist the temptation to do any rebuttal of the senator here, because i want to stay focused. >> this might be a good time to do it. >> i will wait till you leave. i'm not dumb. i think --

i think what's really awkward is when -- people look you are kind of pulled into some of the politics that swirl around this place. we all do this politic stuff all the time up here. one of the things i admire so much about our military is -- the loyalty and -- support that you give one another and that you stay focused on your mission, you try as much as you possibly can to stay away from politics, and jund staunderstan the commander-in-chief is commander-in-chief. i have deep respect for you in that regard. i want to talk about nonstandard equipment. the services have invested billions of dollars in nonstandard equipment. since the beginning of combat operations. which have ranged from flat screen tv's, i know there are various efforts to look at the nsc and to figure out, future usefulness in that regard. this its one of those things that can get left in the corner

of the cupboard as we focus on standard equipment with protocols in place for standard equipment, what is, what is your all's best estimate on the overall size of the nonstandard it q equipment. what are we going to do with all this stuff? what i am really worried about with my background as auditor, i am worried about the accountability piece on this? i worry about whether or not we are doing anything in a way that could resemble joint? and whether or not we are having duplicative efforts to track down the nsc -- load that we have and figure out how we are going to transition it out of an operational tempo to -- to a -- different kind of tempo. could you all, address the, the nonstandard equipment issue for me? >> certainly, senator. i share your concern, about how much nonstandard equipment we are able to main tan over time.

as you well know, 60% of cost, life cycle sustainment, life cycle cost is sustainment. so we have to be able to afford to keep what we have on hand or we have to choose to -- to transition it to -- to some other place. we are very concerned about that in the army. so we are taking a hard look at -- numbers of vehicles. numbers of weapons that we're going to keep on hand. we are going through the assessment right now. and, i have even gone down to -- visit a company armed room here recently to -- to take a look at what our soldiers are, actually required to maintain. of course, when the vice chief of staff shows up in a company's arm room typically an emotional event for that unit. but my focus was. >> i think calling it an emotional event is one of the diplomatic word. i don't think they would call it emotional, general. probably something other than that. awe bought i have a real concern

about -- but i have a real concern about how much equipment we are asking our troops to maintain that we, that we may not be, that may not be useful to us anymore. and we may not be able to afford, to sustain. so we are going through, a very deliberate process of making sure that we keep what we need and we transition things that we, don't need and can't afford. it will take us time to work through that. clearly we share your concern. >> what about the mraps, do we have repair parts to buy in supply or will we continue to rely on contractor logistics? that's a i think a big question mark right now. what's the answer on the mrap issue? >> certainly we won't be able to afford to rely on contract toir lodtoir -- contractor logistics for the foreseeable future. that is very expensive. we are going through doing an assessment on how many mraps we are going to keep, what the disposition of those is going to be, and then again, we will

outline what, the what the maintenance and supply chain will be, as a result of that. >> i want to get to guam before we leave. thank you, general, for that. i want to got to guam before we leave. did any body have anything on nonstandard equipment you want to weigh in on. >> ma'am, it's less about nonstandard equipment. a worry i have, we have had a period of toime where some realy good ideas have been brought fore, to the battle feed, and quickly adopted to help our soldiers and marines. the mc 12 liberty aircraft, a shining example of getting it right. we have examples where we have multiple starts to try to get to capability, variables and others, where we have several competing. many in the same mission spacing. i'm a concerned that we are able to get to the right number and type and then transition them

into long term use. and -- we have been able to do some of the work because of oco money and now as oco money goes away we have to start making prudent decision as but some of multiple starts in similar missions? >> i think that is really a good point. general. when in you have oco money it is almost embedded in that that you keep looking around and trying different things. and it almost breeds ate certain inefficiency that is required by, the nature of, of the mission. but now -- it's really imperative that -- that we decide which of those starts are worth continuing to go down, i mean, as i said before, one of the biggest problems our military have if you want to call out a problem, there is nothing you guys don't think you can do. so when you are going down a road and you are hitting bumps, some times you just keep deep siding you are going to go over the bumps and going down the road instead of saying, maybe we need to pull the plug on this journey. maybe this is, a road we can't afford to go down. and i'm hopeful that what you

are talking about there, general, breedlove, is exactly that, we can't afford to go down multiple paths especially if there is overlay and duplication. which i don't need to tell you guys has happened just a few times. >> senator, could i quickly follow up and give you some degree of confidence that we recognize the challenge that you raised and have a process in place to look at it. in our case, in order of magnitude. we have 600 pieces of nonstandard equipment, as a result of the last ten years. and we have gone through and in the process of continuing to go through each and every item to determine which would be transitioned to program or records. and to give you some idea. we probably will have transitioned one third of the 600, to programs of record to date. and the other question you asked, an important question, where are we with regard to integration in the joint world? and i think we all sit on the joint requirements oversight committee, we also have subordinate organizations, marine corps board, that take is a look at things unique to ground forces.

and i'm any pretty con fip defi the case of nonstandard equipment we have the right processes in place to look at the equipment, make the proper decision as but transition, as general breedlove alluded to, and we are as a result of our pretty significant experience, identifying those programs that had some promise some years ago but absolutely don't have a future. and in those cases recognizing again the period of austerity that we are in and recognizing the tale associated with some of the programs, we are making sure that the programs are ended. and we, we properably dispose of the equipment use theed for afghanistan. perhaps will not be useful and not be part of our future. >> i think that's -- good luck itch t if that equipment is built in more than 25 states. which seems to be a habit that contractors have. if they can have pieces in more than 25 states, they immediately have 50 senators that are protective. i know you have never witnessed that in all of your time that

you have been here. my type is ime is up. my colleagues have questions. i want the general to make sure that if i don't have an opportunity to question again, that you address the -- the marine corps as it relates to guam. as we look at our budget. and i haven't had a chance to sit down with senator ayott, about authorization budget, i really am anxious that we do not, that everyone stays in the corral, so to speak until we are certain what the future is in guam. i don't want to waste one dime doing anything in guam until we get to, reconsideration of the agreement to a place that we think it makes sense for the united states, for our military, and for the people of guam and japan. so, thank you for that. and, senator ayott. >> thank you, thank you madam

chair. appreciate your raising the issue of guam. i think it is an important one. with what we need to do the mark-up. i wanted to ask each of you. i raised it in my opening statement. we know that defense sequesteration is coming in january itch t january itf the congress doesn' fail to act to come up with budget savings. i am a strong advocate for us doing that. we heard from each of the services as well as from our secretary of defense the devastating impact of defense sequesteration including hollowing out our forces along with all the other consequences. but what i would look each of you to address for me is timing. because -- i am worried there is a general feeling around here that we can kick this can until december to make the decision on how to avoid defense sequesteration and undermining our national security.

i met with a group of defense n industrial base. there are things they will be required to do. issue layoff notices under the warren act and other legal requirements that they will have to undertake. can you help me, each of you, if we wait until december, what are the disadvantages and consequences of doing that as opposed to, resolving this issue much sooner? particularly for each of our service branches. because i think this timing issue is vaeery important for people around here to understand. >> i agree with your assessment, senator, that if this does come to pass it would be devastating. and -- because of that -- i think it would drive us to -- to go back and, and, redo some of our planning, certainly, make new assessments, that, that

takes time. that certainly -- consumes a lot of organizational energy in, in -- so -- we are a bit concerned about that. i think from an army perspective. as you, again, we have not done any planning on this as you know, as you indicated. but the back of the envelope calculations are such that -- this would probably mean a loss of probably another 100,000 troops. 50% of those in the guard and reserve. and with those kinds of impacts, that, that probably would drive us to go back and -- and relook, our planning efforts here. >> so, general that would be in addition to the 72,000 that we're looking in terms of end strength reductions. >> right. >> another 100,000. >> right. >> thank you. >> and would that not take time and obviously thing ak but this concept of -- well first of all

if we are going to reduce our forces another 100,000, how do we not break the faith there? i don't know how you could possibly not break faith. even the implementation of something so devastating. so wouldn't it be more productive if we could tell you sooner that we have resolved this for you? isn't there an urgency? that's what we need to appreciate around here. would you agree with me there is some urgency that you not have this hanging over your head? >> absolutely. if we didn't have that sort of hanging over our head. we would be unmuch bin much bet shape. >> two significant impacts. if you look at sequesteration, the impact on the navy from the $600 billion defense reduction would be $15 billion a year. that's the amount of the entire ship construction account that we would have to figure out how to spread unour budgin our budg reduce. waiting until december, not

having a resolution would allow a short cycle for planning, it will not allow to us make efficient, or effective choices, it would also cause us to go back and relook at the strategy. the force that comes out of sequesteration is not the force that can support the current strategy that we are operating under. the second concern would be the industrial base impacts that you alluded to. are, are industrial ship yards, and our providers, and, corporations have to start making some investment decisions with respect to notification of employees if there is furloughs. if we are forced to break contracts. and not be able to execute them under a sequesteration scenario. so i would indicate that the uncertainty in our industrial base would affect our suppliers, and then, if it were to occur, would, would greatly affect -- our industrial base sustainment over the long term. >> admiral, if we lose some of the small employers, isn't the risk that they don't come back? >> that risk certainly exists in many of our more complex

procurement programs. we are done to single vendors or single suppliers that, we are their predominant customer. so it would be very difficult for some to recover. >> senator, i would look to start this by going back to your opening comments when you quoted president reagan. i mean, we have a tendency to view sequesteration as a budget issue. it is really not a budget issue, a reordering of our national priorities, what we won't be able to do. and certainly at the strategic level i think what the secretary has said is we won't be able to implement the strategy as current leap wrly written if sequesteration goes into effect. from a marine corps perspective, we are at 182,000 right now at the margin of being able to meet the strategy, we balance the risk, talked to you in private, that we believe 182,000 marines, with that number we can meet the strategy that secretary panetta articulated. but just like what general austin mentioned an automatic 10% personnel cut unless personnel is exempted.

an automatic 10% personnel cut on the marine corps. another 18,000 right away. if we were to be reduced. if we were to be cut another 18,000 we would not have adequate capabilities and capacities to meet a single major contin jegency operation. that's significant. another point that you raised that was true, we absolutely would not keep faith with our people. if sequesteration would go into effect. not only would we cut additional 18,000 people, flat 10% was executed. but we right now are budgeted in fy '13 for 182,000 marines. relying on overseas contingency funds to have a ramp to take us from the authorization in '12 down to 182,000 we'll be at in fy '16. if sequesteration quent inwent effect and not given the ramp that would be immediate from 182,000 to 168,000.

at that number there is absolutely no way we would keep faith with people. we would be breaking contracts and sending people on their way who believe they had a commitment from us to keep on active duty. these are the very people earlier, in afghanistan today, forward deployed, forward enganlenganl enganl -- engaged in harm's way. their onto reward would to be come home and shake their hand. i think that would be a mistake. >> to reiterate a couple things my compatriots have said. we think we would not be able to execute the existing strategy if we have to go through sequesteration. we echo your remark it would be devastating. we simply can't afford this one. as we have talked about several times, the air force is the oldest it's ever been in terms of its iron. we desperately need to recapitalize our flying fleet. if we see sequesteration, we will not be able to maintain capacity and do recapitalization of those floats. so we will have to take very

tough decisions to either come way down in the number of units, or to give up the modernization of those units. and i want to echo something, also i said, and on the industrial base. there are some very key capabilities out there that are already very much at risk. and in the aviation business, the, the number of houses that can do stealth have reduced. and another cut to the capability and the effort that we're any putting into the stealth capabilities, could cause us severe problems in those, in that industrial base. >> i thank all of you. i know that my time is up. can you just give me a quick, yes/no. yes, is there an our jen see th that -- urgency that we do this before december? >> general? >> yes. >> yes. >> i affirm, yes. >> absolutely. >> general, thank you. >> senator. >> madam chair, thank you very much. i am just, i hold my other questions. but first.

i am sorry that the senator isn't here. we do a lot of stuff together around general ach yaviation. he called it the green test-tube. let me ask a couple questions, i was in afghanistan, visiting a forward operating base, marines utilizing technology over, solar energy they don't have to bring in a lot of equipment. they like to have certain equipment that saves their lives. what i saw there was incredible technology development from, from the huge trucks of, of energy that they would have to bring in. maybe fuel, otherwise. now dpun to smaown to small com packs isn't that of value to marines to have that in forward operating basis, such as in afghanistan don't have to have all the fuel being brought in but can now spend three days in the field is that a good thing? >> senator, the focus of our initiatives are along the lines of what you just talked about. they're designed to make us more operationally effective and reduce the load on our

individual marines. we have fielded it to all of our ba tal yops in afghanistan, solar panels that you saw replaces hundreds of pounds of batteries that marines would otherwise have to carry. seven day patrols without the extra weight of batteries because we've had the solar panels. so all of our interaction with industry is designed -- we're spending money in places we can have an immediate impact. i was down to camp lejeune and we have an experimental operating base. it's an on newell event. we articulate what we need this year we focused on things like potable water and how to create it without the big reverse osmosis water purification units that weigh a great deal. that's the focus, increasing our ability to operation in os tear environments. >> and in an efficient and ready way. you move quicker with less of those batteries, for example. >> i was amazed how much -- >> we're fielding that equipment

because when we fielded it to the 1st battalion all the other marines saw it and there was a demand signal immediately raised. the others wanted it as well. we have to get it to them early enough so they are proficient at using it. we have relearned a lesson, is that when you field equipment, when marines are already deployed, it's not going to be very effective. we've worked hard to get it to the marines before they deploy. but when we do, they absolutely have found that to be extraordinarily useful. it goes to energy, lights, things you've seen. >> also from the air force end, the alternative fuel development, all of your technologies now making sure that you're not just on certain type of aviation fuel but new technologies you can be more self-sufficient and less dependent on foreign oil from kcountries that hate us. is that a fair statement?

>> the focus there as you know and you've alloweded to is to make sure our fleet is ready to accept those so once they become economically viable our fleet will be ready to go and we are proceeding with that. >> and also from the navy perspective, if i remember reading a report, one of your big concerns, that's why you have climate changes. if you have a change in water levels, sea levels, there's a direct impact on all of your ports. >> certainly true. no, it's certainly true. >> we've invested billions in our ports around the country and around the world and it's in our interest to make sure if there is -- we can argue over the science and all of that and i'm not going to -- no disrespect to the folks on tv but i prefer to put all that aside. the fact is we are having some changes and you are looking at those as an infrastructure cost potenti potentially. is that a fair statement? >> i think that's fair that some are looking at that.

we're also looking in relation to the arctic about what are the future challenges up there as that opens up. as we focus similar to the air force, we're operating and certifying alternative fuels for our ships -- >> that's right. >> and aircraft so when they do become economically viable, certified and ready to use them, again, the focus on efficiency in our ops tempo, our fuel bills alone. we need to look at alternatives. >> and from the army one of the highest incidents of fatality in injuries is protecting those fuel sources coming into afghanistan, for example. and so the more efficient they become, the less of that fuel you'll have to haul or make sure is happening and getting through those fields. you probably will save lives. am i wrong about that? >> clearly, senator, this is becoming more efficient. it's all about saving lives from the army's perspective. three tours in iraq, one in

afghanistan, and i can tell you that every time that i can do something to not put a soldier on the road -- >> is a life saved. >> i want to do it because it saves lives. it's also about, as dunford mentioned earlier, it's about maintaining our soldiers. it's about soldier load and decreasing the burden on them, increasing their endurance if they can go out with longer -- batteries with longer life and if it's easier to recharge them, if they can harvest energy that's left over in batteries and put that energy in other places, i think that's all good. that all contributes to saving lives on the battlefield. >> my last comment and then one more issue on that. and it is the energy costs because of our dependencies are draining your accounts and overexpending because the costs have gone up, you then, make

choices because you have to make the fuel and those choices are not necessarily fun choices to make. so the less we spend in that area, the less stress you will have in other budget elements within your own division. is that a fair statement? let me just end on this and i appreciate senator ayotte's comments and her questioning to you but i wanted for the record, automatic cuts, if i was sitting in front of another group here, maybe my veterans committee, the va would say similar things. if i was sitting in front of infrastructure groups, road guys, they would say everyone is having this. the thing congress is missing, this is more via through you to the larger audience. you don't have to respond to this. we always talk about replacing the cuts we have to have more cuts. the reality is you can not cut your way out of the problem. there's no possible way after two decades of poor management where republican and democrats

have a deficit and a debt that's staggering. everyone is to blame. the question is, are we going to do the right thing here? when i was mayor and we had the same problem. it's a three pronged attack. cut budgets, deal with revenues and invest in the right infrastructure. whatever that might be. in my case i think it's education, i think it's energy, and i think it's basic core to invest in. no one wants to talk about it, it scares everyone to death here. but the fact is the only way, and i am happy to say the city i was mayor of survived this economic crash without a hiccup. as a matter of fact we had to up priceses in our housing. we had a strong economy. it was rated as "businessweek" as one who would move and recover quickly in this economy, this bad recession. we did a three-prong attack. revenues, expenses and investment. what this place has a hand of doing is, because it makes good political soundbites, is it's

always about we have to cut or do revenue or infrastructure. never the three. all three are going to make this proem get resolved. but until this congress gets real about it. no disrespect to senator ayotte, you cannot cut to save over here. it's a combination of things. if you think we can cut our way out of this budget, you are dreaming. there is no way to do that. we will have significant cuts. we will have to do that. we will do things, we have to get rid of those we can no longer do. that is clear. the gap is so large because of two decades of poor management, your go lucky days. those days are over. but we have the honor of the public. it's a three-prong attack. we should be realistic about it. just so you know, the politics will be -- i hear it already, no

disrespect, senator ayotte. we have to do it now to save the military. that's what's going to happen. we will be yelling can at each other, who is more pro defense, who is not? i love the military. i will tell you that. none of us are going to see the military degrade its capacity but we are going to protect this country economically and do it the right way so that all of us are successful in the long term. i get frustrated when i hear this it because it is a three-prong attack. we have to be serious and honest with the public. >> okay. we'll end with the rant. i want you to know i would have a strong rebuttal. i'm worried about our defense base, too, because they have to make decisions of front so we can wait until december but those decisions are being made

here. >> we should have made the decision last year and talked about all three pieces, but we don't and you know that because it's politics as usual around this place. >> first of all, let me stel in here and say maybe is the time i should do my rebuttal of senator inhofe. i think this would be the perfect time for that. i think it is the perfect time to thank you for your service to your countries and to all the people in the room. i'm going to resist the temptation to ask why there are so many of you in the room because it's one of -- as some of you have been here before it's a pet peeve that we have to be careful about how many people we have tasked to how many tasks and whether we need as many people in attendance at these hearings since they are televised. i