responsibility in size alone. still, in a very basic way, it is the similar to the role of the cia director in that our first and foremost mission is to protect the country. if confirmed, my number one job will be to insure that america continues to have the best trained, the best equipped, and the strongest military and the world. in order to make sure that we protect our country. as many of you know, i had devoted my career to public service. it began a long time ago when i served as an intelligence officer in the united states army. i was proud to wear the uniform of our country. my respect and admiration for

our nation's armed forces has only grown the decade cents. my youngest son, jim, served in afghanistan and received the bronze star. i have personally -- i personally witnessed the tradition of service and sacrifice that drives each generation to fulfil a fundamental duty to our country. in addition to respecting that great tradition of duty, i have done a number of things to try and prepare for this very difficult and challenging job. first, in the weeks since my nomination, i spent a number of hours with bob gates. he is a dear friend. when he and i first got to know each other as we were building our careers in public service, we also served together, as you know, on the iraq study group.

we continued to serve together as members of the president's national security team. we share a common belief that the national security of this country is the responsibility of all americans regardless of party. i, too, believe he will be remembered as one of the greatest secretaries of the defense and our nation's history for the way he led the department during a time of war and for the crucial reforms he has tried to put in place in the way the pentagon does business. those are reforms that i intend to carry on. second, i talked with our service secretaries and a service chiefs. i believe it is important to have a candid, open line of communication between the

secretary and all the service chiefs. they are the ones who are out there leading each of one of their services. i need to know what they're thinking. i need to know what is important in terms of serving the interests of the troops that they directly lead. one of those chiefs told me -- for our troops, there has been no shortage of war. indeed, we are a nation at war. our volunteer force has been stretched by combat that has lasted nearly a decade. we owe it to them. oh to their families to insure that they have the best leadership, the best training, the best equipment, the best benefits, the best health care that we can give them. i pledge to them and i pledge to you that every deployment

decision that i make will be mindful of the stresses on our men and women in uniform and on their families. third, i have reached out to former secretaries of defense both democrat and republican. i ask for their advice. to a person, they impressed upon me how important it was to stay focused on the management of the pentagon. this is the biggest enterprise in our government. it requires focus and hands-on management. which is the only way i know how to do business. fourth, i sat down with many of you and have known many of you throughout my career. because i really do believe that congress has to be a partner in this role in the protection of our country, i am a creature of the congress.

i believe that the pentagon is made stronger by your oversight and buy your guidance. as a young legislative assistant a long time ago here in the senate, i had the honor of seeing firsthand the bipartisanship of leaders like dick russell and henry jackson and barry goldwater. as a member of the congress, i saw that tradition carried on by other great leaders. i believe deeply in the tradition of strong, bipartisan national security leadership. you, mr. chairman, and you senator mccain, have carried on that tradition and i thank you for that. this is a time of historic change. unlike the cold war, when we had one main adversary, we face a multitude of challenges. al qaeda and other global

terrorist networks, in places like yemen, somalia, north africa, not just fataa in pakistan. dangerous enemy spread out across the world. we face insurgents and militants who cross borders to conduct attacks. we placed the proliferation of dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists and in the hands of rogue nations. we face cyber attackers, a whole new arena of warfare that can take last not only now but in the future. that is something we have to pay attention to. we face the challenge of rising and changing powers, in nations in turmoil particularly in the middle east undergoing enormous political transformation. we are no longer in the cold war. this is more like a blizzard

war. it is a blizzard of challenges that draws speed and intensity from terrorism, from rapidly developing technologies and the rising number of powers in the world stage. despite the times we live in, there is reason to be confident. the operation that killed osama bin laden, in my view, has not only made clear to the world that we will do what we have to do but it is also -- it has also given us the greatest chance cents 9/11 to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al qaeda. to do that, to be able to finish

the job, we have got to keep our pressure up. if confirmed, my first task at dod will to ensure that we prevail in the conflicts we're engaged in. in afghanistan, we must continue to degrade the taliban. we got to trade security forces. we've got to help the government take ownership of their country so that they can govern and protect their country. in iraq, we must assure that iraqi military and security forces are prepared to safeguard their nation. so that it can become a stable democracy in a very important region of the world. as we do that, i am very aware that we must be highly disciplined in how we spend the taxpayers' precious resources. this committee well knows that the days of large growth, on

limited defense budgets are over. our challenge will be to design budgets that eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. while protecting the core elements that we absolutely need for our nation's defense. i do not believe, based on my long experience in government and working with budgets, that we have to choose between strong fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. i don't deny that there will be tough decisions that have to be made and tough choices that have to be made. we owe to our citizens to provide both strong fiscal discipline and a strong national defense. finally and most importantly, it is the job of secretary of defense to be a tireless advocate for our troops and for their families.

it is their sacrifice and their dedication that have earned the respect of a grateful nation and inspired a new generation to volunteer to wear the uniform of our country. they put their lives on the line to fight for america. i will just as surely fight for them and for the families that support and sustain them. as director of the cia, i had no more solemn duty than sending young people into harm's way with their lives on the line. after we lost seven of our colleagues in afghanistan in december of 2009, i had to do what my colleagues in the military do all too often -- visit the wounded at bethesda, attend the ramp ceremony at dover, offer a prayer at the

site of an arlington cemetery graveside. a patriot who left this world to yawn. not one day will pass where i don't think of the brave souls who have fought and died and those who fight today for our freedom. as secretary gates emphasized in his last trip to the troops, there will always be, in my thoughts, and prayer. if confirmed, i pledge to you that i will always keep our troops for must in my mind and i will be a careful and accountable steward of our nation's precious resources and that we will have the strongest national defense in the world and that you will always have my best and most candid advice and that i will always, always seek yours. as you know, i am the son of

italian immigrants. my father used to say to me -- i -- that to be free, we have to be secure. that is the pledge that i make to you. i will do everything i can to keep america secure so that it can be free. i will do that if i am confirmed as secretary of defense. thank you. >> thank you so much. thank you for a powerful, moving, and straightforward statement. we have standard questions which we ask of nominees. before we take turns asking our own questions, i will put those questions to you now. have you adhere to applicable laws and conflicts of interest? >> yes i have. >> when asked to give your

personal use even of those views differ from the administration in power? >> yes i will. >> had assumed any duties are actions which would appear to present the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, i have not. >> way we ensure that your staff composite deadlines established for requested communications including questions for the records in hearings. >> yes i will. >> will you providing cooperating with witnesses. >> yes i will. >> will these witnesses be protected from their reprisal? >> yes they will. >> when you testified -- lee testified before this committee? >> yes i will. >> will you provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> yes, i will.

>> thank you. we will be here all morning. we will then have a break for lunch and we will go into a classified session for this afternoon. minutestart with a seven- first round for questions. director panetta, you said that you support the july, 2011 date set by president obama for the beginning of a process of transferring increasing responsibility for afghanistan security to the afghan security forces and drawing down u.s. forces from afghanistan. president obama recently said that the size of u.s. troop reductions from afghanistan will be significant. director panetta, do you agree that the u.s. reductions from afghanistan beginning in july should be significant? >> i agree with the president. there are approximately

100,000 more afghan police than the work in 2009. the nato training mission in afghanistan is ahead of schedule in meeting the target of 305,000 afghan security forces by this fall. in addition, a new target of 352,000 afghan security forces by 2012 has been set to ensure that these forces have the specialized skills needed to sustain these units are the long term. i very much support that decision. do you agree that training and part offering with the afghan army and police in getting those forces as a lead and operations is key to the success of our counter insurgency strategy and afghanistan? >> yes, i do. >> pakistani leaders deny being aware of the presence of osama bin laden bin abbottabad. it is counterintuitive to believe that none of their

leaders know it but nonetheless that is not my question. the pakistan leaders are well aware and acknowledge their awareness of the sanctuaries in pakistan by the hikani network and the afghan taliban it quetta. they are attacking our troops across the border in afghanistan and they go back to their sanctuaries its pakistan. a recent defense depart report called the extremist network the most significant threat in eastern afghanistan. yet, the ikanis continue to enjoy open six border cross the border in pakistan. i think this is totally unacceptable. i'm wondering if you agree and which should be done. >> senator, i share your

concern with regards to the safe haven in pakistan. , particularly as it relates to groups like the akanis./ i strongly urge those in pakistan to take steps to do whatever they can to prevent these kind of cross border attacks and to prevent the safe havens that exist on the pakistani side of the border. this is a difficult challenge, the relationship with pakistan is that the same time one of the most critical and yet one of the most complicated and frustrating relationships we have. it is extremely critical in that we're conducting a war against our primary enemy in their country.

it is critical because of vital supply lines go through their country. it is critical because they are a nuclear power. there is the danger that those nukes could wind up in the wrong hands. at the same time, it is very complicated by the fact that they maintain relationships with certain terrorist groups, that they continue not to take aggressive action with regards to these safe havens, and they are concerned about the sovereignty results and criticisms of the united states when in fact my view is that the terrorists in their country are probably the greatest threat to their sovereignty. having said all that, we have to maintain the relationship to do everything we can to try to spread -- strengthen their relationships so that both of us can work to defend both of our countries. >> director panetta, the

president has called for $400 billion in reductions to national security spending over the next 12 years. do you have any understanding or a proposed breakdown of that $400 billion as to how much he is proposing for reductions in pentagon spending? how much of that is intelligence spending? how much is he proposing to reduce in the home less security department? >> no, i do not. >> can you try to find that out for us? if you give us an estimate for the record -- >> i will certainly ask whether or not that decision has been made. >> do you know whether we will receive a budget amendment for the fiscal 2012 dod budget?

>> i don't know the answer to that ban on the question of torture, and your answers to the committee said the following -- i will insure that all interrogations' conducted by the department of defense personnel are conducted consistent with the army field manual and in accord with the geneva conventions. is water boarding consistent with the army field manual? >> i have taken the same position as president of united states. i think water board crossed the line with regards to interrogations'. the president outlawed the use of that plus other enhanced interrogation techniques. in an executive order he issued when he first came to the presidency. >> recently, i don't want to switch gears to much because

time requires that we do that -- as senator web and i recently went to zero canal, guam, and center web was in korea before that, senator mccain and senator web and i -- centre mccarren obviously has a great personal experience in this area -- we proposed changes to basing plants on okinawa and guam. we issued a review of the plants in korea because we believe that the current plans are unrealistic, unworkable, and affordable. independently, the gao concluded the cost of these military realignments were higher than expected. in many cases, there were largely unknown. in a highly critical gao report of this direction that we are

currently moving. i am wondering whether you are familiar with this issue and it confirmed in any of and whether you are familiar with these issues are not whether you will agree to review this matter and work with us to find a solution that helps advance our strategic objectives in the reason. we had strategic objectives and the reason and if they are currently on affordable, they are unknown in terms of cost and whether you be willing to review this matter and work with us? >> yes, i will. you discussed this with me when i -- when i met with you and also center web discussed his concerns about that area. i agree with you that is a very important strategic area for the united states. we have to maintain a presence there. there are many issues that have to be resolved and worked on.

i look forward to working with you, senator mccain, centre wave -- center web and others to find out what the most cost-effective approach would be. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. what is your assessment of the battlefield situation in afghanistan cents we inaugurated the surge? >> the assessment is that we have made progress with regards to security in that country. it is fragile and reversible. i nevertheless believe that progress has been made to try to advance security. we also have made good progress in training the forces there in afghanistan both police and

military force. i think the area we are -- where greater progress means to be made as a government side. we want to make sure they improve our government so they can ultimately take responsibility for the country. >> and so, would you agree -- when you point out is fragile and reversible, i think that is absolutely accurate. would you agree with secretary gates repeated a strict statements that the withdrawal should be modest? >> i agree they should be conditions-based variable live up to secretary dates and general petraeus and president to provide with that number should be. >> if you or the secretary of defense when that decision is made, obviously, you will have significant influence. he just came from a position where you have a good assessment of the military situation. i think it is not inappropriate for you to answer when asked if

you agree with secretary gates and his assessment that the withdrawal should be modest. >> senator, if i am confirmed, i will have to obviously arrived at a decision myself. i will have to ultimately present that to the president and i am not position -- in that position now and that decision rests with general petraeus and secretary gates and the president. obviously, i have tremendous admiration for secretary gates. i pretty much what the and and and and these issues. with regards to specific numbers, >> i wasn't asking for specific numbers. on the subject of iraq, if the afghan government and all its elements agree there should be a residual u.s. military presence in iraq particularly in three areas, air defenses,

intelligence capability, and security in the areas around kirkuk in iraq where there have been significant tensions, do you agree that would be wise thing for us to do? >> i believe the prime minister of maliki and the iraqi government request that we maintain a presence there that that should be to seriously considered by the president. >> do you think it would be in our interest to do that? >> there are 1000 al qaeda that are still in iraq. we saw the attack was made the other day. it, too, continues to be fragile situation. i believe we should take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that we protect whatever progress we have made their. >> do you know of anyone

authority or in the congress or the administration who believes we should send ground troops into libya? >> i have not met anybody at who supports that. >> i have not either. i think all of us -- would be a great mistake. do believe is the proper role congress to restrict the powers of the president of united states to act? we were around when there is a vote of cut off of funds. right or wrong, that was the appropriate role of congress. does it worry you if the congress begins to tell the commander in chief as to exactly what he can and cannot do? >> i believe very strongly that the president has the

constitutional power as commander in chief to take steps he believes are necessary to protect this country and protect our national interests. obviously, i think it is important for presidents to consult and have the abies of congress but in the end, i believe he has the constitutional power to do what he has to do to protect this country. >> i agree. in 2007, the last time we went through a very serious crisis that was concerning whether we should withdraw from iraq or not, i see some parallels. we're getting it rising war weariness in american people. and one thing we did at that time was set up some benchmarks that we expected to be met by both the iraqis and the united states which i recall, there

were 13 or a number of those. over time, most of those benchmarks were met. do you think it would be appropriate for us to do the same thing as far as afghanistan is concerned? we can measure progress by certain metrics. i think it would be important in order to gain or keep the confidence of the american people that we should set up some benchmarks for progress both in afghanistan and as far as pakistan is concerned since we're sending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to pakistan. >> i think we all know what the fundamental goal is here which is to develop a stable enough afghanistan that will never again become a safe haven for al-qaeda or --

>> my specific question the ---. >> working with the president and establishing some of those areas where we need to make progress in identifying those, i think that is something that will be worth pursuing. >> thank you. >> we will break away briefly for the house coming into session. we will be back to the hearing when it is over and you could watch on law c-span.org and at. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 9, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas j. rooney to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the

prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend dr. allen kerin, office of the senate chaplain, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. lord god, almighty. your unfailing love, o lord, is as vast as the heavens. your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. your righteousness is like the mighty mountains. your justice like the ocean depths. lord god, pray you will reward the faithfulness of all who honor your name. and seek to bring you glory. make known your plans to prosper, then, plans not to harm them but to give them hope in a bright future. inspire our elected leaders to seek your presence and pray daily for your wisdom. let them clearly discern your still small voice amidst of constant claimor of their busy lives. in the long legislative days

ahead, may they feel your favor as they faithfully discharge the duties assigned to them. give them the strength to persevere in the storms of life , in the humility to honor you when victories burst forth like a radiant dawn. i pray in your mighty name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands adj

the iran nuclear ambitions and to end them. however, as president obama has said, all options have to remain on the table. i want to ask you whether as

secretary of defense, you'll consider it to be one of your responsibilities to have credible military plans to strike and destroy the iran nuclear facilities if the president as commander-in-chief decides that it is necessary to use that option. >> in line with the president's statement that we should keep all options on the table. >> let me approach afghanistan this way -- i thought the correct andade a courageous decision in 2009 in deciding to raise the number of our forces in afghanistan by 30,000 +, a so-called afghanistan surge. at the time, a statement was

made that we would begin to draw those troops down around july of this year, 2011. there was a lot of anxiety in the region, particularly in afghanistan and pakistan about whether that was the beginning of a kind of early withdrawal and a retreat from the region. discussions were had particular between us and the afghans and present obama settles with president karzai on a plan that will begin the transition around july of this year but the goal is to remove affectively all of our forces unless there is a mutual agreement to the contrary before then by the end of 2014. u.s. said today and in your prepared answers that you thought we were making measurable progress in afghanistan.

but that the progress was reversible. rather than asking you to adopt an adjective that smaltz has put sayhat, is it fair to sai that the standard you apply to the drawdown of american forces that would begin of july this year, that it not be so great as to risk the gains we have made which you have said are reversible? >> there is no question that we should not take any steps that risk the gains that have been made. i have great confidence that general petraeus and secretary gates and the president will make the right decision in a transition that will take place going towards 2014. >> is it fair to say that if you are confirmed that the goal here that you see is to turn

responsibility for security of afghanistan over to the afghans at the end of 2014 and not to jeopardize our capacity to do that before then? >> that is absolutely correct. at the lisbon conference, 48 nations plus president karzai made the decision that there would be a transition going toward 2014. it would be then that hopefully we would be able to transfer responsibility. we should do nothing that jefferson -- jeopardize is that pat. >> i appreciate that the love me brief you -- but let me read do something from secretary gates. "once you have committed, the success of the mission to override everything else because the most colleges -- cost a thing of all would be to fail." did you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> i appreciate your answers to

those questions. let me move to another part of the world. at the end of the last century, if you ask most people up here and the defense and state department and cia would be our focus in this century, they probably would have said that the asia-pacific region would be the strategic center of gravity of the 21st century. we were necessarily distracted by the attack on us on 9/11 and i think we responded with remarkable courage and effectiveness. i think that the asia-pacific remains the strategic center of gravity for the 21st century. we have found that there is an anxiety among our friends from asia about china's growing

military capabilities and america's staying power and commitment to the region. i wanted to give you an opportunity to speak to that anxiety, that if confirmed as secretary of defense, not withstanding the budget pressures on the u.s. government, would our strategic involvement in the asia-pacific region in your opinion continue to be a national security priority? >> absolutely, i think that region is very important to us from a strategic point of view. we have to maintain a presence in the pacific are a breed that and i think in line with that, we have to maintain a relationship with china. we want to build that kind of relationship for the 21st century. i think it is extremely

important. there are concerns about some of the things they are doing in modernizing their military. at the same time, i think we have to be able to work with them in terms of scale and transparency so that we are working together and not in opposition to one another in order to make sure that we protect the security of that region. >> on your watch as secretary of defense, you don't anticipate any withdrawal or retreat of america's commitment to the asia-pacific? >> not at all. >> thank you very much. >> centre chambliss. >> thank you for your willingness to continue to exhibit great public service. you and i have had the privilege of working together for many years since i was a freshman member of the house. you were a member of the clinton administration and i don't need to talk to you about how many

years that has been. i respect your service and value our friendship. i would say that i know you will be the first to credit the many hard-working, very professional men and women in the intelligence and military community that led to the successful takedown of osama bin laden and you would be right to do that. without strong leadership at the top, that mission would not have been successful and i get a lot of that credit of that mission to you and it is well deserved. you and i had the opportunity to talk about the issue of rising health-care costs in the department of defense budget when we visited a couple of weeks ago. i notice you had several questions on the issue in your policy questions and i appreciate your responses. i don't have a question on this but as the chairman said earlier, you will have a very difficult job when it comes to trying to find savings and become more efficient at the department of defense.

there is no bigger expense, at least from the standpoint of increasing annual late, the health-care costs. i want to reemphasize the fact that this an extremely important issue and we need to get our arms around it and i look forward to working with you. i encourage you to think creatively. i want to go back to the line that senator mccain was addressing on afghanistan. regarding the troop withdrawals, i think it is clear that any operational perspective that the withdrawal makes no sense. it may make sense from a domestic political perspective. may make some level of sense in terms of waking up the afghans. the fact that we will not be there forever and that that they have to set up to the plight but i am concerned that a

significant withdrawal of u.s. forces will reverse the progress that we made in afghanistan and that the afghans have made. i am glad to see you say you support a response will conditions-based withdrawal. however, i would prefer their to be no withdrawal until it is clear that the gains we have made will not be reversed. my question for you is as we withdraw troops from afghanistan, if it becomes clear from an operational perspective that the withdrawal is negatively affecting progress and stability, will you advise the president that the withdrawal should be stopped and, if necessary, additional u.s. forces be sent back to afghanistan? said and as the president has said and the secretary has emphasize, this has to be a conditions test based withdraw.

that means you look at the conditions on the ground. we need to do everything we can to try to call police stay on target with regard to the 2014 date. it is conditions based and based on what changes take place, the president and secretary would have to make adjustments. >> i would hope for my conditions-based standpoint, leon, that you would give strong consideration to the safety and security of our soldiers. i know they are of #one importance to you. if withdrawal of troops puts our men and women in gridder harm's way, -- in greater arms way, i would hope that we would cease the withdrawal. i hope that would be your recommendation to the president. >another issue i want to bring up that we have discussed is the issue of tactical aircraft and

this generation fighters. -- and fifth generation fighters. secretary gates argued that f-35 made the airplane of the future. however, at a recent hearing, last month, the secretary indicated that dod has taken money out of that program to buy fourth generation fighters. not only are these fourth generation fighters costing billions of dollars but they will be in the inventory for probably 20-30 years. we will be paying to maintain and even at a greater cost. there utility is greatly limited against any kind of modern threat. in my view, this is not a very good way to spend taxpayer dollars. what is your perspective on this issue? if confirmed, will you be committed to preserving u.s.

supremacy in air dominance and ensuring our resources are spent most wisely toward that end? >> obviously, i want to make sure that we have the very best in terms of our fighter planes. 35 is being35he f- developed as the next-generation fighter but there are substantial costs associated with that. i think we have to watch it very carefully. i want to assure you that one of my responsibilities in line with what senator mccain said is to take a very hard look at all weapon systems to make sure they are cost-effective and they are providing the very best equipment our forces need. >> what concerns me about where we are with that program is exactly what senator mccain alluded to and that is that we

just seem to be out of control. we keep moving the goalposts with contractors and blaming contractors for an increase in costs when frankly part of it is due to our inefficient management of the system. if we are going to spend the kind of money that we are committed to spend on that fifth generation fighter because -- that is where we are headed. we all know that. we've got to have that airplane in the inventory. the decisions that will have to be made by u.s. secretary of defense relative to procurement, to acquisition, as well as the testing of that airplane will be critical. you bring a wealth of knowledge from that perspective from your years at omb and where you are today. again, we look forward to dialogue with you and this

committee on that issue as well as our other acquisition issues that are going to be before you. let me ask you one other matter relative to libya. i notice that you agree that the gaddafi regime must go. how're we going to do that? >> as the president has said, that is the objective. it has to be done by a number of means. number one, we are bringing strong economic sanctions against them. we are also bring strong diplomatic pressure against them. we have implemented embargo and more importantly, the work that nato is doing pursuant to the un resolution and the nato forces that are there.

are bring tremendous pressure, i believe, on them not only fighting to protect civilians but to implement the no-fly zone and in addition to that, target the command and control elements of the regime. i think all those factors have to continue in order to put pressure on gaddafi. frankly, i think there are games that have been made. we have seen the regime weaken significantly. we have seen the opposition make gains both in the east and west. i think there are some signs that if we continue the pressure and stick with it that ultimately that gaddafi will step down. >> thank you for this service and i look forward to continue to working with you. >> senator reid. >> thank you for your extraordinary public service and

particularly in the last few months, you're decisive and courageous advice to the president was led to the successful raid against osama bin laden. it would not have been a successful or affected without your participation. thank you personally for your friendship over many years. let me return to the topic of afghanistan. we're looking at a decision shortly that will be based on conditions on the ground but strikes me and implicit in what you say it your testimony, those conditions on the ground might be more relevant according to pakistan and afghanistan. as long as the government of pakistan at least appears to see some of these groups, these terrorist groups and their soil as strategic assets and liabilities, our operations in afghanistan are going to be very, very difficult. going to the real conditions on

the ground, your comment on whether those conditions are really more about pakistan, our focus has to be there as much as afghanistan. i would include in this context some type of regional dialogue including pakistan, afghanistan, and india. what are your comments? >> i would agree with that. it is pretty clear that we cannot succeed in afghanistan if we are not succeeding in pakistan in terms of controlling the safe havens and the cross border operations. we've got to work at both in order to ensure that we are able to stay on path with what we would like to achieve in afghanistan. in addition to that, i agree that this is a regional issue and to the extent that the countries in the region can work together and relate to each other instead of being

suspicious of each other, creating the kind of dynamic that frankly has not been very helpful. i think it would be in the interest of peace in that region if we could get all three to continue to work together to advance the same goals. >> one of the points i believe your predecessor made and we are recommending an for example reservists -- one of the challenges you have is following an extraordinarily talented, successful, and decent human being. you have a challenge. secretary gates pointed out that -- how important non- dod agricultural operations are. we're also getting into the spectrum of these violent climate episodes throughout the globe.

there is a real danger here that those budgets might suffer. in afghanistan, my colleagues in the foreign affairs committee has released a report criticizing the bill stage of the operation. can you comment upon that partnership and how critical it is? when we look at the conditions on the ground, we could be successful interdicting terrorist groups, seizing caches of weapons and even interdicting transmission from pakistan. if there is no political capacity or governmental capacity on health care education or anything, we will still have a population that is disgruntled and probably destructive towards us. >> i agree with what you said. it has to be the whole government approach. as we deal with these issues. the state department place an important role in providing

assistance to individuals to insure that an area remains secure. aid, the education area, the justice department provides assistance. the area of agriculture also provides some important assistance. i know the department of defense is our primary military weapon in terms of securing areas. if we do not follow it up with these other important assets, we will never be able to fully secure these countries. >> let me change topics for a moment. it strikes me that -- this is not particularly a great insight -- i am old enough to remember when there were three dimensions of conflict, air, land, and say. see.

there's a whole new dimension, cyber. i don't think we know enough yet to be fully converse of what can you comment briefly on the strategy that you will try to develop? i assume that strategy will provide some deterrence. i assume it will do pre-emption, offense/defense and as was just indicated, the policy within the context of the rules of war, what would constitute some type of attack. you are stepping in at a critical moment where we are just beginning to develop a strategy for new -- for a new dimension of warfare that we have not confronted yet and your leadership will be critical. >> there is no question that the whole arena of cyber attacks,

developing technologies, in the information area, represents a potential battle front for the future. i have often said that there's a strong likelihood that the next pearl harbor that we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our power system or our great, perhaps our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. this is a real possibility in today's world. as a result, i think we have to aggressively be able to counter that. it will take both defensive measures as well as aggressive measures. most importantly, there has to be a comprehensive approach in government to make sure that those attacks don't take place. i have a huge responsibility of being confirmed in his new position in dealing with the

cyber area. my goal would be to work closely with them and others to develop not only the capabilities but also the law but i think we need to have in order to determine how we approach this challenge in the future? >> just one final topic -- there is an acquisition bywave coming as he recapitalize. that has been pushed off a bit and that is -- it has been deferred a bit but it is coming. one aspect is that it is not simply the sheer number of systems that we have to buy, land, sea, and air and others, is the price tag on each of these systems. i know secretary carter has been working hard to make affordability part of the

design. all those efforts will be necessary because there will be no room with even -- within even a generous budget that has to do everything we have done. what your comments again? >> in the briefings that i have had, it is obvious that this is an area we have to pay a lot of attention to. \ because of the efficiencies and competition and the nature of expanding contracts that have taken place there. we have seen these weapons systems grow in cost. it takes an extraordinary amount of time from the beginning of moving the kind of weapon system to the time is finally developed, finally deployed, it almost becomes outdated. we've got to improve the process.

i know congress has taken steps in that arena. i look forward to working with you and the members of this committee to take greater steps in order to insure that we are looking at every possible efficiency in the procurement to read that in order not only to save dollars but make sure that we are getting better and equipment. >> senator brown. >> thank you. good to see you again sir. i look forward to voting to confirm you. thank you for holding this hearing, mr. chairman. i echo lot of the same thoughts my colleagues do regarding the cross border operation -- cross border operations. the tremendous amount of aid we give to pakistan which is over $4 billion, gives me deep concern that if we try to move forward with completing our mission and bringing our men and women home in afghanistan, that

we're having these areas where you have the safe havens yet we are giving them billions of dollars in aid. are you with us or not? what is your position with regard to carrying the message to people like me and others in people like me in congress are getting frustrated with that complicity. >> secretary clinton, chairman mike mullen and myself, my deputy, who was just here, have all made the same point. we need to have their cooperation. we need to have their partnership in confronting what is a common enemy. terrorism is not just our problem. it is their problem.

they are the subject of attacks every day from terrorist. s. it is in their interest to take action to control terrorism within their borders. in a relationship and a partnership, we expect a two-way street. it has to be two ways to protect both of our countries. >> the fact that bin laden was there -- if they did not know he was there, i do not believe it. i am hopeful that message can continue. when i went over there, i conveyed that same message as well. when you are walking down a hallway and a media group grabs you and says, what is the mission in afghanistan? what should i convey to the people in massachusetts now that

we have made progress there? what should i can they? what do you can they in your everyday conversations? what is the mission in afghanistan right now? >> the fundamental mission in afghanistan is to provide stability so that that country does not become a safe haven for al qaeda. >> your plan for achieving that mission by setting benchmarks that will hopefully be attained so we can set back and bring our men and women home -- let me ask you that first. >> the president has made clear that there are goals that we are continuing to work on. we need to weaken the taliban. we need to develop the structure in afghanistan and in the army

so they can assume these responsibilities. we can develop the government so they can provide greater stability for the future. each of these areas need to be focused on so that we can arrive at our goal. >> is it your opinion that there are people in the government to do that? can they be self-sufficient? >> i think there is. in the discussions i have had, i think they want their country to succeed. it is not always easy. this is a tribal society. >> there is very little interaction with the central government. >> it is difficult. they understand that, ultimately, this is their country. they are going to have to provide the security. >> i am also deeply concerned.

i keep hearing reports that money we are providing is going out to terrorists. is that something you have a comment on? >> we have to continually over see that to make sure that does not happen. i do not deny that there has been corruption in that country. we have to ensure that one of their responsibilities as a government is to make sure that does not happen. >> just to shift giears a shift-- gear a little bits. . people are hopeful they can share in the privileges that people in our country have. there is deep concern about what is left after these transitional periods.

we have given billions of dollars in military equipment. in egypt, they will have upcoming elections. depending on who is in power, they are still receiving a bang. -- aid. i am concerned about israel and their safety and security. i am concerned about that region. what are your thoughts on our relationship with israel and the transition going on in the middle east? >> we will and have to continue to maintain a strong relationship with israel and that part of the world. we have to reach out to other nations in that part of the world if we are going to preserve peace in that region. this is an area that is in great turmoil. a lot of countries are going through turmoil -- tunisia,

egypt, bahrain, yemen. there are a number of countries that are dealing with uncertainty. the united states has to work with each of these countries to ensure that they reduced violence, to ensure that they are recognizing some degree of human universal rights, and that they are implementing economic reforms. it is not easy. there are tremendous changes going on. we have to play a role in what is developing in the so-called arab spring. as the spoke to that. if we do not, there are other countries in that region like iran that will try to influence what will happen. we cannot afford to let that happen. >> thank you senator brown. senator akaka. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say aloha and

welcome to director panetta, who is a dear friend and a former colleague. there are so many things we can talk about. i want to tell you that i was impressed with your opening statement. what else can i say as we consider a person who was nominated by the president to be secretary of defense, who would be a tireless advocate of our military, and who will bring about support and sustain them. ? this will be in your thoughts and prayers. having a free country, a country that is skilled and you

will continue to bring strong discipline and national defence for our country. with all of this, i want to wish you well. you certainly have my support. you will face significant challenges if confirmed. the men and women of the armed forces are involved in two major conflicts that are taking a tremendous toll on our armed forces. we must do all we can to care for them. fulfilling our sacred obligation is dependent on department of defense cooperation. you stated in your response that you would ensure that the department of defense continues to work closely with the veterans administration to

support members of their family. we talked about working on the collaboration between the department of defense and the veterans administration. as we carry on into the position of secretary, you certainly have my support. if confirmed, what will be your top priorities as you look to care for men and women in uniform and their families? >> senator, my first and foremost priority is to protect this country. i cannot do it unless we have good fighting men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line in order to defend this country. i think we owe it to them as a

result of that, and we owe it to their families, to make sure we are doing everything possible to meet their needs. providing the kind of health care, the benefits, the counseling that is necessary, particularly for wounded warriors, making sure they can transition to the veteran's administration in a seamless way -- these are areas i have to pay attention to. i have seen it firsthand. these kids are out there and they are putting their lives on the line. we have asked them to go their time and time again. we have got to make sure they know they are fully supported in this effort. it is going to be my job if

confirmed as secretary of defense to ensure we are providing those benefits. i want to work with people like yourself who have been working with this for a long time to make sure we are covering all of the bases. >> i am impressed. you told us by steps of what you are planning to do. social reforms. i thought it was unique what you wanted to achieve. the secretaries who work together and share their concerns as well -- you want to work on a pentagon establishment. this is important to regard congress as a partner and to deal with the challenges of

nations that are rising and changing, as you mentioned. the chief financial officers act of 1990 required the department of defense to prepare financial statements, which were found to be ultimately unreliable. in 2010, the department was required to provide auditable financial statements by 2017. i believe in accountability. we want to complete and accurate financial information from the pentagon. this would allow the pentagon leaders to make better informed a limitedin environment. if confirmed, what will you do

to insure the department meets these requirements? >> senator, i was concerned in finding out that the department would not be able to achieve full auditability until 2017. i understand how areas of the budget develop. the american people should know that there is auditing that does go on in each of these areas. as a department, we should be able to audit that department. if i am confirmed, one of the first things i will do is to see if we cannot take steps to improve on that timetable so that we can say to the american taxpayer that what we are spending on national defense is being fully audited. >> d.o.d. is one of the few

departments that has recognized the importance of maintaining its language and cultural awareness capability. they lead the national language service corps and have activities with other federal agencies. what are your thoughts on the importance of cultural and foreign language capabilities within the department of defense? >> i am a big believer in language training and in getting our people equipped with the ability, not only to speak the language, but to understand the culture of the countries we are dealing with. it is good for each individual to have that capability. it is important to our national

defense to have that capability. at the cia, i have developed a requirement for analysts and operations officers to have language capabilities. it makes them better individuals and better intelligence officers to have that capability. at the defense department, we need to also encourage greater language training so that they understand the language and the culture of the countries they are involved with. having that capability makes us much better at doing our job. >> thank you. >> thank you senator akaka. >> thank you, mr. panetta, for your leadership and service to our country. cutpresident's proposal to $400 billion, do you agree with that proposal? is it a realistic number in

terms of our national security, preserving our national security? >> obviously, i agree with the commitment of the president to try to take action to reduce the deficits. . i do want to say that there is a comprehensive review that is going on that the president himself stated would take place. that comprehensive review is looking at a number of issues related to the defense department in order to determine what are the right areas, what is the right transition in order to achieve that savings. i look forward to the results of that comprehensive review. >> as a follow-up, you expressed your admiration for secretary gates.

i share that admiration for his service to our country. you made recent statements expressing concern over the $400 billion proposal. you said it cut into the meat in terms of the muscle up our defense. do you disagree with him on that front? >> no. i share his concerns about the possibility of calling out our forces -- hollowing out our forces and implementing some kind of formulaic approach in cutting defense. we have to look at each area to determine where we will achieve savings. obviously, i share those concerns. i want to look at that comprehensive review to make sure none of the concerns secretary gates has raised or that i am concerned about take

place in seeking those reductions. >> in conducting that review when you get into the position of secretary of defense, if you disagree that $400 billion is a reasonable number and could jeopardize our national security, would you express your opposition to the president on that? >> if the end result of that comprehensive review were to come to that conclusion, i would share those concerns. i do not think it will. if there were something that indicated that our national defense would be impacted, i would share that with the president. >> i wanted to ask you about the cia and interrogation. does the cia currently conduct interrogations' of high-value targets -- interrogations of high-value targets? >> when a high-value target is

captured, there is a high value interrogation team that comes together that involves the army, the fbi, and the cia working together as 18. they will go -- working as a team. they will go and do the interrogation as a team. >> does the cia do the interrogations themselves? as i understand, while the dissipating in the haight, they have not been doing -- while participating in the hague, they have not been doing the interrogations. >> they will share with each other what questions should be asked. it could be the fbi or the cia.

everyone's in a while, the cia asks questions. >> is there anything keeping the cia from conducting interrogations? >> if intelligence is the primary objective, the cia individual becomes central to the questions being asked. that is the way it works now. if there is an emphasis on that, that is one case. if it is a military case or an individual that could involve follow on the military, they would take the lead. they work as a team and they do it on a case by case basis.

>> nothing prohibits the cia from being the lead in conducting investigations? to your knowledge, does it happen now? i understand it is a team. >> it is not the direct interrogation that used to take place early on in this decade. it is much more of a team approach. that is the way it works. >> i wanted to follow up with respect to the detainee treatment act. do you agree with all of the provisions of the detainee treatment act, including the provisions to provide legal authority for interrogations'? -- interrogations? >> i honestly, i agree with the law. >> you talked about your view on

waterboarding. do you think all enhance interrogation techniques crossed the line? >> i do not have the same you with regard to all of the other enhanced techniques, but i do with regard to waterboarding. >> right now, under the president's executive order, interrogations is limited -- are limited to the army field manual. there are some interrogation techniques that do not cross the line and are not involved in the manual. >> it is primarily the army field manual that is the primary diet to interrogations. >> to the extent that some of those techniques may be permitted, would you necessarily

disagree with the law contained in the detainee treatment at? >> it is permitted under the army field manual, i would support that. >> my time is up. i appreciate you answering my questions. >> thank you, senator a lot -- senatorsayotte. -- senator ayotte. >> mr. panetta, you will inherit two wars. you will be passed -- tasked with reshaping the department of defense and taking care of military families.

with respect to afghanistan, there has been quite a bit of discussion about the need for benchmarks to do assessments for where we are in the transition to the afghanistan capability of defending itself so that it can govern itself going forward. i have been a prime supporter of the benchmarks with regard to iraq and with respect to afghanistan as well. i am introducing legislation today that will require benchmarks to evaluate progress being made toward the transition, security responsibilities to the government of afghanistan. the bill would call for benchmarks on transition to be included as part of the already established provisions for

afghanistan. i think it was being -- was the 1230 and 1231 reports. i am impressed with your support of evaluation methods so that we are not in a gray area with regard to whether we are winning or losing. this is an opportunity to describe what level of progress we have made. i am encouraged by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about the benchmarks as well. if we intend to transfer security responsibility to the afghan government by 2014, it is important to mark our progress. do you have any preliminary thoughts as to the kinds of things you might look as as part

of benchmarking to help you evaluate conditions on the ground as to whether we are making satisfactory progress to say we are 25% there, 50% there or whether we have 50% left to go? >> to establish any metrics or guideposts, it is important that general petraeus and our diplomatic leaders and the administration participate in trying to line did the five those areas that are important. clearly, levels of violence is an important area to look at. a district assessment that looks at each district and tries to determine disability in each of those areas, -- determine the

stability in each of those areas, developing the afghan army and police and how they are performing. that is an important element. obviously, the government responsibilities within afghanistan. those are all key elements that need to be evaluated. >> in your view -- it is a unique view as the director of cia -- can you give us some idea of the impact the death of osama bin laden might have on the campaign going forward in afghanistan and keeping it from a safe haven for future al qaeda operations? >> with regard to specific intelligence on that, it is probably appropriate in another forum. it is enough to say that the death of osama bin laden --

there is no question it impacted al qaeda. he was their leader and it impacted their capability. obviously, there are a number of operations that were impacted under their control and command operations. having said that, they still remain dangerous. they are dangerous with regard to the efforts they continue to work at in pakistan. one of the concerns i will share with you is that i think we have to pay attention to these notes that are developing. al qaeda has moved some of its operations to places like yemen, somalia, north africa. those are areas we have to continue to focus on. yes, it has had an impact. it has weakened them. they still remain dangerous and

we have to go after them. >> i agree with you and i appreciate that view. we have had a touchy situation developing with respect to pakistan in terms of what level of support osama bin laden may have had from anyone involved in the pakistani government. it is a complicated relationship. we understand. the american people are quite concerned about double-dealing. you cannot have your friend be your enemy at the same time and have your friend working against you. do you think the relationship with pakistan is transparent enough at the present time? is there something we can do so that the american public can make a better determination of

that relationship that we share with the government of pakistan? >> we have to continually work at that. we have to work at developing a relationship of trust with the pakistanis. i do not know if we are totally there yet. there are areas where we have good discussions and good communications. there are a number of areas where we do not have that level of trust or communication capability. we have to work at that. we have to develop it. it is in the interest of both countries to have a trusting relationship. terrorism is an enemy not just of the united states. it is an enemy for pakistan. >> do you think an internal investigation with some level of transparency within their government to try to determine responsibility for anyone who may have had involvement in

trying to protect the presence of bin laden in their country -- that that will be fruitful? if it is through the fall, that it will be looked at as credible by our government and by the american people? >> at this point, we do not have any intelligence to indicate there was any relationship here. having said that, i do believe that the pakistanis are conducting several investigations at different levels to try to investigate what took place. it would be important to see what the results of those investigations are. >> thank you. good luck in your new position, which you are about to achieve. >> thank you senator nelson. senator gramm? -- graham?

>> thank you. i think the president has put together a top-notch security team. you are an important part of that. now for the tough questions. there is no place you can go to protect you from the justice of the american people. my general belief is that this war is more complicated than killing terrorist. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> we have to fight the terrorist in their own backyard. don't you agree that takes more time? >> it absolutely does take more time. >> do you agree that the payoff

is more enormous if we can get it right? >> that is right. >> what happens if we lose in afghanistan? >> if we lose in afghanistan, we not only create another safe haven for al qaeda and for their militant allies, but the world becomes a much more threatened place because of that loss, particularly in that region. >> i cannot agree with you more. what do i tell a family in south carolina that has lost a son or daughter in afghanistan to an i.e.d. that we cannot do anything about? what do i tell them? >> that is one of those situations that is frustrating

and enduring -- and angering. we have got to say to that family that we are not just walking away from that responsibility. we are continuing to put pressure on those countries and about. >> i could not agree with you more. i trust you and general petraeus to deliver that message. on behalf of the people of south carolina and most members of this committee, if you are living in pakistan, you need to choose. it is in your interest to fight the people who would undermine afghanistan and pakistan. i am all four winning in afghanistan. pakistan needs to get with the program one way or another. the pentagon itself. do you agree that the system we have to provide weapons -- the

more time it takes to develop a weapon, the more money the contractor makes. isn't that kind of stupid? it really is. i do not blame the contractor. i blame us. what if we said to the contractors, you are welcome to bid on major weapons systems, why don't you share 25% of the development costs? if there are any overruns, you share in the overruns. >> i think that is a suggestion worth looking at. >> one thing i would like you to do is go back in the past. how much money would we have saved in the last 20 years if we had had that arrangement? it is a way to save money and get weapons done quicker. when it comes to iraq, if the iraqis asked us to provide some troops in 2012, secretary gates

said he thinks that would be smart. do you think that would be smart to say yes? >> yes. >> do you think secretary gates has a pretty good view of what is going on in the world? if he said 5000 makes sense when it comes to do live with trawl, withdrawal, do you agree with that number? >> would you consider that request? positional petraeus' and the president also position -- all that should be considered. they have a pretty good view.

>> when it comes to libya, if gaddafi stays, what does that mean to our national security interests? >> it impacts on our national security interests if that happens. it sends a terrible signal to other countries. >> do you think it tells the iranians that you do not have to fear america when it comes to developing nuclear weapons? >> it tells them our word is not much if we cannot stick to it. >> when it comes to detainee's, if we captors someone tomorrow -- when it comes to detainees, if we captured someone tomorrow , a high-value target, do we put them in jail? can i tell you with admiral

mullen said when asked him that question? he did not have an answer to that question. do you think that is a smart policy to be a nation without a jail in the war on terror? >> we need to provide for detainment of these individuals. >> guantanamo bay is a good candidate. it is the only one left. am interested in making sure afghanistan never becomes a failed state. secretary gates said today and in february when i asked him this question that he believes that joint basing past 2014 where you would have american air power left behind in

afghanistan in a joint in climate in training in counterterrorism if the afghans requested would be a good policy for us. do you generally agree with him? >> the president has made clear that we have to make a long-term commitment to stability in that region. >> i will read what secretary gates said to my question. "a security agreement with afghanistan and some kind of joint facility and training for counterterrorism beyond 2014 would be in our interest." do you think that is a reasonable statement? >> i think is worth looking at. >> you are taking over at a time when the budget for the nation has never been more out of whack. you have got a big agenda to fulfil.

what would you tell the american people in terms of the attitude we need to take as a country? address their war weariness and tell them why we should stay behind in iraq and why we should consider a long-term relationship with afghanistan. why is it so important that we continue to stay in the fight after 10 years? >> it goes back to my father's statement. if you want to be free, you have to be able to establish some kind of peaceful solution to these challenges abroad. >> thank you, a senatorgraha -- thank you, senator graham. senator mccaskill.

>> thank you. part of our mission is to secure and stabilize and enhance the infrastructure. i want to commend to you and ask you to direct the folks who work with you to pay attention to some of the findings on the commission on wartime contacting. they issued a report last friday. it is full of basic information that seems to be escaping us in the area of contacting and contingency operations. that is two important factors. one is security and whether or not security is available and appropriate to support the building of projects we have put a lot of money in. we saw this in iraq over and over again. we would build a power plant. we would work on an oil refiner

we and two months later, it would be -- and oil refinery and two months later, it would be blown up. the second one -- this report came out on friday and it was an important report -- that is sustainability. we have white elephants all over this part of the world brought to you courtesy of the american taxpayer. the the sustainability part is -- i will read you one part of the report. a project carefully planned, well executed, and economical. it will be wasteful if the host nation cannot provide a trained staff, provide fuel for necessary maintenance or produce the intended outcomes. we have one of these white elephants we spent $300 million on in kabul.

they made a commitment to us that they would fuel it and now they say they cannot afford the fuel. this makes it complicated in terms of the technology. now it is used as a backup for buying electricity from other countries. this is a great example. it can be replicated over and over again. i understand the mentality. i respect general petraeus and his strategies in terms of counterinsurgency. there is this myopic focus. if we can build this project and put people to work, this is good. this is what counterinsurgency is all about. they do not think what it does point to look like in three or four years. especially -- what is going to look like in three or four

years. this is not a nation that is ready to take over anything, including some of these projects we are building. i think if we do not begin analyzing sustainability at the front end -- i will make a formal request to you that every project being built right now whether it is a road or a health care center or a school -- every project be analyzed right now for sustainability. if it is obvious it will not be sustained, we have to pull the plug. this is tens of billions of dollars that have gone down a rat hole because we did not think about what happens when we are finished building. it is really important. this is the hardest question. you and i talked about this. what are the conversations that are ongoing?

what are the plans about how afghanistan, with their meager tmp, how do they afford what we are building them in the projects and his army we are building for them? it is difficult for me to figure out what happens to this army when we leave? they cannot afford it. >> on your first point, i want you to know that if i am confirmed, i really do want to work with you closely with regard to the contacting issue and sustainability. i share your concerns. i know how that has developed. at the same time, we have not paid enough attention to that issue. i would like to work with you in trying to improve that aspect. with regard to the issue of

afghanistan, i share your concern about where they are going to draw the resources they need to sustain the army and the police force and to be a country, to be able to carry on their responsibilities. that will be the governance challenge we will face their, to ensure that as a nation, they will develop the revenues they need to govern the country. that will be part of it. otherwise, it will not work. >> is there a plan in place for short-term and long-term? is there a plan that we will be contributing $13 billion to this year? what is the plan for four or five years from now? will we spent $5 billion or $6

billion per year? we are building them an army with a size and scope -- they have never had an army. this is new. is there planning going on that would indicate how this will look bad years down the line in terms of what we have built -- like like four years down the line in terms of what we have built? >> let me get into that. if i am confirmed, i would like to give you a better answer. >> thank you. the wartime contacting commission has done some great work. it is like many other commissions.

it is not getting enough attention. where it needs to be front and center will be under your purview. i hope you make sure your immediate staff is aware of its work and takes it to heart. we have a lot of lessons learned that we have never learned. it is really important as we try to do things with less money. the only other issue i would like to bring up today is getting your commitment and your comments about what needs to be done and should be done as it relates to problems of sexual assault of women in the military. they have had difficulty accessing some sense of justice. >> we talked about that together in your office. i totally share your concerns. we have to have zero tolerance for any kind of sexual assaults in the military. we have to give the victims of sexual assault the ability to

complain and have those complaints listen to and to be able to establish those cases. there are steps that need to be taken. i look forward to working with you and others in the department to make sure we protect women who have served so well in the military these days. >> thank you for your time here today. thank you for loving your country so much that you are willing to take on this important responsibility. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i think most americans would find it shocking that the department of defense is unable to produce accurate and complete information to support management decisions. as we also discussed, the law of

the land requires the department of defense to be able to complete a clean audit by 2017. i think that would be shocking to most people. i appreciate your response on page 74 of the chances you submitted to our questions. you said achieving audits would be one of your top priorities. you have the capabilities to complete that requirement of law. the marine corps is actually doing relatively good compared to other services in this area. they are experiencing a 3 to 1 return on every dollar they spend. they are getting a good return on that investment. it may be the attitude and the

strong institutional resistance of the department of defense in believing their main job is to fight the nation's wars. we all know the budgetary pressures the department will be under as we deal with the unsustainable debt and these huge deficits. it is important to me an important to you to make financial management reform one of your important priorities. having said that, i would ask you a straight up question. do you agree with secretary gates when he said the defense budget, and no matter how large it may be, it is not because of the country's fiscal woes? >> i agree with that. it is by no means the cause of the huge deficits we are

encouraging. >> the question has requested a $671 billion budget for 2012. there is going to be room for the department to share in some of the budget and cuts that will be on the table. as you and i discussed, i hope this is not seen as an opportunity for those who want to whack the pentagon budget in a way that will impair the ability of us to defend ourselves. i am sure you share that concern. >> yes, sir. >> you have the benefit of great experience. that also means you have a record i want to ask you about. you were president's clinton chief of staff and director of the omb before that.

he played a role in the budgets and oversaw a 4% decline in fiscal year 1994. some have called that a fiscal holiday. others said we were catching a peace dividend. -- cashing a peace dividend. i want to give you an opportunity to explain your role in those cuts and whether you think they were deeper than they should have been. give us the benefit of your perspective. i hope we do not try to cash a peace dividend in 2012 as we are engaged in two and half wars. >> as the director of omb, i was given the responsibility of the

president to try to achieve significant savings as part of the economic plan that was adopted by the congress. we reduced the deficit by almost $500 billion. i think that plus other agreements that were made in the bush administration and with the republican congress all contributed to our ability to achieve a balanced budget. with regard to the defense area, my responsibility as omb director was to provide a number to the defense secretary and allow the defense secretary and those in the defense department to determine how best to achieve those savings. i understand that was part of what they proposed. looking at it in hindsight, it might not have been the best way to achieve those savings. it was a decision that was made at the defense department. >> turning to afghanistan, i

know there is a lot of -- are a lot of favorable comments. you deserve credit for your part in taking down osama bin laden. congratulations to you and the president's national security team for that accomplishment. i get the sense that people were prematurely declaring that the fight is over because we have degraded al qaeda in afghanistan. i am glad to hear you point out that they metastasized to other parts of north africa and the region. i want to ask you in particular -- there are other groups that may not be as familiar to .mericans as al qaeda - could you talk about the islamic jihadist groups that are out there and could easily more for

-- easily morph into a threat as dangerous as al qaeda? >> there are other groups out there. al qaeda is the one we are principally concerned about because they attacked this country. they continue to attack this country. there are interrelationships they have with other groups. there is a group that has relations with al qaeda. they are conducting attacks in afghanistan. there is a group called ttp that has relationships with al qaeda that conducts a tax -- planned attacks against us and they have conducted al qaeda attacked as

well. there is a group that conducts attacks largely in india. they have been known to discuss attacks elsewhere. if you move to the area of yemen, there is a man associated with al qaeda. he is computer oriented and does represent the potential to try to urge others in this country to conduct attacked here. that is a concern. we have somalia, where el shabab operates in somalia. we have intelligence that indicates that they are looking at california -- looking at targets beyond somalia. if you look at has a lot and hamas -- hezbollah and hamas you

will see that there are a lot of groups we have on our plate. >> the threat to american citizens extends beyond al qaeda. thank you for your answer. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. senator gillibrand. >> thank you, mr. panetta, for your extraordinary service to our country. i want to explore a little more on pakistan and go to a little bit of cyber warfare. chairman mullins stated that it is well known -- chairman mullen stated that it is well known that pakistan agree to go

after the terrorist group. how do you judge pakistan's commitment to that effort? >> i think there is a simple test, which is whether or not they are continuing to go into afghanistan and attacking our forces. if they have an influence over them, they could urge them to cease fire and stop those kinds of attacks. >> i appreciate your testimony earlier about the nature of al qaeda and that it has metastasized. many believe a guy in the arabian peninsula is more dangerous. -- many believe al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is more dangerous. it works in a diffuse way.

the greek terrorist attempts on our homeland since 9/11, one came out of pakistan and one k -- out of -- the >> i support your view that we have to take these threats head on and make them very much a part of our mission. i want to understand why, in yemen, our approach is so much different than afghanistan and perhaps talk about what your long-term strategies are to deal with the fact that al-qaeda has changed so much. >> with regard to specific operations, i would have to do that in another forum. generally, our approach has been that because of these nodes that have developed, our approach has been to develop operations in

each of these areas that will contain al-qaeda and go after them so they have no place to escape, so that we are doing that in yemen. it is obviously a dangerous and uncertain situation, but we continue to work with elements there to try to develop counter- terrorism. same thing is true for somalia and with regards to aqim in north africa, we are working with both the spanish and the french to develop approaches there that will contain them, as well. at the cia, we have tried to develop a more comprehensive strategy to kind of looked at all those nodes, look at all of those threats, and not just focus on pakistan. >> obviously, we do not know

whether the government survives or not, but do we have strategies in place to make sure that if there is a transition, that we are very knowledgeable about what military assets are there, what will happen to them, and you have -- have you engaged the saudis or any other potential allies on what we can do there to protect against future growth of terrorism? >> with regards to specific operations, i really have to discuss that in another forum. as you know, it is a very uncertain situation. it has been destabilized, and yet, we are continuing to work with those individuals in their government to try to go after aqap and we are continuing to receive operation from them. at this point in time, i would have to say that while it is obviously a scary answer --

scary situation, we continue our operations. >> lastly, if i still have time, mr. chairman, i appreciate the testimony about cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, cyber warfare. i appreciate the fact that the statement was made that a cyber attack could be a declaration of war. we had a chance to talk about this in some respect. can you share with us any of your vision, design, goals with regard to how we create a greater platform for a cyber security and cyber defense? in particular, i have worked with senator hatch on creating international protocol to create alliances and working relationships with allies and non-allies on how to begin to have the ability to enforce laws against cyber attacks, a cyber criminals, cyber terrorists and any other form

of cyber miss chief. >> senator, as we discussed in your office, this is an area of great concern for me. i think -- what i have witnessed at the cia and elsewhere is that we are now the target of increasing attacks that go after our systems and it is extremely important for us to everything we can -- to do everything we can to confront that threat. i have great resources at nsa that has tremendous expertise and knowledge in this area. i would like to develop it to be an even more effective force to be able to confront cyber terrorism and i would like to work with you on the effort to try to develop those kind of relationships, not only here but abroad, so that other countries could work with us in this effort.

you know, we talk about nuclear. we talk about conventional warfare. we do not spend enough time talking about the threat of cyber war. >> thank you. last, i want to thank you for your testimony today about your priority to look out for the men and women serving in our armed services and your families. not only must that be one of your primary responsibilities, but i appreciate that is at the forefront of your mind. my time is expired. i hope you continue that focus and particularly focus on the issue of housing. a lot of troops are coming back from various missions and many places around the united states have inadequate housing supply. i hope you can address that in an aggressive way. thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you. senator collins. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. director, you certainly deserve

the widespread accolades and expressions of gratitude that you are receiving from virtually every member of this committee today. i want to add my own thanks for your willingness to continue to serve our country during such a difficult time, but like my colleagues -- now the hard questions start. i want to start with libya. you have repeated today the administration's goal that colonel gaddafi must go. what then? if there's any painful lesson we have learned from our experience in iraq, is that if we do not have a plan in place after we

have been posed a high rent, that chaos and violence in seuss -- have deposed a tyrant, that chaos and violence ensues. you have a plan for dealing with libya post-gaddafi? do we really know who we are dealing with in the opposition? >> i know that secretary clinton is spending a great deal of her time working with our allies to respond to that concern to try to work with those in the opposition who have come together. to try to work with them, so that if they do have to take control of the country, they will have that capability. what you have raised is a legitimate concern and its an area we have a lot more work to do in order to ensure that

gaddafi does step down, we can ensure that libya will be a stable country. >> it really concerns me particularly when you look at the leadership of al-qaeda and but libyan president -- and the libyan presence there and the number of foreign fighters from iraq. i do not feel we have any confidence that we know what comes next. >> the opposition, obviously, has been made up of various tribal groups that have come together. there are concerns about some of the other influences that are now trying to impact on the opposition. it is something we are watching very closely. stepe can get gaddafi to sto down, i'm confident that there are enough leaders in the

opposition who can provide, hopefully, that continuity. >> let me then turn to afghanistan. no one wants to lose afghanistan. all of us are so mindful of the enormous sacrifices that are military men and women have made in afghanistan and the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars that have been spent. senator brown ask you a question today about what our mission is. you talked about the goal of having afghanistan be a stable state. that is certainly something that i want also. to me, that seems to be a never ending mission. i do not see how we get to a stable state in afghanistan.

let me give you an example. a key to our transition in afghanistan, a key to our troops being able to come home is the development of a confident, aggressive afghan security force. we have made a lot of progress in that area. i look at the cost of maintaining the afghan security force. in this year's presidential budget request, is $12.8 billion. the total afghanistan gross domestic product is about $30 billion and 97% of afghanistan's gdp is derived from spending related to international military and donor community presence.

when i look at that, i do not see how afghanistan is ever going to be able to afford its own security forces. that says, to me, that we are going to have to continue to be a major contributor to paying for those security forces forever virtually. tell me how it ends. i just do not see how it ends. >> i am understand the concerns you have raised, senator, and i think we all share those concerns. i can only say that having served on the rocks -- served on the iraq study group, there was a moment in time i had a lot of and whetherout iraq

it would ever be stable enough to draw down our forces. afghanistan is a very different country with a very different history. the fact is that i have seen progress made with regards to governance in some of the key areas, with regards to security, with regards of the role of the afghans in participating. they have gotten better. whether or not in the end they will be able to develop resources, develop revenue, develop the governance that needs to be done, those are major questions. i think, if we stick with it, if we continue to provide help and assistance to them, i think there is going to be a point where afghanistan can control its own future. we have to operate on that hope. >> finally, let me echo the concerns my colleagues have raised about whether the budget

constraints, which are very real, are going to drive our military requirements rather than vis versa. this year, when the independent panel looked at the qdr, concluded that the qdr had been molded by the budget, rather than what it is supposed to be, which is an unvarnished assessment of what our military requirements are. i am particularly concerned about the gap when i look at the navy shipbuilding budget. the cno has testified before our committee that we need, at a minimum, a 313 ship navy. we know that the 313 ship

goal is much smaller than the actual requirement our commanders have. there was a recent report just two months ago from the navy on the ballistic missile defense force structure requirements. they said the navy currently does not have the capacity to meet the demands of our contended -- of our commanders for capable ships. i'm very worried about that gap in this time of budget constraints. i am worried that the navy has yet to complete the contracts on the tdg 1000, the second and third ships. what actions do you think need to be taken to help close the gap between the 285-ship navy

today and the, at a minimum, 313-ship requirement? >> i strongly believe the navy needs to project our force throughout the world. the navy is obviously crucial to that mission. i agree with the ship numbers that have to be developed for the navy in order to do that. the key will be something that has happened in your own state, which is shipbuilding operations have to develop greater efficiency. yours is a great example of having developed those type of efficiencies that help us on the cost control side and at the same time allows us to continue our shipbuilding capability. i think that a greater competition, a greater presence of an industrial base here that deals with those issues, will provide the type of cost savings that we need. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator collins.

>> i do not know if you are going to take a break -- >> yes, it sounds to me like we're going to take a break. this will not be a lunch break. this will be a brief five-minute break. >> great. >> a very quick break, we will finish the question is, and then you have a lunch break.

>> the armed services committee came in this morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. sounds like they're taking a five-minute break. we will stay live and continue our live coverage. leon panetta talked about libya and said the nato military operation, strong economic sanctions, and the enforcement of the no-fly zone are putting tremendous pressure on gaddafi in libya. he has been asked for spending for the pentagon, as well. more questions to come. the senate is in session today. they continued debate on the economic development administration, a proposed amendment that would delay pending new restrictions on the debit card fees charged to merchants failed to get the 60 votes needed yesterday.

"the hill" reports that senate republicans will hold a vote on raising the debt limit while imposing no limits on future spending. senator rand paul is leading the movement. the senate could vote on it as early as today. there's no word on pending vote in the u.s. senate, but you could follow the debate on c- span2. vice president joe biden, once again, will hold the next meeting of the bipartisan bicameral group of the members of congress he is working with on a comprehensive deficit- reduction. that meeting is happening at the u.s. capitol. it is scheduled to start in about 10 minutes 3 we will have no live coverage of that, obviously, but we will have cameras available, if there are comments after that meeting. we will get to those later in our program scheduled.

if this hearing wraps up on time, we will bring you a hearing this afternoon on the efficiency of federal property use. president obama has ordered federal agencies to eliminate properties that are not being used with a goal of saving $3 billion by the end of 2012. the senate government affairs subcommittee will hold a hearing at 2:00 p.m. eastern and that will be live, as well, on c- span.

>> senator blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for answering all our questions, for your extraordinary service, and for your very powerful and eloquent testimony today and your very responsive answers to all of the issues that have been raised. i want to second the sentiment that has been expressed by senator gramm, which is, i cannot wait to vote for your confirmation and i appreciate your willingness and patriotism to take on this very tough assignment. and also to second his views, and i think they are widely

shared, that we need fundamental and far-reaching reform in our methods of acquiring and terminating weapons programs. would you agree with that? >> senator blumenthal, i think director panetta would probably also agreed that secretary gates forot wait for us to gvote director panetta's confirmation. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. and speaking of secretary gates, i hope and assume you would agree with him that the second engine for the f-35 is unnecessary and should be terminated. >> i support that. >> and that we need to continue the sub building program at the rate of two per year, which is fairly noncontroversial. >> that's correct. >> would you also agree with

that theill wmullen greatest threat to our security today is the national deficit? >> there's no question in my mind that the size of the threat we are confronting. >> and we need to address that problem without excessive cost cutting in the defense budget. >> obviously, defense needs to play a role. when you are facing that size deficit, everything has got to play a role. >> i want to talk for a moment about one of the causes of those costs in both our defense budget and our veterans programs. they are a cost that is not necessarily in the headlines or

even reported. those costs have to do with tobacco use, tobacco addiction, and the cost of tobacco-related diseases. i know the defense department is very aware of this costs. as a matter of fact, it asked all military personnel and next year to make their 2011 new year's resolution to quit smoking. in fact, about $1.6 billion per year in department of defense costs are related to medical care that is provided for tobacco-related diseases and among the retirees from our military for veterans, about 80% of the $5 billion in annual cost of treating pulmonary disease are directly attributable to smoking.

the cost of smoking simply in dollar terms, medical treatment, is about at least $5 billion per year, not to mention the impact on readiness, which are, in effect, less fit, less physically able military personnel. more likely to sustain industries. more likely to be stressed out. more likely to be dependent and addicted to nicotine. the stark fact is that military personnel, 50% more likely smoke and use tobacco products than their civilian peers. my question to you is both immediate and a longer reach one. first, do you have any suggestions as to what can be done immediately? second, would you be willing to commit the resources and the interest of the department of defense to addressing the

problems of nicotine addiction and tobacco use and the related medical impacts? >> senator, if i am confirmed, obviously, one of the areas i have to focus on is the health cost. i think the area that you have just to find is one area that we do have to pay attention to in terms of its implications on health and costs. i will look forward to working with you to try to develop an approach that would allow us to , again, deal not only with smoking, but deal with other threats to health care that impact not only our soldiers, but frankly, the impact americans. >> and the families of our soldiers and veterans because of

not only the immediate effect of smoking or other kinds of health problems, but also the related impacts on families. >> that's right. smoking, good nutrition, good exercise, and a number of areas i think need to be focused on as part of the solution to dealing with health care costs. >> i would welcome the opportunity to work with you on those issues. >> thank you. >> let me say, while we're talking about veterans, i have offered a measure and a number other senators have to broaden and deepen the commitment of our country to caring for issues related to employment, homelessness, health care of our veterans and would hope that the department of defense would also increase its commitment in that area and hold under the leadership, it would, given your very moving and powerful remarks

about the need to take better care of our military personnel. >> senator, i really do feel an obligation to those that served. i do not treat this like a situation where once you have completed your service and to become a veteran that somehow you are somebody else's responsibility. i think we have an obligation to make sure people are treated right once they serve this country, not only now, but in the future. >> finally, because my time is close to expiring, one last question. the ammonium nitrate fertilizers that are the cause of probably the vast majority of the ied, very tragic and unfortunate injuries to our troops are

transported from pakistan. i wonder what can be done to stop that flow of fertilizer, the ammonium nitrate substances that are the basis of those explosive devices. >> senator, that is a continuing concern for us. it is not so much the transfer of the material, but it is actually the development of ied's, the explosives themselves, that we see taking place in pakistan that make their way into afghanistan. we have to take a number of steps, not only with the pakistanis, but also trying to check at the border to make sure we do everything possible to stop the flow. it is a very real threat. a lot of that is coming across the border. >> thank you very much and i look forward to working with you. thank you, once again, for your service to our nation.

>> thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to have you before the committee. we had a chance to speak, leon panetta. i'm delighted to see that a former omb director can make something of himself. you have done a great job as director. i know you've had the opportunity today to answer tough questions, but the tone has been appreciative and respectful. i am most concerned, as you know, on the budget front, particularly with regard to our major programs and the cost of growth, the time delays have been troubling to me on this committee. over the last four or five months, we've heard a lot of testimony. this is at the same time, of course, we are talking about not just restraining spending, but putting everything on the table to deal with our historic deficits, the debt overhang that

is affecting our economy so directly and affecting our future. i also think, for natural -- for national security to our men and women need the best equipment and a need it in a timely matter. the cost overruns annually are over $300 billion per year. this is compared to a decade ago when it was average $40 billion per year. the average delay is almost two years of delivering initial capabilities for these programs. the reasons are varied. sometimes it is internal department of defense process these, i think. sometimes it is the contractor processes. they have been subject to a lot of reports, directives, and public and private studies. the chairman has done some good work on it. we still have a long way to go.

this would be one of my major concerns. given your background experience, you are well qualified to address that. senator gramm cost about -- talked about joint agreements. we heard testimony that we are 80% over costs from the original estimates. and 30% more than the current base line. for 15 years of development and two years of operational production, we still do not have a stable design. i think that impacts our war fighters, as well. i realize department of defense is working on implementing the actem's acquisition reform and is ongoing, but frankly, there's a lot more that needs to be done. could you talk more about this

and the benefits of competition, as we talk about privately, and finding efficiencies? >> senator, because we share a common background, i think we understand the costs involved in this area. we are dealing with a culture that has developed that we have got to somehow change. i know during the period from 9/11, of thwe have lost a lot of money that has been put into the department of defense, equipment that has been developed during that period. a lot of it has been important to our national defense. a lot of bad habits have developed during that period. there is an assumption that outehow this thing can play a and the cost can increase as

dramatically as you have pointed out in some of these areas and somehow, somebody will still pay the bill. i think but we have got to do is to -- i think that what we have got to do is make clear that those who are involved -- they're great companies and good people. a lot of them do a good job. they have a responsibility to be able to work with us to develop better competition, to do some of the things that senator graham mentioned. the work that they are doing is not just money in their pocket. what they are working on it is important to the national security of this country. i think we have to work with them, work with contractors, work with others to try to develop approaches that can shave the costs that are involved and the delays that are involved. i know that this is tough.

some of this military technology is extremely intricate and involves a lot of complicated worked. i'm absolutely convinced there is thought to be a better way to achieve greater cost savings. i hope to work with you and others to do that. >> i am encouraged from our conversations and this testimony today that you are prioritizing that. if we do not fix it, we will be robbing from some of the fundamental responsibilities you would have as secretary of defense to protect our country. looking at some of these projections over the next decade or two decades, if we do not figure out how to deal with these overruns on the acquisition programs, it will take the entire current department of defense budget. we need to make sure our men and women in uniform are getting what they need. and the healthcare issue that you addressed today is the other one. if you look at the huge cost increases, it has to be handled in a way that ensures the focus

is on our national security concerns. quickly, on trade agreements, as you are aware, we are reviewing export agreements with the republic of korea, panama, and colombia. this has been increasingly clear that all elements must be used to provide for our security and build effective allies. these three countries are great allies, as you know. in response to prepared questions, you know that the republic of korea remains one of the strategies in the pacific. you plan to stay in close contact with your counterparts there and build on relationships built by secretary gates. it also noted the importance of government efforts to support department of defense activities providing training and equipment to panama, given the importance of the canal, and also with

regard to colombia. in testimony earlier this year, the commander described the trade agreement as open put a positive, beneficial -- as " positive and beneficial." how the uss the value from a security -- how do you assess the value from a security standpoint? you believe this is one way to combat the threats? >> senator, i think that when it comes to protecting our security, there are a number of areas that have to be addressed. one of those, obviously, is not just the military responsibility, but there is an economic side of this that plays

an important role in terms of providing better security. the ability of these other countries to develop trade with us, to develop their economies, create greater stability within those countries. i think that is a fact. to the extent that we can help promote that kind of trade, that we can promote that kind of economic development, i think it assists these nations in their ability to achieve stability. a good example is colombia. they have done a great job going after narco-track being -- narco-trafficking. that could become another added factor in providing british security in the region. the same thing is also true for korea. >> you think it will be positive for our national security interest? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate you coming by my office to have detailed conversations on a number of areas. having had the honor and privilege of meeting with weinberger when he was secretary of defense for four years, i'm well aware of the challenges of your job. i honestly believe that other than the presidency itself, this is probably the most difficult and complicated job in our federal government. i wish you the best. i also appreciate -- was gratified to hear your response to senator collins with respect to the need to rebuild our navy and get the navy's numbers up. the situation in afghanistan and iraq, as it allows us more

leeway on how we shape the department of defense budget, we really need to do that. the size of the navy right now is about 282 ships. the ground floor goal of 313 and all of the vital national interests that we have with respect to the stability of east and southeast asia will be very important for us to look at. in that regard, i would like to raise two points with respect to the situation in east asia and i would also like to ask you about the situation in libya. first, when we are looking at the tempo in east asia, we see clearly that the chinese military activities have dramatically increased in the past 15 or 16 months. the most glaring examples of that were the situation with japan about one year ago and

most recently, the chinese naval vessels cutting the table of a vietnamese ship that was exploring the possibilities of oil in the south china sea. these are basically related to sovereignty issues. they are not only national security issues, they also have downstream economic consequences. to me, they clearly talk to the commitments that we have for stability in this region. we have made these commitments. i think we are the key to the strategic balance in that region. i am wondering if you are of the same mind as secretary clinton was and gates was last year when they pretty strongly stated that we are not going to be deterred

from protecting the interests of countries in international waters in that part of the world. >> very much. that's an and screaming important region. we have to have a presence there -- that is an extremely important region to have to protect our presence there. we have to have respect for international law. there has to be freedom of the seas, so that we can do our job. i think it is important to have a relationship with china, but they also have to understand that by trying to advance in the china sea, they can interfere with our ability to navigate and that part of the world. >> or to unilaterally address sovereignty issues with respect to other countries? >> that is correct. >> thank you. that also gets to the very important question in this part of the world. the chairman address this and i heard your response to that.

i think the timing of addressing these issues, particularly with respect to japanese, is vital. we have been kicking the can down the road. we are not going to have stability in asia if we do not have it in northeast asia of. the only place in the world where the direct interest of russia, china, japan, the united states intersect. it was right in the middle of all of that. i hope we can work with you on the suggestions chairman levin, senator mccain, and i brought forward. >> i appreciate the conversation we had in your office. i know this is not an easy issue. that is why the can has been kicked down the road all these years, because of the cost, the

politics, and the diplomatic problems with each of these decisions. absolutely has to be addressed. we have to establish a stable situation. we cannot have a situation where we are playing this year to year. we need a long-term solution. i want to work with you, the chairman, and others. >> thank you. i do believe this is fixable. i've spent many years thinking about this. what we were able to come up with is at least the right approach and it could be done in a timely way, if we could get people to work with us on. doing. -- on doing that. with respect to the situation in libya, i take your point during your exchange with senator mccain that it is the president's responsibility to ensure national security. at the same time, we have the situation where when the president unilaterally decides to begin military operation and then continues it, where,

clearly, as a former member of congress, i think you would agree that the congress needs to be involved in shaping and downstream when something like that occurs. let me say this in another way. no one would disagree with the president's authority to unilaterally order military -- under eminent threats or invoking the right of self- defense, which i think is what we're doing in places like yemen -- we are coming to the aid of an allied based on treaty commitments. we are defending americans, protecting americans. we have a situation in this case for the justification is a humanitarian. you can see the potential for a very broad definition of what a

humanitarian crisis is. once that decision is made unilaterally by the president, it needs to be subject to the review and direction of the congress in my view. >> senator, it has been my experience as a member of congress and a member of administrations that while, obviously, the constitutional power rests with the president, once those decisions are made, in order for those decisions to be sustained, it's important to work with the congress to seek best advice and counsel of the congress and hopefully to get the congress to support those actions. >> i did hear you agree with senator mccain -- his, that nobody is thinking about putting american ground forces in libya. i assume that also means after the fall of the gaddafi regime. >> as far as i know, no one is

discussing any boots on the ground at any time. >> as you know, the house passed a provision to that effect with 416 votes and i have introduced a provision. i just think we have our hands full and it is not something we should be doing in the future in that part of the world. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are almost done. i was listening to senator nelson's litany of the challenges ahead of you and i certainly think you will get confirmed and i will vote for that. i thought, why does he want to do that? like everyone on this committee, i'm very grateful that you are willing to do that and appreciate your patriotism and commitment to the country. thank you very much for that. i also very much appreciated the opportunity to sit down with you and your willingness to

listen to some of our particular concerns in new hampshire. i was very pleased to hear you are familiar with the men and women at the portsmouth naval shipyard. i was pleased to hear your comments to senator collins about your commitment to address the backlog that both the shipyard and other shipyards around the country are facing. i was also very pleased that you were willing to listen to the good work that has been done by new hampshire's national guard deployed support program. listening to your commitment today to better serve men and women after they get out of the military -- i hope you will look at programs like new hampshire is and some of the other states that have been so successful. not only are our national guard

and reserves going to continue to play a greater role in defense, there is some very good data that shows how successful these programs have been. i think they serve as a good model for the rest of the military services to look at. i hope you will do that. >> thank you, senator. >> one of the reasons that we have been so successful in developing the technology for our national security and have given us our superiority in terms of our military might around the world is because of our national defense technology sector. new england and new hampshire have been a knowledge center for that defense technology sector. i wonder if you could speak to how d.o.d. or what d.o.d. is

currently doing to ensure there is a sustained commitment to that defense technology sector so they will continue to be there as we need them in the future. >> senator, i have not been fully briefed on all of the efforts to try to deal with preserving that kind of technology. if i am confirmed, i just want you to know that i am a very strong believer that if we are going to have a strong defense in this country, that we have to have industries here that our american. we have got to have technology capabilities that are american. we have got to be able to have a base of support in this country in order to maintain our defense systems. it does not mean we do not deal with our allies. it does not mean we do not try

to negotiate agreements with them in certain areas. if we are going to protect our national defense, we have got to protect our industrial base, our technology base, and we have to be able to protect the capabilities that we need here in order to make that happen. >> thank you very much for that commitment. as you know, a piece of that is the research and development needs and, obviously, the d.o.d. has been a very important part of ensuring that r &d gets done. given the budget constraints we are facing, are you -- how do you see that affecting our ability to continue to ensure that the r &d that we need is done? >> again, i do not think we can do this job without investing in research and development. as part of the process of making

sure -- we're at the cutting edge for the future. i recognize that as part of the effort to look at the entire budget in order to achieve savings -- all those areas will be looked at. my view is that if we want to protect the weapons systems, if we want to protect our capabilities for the future, we have to have good research and development at the same time. >> thank you. in talking to some of those new hampshire and new england companies that are part of our national defense manufacturing base, one of the concerns that i often hear from them, because there often doing commercial work as well as work for the military, is their frustration with our export control system. as i know you know, the restrictions are onerous. in many cases, they are out of date. they were really designed for a cold war system that no longer

exist. i know that secretary gates has been a real proponent of addressing that system. i hope that you will be as committed. i would ask how you see moving forward an agenda that update our export control system in a way that both protect our national security, but also recognizes that we need to be competitive globally? >> i want you to know, senator, that i share secretary gates' attitude. i think we have got to be able to develop 21st century approaches to this kind of exchange in order for us to be able to make sure that the technologies we have are in fact technologies that we're working with others to have. >> thank you.

i know you were asked earlier about iraq and whether we would continue to stay in iraq, if we are asked. like others, i have been concerned about increasing, violence increasing, -- about increasing violence and recent casualties. we just lost somebody from new hampshire in the attack over the weekend. i wonder if you can talk to what we need to do to keep our focus on the efforts in iraq, assuming that we are not asked to stay, how we will deal with drawing down the remaining troops that are there? >> at the present time, we are on track to withdrawing our forces by the end of 2011. i think that it is clear to me

that iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of presence to remain there. it really is dependent on the prime minister and on the government of iraq to present to us what is it that they need and over what period of time in order to make sure that the gains we have made in iraq are sustained. i have every confidence that a request like that is something that i think will be forthcoming at some point. >> my time is expired. i would like to explore that more later. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. director. i was going to say good morning. i realize it is afternoon.

i also want to end knowledge your tremendous leadership, your personal friendship, and your willingness to take on another assignment -- perhaps one of the biggest and most important in the federal government. i think we share a concern about the country's fiscal trajectory. secretary gates has pointed out this is a key threat to our national security, as has admiral mullen. i know we will not support any cuts that will harm our troops. a broke country is a weak country. you have had to deal with this at the agency. that is, how do you balance the needs and the resources? also, everything has to be on the table. i'm curious what your thoughts

are about what the right size is of our military and how do we determine what our mission will be? i have two easy questions for you. what role do you believe the american military should play in the world? as a senior military adviser to the president when you are confirmed, what would be a set of guidelines that you would use to recommend to the president where the military action is justified? >> obviously, i think the united states exercises a unique role in the world by virtue of our leadership in the diplomatic arena, but also because of our military power we are able to back that up. i think it is extremely important in today's world where there are so many challenges and threats we are confronting that we maintain a strong military in

order to deal with those kinds of threats. this is, you know, not only the fact that we are involved in facingut we're clearly increasing turmoil, terrorism, and other challenges. in my view, the united states plays a very unique role in the world as far as providing the kind of leadership that tries to advance universal rights, a peaceful approach to dealing with the world, that tries to advance. good economic and political. that is a unique role for the united states. i think we need to continue to send that message and to continue to exert that leadership. for that reason, i think having a strong military is essential to the longer -- to the larger

role the united states plays in today's world. we work with our allies. we work with nato to work with other nations. there's no question in my mind that the united states is the fundamental leader right now in the world in a number of ways. having the military strength to back up that kind of strength is important. with regards to how we approach the use of force, i think there are several important guidelines. one, what is the threat to our national interests? what is our capability to be able to respond -- our military capability to be able to respond to that kind of a threat? have we exhausted all other options to the use of force? lastly, what are the prospects to the support of not only the congress but the american people in that effort. i think all of those things are important considerations.

>> thank you for those thoughts, director panetta. i think this will be a topic of ongoing conversations, obviously, as we work to consider how, if we need to reconfigure the department of defense in a world of insurgencies and cyber security needs, satellite systems that are very important to all of us -- there's a real change under way. i also hope that we will continue to strengthen our relationship with china as it becomes more of an economic power. hopefully, it will shoulder some of the responsibility, because of its own self-interest, quite frankly. let me turn to energy. i think this has been an area of your interest, as well. it is one of the concern, but i also think great opportunity for us. admiral mullen has said