global nuclear disarmament is necessary of our country and our species in order to survive and flourish. i understand the need to maintain a deterrent program. do think program should be on -- do you agree that nuclear weapons programs that should be on the table it will reduce the spending over the next 10 years. >> we strongly believe that we have to maintain a strong deterrent against the countries that could potentially use nuclear weapons. with regard to reducing our nuclear arina, i think that is

in the area or i do not think we ought to do that unilaterally. you ought to do that on the basis of negotiations with the russians and others to make sure we're all walking the same path. >> certainly. i agree with this comment him the army has spent $2.7 billion trying to build and and balances platform. it is a program that is now five years behind schedule. it is over budget. it fails to meet the needs of our soldiers. an article of. earlier detailing some of these failures. it explained the program was unable to perform the simplest tasks. is this system -- we have put $3

billion into the system. the gentleman's time has expired. >> i think you on their responsibilities. i look forward to many more sessions with you. as you know, the president's budget todaythey cut a total of 1.6 $5 billion out of the ground-based missile defense system. the only defense system currently in place, are you committed to the adequate resources and of the ground- based missile defense system in the future? >> i am committed to adequately resource in what we have. >> de believe there are now an adequate number?

do you think there aren't adequate number of ground-based interceptors? >> i believe it is too limited. do you think there are an adequate number of those to counter the threat to our homeland and to provide for testing? norad and stratcom and look at our capability. i think we're in good shape. >> i look for it to continue this. as already scheduled budget cuts to the department of defense in access for the next 10 years begins to take place, do you anticipate the army reducing the number of brigade combats?

>> as former chief of the staff and currently chairman, i do anticipate that the army will reduce the number of brigade combat teams. not just because of the new fiscal environment. what have we learned of the last 10 years. we take a look at how many agreed combat teams seem need. the role and another battalion. we now know they need them. we will reduce the number of combat teams. it to be more capable. >> even if we had all the money

we need it -- >> are you anticipating a reduction of the teams that would correspond to the number of trips being brought home from those countries? >> there is a relationship between what they established as a demand. we know what a steady state demanded. we know there has be a minimum of 30. one is just out. one is ready to go. 30 is not the number. >> if there is this, how would impact the ability of our military to address the kinds of threats that you talked about earlier?

>> all bets are off. it is clear that. it will increase the number of risks within the military. in addition, we would hollow out the force. it required these cuts that would affect the training. >> anything you'd care to add to that? >> we have strings. one is modernization.

it is what it directs the chiefs to do. become out of balance. we will not have the military the nation needs. >> thank you. >> the chair has put the series of hearings together. you are the fifth in the series. general cody said this in his testimony --i have written it down because of something that stuck with me. the real question with regard to services are simple. what do you want our military counter. what readiness to what the military to sustain?

he says we do not predict well. we are here. this is almost what we were forced to do. from your vantage point, what is this vision they want to share with us i'm curious about your joint force statement. >> i think the general who testified it the right buttons. we have to look at the threats that are out there. we're dealing with a variety of threats that remain out there that are serious. it keeps the pressure on terrorism's of people cannot attack the country.

we are involved in those wars. spear have to bring them to an end. the area of dealing with iran and north korea, not only the nuclear proliferation constitute. we have got to be able to deal with the middle east and the unrest that is going on. we have to deal with the challenge of china and rising powers. we have to deal with cyber. we have to stay a few steps ahead of that at all times. if we do not, then we are not taking care of our business as elected officials in country.

having been said, i believe that global nuclear disarmament is necessary of our country and our species in order to survive and flourish. ?hat rises to the top t do think program should be on the table it will reduce the spending over the next 10 years. >> the intellectual framework is that when we get to 2020, we have to take into account -- 10-

years ago we did not have the capability insider. our special offering purses -- forces were nowhere near as capable as they are today. these two areas are exponentially more capable. in 2020, what is this exponential improvement and capability in those two areas that did not exist 10 years ago. 10 years from now, what will that allow us to do with the conventional force? how do we integrate those capabilities and not just keep piling them on top of each other? we run the risk that you articulated, becoming unaffordable. secondly, we will have to make some decisions about where in the world we will take more or less risk. that is a matter of understanding demographic change, climate change, economic change and which countries in the world are appearing to align themselves against our interests. our interests will not change.

we have been -- we need access to resources. we need to have freedom of navigation. we need to be partnered and issues of common interest with our allies and partners. we will be able to articulate that world and look back where we are today and use the next four years to build that force.

as we look at that clear strategic program for the department of defense, as he spoke of, there will be some risks out there within that decision making for more. the question becomes -- as you are faced, both of you are faced, with $450 billion in reductions in the next 10 years, how you calculate those risks? had you make priority decisions in a realm that is very dynamic and changes all the time and threats he emerged and threats disappear? as you look at prioritizing, can you tell us of this -- what are the three areas that you say have to be preserved and what are three areas most likely to be cut? >> [laughter]

it would not be fair to per those issues out there because we are in the process of looking at all those areas and trying to decide as we deal with the threats that are out there, what do we need to confront those threats and how can we respond and where is it that we consider some reductions. , we won't be able to respond in as many areas as we did that. what are the areas we have to prioritize? for example, lorea. we have a large presence there. in korea.

are there other areas like in europe? we have a structure in europe that is pretty broad. do we need to maintain all of that at the same time we deal with these other needs? you can see the kind of trade- offs that will have to be made based on the nature of the threat. by doing that, i need to make clear to everyone on this committee is that when you do that there are some risks associated with that. what are the risks if we reduce our presence in europe? it is the relationship with nato and their role. are we going to be able to fully provide the kind of support that nato needs in order to do its job? those of the kind of issues that i think we will have to debate.

just to be clear, i did not become the chairman of the joint chiefs to oversee the decline of the armed forces. it is a state that would have this nation in the military not be a global power. you'll never hear a say that will be very good and pacific bell we boy ignore the indian ocean. we cannot do it. this is not who we are as a nation. we will remain a global power. it to be the most dominant military in planet. as we look at the future and characterization, and is not a matter of ignoring anything. we can say that. it'll make us feel good. at the end of the day, we will not ignore anything that threatens our nation. risk is managed in terms of time. that is an indelicate answer. i can flesh it out for the overtime. i were to say we have to do to were three a day to our three -- if i were to say we need two or three things things at a time, you take up the rest. there are 10 things we need to be able to do. these we can take some risk in terms of time whether it is time to activate the component or generate it. time is the independent variable. >> thank you. >> thank you. congratulations to both of you. my mom is 100% italian. congratulations on being the second secretary of defense. let me associate myself with his remarks.

i represent a district in northeast ohio. it is critical that we have this money that we are spending. i spent years when i was first on this committee dealing with the very amendment. sometimes the waivers that were given they provide the materials for the military. as you continue to push down to the bureaucracy, some of this is taken into consideration. the one issue of want to talk to you about the pc off and, young kids have been killed in action. -- that you see on and off, and done the kids have been killed at in action. one and the issues that i have been concerned with is the kid

to come back can never be reestablished. there in the obituary section in the back of the paper. there are not parades. there are not huge services and community recognition. one of the issue is the extreme and prolonged levels of stress that they have in multiple tors. and being able to deal with this. i not only as combat troops in dealing with the stress afterward. this training program was established by liz stanely. it is being shown it is bullet proofing the thing.

it helps them deal with the stress levels. we see they do have diminishment with your ability to focus. what they're starting to see and study in the fields of neuroscience is that you can change the shape of your brain. this is important when you begin to teach the soldiers to raise their performance. and improve their performance as soldiers boarded their faculties. also being able to deal with the stressful situations afterward when they come back. i think if you look at this program, it can have a transformational affect.

that is my own opinion. -- effects. and giving these soldiers the tools they need for when they go back home. benefits now and benefits when they go back home andthe reports are getting there. it was there. it was one from the marine times article. the soldier learned this program after he got back and said he wished he had this. and i wanted to bring that to your attention. approaches. they can deal with what they're going to see and smell. >> i am willing to look at

anything that helps be able to do the men and women. -- serve the men and women when they come back from the battlefield to be able to adjust and be able to deal with the pressures and stresses that the bring back with them. this is a real problem. they have the suicide is taking place. it is an issue that bothers me terribly. it is unacceptable. i am writing condolence letters to those families. we have to go into. we ask these guys to go into horrendous conditions. they have to face in the edible -- incredible threats. there pulled out of that. they are brought back to this countrythey have to face that. andmaybe at some point we can have a committee on it and bring

the ones there. >> maybe we can have a hearing on it and bring the experts here. >> that is a good idea. the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you. thank you for your service and dedication. it is an honor to be with you today. i am reassured by your comments. he said not having a global influence is not an option. it is if $1 tram with a cut goes into it. goes into it. we will have this conversation with the american people. we have to build up there for some reason. we have a humanitarian disaster.

other parts are trying to see it. there's not going to be a way for us to respond to everything. if we break down the military with those cuts. we have to have the conversation with the american people. we cannot help israel if we had a buildup at have one or some other area. we have to have the conversation. i do not think the american people realize that not having this is one of the options that will be able to take away. bringing it down from that view, talk about i e d -- ied's/ you had dinner paxson. -- general paxton. it takes a long timethey are deployed. they get stuck to the field even if it is only in a the%--an 80% solution.

with the marine corps --i was there when they got the silk underwear because of the way things were going. this is the extents of what they can provide to our marines and soldiers. it is hopefully a cleaner extraction as opposed to a way to combat. my question is --what kind of outside of the box ideas are you bringing to the fight on the number one threat to our men and women? -- 70% of our casualties are caused by that. it is still there and that's my question. affected the fight? >> thank you.

speaking of defeating the ideas are thought about in three aspects. you have to defeat the device in network that produces it. is the supply chain, the leadership, the facilitation and the financing. andthen there is an issue called signatures. it is one of the creative ways we have been getting after identifying with the signature the component of an ied > that work is ongoing. what we have done is said that the ied is the enduring threat. to our force for the foreseeable futuresweeney to institutionalize it. it cannot be -- so we need to institutionalize it. off. is there and it will always be there. the enemy knows they can attack this this way. this organization is fully funded.

we can account for what you said. if it goes deeper, we have to take a look. everything will be affected if there is another phase of this thing. >> i think one of the real success stories was the ability to develop the vehicles that had to be done on a quick timetable to get them out to the battlefield. under most circumstances, that would get taken eight or 10 years. they said we need them. we need them now. we required it be produced within a timeframe. we got it done. we got it out there. we provided it out on the battlefield. this is the model i think we have to follow as we deal with these kind of threat. we cannot sit back and allow

this thing to go over a long period of time. we have to get it done. >> the normal process had to be bypassed. by this congress and by your predecessor. thank you both. i yield back. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. it is always good to share a table or opportunity with you. general, thank you for your service. i had a series of questions. i will send them to you in writing in save a little bit of time. in discussions about maintaining our industrial base, numerous questions have risen. about the outsourcing of key military equipment,the key for the missile is made in china. that raises a bit of a question.

many of the components that deal with the targeting of critical weapons are also made overseas. in china and other places. this is a major concern and i will send you a more detailed questions on it. from the far left to the far right, various think tanks have been had to do with the military. -- about what to do with the military. they're very interesting matrix can be put together. it is very expensive. -- it is very interesting. i will send you that matrix. you might find it a useful exercise. and is about where those things are. there is similar potential. i will let it go at that. you can comment if you likeyou can take a deep breath. >> thank you.

i wanted to say what an honor to be here. i appreciate your willingness to serve our country. i want to touch on something on a personal side. as it relates to our troops. we talked about strategic planning and that is very important as a move forward. with these cuts. this is very important. there are men and women that are currently serving our country both here and abroad. what this discussion is doing to them as they move forward. i had the opportunity several months ago to sit down and some soldiers. -- with some sort soldiers at fort rucker, alabamawe talked to

them about what they can do to help support them. this one soldier looked at me and his pride wife was sitting -- pregnant wife at his side. he looked at me with tears in eyes and said "do not worry about me. it just take care of her." we are fast approaching as we reach the frustration of -- many times this joint committee is a microcosm of all the problems we already have in congress. as a move toward this deadline date, it is that soldier and his wife and his family that is the real victim. time and time again, our military families have been the ones that have been the insurance policy against political debate here in washington. it is unconscionable. i think all of the answers are provided today relate to specific operations.

i want to give you an opportunity to talk about the effectiveness. our military families are certainly not a mean to the -- immune to the varied discussions here having here. i have small children. i work very hard to ensure that they know that they are loved and they feel secure. when you have a soldier serving overseas and whose spouse is at home having to worry about whether or not that paycheck is going to come for them to put groceries on the table or not to make a car payment our house payments, you said that no matter how awesome our technology is moving forward, our men and women in uniform are what make this military great. i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that

aspect of what we're looking at down the road. >> i thank you for that question. our men and women are out there putting their lives on the line. democracy. i think that one of the great national security threats is the disc functionality of congress and the inability to confront the issues that we face now. i think your concern is that this committee might fail to revive the leadership that it -- provide the leadership that it has been given or the responsibility it has been given to come up with the additional deficit reduction. that concerns me as well. i served in this house for 16

years. during that 16 years, we faced a lot of great threats and a lot of problems. the leadership was there on both side of the aisle. you were together to try to find solutions. what is very important for the super committee and all members of congress is to take the time to think about the sacrifice that those men and women go through to but their lives on the line in ordered to be able to defend this country. if the members of the congress would be willing to engage in same kind of sacrifice, then i think they will have earned the right to represent those constituents. >> thank you. i appreciate that. general? >> it is hard to answer a better question then the secretary just

it. everything we are doing right now and every deliberation about strategy and how we will uxor different reductions, but how we will deal with different reductions, the wounded warriors are the first issue we discussed. if we only and up with $1, it will go to a family. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> thank you. first of all, thank you so much for a decade of distinguished service. thank you for a dedication to maintaining a strong military. i'm reminded of a great one. -- the history of great britain wherethey still saw themselves as it were a power pitcher it was weakened by world war ii.

it turned to the united states. we assume that role. there's nobody behind us. china is the rising power. and at the want to turn the responsibility over to china. we have to maintain the strongest power. let me put three questions for word. if we run out of time, maybe you could answer them on the record. the first one is that we have a selective service system in place yet according to the army recruiting command,individuals between the ages of 18 and 22, 757 of them -- 75% are ineligible. for enlistment in the united states army. in 1973 it was the last year we had the draft. in 1974 we disbanded the

service. in 1979, and jimmy carter put it back on the table in response to the soviet invasion. it still exists today. it is not even in your budget. it is under the financial services committee. the question is, do we still needed to? -- need it? in south korea, i believe we are moving up from one year to three year and a company. unaccompanied. -- company tourismit is for our 28,000 presence there. that decision was made during the height of the iraq war. this was next to nothing. we are phasing out of iraq now. we will be phasing down in afghanistan.

both will expand. do you really need to spend the $13 billion that i believe is necessary? in military construction to accommodate the change in policy? can we do something that is more cost-effective? given the expansion of this. we could deploy battalions 46 month rotationsit goes to and from. . the last issue our concerns. i would like you to take a look at this. i think we have rank inflation in the military. if we look at the height of the cold war, and i was in the united states army, we had a military much larger. there are more officers there today. -- before star flag officers to thatit is a much smaller force. . we have as many animals as we have ships. -- admirals' as we have ships. i think this is duplicative through the rest of the military. i would like you to take a look at that. could you go through those three questions, please?

>> we are looking at this from bottom to top. the secretary will take the question about selective service. some of the rank inflation was result of international partners and their desire for their flags, we are looking at that. believe me. secondly,this is part of our strategy review to look at some are forward presence. it is notably in korea and europe. we determine how best to do it in affordable way. we are alert to the fact that it might become cost prohibited. -- prohibitive. we do need some structure there with families because of the message it sends. it increases and have soldiers there for longer amount of time. >> we're in the process of looking at everything that costs a lot of money.

that is one of the thing that costs a lot of money. we need to determine whether or not we can find some savings. on the registration, it is still required. there is a system. it is not associated with us. we ought to maintain the registration aspect. as the good for the budget cuts and into the future, if we face one of those surprises and one of those crises that suddenly occurs, we have to have some mechanisms in place to respond. the volunteer force is the best. i would not trade it for anything. it has served its purpose. we always have to be ready for the possible contingency in future. >> may i have 30 more seconds?

>> without objection. so ordered. >> in terms of looking at forward basis, whether or not we can demonstrate our support for our allies, whether nato or south korea through routine military exercises, we are spending almost 4% of our gdp on defense. i think only four are spending the required 2% required under the nato charter. in south korea, and they are spending their gross domestic product on defense. we are north of 3.6%. we care more about defending the north koreans than the south koreans. i yield back. scott from georgia. >> thank you.

i appreciate your being here. we have talked a lot about the cuts on the top line. i represent the air force base. -- robbins air force base in georgiaproperly managed, we can take our cuts. the men and women of the armed services are important to us. i cannot think of a better person to help us manage the new. one of my concerns is when i look at these things that we're doing that are drivers. -- cost drivers. the energy act of 2005 says that in new facility, we can have 0% of a fossil fuels by 2013.

a -- 2030. that means no matter of gas. that means no coal. in liezel petroleum. -- that means no petroleum. is that realistic? i think this is just one example of policy that has been put in place with many intentions. -- well-meaning intentions. it will take energy as a percentage of your operations from approximately 3.5%. it is up to a more significant portion of your budget. what other cost drivers are there like that that we could make some changes to that would help you reduce your cost? >> as part of the strategy approach to look at the overall

means and to determine where we go, i really do have to put everything on the table including what you just discussed. we have to look at all of that to make sure we are implementing the most cost- effective approach to dealing with these issues. at a time when we bring getting a blank check and things are doing fine, you could do all kinds of things. i am in a situation. i have to tighten the belts. i had to look at everything. this is something we have to look at to make sure it makes sense. >> i hope you give us a list of things they need. i do believe that in order for us to reach our top goals without affecting national security, we're going to have to look at cost drivers like that.

waited three hours for me to ask that question. we are ready, willing, and able challenge. i yield back meantime. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the indiana. >>clyde thank you. thank you mr. secretary. thank you for visiting us today. i have been incredibly encourage, more so than any that i have attended so far. you have discussed in direct way the need to assess risk to accept it. to articulate precisely which risks where willing to accept to do the whole probability of risk times anticipated costs of any given threat. that's exactly the sort of analysis i have been pushing for four months. i know others have as well.

i think he for year leadership. -- i thank you for your leadership. coming out of that analysis,we will be able to prioritize missions. that will inform our spending decisions. in washington. where do they fund personnel? what skill sets and david? -- what skills that are needed? what weapons platforms? that is the way we do business. it is really repressing. -- refreshing. bit. in the coming weeks and months,perhaps you will be required to get some more clarity as to what our nation's doctor and is. -- doctrine is. you indicated that our country is becoming a safe haven for terrorists. that is a bit too vague for me. we got bin laden. al qaeda has dispersed.

if there is a safe haven, it is in pakistan. what is this doctrine that justifies a ground presence in afghanistan? how do we measure success if it is justified to have an american presence? what is the exit strategy? it is going to take will pass my reserved time for you to be able to answer that. as you get halfway into entering the first question, my time will expire. i just want to encourage you to clarify. people are losing their legs and dying. we owe it to them. i am going to focus on one aspect of our exit strategy. that is our fiscal commitment to the region. it remains open ended.

we're spending $120 billion a year. as far as the eye can see, we're going to continue to spend money in that region in form of foreign aid and military assistance to harden the forces there. what is this administration's economic strategy for afghanistan? under the law,it was required to present to this congress before you were sworn in bac in dean. -- back in june. we are still waiting on it. >> i understand the concerns and issues you raised. both of us can fully respond to it. i did not support going into iraq. if you look at iraq today, it is a more stable country in

very important region. it is exercising self- government. it is exercising the kind of rights and responsibilities that it never enjoyed in pass. as a result, it becomes a more secure area. it becomes an area in which they can govern themselves. they can exercise the responsibility of maintaining stability. i hope that we can do the same in afghanistan. >> that is the economic strategy for afghanistan. that is nearly what i am asking for. if you wish to follow up, i understand. >> the economic strategy is a lot easier. in iraq. they have an oil resources.

it is tougher in afghanistan. they have minerals andnone has been fully developed. providing that kind of support and allowing them to be economically independent is going to be part of the solution. otherwise it will not work. >> as you say independent, i think trade. might trade be part of the answer? >> very much. >> i am very encouraged to hear that. i look forward to moving the ball forward. >> the chair now recognizes mr. platts. -- from pennsylvania. >> i am honored to be here. i want to thank both of you for your many, many years of dedicated service to our nation. we are blessed by you. i want to first express on a policy gratitude to be

assessment of where we are. that we do not do this on the backs of our courageous men and women in uniform. you both have the been a very rigid played very important roles of in assessment of where we are with the cuts that are already coming and what that will do to national security and our commitment to the men and women and in uniform. it is so important to this dialogue. die thank you -- i thank you. i'm running back and forth between a market and government reform. you heard your opening statement. your focus on financial matters but within the department in the oversight and government reform

committee, share the subcommittee on financial management. three weeks ago, we had undersecretary hill as deputy before us telling us where dod is moving to 2017. i was delighted when i listened to the radio this morning and heard your reference to trying to expedite the process and getting to that clean audits. it is a heroic effort to get a clean audit. internal controls is where it's at. the second is that we not repeat the errors of the past. in 12 years, we spent over $12 billion and unfortunately did

not get results from $1 billion of taxpayer funds. we learned from that and we don't want to repeat that. your leadership on financial management on the civilian side and a general density on the uniform side will be key. this ultimately is making sure we have the resources to provide the training and the equipment that our men and women need and we do right by them and their families. your focus on that -- beyond the general scope of the hearing today is a concern i have regarding our efforts in afghanistan. when the president announced the surge which recommended back in 2009 and started to draw down trees this year, an important aspect of this was based on the facts are on the ground. i accepted the decision that he is commander in chief and our military leadership at the department could begin the troop drawdown this year.

my concern is that we're already committed to 23,000 next year when we don't know what the facts will be on the ground next year. if we're glad to sit by that number, i hope within the department and the joint chiefs that we will look at least moving it back to december 31 once the winter sets in. it is currently september 30. that creates a hardship for our commander is on the ground in how to deal with the full season in afghanistan next year. i will let you wrap up. you have been very patient i want to conclude with thanks for both of your leadership and we are blessed because of both of you being in the positions you are in. >> thank you for your remarks. i want to assure you that general allen has been outstanding in the way he has addressed his command position there. i will rely a great deal on his

recommendations. >> great to hear. thanks again and i wish you both great success in your new assignments. to have both of you in your positions as a blessing for our nation. >> the gentleman yield back. seeing more -- no more questions, i will reserve the last question for myself. secretary panetta, as others advocate for sharp cuts to defense, the actual implementation of these cuts are rarely discussed. i'm concerned as such a rapid decline in funding could result in an increase in short-term costs. for things such as termination costs and contract to have committed to an increase procurement costs. can you describe how unplanned reductions be implemented and what liability could we face? >> i think we have to take those

issues into consideration. i don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face in this process. if we try to get savings that we have identified and it will wind up costing us more because we have done it in a stupid fashion, i think that is a mistake. as i mentioned earlier, i went through the process and i know all the dollars that people looked at for huge savings. they did not take into consideration the cleanup for the work that had to be done for all the needs that had to be addressed. in many cases, it wound up costing more. i don't want to repeat that mistake. >> very well. again, see no questions, members may have additional questions, please respond to them in writing. i want to thank the witnesses for their service to their country and for their testimony here today. the witnesses are excused, this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [general hubbub] [general conversation]

[room noise] indistinguishable chatter] >> next, live, your comments and calls on "washington journal." at 9:00 a.m., the coverage of the martin luther king jr. memorial celebration.

>> i am the first one to admit every day that i have to get up in the morning and tell myself i can do this, there is no one better to do this than i am. >> harvard medical school, associate prof. of neurosurgery and oncology at johns hopkins university, homeless, illegal farmworker -- >> i have to believe that every time i go into the operating room i have someone's life in my hands and i am fully capable of getting this patient in and out of the operating room because that is a trust these patients have on me. i walk that fine line between confidence and arrogance. >> he shares his life story tonight of "q &a." >> this morning, the former staff economist for the president's council of economic advisers talked about the major economic proposals set forth by economic proposals set forth by