credibility to be able to do that and i hope we can deter people from causing us to conduct significant land operations, but we must have the capacity and capability to deter. that should be a significant part of any strategy. >> you hit on a series of specifics and people need to understand that the addition of military forces or the reduction in military forces as an extraordinarily negative impact and cannot be done overnight with experienced military forces. i would like to hear from your colleagues -- this is a real world when we talk about this -- threatening our ability to respond >> as i said

previously, we have a hardened, battle tested force, one that has known 10 years of combat, one where we have leaders that have grown up with nothing but combat capability and experience and for us to move forward as an army and a joint force, we must be able to sustain these individuals who are capable and understand warfare, who understand the future, who can think what we might face in the future. we must remember we have passed a law of these individuals. many of them have been deployed three, four, five times. they believe what we have done is important and they believe we must sustain this capability over time. if we start continuing to whittle away at our capacity and capability to such an extent, they could get frustrated.

if they get frustrated, they might decide to leave the force. it would then cause us to have a significant hole in our force which is our leadership. i believe leadership council almost any problem if it is the right type of leadership. >> this has a direct effect on military families. we want the military families to be supportive of their loved ones who are serving, thank you. >> mrs. davis -- >> thank you for your leadership. i will follow up on a personal question or two. given the situation we are looking at, we are focusing more on short-term sequestration. in the long term, can you help me out with a discussion of

what forms and the personnel system which should be looking at today? is this the time to address the military retirement issues? the other issue that is important is jointness in health care. there are growing pains in the realignment, i think we will be seeing how well that works. we also know san antonio, brooke army center has done that. where are we on that issue? could we be thinking seriously about those reforms and perhaps there are others you could suggest so that part of the question that the super committee is looking at is not just tomorrow and next year, it is 10 years out. where are we on those reforms?

i would say at the outset that we cannot look at one piece of the overall compensation package. it includes pay and benefits and so on and includes medical care and includes retirement. a concern we all share is that we look at this piece mail and we make choices on this or that without connecting the dots. if we proceed with reform or change and, certainly, we need to address this, to have an intelligent discussion about it -- we should not do this drip by drip. if we're going to do an adjustment, we should do it all and a comprehensive, onetime fashion so our internal

audience can take this on and a just and move on. what we don't need is incremental change in this respect. with regard to dbb - there were some aspects of what the business board suggested that are interesting. one thing they did not do and i know you believe this is there is nothing in that report about recruiting and retention. what this whole package is about is recruiting and retention. to make suggestions and blow off recruiting and retention was not a solid approach. >> if i could just add on reforms -- i echo general schwarz's comments. this is not something we can rush into. this has to be studied because of the second and third effects

it could have on our ability to sustain an all-volunteer force. people sometimes tend to overlook the sacrifices that are made not just by the soldiers but the families themselves and what they have given up so their soldiers and marines and airmen can perform their duties and this all plays a role as we look at pay and retirement. we are taking a quick look at it and it has to be something that is much deeper so that we understand the overall impacts on the individuals and their families and the future of our all-volunteer force across all services. >> i completely agree. there is another piece. at the conclusion of this, there will be a reaction by the force. we will need to shape and recruit and where we need help

is the authority to do the right thing. in my view, diversity is a big deal for the future. the skills that are out there to make our force motivated and revenue -- relevant such that we need to open up our aperture in diversity. that and the ability to shape the force correctly, to be able to have a discussion with our people as to why we may need to shape it, maybe ask more, maybe lay people off, maybe we can do it properly and dignified. >> sorry -- >> mr. conaway -- >> the two roles on display are policy makers and implement tears. we have a real chasm between them. -- implementers.

we may have to squeeze things into smaller pie, said tuesday. we would love to be able to have a clearer information that says the nation has these risks and if you don't want to protect the nation, we can save money here and there. there is a construct that to operate under that has a variety of things. should all of this encompass 8 redo -- a redo of the forced construct? this can help policy makers understand there are risks to doing some of the things that have been agreed upon that you are trying to implement for your team. can you give us comments about

what the overall backdrop of what you are planning to do should we change that first before we squeeze you guys through these square pegs? >> first off, is about determining where our priorities are and what our strategies are. we are talking about that now. ultimately, what is the capacity and what can we do? the defining construct will have to be looked at and have to be changed. with the reductions that we are looking at, the air force and navy have taken some already in the army will take a significant amount of force reduction -- we will have to look at the planning constructs we have and we will have to be forthright and honest about what we can do and what we can't do. there will be some things will no longer can do. i think we have learned some things over the last 10 years over what we can't do. as we get into these deeper

cuts, we will have to define and explain to our force structure planning factors what we are able to do and not permit it has to be part of what we are doing. >> for the navy, where do you not think we need to be? that is where we are today and it will be less. what geographic commander do we have to have a conversation with and get more innovative to conduct this influence or decide where the force structure can deploy to. we cannot deploy quicker. we are at limit right now. >> there is an effort going on within the department of defense. i think it will find its way here to congress. that effort is informed by the future security environment.

what do the next two decades portray? what does it tell us that the threats are that are out there? we talked about that this morning in our testimony. based on that, what do we need to do to navigate -- to mitigate those risks and how much we can afford? it gets informed by the fiscal realities. we are in that process right now. the national strategy is a process where all part of. i want to give you the confidence that this is being done the right way as we approached this. we're just not ready yet to say precisely what is it you will not be able to do but clearly there will be some things we will not be able to do and that will have resource implications for procurement and operations and maintenance. >> thank you.

i was out at the national ground intelligence yesterday afternoon and some of the things they were considering is here is the capacity and here's what it does and it will go away. as a policy maker, it is very clear. it is easy to do that on a small-scale vs across the entire department of defense. i think our nation needs to understand that with these cuts, even the 465 there will be risks that we face and people say in hindsight, shame on you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much for being here today, you're in testimony, and you're incredible service to our nation.

we are all in your debt. diplomacy information, military factors are important to our national security. that makes the fiscal solvency of our nation a national security issue. sacrificing our strategic needs to pay the bills -- we have to make smarter decisions about where and how we spend our money and how we address current and future threats. two areas i focus on is the nuclear arena as well as cyber security. we face particular challenges in cyber and yet not quite gotten our arms around with a chap -- what those challenges are and how we guard against that threat.

we face the threats from pierre competitors and asymmetric actors -- peer competitors and asymmetric actors. we're threatened by the current budget situation. a nuclear deterrent must remain credible while we simultaneously work to save revenant -- save revenue. in cyberspace, there have been upgrades to our defense system but we still have a long way to go to keep pace with the challenges every day in the digital realm. on both these points, where can we be making more efficient investments in nuclear and cyber in order to soften any larger

program impact from constraining budgetary requirements? >> i would say that cyber may be the only 1, 2, or 3 area that may grow by miss it -- by necessity as you outline. they come from other places in the broader portfolio. we have cyber command. each of us have component commands and expertise that defend our nets and operates potentially in a more offensive manner that is maturing and need your continued support. with respect to the nuclear area, i would make a personal appeal and that is that this committee needs to influence the thinking of another jurisdiction in energy and water

with respect to the renovation of the b-61 weapon. that weapon is the item that is paired with our bombers. it needs to be updated. the life cycle improvement effort needs committee support and likewise from energy and water since it is nsa that will perform that function. >> i think general schwartz had it right on cyber. we could look at the organizational construct we're putting together. there may be efficiencies in the capability. it will probably grow. with regard to strategic nuclear, how many ohio-class

replacement submarines we need can be studied. what is the right number of structure we need to deliver? for the requirements? that is under deliberation as we speak. the need to have credible and reliable and one that provides deterrence is unmistakable. that line has to be held. >> with that, i want to thank you all for your testimony and i may have some questions for the record. general schwartz, a couple of months back, i had the opportunity to travel out to prea creech. maybe we can talk and a close said about my thoughts about that. it was a great experience to visit our air men out there.

i am grateful for their service and next week i am traveling to texas to visit the 24th air force. i want to take a close look at what is happening out there. thank you all. >> i look forward to it, sir. >> i am counting the numbers we have left and some have to leave it 12:30 and it should work out just right. >> thank you so much for your service to our nation. i want to begin by noting that everybody that serves in our armed forces are special because they volunteer and put their lives on the line to defend this nation. we also have a very elite force of air man, marines, soldiers, and sailors that serve this country every day in some challenging roles as we place them around the world in what we know continues to ever-expend in

their mission. i look at how we challenge them and if you look at what is happening in afghanistan and we have used them in more and more roles and they will be their past 2014. we see a mission in central africa. as we watch and see the history of what happened there, we see some trends that should concern us. just last month, a 29-year-old sergeant first class in the 75th ranger regiment was killed on his 14th deployment in the last nine years. 14 times he boarded a plane knowing he was going downrange in harm's way. in a situation where time back, short and they continue to be placed in some of the most challenging conditions anywhere on the face of the earth -- to their benefit, they served this nation -- to our benefit, they

served this nation and they continue to make sure they perform in an admirable way under trying conditions. with budget cuts and looking at the challenge we have going forward with resources, how we going to continue to track the quality of men and women we need across the armed forces in an all-volunteer force? as we look to recruit the best but to retain the best, how will we make sure that that mission capability stays where it needs to be for this nation to meet those challenges especially when there are questions about each of the service branches in budgets and what needs to be cut? all these things are concerned for me and i want to get your perspective on how we meet these challenges. i am sure you get the same

questions i guess. i get questions on a daily basis for men and women who serve this nation who are concerned. we tracked the communications beckham into our office. for the past month, the top of the list has been service members and their families with questions about what happens with their pay and benefits and what will we do to support military families. give us your perspective on this. >> first and foremost, as we go through this process of budget reductions, we think about the soldiers and their families and the impact will have on them and whatever programs we develop in the future will ensure that we maintain programs that are good enough and, frankly, allow them to want to continue to serve and we're focused on this. we are absolutely focused on this. i think what we have to do as we

look at this is it is about the arms, leader development, people understanding the importance of what we do and why we do it. it is about fair and balanced benefits and pay, retirement, medical care, that they can be assured that they will be taken care and their families will be taken care of based on what we ask them to do. i know i am being somewhat general but i want to tell you that we are absolutely focused like a laser on this in the leadership. it is so important to our men and women. it is fundamental to the all- volunteer army and all-volunteer force. if we miss this, it will do irreparable damage to our capabilities. i probably did not answer you specifically but would look at this carefully every single day, sir. >> we have a term and the navy

call 'fencing' whatever capacity is reduced, the threat is not reduced. the kids are tired and they come home and their families are tired. that has to be done right up front. i think we need to hold a covenant. we need to retain the covenant they have. they join for a reason. there was a contract we had and we need to own up to that contract. >> i would just say that as an example -- like the navy, we said we would not cut liaisons', cut exceptional family programs or child care. we will go other places. we understand that more than ever, service and any of the

armed services is a team sport. -- in any of the armed services is a team sport. >> keeping faith is the opposite of breaking faith. we talked about pay compensation send reduct -- we did not really get to where there is a point where paying compensation begins to have an effect on the all- volunteer force. secretary panetta has several principals and one of the key once he goes back to every time he talks publicly is keeping faith. that can mean many different things but for us in the marine corps, it means the marines and families that are out there looking at us as an institution of leadership. those who wear the uniform and across the potomac in congress.

we have their best interest at heart. even though they understand that there will probably be some adjustments in paying allowances and that type of thing, we have their best interest and we're not breaking faith with them. that is pretty nebulous but that is the sense. the minute we lose that, we will have a difficult time retaining and bringing people back in. that is the first point. there is another side of this which is interesting which concerns me. there is central fulfillment in the man or woman who joins the marine corps today. they are actually getting to do precisely what we advertise when we recruit them. they may be on their fourth or fifth deployment. i'm not saying that is easy or we should just continue to do this for the sake of

recruitment but there is a sense of feeling good about what they are doing for our nation. as i look at the draw down and coming out of afghanistan, within this institution, one thing we will have to look at is how we address that sense of fulfilment of doing something bad is important for our nation. 1980'sber the 1970's and and 1980's and it was pretty bleak. we were trying to see commissions. that will have an affect on retention and that is a challenge we have to look at. there is a sense that we will need that -- it is not that we are buying people off but we will satisfy their needs and keep our arms around them and they will know that we are keeping faith with them. >> we proceed to mr. andrews of

new jersey. >> i would like to thank each of you gentlemen for what you have done for our country. i am hearing two points of consensus in the hearing today. i think we can achieve a third one and avoid this sequestration. the first point is that a great country cannot live on borrowed money forever. you cannot have a strong and growing economy by having a huge deficit and desperate the second point is that -- deficit and debt. we can argue about numbers because it is backwards. you should not make decisions about defending your country by saying here is the number we need to hit so let's figure out what to do. you need to figure it out by realizing what you need to do for your country and then figure out the numbers. this is meant for my colleagues. i think we could have a third

point of consensus that we could have a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan that is 3/4 spending cuts, probably the military spending cuts would not go beyond what is already in the august 1 law. if we had $1 trillion in revenue from the top 5% of people in the country, we could have a deal. on to the issue of what the sequestration would mean an my point about not backing into a decision on this -- i think the heard several of you say there is a strategic review under way and that would be shared with the committee when it is complete. did i hear that correctly? great. do we have a sense of when that would be available to look at? >> i think at the end of the year, toward the end of the year. >> thank you.

let me ask a question that is not rhetorical. if you excl the overseas contingency operations and look only at the remaining defense budget and compare what we are spending in 2011 vs. 2001, and inflation-and dust -- in inflation-adjusted dollars, it is higher than 2001. our strength is essentially the same peri. about 1/4 of that increase has been absorbed by greater compensation for our men and women in uniform. i am absolutely for that. where did the other 75% of that go? we've increased the core defense budget by about 30% over what it was in 2001 in real dollars a excluding personnel increases

and housing increases. where is that 30%? where is the money? >> we have $35 per barrel oil in 2001 and is now wanted $35. >> that is absolutely right and i know our fuel costs are high and it would be lower if we had independent energy sources. >> shipbuilding and ship repair, the labor costs? see the costs -- shipbuilding and ship repair, the labor costs exceed the costs of 2001. i will follow up on that. there is a noted difference in our cost for future shipbuilding where we underestimate because we use

indices -- >> one issue that concerns me is that if you look at the rdt &a accounts before we get to a weapons.le sibbers was going to be $1 billion a copy and now it is going to be $4 billion. how, get a better grip on rdt &a phase? >> as we go through the process of procurement, we have to look at competition and how we increase competition and increase contractors in private industries and used of theirr &d. we're starting to figure that out. there might be time to look at if we are doing redundant and

overlapping testing. do we need to take a review of our testing requirements? sometimes we have tests done by private injury -- industry and then we redo the test for it is our errors we could look at that could reduce those costs. >> my time has expired and thank you for your exemplary service. >> we proceed to mr. duncan of california. >> thank you all for your service. i was just over at the marine corps birthday at the library of congress. there was a great speech over there. when i was f anallujah, i don't think it was -- when i was in fallujah it was not so tough.

i would like to mention a couple of things. where is the money? and distributed common ground system -- many organizations are using intel software callpalantel which is cheap. it is pa based ony pal. -- it is based on paypal. they say the big cloud will work at some point. they said they will have its own but they never really get there. when you come with an off-the- shelf product for the entire money would be $25 million, this will be $2 billion or $3 billion

out. you have examples like that that any of us could findthe lcs - the navy owns a ship called the stiletto. it uses entrapment technology and can go to 60 knots which has stalledthe lcs does not have stealth. it is a fast frigate. they would shoot it out of the water in a heartbeat. the navy still does not have anlcs but they have two different models of a fast frigate. it is still not stealthy. it is not as fast as the stiletto which the navy homes in san diego. it is time to prioritize. one of the things we are -- one of the reasons we're here is one of your predecessors did not

mislead us but they said they are ok. they said they can do more with less. they said they can get the job done and do what they need to do with what they have been given. the reality is that we are not be able -- you are not going to be able to do the job if your ass to do anymore with what you are given. we probably need to double or triple the number of mews in the united states marine corps because of everything going on. we still seem bogged down in the old ways of doing things where it it it is not being made by number 3 -- northrop grumman or one of the big five, we will not look at because it is not being done by one of those guys who as a lobbyist who is a former general who is a friend of somebody ind dod. how do we move forward and

prioritize and get out of the same old ways of things that are not tried and true but tried and failed. we keep spending money. we're not getting the bang for the block anymore. the money is going somewhere and it is not going into furthering current technology or discovering better technology. how can we avoid that? we will be doing more with less now and it will take some thinking outside the box to do it. >> your problem familiar with this example -- we started this week with a network experience in fort worth, texas. there is a unit or contractors, and the size contractor, can come in and provide a product that will meet the requirements we need for the networks the. the future can test it and try it out and it will be evaluated and soldiers are using it.

they will provide them feedback and it is on board -- on their own dollar to do that. after that, will choose the best of breed across the variety of small and large contractors of what might be the best system for us to use. as fast as our networks change and technology continues to move, it will allow us to upgrade every few years. these a the kind of things we have to do. we will see more competitiveness which drives better and cheaper product. i would invite you to take a look at that if you have not already. i am encouraged by what is going on out there with those type of things that we have to do. we have competitors coming in developing their own products. they're not necessarily what the large defense contractors coming up with systems for us to look at and provide us with options

that will be much more fundamental and much more resource-friendly to us as we move forward. as we revamped and review how we need to do acquisition within the army, this will help. >> there is a little bit of the goodness that happens when you get pressurized fiscally. we have roughly 40,000 vehicles in the marine corps --, thanks7- tons, mraps, humveees - as to build the marine corps to come down, we took the total vehicles in the marine corps down to 30,000. of that, 23,000 were so arehumvess. as a look atjltv and replacing

the crown to tactical vehicles strategy, we have to say what is good enough. what is it over the next 10 years that will be good enough? how much moneyi turfzation do we need -- come much -- how much modernization do we need? we have built an affordable plan ungrounded tactical vehicles built on what is good enough. we have done the same thing in aviation. harriers - what is good enough and how long will this last? there is an awful lot of this going on.

in your district, you have seen the benefits of the energy efforts that the marine corps is the doing atmcrd and mirqamar with the methane plans. t. we can significantly save a lot of money and energy and we will do the same thing in the expeditionary field. we had the first prototype to carry this expeditionary energy in the field. we are on the big time. that is another way we can save so bad as some of the goodness that comes out of pressurizing our budget. >> that was a very important question and our remaining witnesses can respond for the record because this is an important issue. we now proceed to mr. johnson of georgia. >> thank you.

general odierno, following up on mr. hunter's question -- the arm isd6 intelligence program is behind schedule and there are private services better use by the marine corps. the army is slated to spend billions in the coming years to field this program despite its consistent shortcomings. will you pledge to take a hard look at this program as a possible source of savings? >> i am looking at every one of our modernization programs and procurement programs to see where we can get savings. i will take a hard look at this. i will provide your feedback as we do this. >> nine q. -- thank you.

do you think the army could potentially find savings by reducing the footprint of our ground forces on the european continent where our allies are or should be capable of defending their own territory? >> this would be part of the strategy review we do where we decide to put forces and based on that strategy, if it is determined that we can reduce our commitment to europe, we will work carefully with our allies to take a look at that. >> thank you. admiral, how can the navy developed better partnerships with the chinese navy to establish a collaborative rather than adversarial relationship in maintaining international security? is that a naive question?

>> not at all, we need to find those areas of security where we have common ground. we are working on that. counter-piracy, the chinese contribute to the effort in the gulf of aden. they are not part of the coalition but there are many nations not part of the defined coalition. they checked in and we have liaison officers that swap relevant and tangible parts of that. there is counter-smuggling, counter-weapons of mass destruction, search and rescue. we need to look for those areas of common interest, developed those and that will get us to good relations. these have -- these things have fits and starts because we are part of the results of the political aspects of the relationship of our nation and a diplomatic part of it.

we must continue to develop them to eliminate miscalculation. >> thank you, general amos, what would be more rain court f-35b fleet contribute in arm -- in a major conflict? is the f-35b program essential to our national security? is it on pace? >> congressman, let me start from the back and go back to your first question. it is on pace. it is ahead of schedule right now. it is at a performance on tests flight and test plans. the five engineering issues they had a year ago at this time have been resolved through

engineering redesign. in some cases, that is already installed on the airplanes and the change has been approved. there will be fitted on the airplane in the early part of next year. the airplane just came back from a successful test for two weeks. they're flying short takeoff and vertical landings off an aircraft carrier in virginia. their plane performed fabulously. would you get out of that airplane for our nation is the capability -- what you get out of that airplane for a nation instead of just aircraft carriers is you have 22 because the f-35b will fly off the smaller carriers.

much like what is being operated off the coast of yemen and and the gulf ofaden with harriers and off the coast of libya, those are short takeoff and landing planes. without that, we reduced our capability by 50%. >> let me ask you this last question about those trials on the u.s. w s.asp - what was the effect of f-35b jet blast on the service. i'm sorry for interrupting but my time is running out. >> it was negligible. the expectations were that it would be significant. it was shockingly negligible to the point -- i was on the ship -- the report back is that it

was insignificant. >> very good, thank you. >> we proceed to dr. fleming of louisiana. >> thank you gentlemen for being here today. you had distinguished careers and we all appreciate the great work you are doing. first of all, i get what you are saying -- $465 billion in cuts that you are barely able to swallow and now we're talking about increasing that to over $1 trillion in four years and that tickets from a high risk level to a dangerous level. -- that takes us from a high risk level to a dangerous level. i knew we would be here today talking about these problems. my question -- my first question is for general shorts.

-- general schwartz. i understand there is a decision not to initially certify the long-range strike bomber for nuclear operations. and air combat command, not global strike command will be the lead major command on the program. can you explain in detail the rationale behind these decision? i am concerned about de-emphasis on the nuclear role. with all these risks involved, that makes this world more dangerous place but the one area where there is no tolerance for risk is in the area of nuclear waweapons. >> we agree that there is no tolerance for error in that business.

there is an aspect that the airplane will be dual-capable. it will be nuclear-capable and a conventional long-range strike platform as well. the logic is to design and build the airplane to perform the nuclear missions. this will not be back in later. this will be done in the design and build process. we are trying to control costs. part of that is controlling how elaborate your test process is. we will phase this in in a way that will initially introduced conventional capability which is easier to test, less costly to test, and then as we get closer to the time when b-52 and b-2

age out, we will certify the airplane for nuclear operations. it will have the internal and all that is required. we simply will might do the test for certification which is quite elaborate and includes electromagnetic pulse and so on until a little bit later in the sequence. we think that is the prudential thing to do to bring this platform in cost and on time. with respect to who is in charge, and i am in charge the secretary of the air force is in charge. the combat command is the lead command because they have the acquisition and requirements capacity in their headquarters. global strike is still somewhat new and will acquire that capability over time. the idea was to give this to the

command that had the capacity. they have that now and we will think about when the time comes. >> i may come back to you. general odierno, i have a question for you -- is it true that certain requirements like the army's long standing need for additional land support printing operations will require further resources in this constrained budget environmental? do you believe that the ongoing range expansion at the jrtc is a mission critical alternative? >> as we draw down and come out of afghanistan and other places, it is imperative that we continue to improve the tools of

our training program which is the national training center and make them the most capable facility so we can prepare ourselves a plea for the upcoming threats so we can properly train our soldiers. it is a very important part of our program. it will -- it would be reviewed like review everything else but is something -- it is something we said a high priority on. >> fort polk already has money set aside for land acquisition and that is moving ahead slower than this -- been expected. -- lower-than-expected. >> i think our training facilities are very important and they will have a high party as we review our budget. >> my time is up and i yield back. >> we have one more -- >> i appreciate you staying past

and taking questions. i represent robins air force base. there were four members of the united states senate and four members of congress there including myself. some of the information that was given to us, we did not agree with and felt there should have been a business case analysis. prior to this decisions being made. i am personally disappointed that my generals i work with were asked to sign a agreement.ality s. i am doing what i can to help you.

one of the things secretary of donnelly did -- secretary donnelly did is that there would be no change to program managers and program managers would continue to report sustainment and he said that would happen for at least the next 24 months and that there would be no changes to that unless there was a business case analysis presented to the senate and the congress. i appreciate his commitment to that and want to ask you for your support that the program managers will continue to operate the way they currently do. >> that is the air force position, sir, and i certainly

support that. i hope we will accept gentle push back here. by the way, the fact that there was interaction at the staff levels >> -- was >> there was not interaction at the principal level. i take note of that, sir. reporting lines of authority - the question is where it s is the seam between retain meant an acquisition? we would have an acquisition element that each of the depots that would be aligned with the broader acquisition teams but would represent their interests at the sustainment locations in the depots.

that seems to be logical to me. they would be geographically separated units. any change is concerning about what it might portend ultimately. we did not convince you or the other members of the caucus on this issue. the secretary made a commitment and we certainly would stand by the secretaries commitment. all i would say is please allow us to come back to you to make the case as articulate as we can about why we think we should organize this way, ok? >> we would ask that a business case scenario be presented and there be dialogue between the members of congress and the generals operating the base.

i don't think anybody on this committee or any of the you arenaive enough to think we can get through these budget reductions without some changes. that was a very serious concern. he made that commitment yesterday and i'm glad to know that you're on board with that because there was concern with the press release that maybe there had been some misunderstandings. . thank you for that and all of you play an important role in georgia whether it is the marine corps logistics base or others and if i can be of assistance to you, let me know, thank you. >> thank each of you for your dedication for service members, military members, and families. we are adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

>> several events to tell you about today on our companion network c-span 3. the senate banking committee holds a hearing at 10:00 a.m. eastern on protecting military service members and their families from predatory lending practices. at two o'clock 40 5:00 p.m. eastern, a defense department update on the continuing withdrawal of u.s. forces from iraq. to discourage attacks, the pentagon will discontinue announcing the withdrawal of the troops schedule. coming up next, "washington journal" and the house is in session at 10:00 eastern for general speeches with legislative business beginning at noon. tuesday's agenda includes a bill regarding how small companies -- today's agenda includes a bill regarding a small companies solicit minutes, we will discuss possible cuts to government funded food and nutritn