>> ma'am, i'll take a shot at it first, and i think i understand where you're trying to go. as you mentioned, we are taking cuts right at 13. in the budget it's almost -- capacity and our overall capacity is coming down. and in our new strategic guidance, the ability to swing capacity from one to the second conflict is a key to how well we will support our joint force. and what keeps me up at night is the time to respond. will we have time to get to the objectives we need in the first in order properly support the

second engagement with the cut which is evident and the second thank worries me is really unchangeed from last year and hasn't changed much in relation to this strategy, and it's the same thing i spoke to in the readiness hearings. and that is that we do have pretty intense pressure on what we call our low-density/high-demand assets, the j-stars, the rivet joints, the i.s.r. fleet in its total. all of those things that are sized to about one conflict and not two and now as you know some of those are deployed as less than one-to-one ratio, and the ability to sfrond one conflict to the next with those low numbers are what keeps me up at night.

>> picture? >> i would like talk about the framework for risk. there's a strategic risk that the chairman largely talks about but then he alludes to what i describe as institutional risk which is the servicibility to maintain balance between the high-quality people and maintain at-home readiness i spoke about earlier and maintain a proper modernization profile so years from now we will have the capabilities we need and tools properly maintain our infrastructure, which madam chairperson spoke about. we look at the next years as austerity so it's caused us to take a look at what we have and look at what we have to have and what's nice to have. so we extended equipment out by service life extension programs and for example, our ground

tactical vehicles right now, we only plan to modernize 20% of the fleet between now and 2027 and 2028. we think it's manageable risk and decided to look at the rest of the fleet and extend service out five-10 years what it otherwise would have been so managing institutional visk frankly what keeps me awake at night. the piece of that, we call it five pillers, a piece of that is meeting the combatant demand and it certainly exceeds our supply but the other thing that keeps me aswake i look out over the next 8-10 years and what i describe as the institutional pillar of risk and make sure we don't inadvertently hollow out those only the fill it with effects folks will have to deal with 8-10 years from now and the last thing that keeps me

awake at night is all of us came into the military in the 1970's and i know what a hollow force is because i was a platoon commander of a hollow force and the last thing i would want so does marine corps to look like in 2020 what it looked like? 1970. >> in the future capabilities the united states navy mandatory reen corps will need going forward as we face increasing competition and technologies and trying to thwart our ability to operate from the sea. so that future balance investment has to be weighed against maintaining the current readiness of the force and what

we operate at. what you saw in our budge set we reduced forestruck which you were and took away assets and looked at accounts and made critical investments preserving research and development and reduce procurement or delayed them to outside to fitup for affordablibility. to preserve the force. the investments eeh we made today were to discuss stain the current maintenance, so the risk for us is comes down to capabilities. can we face rising competitors. capacity, do we have the forces to flow within an acceptable level of risk and how it effects is response times and what our levels are in the fleet but we think in this budget we try achieve that balance with an acceptable

level of risk. >> and i'll just add, senator, that these remain challenging times, and we're faced with a variety of issues, and for me, foremost among those issues is the efforts in afghanistan and striking a balance with those other requirements we are faced with. so i routinely work along with the thief make sure we have a healthy balance between our efforts and modernization and increase in strength and readiness and keeping that balance routinely is really what we're focused on. but also i worry a lot about the health of our force. having said that, i also said earlier that i believe that we have the most resilient force that we could have ever imagined, and 5 years ago if

you'd told me that we were going to be at combat for a decade, and be able to keep our soldiers and family members with us, i would not have believed that. but as you look back and see how we have been able to adapt across the military, but specifically in the army and keep our demands and keep our force with us and take care of our troops, i believe that's quite impressive and i'm really concerned about our ability to do that and i remain focused than to for the foreseeable future because as you well know people is what the army is about and our ability to do that and keep faith with our families and soldiers is what i remain key about. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. madam chair. i have a couple of broad questions and then i have, as

you probably guess, the air force on my mind, so i'll come to you in a second, so these are first yes or no. do you support the -- and we can start here. >> i'll go first, and i do. navy supports it on uniform side, it provides several positive benefits, one a legal fame work for actions and resolution of disputes at sea. second, it allows us to shape the resolution of those disputes as a member in a party with a treaty, and third, we feel comfortable that intelligence and military operations will not be subject to the jurisdiction of any international quarter or evolution, so we're comfortable and we support excession of the treaty. >> i would like to respond to that. the navy knows it all, so i'll

hold there. second, in a nutshell, any comment in regards to -- in regards to the future of the art i can and military need or positioning -- i think we're looking at three aspects. there's a security aspect and a safety aspect and certainly an environmental aspect we're concerned about in the arctic. and i think the initial actions for us as the area becomes free of ice during the summer months, and we start to see shipping and oil exploration and other activities up there, i think there will be a necessity for us having to think about having a maritime

to think about awareness in the arctic, but i don't see within several time or for several years the requirement of military there. >> we routinely operate there with our submarine and have gained knowledge in those operations. >> you know where i'm going. i want to talk to you a little bit about the air force base and as you know there's an effort to relocate the f-16's. my concern is based on the volume of movement of civilian force. these are my words, i see this as kind of a back door back without the public process and need. but here's what i -- as kind of a bookdoor brac without the

public process and need. did the air force -- the first year is 3.5. o five years it's $169 million. when i say comprehensive, not just for the fiscal year 13, but for the spread and other services that may be affected. sexamp a is the joint training facility that's on there, the mobility center the army uses to move people, the striker force. they use it. it's on air force base and when you reduce down that force the army is going to have to pick up a tab on this. i don't want the pit you two against each other but i look at it as a d.o.d. service not a -- so is there a comprehensive cost analysis and then if the answer is yes, is it gross in a sense of what it saves or net

in what it snaves because i believe it's not net, it's a gross number. so, please. >> senator as you know and we've talked a little bit about this with your staff. i think the turn of the discussion or the question is what you would call how detailed is that analysis? we did do a detailed analysis to make the decision, but i assure you it's not to the level that you're discussing now, and as you know that's why we have a teem up there that's made a much more deep study of this and we will soon see that next level of analysis, which you ask for. and as our chief has said that, if after this next level of analysis, that the savings don't pan out as we thought they would, then we'll look at -- re-look at the decision about moving that force.

>> i appreciate that. and i wanted to hear the feedback just so we have that on record with the team that met up there. they felt team came up and already had program of dis mantling versus what are the costs? what are the savings? are they real or not? so as i would see that report come at you, it wasn't just one or two folks, community leaders, but everybody. they felt like it was not about, ok, does this make an economic sense or really have a savings? because at the end of the day this is an economic issue not a strategic issue, and i recognize that. the response we got was somewhat surprising. so i would hope you or your folks would take that hard look of, are these real savings? and then making sure it's not just through the eyes of the

air force but stepping one more step out in the d.o.d. savings, because you may have gross savings but then the army knife pick up more costs. at the end of the day it's how much money can we save for d.o.d., so i want to look at that per 13eckive but then there's the constructive budget. i want to see how that fits in not just for the 13 but for the longer span. i do appreciate some of your folks coming in the last week or so and working with us. that's greatly appreciated. >> senator, i assure you i will look at that report and i wrote down that you feel they arrived with a preconceived notion and so we will attack that report and i understand what you're talking about with the real savings overall in the long run and the team will be focused on that.

we'll ask those questions. >> again, i recognize the need as you know, through the markup we did last year, i offered some needs and savings and we tried save money on me yads and somehow got jacked back in but now the house has taken it out, so we're trying to save a few hundred million there but we want to make sure they are sustainable savings. so either -- i think you get the sense. the hamida analysis when you build houses, that's all costs that have to be figured into this thing, so i appreciate that. let me just end on one last comment-question, that's on the red flag operation. as whatever happens, where does that end? at the end of the day, is it third wing, 354? who owns it at the end of the

day? i don't know if you can answer that right now. but if you can take this on the analysis, that's going to be one of the red flag questions and depers at the end of the day we know the commitment of the military is to continue that operation, because it's very successful, so i would just like to know where it lands. >> i will give you a did you have in2if6 answer but the red flag aalaska is absolutely critical to the training we're about to do. as the new strategy talks about the ships to the pacific, clearly this is a pacific-focused area. so we anticipate no changes but i o'you a definitive answer on that. >> thank you so much and thank you for your service and the alaskans that are about to come back from afghanistan. we had about 9,000 folks in the field in afghanistan. they are all starting to come back, and thank you for the services. it was a pleasure to see them in afghanistan when i was there

on my last trip. thank you all so much. >> thank you, madam chairman. these hearings, we all hear about the dedication, the fact that we put our troops there and all the services and general austin, i'm kind of like you. when i was in the army, i never believed that we could reach the stage where we are today with an all-volunteer army. it wasn't, in fact, i was a product of the draft. and i still think it's a good idea. but i look at this, and i see -- to me, it's just less of a concentration on defending america. we have, when the senator was talking about the new risk pair dime, i used to chair this committee and i've always thought that risk equals lives. doesn't it?

you increase if you're willing to increase your risk, you're willing to accept more loss of lives. am i wrong? >> senator, i think you're right. it is in part lives. it is also in farther accomplishment of the mission and loss of equipment. so i think what you want to do is you want to have a force with the capabilities and capacities that allows you to accomplish the mission with minimum loss of lives and equipment. >> i love all you guys, and i agree that's a problem. but we're changing right now. the briefing i'm reading now you said as we reduce our force we retain the ability to execute each of these missions but we will no longer have capacity to execute them all in parallel. as a result, the days of engaging in two large-scale wars while simultaneously

responding to a myriad of humanitarian crises and engaging in short-note is campaigns will not be possible. i agree with you. you had some pretty strong statements in there. the age of your aircrafts. i know how told b-52's are and the american people would really expect more, but they don't know. they don't know how bad this is. one area that will make everyone uncomfortable, and that is -- i was very close. i served in the house with i netta. and i know that what he said didn't really come from his heart, and he -- obviously no one's going to be able to say that. but he said last week the defense department would wage war on global warming by promising to spend billions of

taxpayer dollars on more green. right now we're trying to survive this thing. as democrats or republicans, all three of them talked about this half trillion dollars and sequest -- se quest tration coming along is a disarming of america. when we were the majority i was the chairman of the environment works committee and i know this obsession on all this global warming stuff and i also know the trends have totally changed, just came out the other day, only 19% of the tv meteorologists believe, number one that global warming is taking place and two the man made gases are causing it. yet i read right here, and i appreciate very much, admiral, when you are talking about yes. every $1 increase in the price

per -- of fuel is approximately $31 million of additional costs above the budget. we're talking about huge amounts of money. if the president, and he does, wants to use the military as a test tube for his green agenda. he can do it but the american people need to know he does it. and you guys are forcing me to say things that -- this is a direct quote from last week, in the 21st century it's a reality that there are environmental threats that -- any one of the four of you want to line? me what are knees environmental threats that are comparable to the terrorists that are throughout? anybody? i don't either. anyway, let's -- what -- i want to get into one thing here on the f-35's.

by moving this program to the right, the president is able to say, well, we're not reducing the number of if-35's. however, during the cuts, lose them over the rise so the president's budget request cuts the budget by $15.1 billion over the -- it's true. it results in 179 fewer planes being produced. granted, later on down the road they may be produced. we're talking about right now the problem, what it is. i gave a talk on the senate floor, but i researched it pretty good. i said it matches the figures we're getting from you guys, in 2008 the department of the defense has spent at least $4 billion on climate change around energy efficient abilities that had nothing to do with the actual meeting of

real defense needs, the same $4 billion could have been used to purchase 30 new f-35's. it could have been used to purchase 28 new -- if we'd kept on the if-22's before the budget four years ago when that program was axed. or the c-135 modernization program. i think we all agree, certainly you agreed, didn't you, general, the significance of that program? >> yes, sir. >> i think everybody does. so let me ask you, do you think that -- do you really believe that it's more important to be experimenting with this green stuff than it is to go ahead with that program? aviation modernization program? that's axed. that's done in this budget. >> senator, i can't speak to the broader d.o.d. programs, including that amount. but on the navy side we're

putting an enormous investment in efficiency and making our -- >> that's not the point. i am talking about how on the part of the program is, which i think is very significant and off lot of quotes here from all you guys talking about how significant this program is and the fact that that is knocked out in this budget for the benefit of a green test tube experiment that the military is being forced to do. let me say this. i know my time is spars, and i have to leave anyway, but let me say this. i can remember back when -- who was going to be secretary of defense? when rumsfeld was before our committee, and it was a confirmation hearing, and this was back when we were the majority. i guess it was about 10 years ago. i said you know, the american people believe that we have the

very best of everything, and we don't. and certainly general austin, there are five countries that make a better -- than we have. so i said if you're going to take over this position, and i could say the sail thing to panetta, but i didn't during that confirmation hearing. i said there's a lot of smart generals. but you're going to be wrong. and i recall that the last year i was in theous on the house armed services committee with our current secretary that is seated next to me we had someone testify that in 10 years we would no longer need ground troops, so how can we meet the expectations of america -- our kids go out in battle, they have got the best equipment? his answer was this -- he said we probably should do what we did over the last century, he

said the average in fact right on this number in times of war, in times of piece for 100 years in this country that we spent 5.7% of g.d.p. on defending america. at that time it was dropping precipitously, now we're looking at half of that. i'm not asking any questions here. i'm saying you're doing a great job and we're doing a lousy hand. you need to have a better hand. thank you, mad nl chairman. >> thank you. i'm going to resist the temptation to do any rebutal of -- >> this might be a good time to do it. >> no. i want you to leave. i'm not dumb. [laughter] i think -- i think what is really awkward is when people

like you are kind of pulled into some of the politics that swirl around this place, we all do this politic stuff and one thing i admire about our military is the loyalty and support that you give one another. and that you stay focused on your mission. you try as much as you possibly can to stay away from politics and understand the commander in chief is the commander in chief, and i have deep respect for you in that regard. i want to talk to you about equipment. services have invested billions in non-standard equipment since the beginning of combat competitions which range from m-wraps to flat screen tv's and i know there are efforts to look at -- if this is one of the things can get left in the corner of the cupboard.

for protocolors and things tpwheff place for property colors. -- for protocols. what i'm really worried about is with my background as an auditor, i'm really worried about the accountability piece on this and whether or not we're doing anything in a way that could resemble joint and whether or not we're having dupely can ative efforts to try to track down the n.f.c. load we have and figure out how we're going to transition it out of an operational tempo to a different kind of tempo. and could you all address the non-standard equipment issue for me? >> certainly i share your concern about how much non-standard equipment we're able to maintain over time. as you well know, 60% of our costs, life cycle sustainment

is -- life cycle cost is sustainment. and so we have to be able to afford to keep what we have on hand or choose to transition it to some other place. and we are very concerned about that in the army. so we're taking a hard look at numbers of vehicles, numbers of weapons that we're going to keep on hand. we're going through that assessment right now. and i've even gone down visit a company of arms recently to take a look at what our soldiers are required to maintain and when our chief of staff shows up in -- my focus was to -- >> i think calling it an emotional event one of those diplomatic words. i don't think they would call it emotional, general. probably something other than that. >> but i have a real concern about how much equipment we're

asking our troops to maintain that we -- that may not be useful to us anymore and we may not be able to afford to sustain. so we're going through a very deliberate process of making sure that we keep what we need and that we transition things we don't need and can't afford. and it will take us some time to work through that. but clearly, we share your concern. >> what about the m-wrap? are we what is the answer on they m-rap issue? >> that is very expensive. we are going for going -- during an assessment on how many we will keep and what the disposition of those will be and, again, we will outline

what the maintenance and supply chain will be as a result of that. >> let me get to bomb before we leave -- guam - does anybody want to weigh in on this? >> it is about non-standard equipment. we have had a period of time where some really good ideas have been brought forth to the battlefield and quickly adopted to help our soldiers and marines on the ground. the mc-12 liberty aircraft is a shining example of getting it right and we have some examples where we have multiple starts to try to get to capabilities where we have several that are competing and many in the same commission space. i'm concerned that we are able to get to the right number and type and then transition them into long term use. we have been able to do some of

this work because of oco money and now that goes away. we have to mccurtain decisions about some of these multiple starts in similar missions. >> that is a good point because when you have oco money is almost embedded in that you keep looking around and trying different the eggs. it almost breezes certain inefficiency that is required by the nature of the mission, but now, it is really imperative that we decide which of those starts -- one of the biggest problem that our military has is there is nothing you guys don't think you can do. when you are going down a road and you're hitting bombs, sometimes you keep decided you will go over the bumps. maybe we need to pull a plow and the journey and maybe this is a road we cannot afford to go down. i'm hoping that this is exactly

that. we cannot afford to go down multiple paths especially if there's overlay and duplication. i don't know -- i don't need to tell you that has happened a couple of times. >> let me give you some degree of confidence that we recognize the challenge you have raised in we're in process to look at this. we have about 600 pieces of non- standard equipment as a result of the last 10 years. we are in the process of continuing to go through each and every item to determine which ones will be transitioned to. we will probably have transitioned about 1/3 of the 600 to date. where are we with regard to integration in the joint world? we all sit on the joint requirements oversight committee and we have supported organizations. the only maring cord board that takes a look at things that are unique to ground forces and i am confident in the case of non

standard equipment we have the right processes in place to look at that equipment and make the proper decisions about transition and we are now as a result of our significant experience identifying those programs that had some promise some years ago but absolutely don't have a future. in those cases, we recognize the period of austerity we are in and recognizing the tail associated with those programs and we probably dispose some of that equipment. >> good luck if that equipment is built in more than 25 states. that seems to be a habit that some of our contractors have. my time is up. i know about my colleagues have

more questions. i want general dunford to make sure that if i don't have an opportunity to question again that we address the marine corps as it relates to guam. as we look at our budget and i have not had a chance to sit down with senator ayote yet about the budget, i am really anxious that everyone stays in the corral, said tuesday, until we're certain what the future is in guam. i don't want to waste one dime in guam until we get to reconsideration of the agreement to replace where it makes sense for the united states, for our military, and for the people of guam and japan. thank you for that. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate you raising that

issue. i wanted to ask each of you and i raise this in my opening statement -- we know the defense sequestration is coming in january. if the congress does not fail to act to come up with other responsible budget savings. i am a strong advocate for us doing that. we have heard from each of the services as well as from our secretary of defense the devastating impact of defense sequestration including hollowing out our forces and the other consequences. i would like each of you to address timing. i am worried that there is a general feeling around here that we can kick this can until december to make the decision and how to avoid defense sequestration and undermining our national security. i met with a group of our defense industrial base the

other day and they pointed out to me that there are things they will be required to do, for example, issued notices under the warrant act and other legal requirements that will have to undertake. if we wait until december, what are the disadvantages and consequences of doing that as opposed to resolving this issue much sooner, particularly for each of our service branches? i think this timing issues are important for people here to understand. >> i agree with your assessment that if this does come to pass, it would be devastating. because of that, i think it would drive us to go back and redo some of our planning, certainly make new assessments. that takes time and certainly

consumes a lot of organizational energy. so, we are concerned about that. from an army perspective, we have not done any planning on this as you indicated but the back of the envelope calculations are such that this would probably mean loss of probably another 100,000 troops , 50% of those in the guard and reserve and with those kind of impact, that would probably drive us to go back and re-look at our planning efforts. >> that would be in addition to the 72,000 a year looking at in terms of strength reductions? >> or write. - right. >> would that not take time and thinking about this concept -- if we are going to reduce our forces and other 100,000, had we

not break the faith of there? even the implementation of something so devastating, wouldn't it be more productive if we could tell you sooner that we have resolved this for you? isn't there an urgency? i think that is what we need to appreciate around here. would you agree there is some urgency that you not have this hanging over your head? >> absolutely, if we didn't have bad damocles over our head, we would be much better shape. >> i think there are two significant impact. if you look at sequestration, the impact on the navy from the $600 billion defense reduction would be about $15 billion per year which is the amount of the entire ship construction account would have to figure out how to spread in our budget and reduced. waiting until december and not having a resolution at that point would allow a very short cycle for planning, it will not

allow us to make efficient or effective choices. it would also cause it to go back and look at the strategy. the force that comes out of sequestration is not the force that can support the current strategy that we're operating under. the second concern would be the industrial base impact you alluded to. our industrial shipyards and their providers and corporations have to start making some investment decisions with respect to notification of employees if there are four laws and if we are forced to break contracts and not be able to execute them under a sequestration scenario. i would indicate the uncertainty in our industrial base would affect our suppliers and if it were to occur, would greatly affect our industrial base sustainment over the long term. >> admiral, if we lose the employers, is in the risk they don't come back "? >> that exist in many of our more complex procurement programs. we're down to single suppliers

and we are their predominant customers. it would be difficult for some to recover. >> i would like to go back to your opening comments when you quoted president reagan. sequestration is not a budget issue, it is a reordering of our national priorities and we cannot do. at the strategic level, the secretary said we will might be able to implement the strategy as currently written if sequestration goes into effect. from a marine corps perspective, we are at 182,000 right now. we are at the margin of being able to meet the strategy. we believe that 182,000 marines can meet the strategy that secretary panetta as articulated. there is an automatic 10% personal cut of less personal is exempted. -- personnel cuts on last

personnel is exempted. if we were to cut another 18,000, we would not have adequate capabilities to meet a single major contingency operation. that is fairly significant. the other point you raise that is true is that we would absolutely not be able to keep faith with our people. if sequestration would go into effect, not only would we have to cut the additional 18,000 people, but our only budget in f y 134 182,000 marines, will rely on overseas contingency funds to have -- to take us from the number we had to that number. if we were not given the opportunity to have bad ramp, there would be an immediate reduction from two or 2000 to something on the order of 68,000. at that number, there is no way we could keep faith with people.

we would be breaking contracts and sending people on their way to believe that a commitment to stay on active duty and these of the people we talked about earlier who are in afghanistan in harm's way and their reward when they come home will be to dismiss them and shake their head. i think that would be a mistake. >> thank you, general. >> just to reiterate a couple of things my compatriots have said -- we think we would definitely not be allowed to execute the existing strategy if we have to go through sequestration. it would be devastating. we cannot afford this. the air force is the oldest it has ever been in terms of this iron. we desperately need to recapitalize our flyin feetg fleet. we would have to take very tough decisions to either come down in the number of units or to give

up the modernization of those units. on the industrial base, there is some very key capabilities out there that are already very much at risk. in the aviation business, the number of houses that can do stealth have reduced and another cut to the effort we're putting into those stealth capabilities could cause a severe problem. >> i know that my time is up. can you give me a quick yes or no if there is an urgency that we do this before december? >>yes. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i am sorry the center inhofe is

not here. i was in afghanistan and visiting a forward operating base utilizing new technology around solar energy so they don't have to bring in a lot of equipment. what i saw there was incredible technology development from these huge trucks of energy they would have to bring in. isn't that a value to the marines to have that new technology? instead of fuel, they can spend three days out in the field. >> the focus of our energy initiatives are exactly along the lines of what you just talked about. they are designed to make us more operationally effective and reduce the load on our individual marines. we have solar panels, hundreds

of pounds of batteries and we have conducted seven-day park patrols without the extra weight of batteries. all of our interaction is designed -- we are spending money in places where we can have an immediate impact i was down can't bludgeon last week and have an experimental forward operating base. we bring in partners from industry and we articulate what we need. this year we happens to focus on things likepotable water and how we can create that without the reverse osmosis purification processes. that is absolute focus of our energy efforts is to enhance our operations and increase our ability to operate in austere environment. >> in an efficient and ready way. you move quicker with less of those batteries. >> we are feeling bad equipment because when we fielded in the first battalion,

all the other marines saw them there was a demand signal that was raised. the other units want to have that equipment as well. the only critical piece to this is making sure we get this in a pre-deployment cycle. when you feel the equipment and when marines are already deployed, it will not be very effective. we worked very hard to make sure we get that equipment to our marines before they deployed for it when they do, they have found that to be extraordinarily useful. it goes beyond the batteries. >> from the air force end, the alternative fuel development, all your technology now is making sure you're not just on certain types of aviation fuel so you can become more self- sufficient and less dependent from national perspective on foreign oil from countries that hate us. is that a fair statement? >> the focus there is to make sure our fleet is ready to accept those fuels such that

when they become economically viable than our fleet will be ready to go and we're proceeding with that theme from the navy perspective, >> from the navy perspective, if you have a change in water levels, sea levels, that has a direct impact on all your ports. >> that is certainly true. >> we have invested billions in these ports around the country and around the world and it is in our interest to make sure -- we can argue over the science and i will not disrespect weatherman on tv but i prefer to put that aside. looking at those as an infrastructure cost potentially. is that a fair statement? >> that is fair that summer looking at that. we're also looking in relation to the arctic about what the future challenges up there if

that opens up. similar to the air force, we are operating and certifying alternative fuels for our ships and aircraft so when they become economically viable and we're ready to use them. the focus on efficiency in an ops tempo, the fuel bills alone are affecting us. >> from the army, one of the highest incidence of fatalities and injuries is protecting the fuel sources coming into afghanistan, for example. the more efficient they become, less of that fuel you had haul. you probably will save lives. am i wrong about that? >> this is becoming more efficient and that is all about saving lives. three tours in iraq and one effect -- in afghanistan and i can tell you that every time i

could -- if i could do something to not put a soldier on the road, what ever is, i want to do because it saves lives. it is also about maintaining our soldiers, a soldier load and decreasing the burden on them and increasing their endurance. if they can go up with batteries of longer life and if it is easier to recharge them, if they can harvest energy that is left over in batteries and with energy and other places, i think that is all good. it all contribute to saving lives and becoming more effective on the battlefield. >> the energy costs because of our dependency on diesel and other types of fuel are draining your accounts because the cost of fuel has gone up. you then make choices because you have to have the fuel. those choices are not

necessarily fun choices to make celeste we spend in that area, the less stress you have in other budget elements within your own divisions. is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> for the record, if i was sitting in front of another group, my veterans committee, they would say similar things. i was front of infrastructure groups and everyone is having a pinch. the thing congress is missing to the larger audience is we always talk about in order to replace these cuts we have to more cuts. the reality is, you cannot cut your way out of this problem. there is no possible way. after two decades of core management, we have a deficit

and a debt that is staggering. everyone is to blame. the question is, will we do the right thing? it is a three-prong attack. you can't cut budgets, due to revenues, and invest in the right infrastructure. in my case, i think is education, energy, and core infrastructure. we have to deal with revenues which no one wants to talk about but the fact is, the city i was mayor of, survive the economic crash without a hiccup. we have a stronger economy. it is moving and was rated by businessweek as one of the communities that would move and recover very quickly and as bad recession because we did a three-prong attack on this issue -- revenues, expenses, and investment. what this place has a habit of doing is cut or do revenue or

infrastructure but never the three. all three will make this problem get results. until this congress gets real about it, it will -- you cannot cut more to then say the cuts that are over here for it will be a combination of things. if you think we can cut our way out of this budget, you are dreaming. there is no way to do that. we will have significant cuts. we will have to do that. we will do things that we can no longer do. that is clear. but the gap is so large that we have two decades of poor management around this place. all those things are over. it is a three-prong attack and that's how we will approach this. i hear it already. we have to do it now to save the military. that is what will happen.

we will be in this political battle on the senate floor yelling at each other and who is pro-defense. i love the military. based on everything we did when i was mayor and what my wife does every day to support the military, and none of us are going to see the military the greatest capacity but we will protect this country economically and with the right way so all bus are successful in the long term. i get frustrated when i hear this because it is a three-prong attack and have to be serious about this and honest with the public. >> we will @ rant. -- we will and to rant. i have a strong rebuttal. i'm more about our defense industrial base because they have to make decisions up front. we can wait until december but those decisions are being made as we speak. >> i agree and we should of made this decision last year and talk about all three pieces.

we don't and you know that. it is politics as usual around this place. >> forcible, -- first of all, let me say that now is the time i should do my rebuttal of some and ainhofe. [laughter] this would be a perfect time for that. this would be perfect time to thank you all for your service to your country and to all people in the room. i will resist the temptation to ask why there is so many of you in the room. that is one of my pet peeves that we have to be careful about how many people t how manyasks and how many people we needed these hearings. i know everybody in the room cares deeply about their country and is committed and i appreciate that. we are struggling with trying to

correct mistakes that have been made over the last 20 years as to the way we fund as a federal government. there is no disagreement between democrats and republicans that the most important priority of the federal government is our national defense. there is absolutely no disagreement regardless of democrat or republican that we have the best military in the world and that we must keep the best military and the world. how we get there, we will need help review and input but we will also need to realize that we cannot give you everything you ask for in the future. we have tried that and takeoco out. we took out health care so you cannot even use the health care increased and that has gone from $270 billion north of $370

billion. that is not a oco. that is a huge piece. can he keep the best military and do it smarter with a little less money? i am confident we can and i think we can because of the military -- the leadership we have in the military which is represented here today. thank you very much and there will be more questions for the record that we did not get to and we look forward to continuing dialogue as to keep our military as ready as we possibly can and also figure out a way we don't drown in debt. about 50 or 20 years from now. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> congressional directory is a complete guide to the 112 congress. you will find contact information for members of the house and senate as well as district maps and committee assignments. you'll also learn more about the presidential cabinet, the supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling and order online at c-span.org/shop. >> several live events to tell you about this morning on our companion network c-span 3. the chairman of the securities and exchange commission will be at the investment company institute to talk about financial regulation, money market funds. that is in one hour at 8:00 a.m. eastern. right after that at 9:00

eastern, the u.s. institute of peace will hear from ambassador rick barton about managing costs to our nation. in a few moments, a look at today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." the heritage foundation hosts a discussion of lessons learned from the japanese efforts to recover from last year's earthquake. that is at noon eastern end at 3:00 p.m. eastern, the atlantic council examines russia after its presidential election. and about 45 minutes, we will focus on the institute of the report on obesity. we will be joined by dan glickman. gary johnson will take your calls about the libertarian campaign at 8:00 eastern and we will examine the foreign-born will examine the foreign-born population in the u.s.