almost one in four civilian employees in the federal government work at the defense department. that's 764,000 out of 2.1 million federal employees. so that proposal would result in the department of defense cutting over 80,000 civilian workers over the budget period. now as part of your budget, you've emphasized the need to strengthen the defense acquisition workforce in order to save taxpayer money, to make sure we have sufficient capacity and capability. you say this workforce determines the quality of d.o.d.'s acquisition outcome, an area of budget in which we all agree sh in need of improvement. mr. secretary pointed out that in many cases we actually now hire contractors to oversee the contractors as part of the acquisition process because we don't have enough in house expertise, a practice that raises conflict of interest issues, which has also been pointed out could waste taxpayer money. if we were to mandate a cut in the d.o.d. civilian workforce, h what impact would that have with respect to saving taxpayers money without harming the defense of this country? >> let me r

we decided that fiscal situation that we were confronting presented us at the defense department with an opportunity to establish a new defense strategy for the future. we developed strategic guidance before any budget decisions were made. we wanted them to be based on strategy, not the other way around. we agreed that we are at a key inflection point. the military mission in iraq has ended. we still have a very tough fight on our hands in afghanistan and 2011 did mark significant progress in reducing violence and in transitioning to an afghan-led responsibility for security. and we in our nato allies have committed to continue that transition through the end of 2014. last year successful nato operations did lead to the fall of gadhafi. and as pointed out, targeted counter-terrorism efforts have significantly weakened al qaeda and decimated its leadership. but even though we have had those successes, unlike past drawdowns, let me stress that, unlike past drawdowns, and i've been through most of those in recent history, where the threats that we confronted receded. the problem today is

the defense department is not the problem. when you look at 487 billion and the potential of another 500 billion, and someone even go further. there are people who would like to see us eliminate defense, just along with everybody. >> we have about 10 minutes left. >> just to shift to the question of afghanistan, you introduced legislation that would bar private contractors from providing security. would that largest -- without legislation require more americans in afghanistan while we are looking at a timetable for withdrawing forces? >> we had a hearing on this. we had a young man in our district to was killed by an afghan security guard. this was a man on a base with the rest of his group. they had broken down their weapons to clean their weapons to go out on a patrol. this afghan that had been hired by a security company came on to the base with another patrol, so they were unarmed, killed two of them, wounded four before they were able to kill him. the tragedy that those parents had to deal with, the parents in my district

is that something that the department of defense knew about? >> i'm sorry that -- >> a $750 million soccer field at gitmo. were you aware of that? >> no, i wasn't aware. >> and are you aware that the military owns five separate luxurious resorts that service members can attend as well as perhaps a million tourists can attend as well. is that something you knew that the department of defense owned? >> no. >> is it proper to sight see european castles, shop in seoul's exciting shopping districts, the best one, to go to walt disney resort. answer the question. >> that's nonappropriated funds first of all, which means it's not a part of the defense budget. but a lot of the facilities are provided for men and women who go into battle and who have been deployed overseas and you know what? i think at the very least we owe them is the ability to enjoy whatever time they take off from going to war. >> this i plies to a million civilians who have never seen war, and for folks who do not live in these particular areas, they can't jump on a plane. if you'r

it can't all come from the defense department. i would warn you we're headed to that time and it could be a problem that we don't have a real solid plan to get out of it. with regard to navy ship building on the plan, you've got a four structure assessment coming up i believe, mr. secretary, and you have stated you intend to reach an inventory of 300 ships by 2019. would this assessment -- how confident are you that it will maintain that as a goal based on the budget and other things? do you expect that the committee -- the assessment on group could come back and recommend even less than 300 ships? >> i don't know what the four structure assessment is going to come back at, senator, but i feel confident that having a fleet of 300 ships around 300 ships will meet whatever structure or assessment or whatever strategy that drives that force structure assessment. and we do have that plan as you pointed out to get to 300 ships by 2019. >> well, one thing about it, i may not be here and you may not be here in 2019. so plans when they ge

you know, what we have done, the defense department accounts for 20% of our overall budget. and we've taken 50% of the savings out of defense. that's been our history. and for every war we prm brought down the military so we are not ready for other attacks. if you read history and you see how many people we lost at the start of world war ii that were going through northern africa with inadequate equipment, training, leadership, we lost a will the of people that should not have been lost. we weren't prepared. we weren't prepared when the north koreans and the chinese came in to south korea. you think would -- we would learn at some point from history. i gave the same speeches that neville chamberlain was giving when hitler went through europe. we had a meeting with secretary rums felled a couple months ago. he said on the morning of 9/11 he had some of the members of our armed services committee for breakfast, and he said i told them, because we had just gone down the clinton-bush drawdown for discipline, which ever. he told those members at that time something bad is going to

it can't all come from the defense department. but that's a complex matter. i just would warn you that we're heading to that time and it did be a problem if we don't have a real solid plan to get out of it. with regard to navy shipbuilding, the plan -- you got a fourth quarter assessment coming up, mr. secretary, and you stated you intend to reach an inventory of 50 ships by 2019. would this assessment, how confident are you that it will maintain that a goal based on the budget and other things? do you expect that the committee, the assessment group, could come back and recommend even less than 300 ships? >> i don't know what the for-structure assessment will come back, mr. senator. but i feel confident having a fleet of 300 ships, around 300 ships, will meet whatever ass s assessment or whatever strategy drives the assessment. we do have the plan as you pointed out to get to 300 ships by 2019. >> well, one thing about it, i may not be here and you may not be here in 2019, so plan when they get out too far don't have much reality to them and that's what worri

now, i'm also concerned that the policy of the defense department of the united states, when it comes to the nuclear weapons you control, general keeler is that we are moving to a world without nuclear weapons. a complete elimination of them. the defense posture nuclear review. the defense department's nuclear posture review has 30 references to a world without nuclear weapons in it. this was directly driven by the policy of the president. he's the commander in chief. that's what he wanted. that's what the defense department put in there, and so that's one reason congress insisted that we budget sufficient money to modernize the aging nuclear weapons. that we have. we insisted on that. it came up as a part of the new s.t.a.r.t. debate. the president submitted, sent a letter to us and promised it. but it's not occurring. the money's not there. so we're at a time of great

we ask both of you, the defense department created a new defense strategy in 2013 defense budget reque request. it's our understanding that the development of the strategy was a highly inclusive process that each of you have the opportunity to provide input into the development at the new strategy. in your view does the budget request support the strategy. general frazier. >> chairman, we were very much included in the process and the development of the strategy through a series of conversations with the chairman, with the secretary of defense. from where i sit i'm very comfort that the budget supports the strategy and that i can perform my mission within the allocated resources. >> general jacoby. >> chairman, i feel that in the case of the homeland, with the strategy, the homeland was appropriately considered, and i believe the budget supports the execution of the strategy in the homeland. thank you. >> thank you. general

cybercommand is charged to direct the security, operations and defense of the department of defense information systems. but our work is affected by threats outside d.o.d.'s networks. threats the nation cannot ignore. what we see both inside and outside d.o.d. information systems underscores the imperative to act now to defend america in cyberspace. the american people expect broad and efficient access to cyberspace. military and civilian sectors rely on accessibility, increased inner connectedness of information systems, growing sophistication of cybercriminals and foreign intelligence actors has increases our risk. last spring, international strategy for cyberspace the president confirmed inherent right to protect ourselves against attacks in this domain as in traditional domains. he said, when warranted, the united states will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as you would to any other threat to our country. cybercommand exists to ensure the president can rely on the d.o.d. information systems and has military options available to defend our nation. the president and secretary of defense

almost one in four civilian employees and the federal government work at the defense department. that is 764,000 out of 2.1 million federal employees. so that proposal would result in the department of defense cutting over 80,000 civilian workers. over the budget. now as part of your budget, you have emphasized and to strengthen the defense acquisition workforce in order to save taxpayer money to make sure we are not wasting money, to make sure we have sufficient capacity and capability. in fact he say this workforce determines the quality of dod's acquisition outcome from the area of the budget we all agree is a need of improvement. mr. secretary and i would point out gao is highlighted as an important area as well and is pointed out in many cases we actually now higher contract is to oversee as part of the acquisition process because we don't have enough in-house expertise come a practice that raises conflict of interest issue was chios pointed out to waste taxpayer money. i want to know if we were to mandate a 10% cut in mid-uv civilian workforce, what impact would that have wi

i would refer you to the defense department and isaf for more details about that. as tragic as these events are, the strategy is focused on it disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda, stabilizing afghanistan so that afghan security forces can take responsibility for the security of their own country, which would allow us to continue to draw down our forces. and that is a policy that the president is implementing. i am sure there will be discussions ongoing between u.s. military leaders, as well as civilian leaders in afghanistan and the afghan government in the wake of this incident. but our strategic objectives have not changed and they will not change. and we will continue to discuss with our afghan counterparts the need to implement our strategy and develop a strategic partnership that will allow us ultimately to turn over responsibility to the afghans. >> is the president worried that the incident could harm his own standing of the american people who are worried about america's role in afghanistan? >> the president is focused on the national security i

the defense department's most recent guidance issued in january refocuses the u.s. military on the asia pacific and consistent with the strategy, the defense department is working to realign the u.s. military forces in south korea and japan and also plans to position navy and marine corps forces further to the south in countries like australia, singapore and possibly others. as we rebalance and realign our presence in the asia pacific, it is important we not only get strategy right, but also get sustainability right. this is particularly true for the marine corps. with respect to the relialignme to the marines on okinawa, we present goals to the u.s. military posture in the region and accounting for the physical and diplomatic realities together with the sustainability with the long-term realities. last year, they announced they intend to amend the plan. including the de-linking of the marines off okinawa and the replacement facility and adjusting the unit composition and the number of marines that wi as the details of the changes are finalized, it is important that

the deficit, but just to pay the average at interest cost we basically have to abolish the defense department completely or we'd have to have an 80% rise in all personal tax rates. doesn't work. math doesn't work. the markets are going to call us on it long before then. because we are in a situation that economists call fiscal dominance. our monetary policy, unintentional unintentionally, has now become dominated by fiscal necessity. and we're not admitting it to ourselves yet and we didn't get there because we chose to, we went there for the right reasons

situationale awareness, missile defense, andn electronic warfare, to combating destruction.ss stratcom coordinates the activities of the u.s. cybercommand across the department of defense. unlike combatant commands which otyregionally focused, stratcom submissions are global. as noted in the presence its strategic guidance, stratcom commands nuclear forces that can under any circumstances confront an adversary with this prospect of unacceptable damage. that capability needs to be preserved as we continue to thduce the size of the forces and modernize the infrastructure at the department of energy that supports thisce mission. the general kehler, here are some ot the issues that i hope you'll address this morning. first, are you satisfied -- are you satisfied with the direction that we're taking in our nuclear force posture and with the department of energy's role in maintaining our nuclearure and stockpile so that we canen continue to reduce its size without testing while ensuringt the stockpile remains safe and meet military requirements? stoe second, do you believe we're on? a sustainable path to protect our space assets anda reconstitute them if necessary

member -- >> former close friend of mine. >> ultimately will be one of the key figures in the defense department as deputy secretary to oversee and evaluate the progress of the missile defense program. so i think we have the best capability we could have, looking at this. it's a free and fair society. we're delighted to get the criticisms when they're on a particular point. i think the administration is willing -- by the way, i should -- finally, sorry, i went longer than the five minutes there. members of the congress and the congressional committee staffs have some excellent technical experts and they have looked at these systems too. so it's a work in progress but i certainly personally believe that the motivations are sound. they're in the defense of this country. and that the capability that's been put into it is also quite high and we're continuing to work on the problem and i think it's a valuable investment. it's about $8 billion a year. >> michael, thank you. dean, just keep the same order. please feel free to comment on michael -- >> okay. very briefly, the thing i like about ted's ana

>> it is a very unfortunate because it sends a very dark cloud over the defense department and our defense department contractors that worry about the possibility of sequester and what it means for their employment force as well. there are a lot of very concerned people looking at the prospect that it might happen and for us, we are not planning and have made no plans for sequester because it is a natty formula and goofy to begin with. it is not something that anybody who is responsible ought to put into effect. it was designed as a gun to the head and i was disappointed the super committee failed in its job. i have to tell you having been in the budget process for a long time, there was a time when we had to be in a room negotiating with the administration on budget reductions and we were not allowed to leave the room until we have resolved the issue. that is what should have happened here. >> it should have. >> i know i am taking up your time, but i feel as though we showed the charter -- times in the past when we have done drawdowns, you mentioned that we should plan for what we know. o

that's correct. >> it's my understanding that in january the administration transferred the defense department's defense industrial base pilot program to dhs. this is that's known as dib. >> that's right, the dib pilot program. >> as i understand it, it shared classic threat indicators with defense contractors in a better contained information critical to the department's programs and operations. i understand that dhs is now the lead for coordinating this program with the private sector and that it's being expand ed t other critical sectors. could you tell us why the administration decided to transfer this pilot program from dod to the department of homeland security? >> well, the dib pilot really getsto we are talking about here are basically private companies that do important defense contracting work, about but thessence privao the authorities and the laws that we use are better situated in als in this context as opposed to dod. so we've been working with dod from the outset on the design of the dib pilot, have been working with them on the initial -- the initial aspects of it. and now as the

now, this department of defense report again the department of defense report that the deputy secretary asked for also made an amazing statement. it said something i have been saying for ten years. what i have been saying for ten years if you have the suitcases out there and you're just inspecting them with your eyes, you can't tell whether or not that's a bomb in them by just inspecting them with your eyes. you have to sniff them. open up the suitcase and look around. then you might fail, but certainly you're not able to identify which suitcase has a bomb by simply looking at it. this is not a very profound statement to say, but a lot of technical detail behind this very simple statement which is correct completely in terms of the analogy i'm giving you. the defense science board report actually says that the department of defense has not demonstrated the ability to tell war heads from decoys. this is the report that's -- unclassified report that deputy secretary of defense carter had asked for a couple of years ago. it also says that a capability that the missile defense agency has be

and others are doing in the defense department we'd have a more defensible architecture and that's the way we are pushing, and the services are helping us get there. i think we have to partner with dhs and fbi. the reason that i bring dhs into this is that, i believe we want them working with rest of government to help set up the rest of government networks and work with that. we do not want to take the people that i have and push them over here. i think we want people that we have looking outside and that goes to senator mccain's comments, we're the offensive force. we're the ones that are going to protect the nation, we need to see what's going on and be prepared to do that. we can give and work with dhs and provide capabilities and technical expertise, and that's growing. finally, i'd add in fbi. they have some tremendous capabilities, they have the law enforcement arm, and when you put all three of us together, i think our country knows that what we're doing is transparent and we're doing the right thing. in doing that, you've brought all three players to the table. i see command a

>> senator, to my understanding, the department of defense has selected someone. i don't know if the contract has been but my understanding is that the final date required by the ndaa for submission by the committee the plan is to have the report to you by that date. >> if you can let us know for the record if that contract has been signed and with whom we'd appreciate it. general, as the united states and japan reconsider the plan for the marines on okinawa, are you comfortable with the new plans for the lay down and the composition of marines that are being considered for guam and okinawa? >> chairman, i am. as much as we know today. as you're aware, both our government and the government of japan is the high -- at the highest levels are still working through the issues. as much as i know today and what i have heard, i am comfortable, sir. >> thank you. general, do you need any special authorities or legislation to ensure that the reductions which you talked about when they're made that we're able to take care of our people? >> chairman, are you talking about th

i fear that a lot of people see the government specifically the defense department as being a gravy train and that's not a good -- that's not a good reception for the public to half of something like the military. and an institution like the military because the military is not about -- national security isn't a jobs program, something we keep trying to drill into people's minds. its function is not to create. it's to protect the country, and that is supposed to be, that is in the same way that, ryan was saying to drive our spending, not budget. all right then. so you hear this a lot from defending defense ministers but at the same time the industry is receiving going up to the hill. and the offer like tax and spend. as long as its defense we need to put more money into the sector in order to create x number of jobs with no strategic framework for that argument. so that is something that awfully worry is always present in our military spending because the size of the defense department, and i think over the last decade or the a explosion or the sense that we've seen has gotten even worse

i will tell you, i'm going to be a huge supporter of your efforts at the defense department. now, i have some questions about some of the efforts that you are doing. but, you know, we go back to the '60s and darpa which is the defense advance research project, if you go back to the '60s, a lot of people forget that they decided to do some simple things. they just wanted to communicate between some of the different facilities, and lo and behold today we have the internet. now, you took an initiative, you actually hired someone out of the private sector because you thought it was so important -- i say we, collectively. how important that was. and the military has been the lead in many areas that have advanced this economy in many ways. and i use that as an example, 1960s, when, you know, the military saw high value of communication and connectivity. and most people didn't even know what the heck we were talking about, but the defense department spent money, probably a lot of money in those early days, which we were probably criticized, i'm sure there was some criticism back then

a 2008 department of defense report noted how climate change will impact current and future u.s. national security. the department of defense has been progressive in transitioning bases around the world, solar panels, etc. the weather patterns in somalia have led to difficulties with shabbab.al- could you talk about climate change and the department of defense and could you get senator mitch mcconnell to stop blocking that legislation? thank you. [applause] >> i learned a long time ago, do not mess around with people. state what you think is right and hope that others will follow and be able to incorporate those thoughts in whatever they do. i have tremendous

we need is more marines and more soldiers and more sailors and so there is room within the defense department certainly defense budget to move around the money but again. cutting the defense budget depends on it and cutting your enemies and right now mr obama is creating more enemies than we can possibly handle with the mention of weaponry and weapons we don't need i thought it was very interesting that the b. two bomber has been retrofitted to carry these thirty thousand pound bunker buster bombs late last year reportedly the air force took delivery of them many reports over the years have said maybe this would be a prelude to the u.s. attacking iran my question when you build the b. two and equip it with a thirty thousand pound bunker buster bomb that is maybe the only thing that can penetrate a deep nuclear facility does that give you an incentive to hate try it out on iran is that. well i'm not sure i'm not sure they certainly wouldn't build it if they didn't intend to use it they used very large weapons of that sort in afghanistan and they weren't terribly effective they dropped a couple

and others are doing in the defense department we'd have a more defensible architecture and that's the way we are pushing, and the services are helping us get there. i think we have to partner with dhs and fbi. the reason that i bring dhs into this is that, i believe we want them working with rest of government to help set up the rest of government networks and work with that. we do not want to take the people that i have and push them over here. i think we want people that we have looking outside and that goes to senator mccain's comments, we're the offensive force. we're the ones that are going to protect the nation, we need to see what's going on and be prepared to do that. we can give and work with dhs and provide capabilities and technical expertise, and that's growing. finally, i'd add in fbi. they have some tremendous capabilities, they have the law enforcement arm, and when you put all three of us together, i think our country knows that what we're doing is transparent and we're doing the right thing. in doing that, you've brought all three players to the table. i see command a

and defense department. citing pending litigation, they declined to be interviewed on camera, but did offer this written statement instead. the department of defense said it has made it a priority to identify all service members exposed to chemical and biological substances. the v.a. says they have offered free medical evaluations to thousands of veterans. tim joseph's case and the case of other edgewood volunteers is now expected to go to trial next year. >>> coming up, a former model, former actress, young and healthy, then suddenly, she got hit by a car. if you don't think it can happen to you, neither did she. she tells the story with a sense of humor and brutal honesty as well. that's next. a good strategy. the same goes for my retirement. with the plan my financial advisor and i put together, a quick check and i know my retirement is on course. [ male announcer ] with wells fargo advisor's envision plan, you always know where you stand. in fact, 93 percent of envision plan holders say they will retire o

defense department as well as militaries around the world.o if we're going to be in constrained budget environment, i think we're in a good position to continue to help war fighters. >> let's be clear. i mean, it does still take hundreds of support staff on the ground. if you're having a drone fly for 24 hours straight, you're talking about hundreds of support staff and the cost can be fairly large as well. right? i mean, we're not talking about an amazingly low cost deal here, are we? >> well, there are an array of sizes and applications of unmanned airplanes. and you're right. there are very large systems that take quite a bit of footprint to operate them. again, this small system i was showing you, wasp. it's very small. it's carried in a backpack. it's used by a small squad on the ground. there's not a cast of thousands. there's not even a cast of three that operate this system. and they do significant realtime maintenance themselves. so a dramatically lower cost solution. in fact, these small systems like we build have been adopted by ev

defense is down slightly. looking forward, the president is proposing a small reduction in department of defense funding in 2013 from 534 billion in 2012 to 524 billion in 2013. over the next 10 years, the president's department of defense request would roughly match the level set in the budget control act, not including the sequester. as we can see from -- as we can see from the blue line, the request would provide a steady increase in the defense budget from 2013 on. the red line on this chart shows what would happen to department of defense funding if the sequester were implemented. we would see a much steeper drop in 2013, but then steady growth after that. i believe that the steep drop in 2013 required by a sequester would be a mistake. i also believe further reductions beyond the budget control act levels must be considered. the green line represents the proposed department of defense spending over the simpson bowles plan, which provides a smaller drop in 2013 than the sequester, but slower growth in funding after that. obviously, all of these have to be reviewed. in light of the defense threat that we fa

the president is in some ways the source of this current tension between the department of defense and the department of justice. right after don't ask, don't tell was repealed, on what seem to be at the time a separate track, the president and attorney general said they would not defend in court the defense of marriage act. there had been a series of lawsuits of people challenging whether this is a violation of the equal protection clause and unconstitutional discrimination. in a pretty unusual move, the president and attorney general said they would not go into federal court and defend this law. you get into some strange legal technicalities. republicans from the hill will have to defend those laws, but in short, the president has been very clear on his stance on these gay rights issues. he has not really weighed in specifically on the matter of military benefits other than to say he hopes the department of defense will, you know, i in good time address these questions. >> attorney general holders saying the same thing? >> yes, even more forcefully. there was a lawsuit early last yea

. >> the armed services chairman criticized president obama's defense department budget request yesterday will cause soldiers to get pink slips instead of a ticker-tape parade. he spoke about national security challenges and the defense budget at the ronald reagan presidential library in california. this is half an hour. >> there was an ominous reference to the soviet union in the advertisement and as the narrator gravely warned that there is a bear in the woods. the point was that unpredictability was a dangerous -- of a dangerous enemy was a threat that must be taken seriously. is ripe with the unpredictability and america's 21st century strategic outlook is a tangled mess. a senior military leader recently told me, in my 37 years of service, i have never seen a time as dangerous as today. we live in a globalized economy where commerce and communication are networked to an conflict in a remote region of the world can ripple across and burger -- borders, fakes, and economies. i am concerned about a world where the flop of a butterfly's wings can create a tornado. that means we must make

we've decided that the fiscal situation that we were confronting presented as the defense department with opportunity to establish a new defense strategy for the future. we develop strategic guidance before any budget decisions were made because we wanted those budget decisions to be based on strategy, not the other way around. we agreed we are at a key inflection point. the the military mission in iraq has ended, we still have a very tough fight on our hands and afghanistan but 2011 did marks significant progress in reducing violence and in transition to an afghan let responsibility for security and beyond our nato allies have committed to continue that transition through the end of 2014. last year successful nato operations did lead to the fall of ghdaffi and terrorism efforts have sickness a complete and al qaeda and decimated its leadership. but even though we have had those successes, unlike past drawdowns, let me stress that, unlike the past drawdowns, and i've been through most of those in recent history where the threats we confronted reseeded. the problem today is we still fa

and others are doing in the defense department we'd have a more defensible architecture and that's the way we are pushing, and the services are helping us get there. i think we have to partner with dhs and fbi. the reason that i bring dhs into this is that, i believe we want them working with rest of government to help set up the rest of government networks and work with that. we do not want to take the people that i have and push them over here. i think we want people that we have looking outside and that goes to senator mccain's comments, we're the offensive force. we're the ones that are going to protect the nation, we need to see what's going on and be prepared to do that. we can give and work with dhs and provide capabilities and technical expertise, and that's growing. finally, i'd add in fbi. they have some tremendous capabilities, they have the law enforcement arm, and when you put all three of us together, i think our country knows that what we're doing is transparent and we're doing the right thing. in doing that, you've brought all three players to the table. i see command a

we have good cooperation across the department of defense and with our partners in the department of homeland security to axhooef that end. >> i think we can all understand why it's a work in progress gin the complexity of the issue. would you say that we would have some way of bringing it to a resolution, that issue, so we can have some criteria to determine when the nation is under an attack, military attack that needs a response or a military-like attack that requires a response? do you believe we'll have that kind of sense or identification, criteria, for instance, within a year? is that a reasonable expectation? >> senator, i don't think that's an unreasonable expectation. i wouldn't want to put an exact time limit on it, but i think there's momentum. there's a moment tuum across th department and across the government. we appreciate the support of this committee and senate in helping us think through this. i know you had a suggestionful tabletop exercise, lots of good feedback from that. continued efforts like that to inform, to educate and understand will help us get more quic

have been mandated by the law that was passed by congress that there is now a reduction in the defense departmentudget that includes the intelligence community budget as well. and that would reduce some capability. my question is whether you are able to administer the cut in a way that any reduction in capability is manageable and acceptable. >> yes, sir, we can. not just to be clear, that is under the budget control act. africa sequestration, that's quite a different matter. >> minus the budget control it. under the 2013 budget request, which does follow the budget control act that came in for the administration a few days ago, that request in hooded or request to your budget and reduction has your support. >> yes, sir, it does. >> senator portman. you can take some of the brunt for delaying the launch for your good instincts and sensitivity. i took it on myself. >> thank you is for your fine testimony, service to a nation, for all the people who work with you in the intelligence community and the great work they do, we are frequently talk about our troops and consider people in the intelligence

. >> he's suing the department of defense and veteran affairs on behalf of the veterans. you hope to get for them? >> nothing for themselves out of this case other than perhaps medical care. they are not going to get money. they were mistreated and they don't want to let it be swept under the rug and have everyone die and never see the light of day. it's why they are doing it. >> tim joseph has had par kinson's like symptoms. >> do you think it's related to the tests at edgewood? >> absolutely. the substances affect the same regions of the brain. they gave him such high doses that he ranged from overdose with one substance to the anecdote back and forth. he had to get a very powerful antipsychotic drug because he flipped out. >> at what point does an 18-year-old kid think this is for life? what they are doing to me is going to affect my health for the rest of my life? >> things were different then. you believed in your government and wouldn't believe they would give you something to harm you intentionally. >> i tell you, we wanted to talk about the lawsuit with the v.a. a

. >> the attorney is suing the department of defense and the department of veteran affairs on behalff edgewood veterans. >> what are do you hope to get for them? >> nothing for themselves on this case. other than perhaps medical care. they are not going to get any money. they want proper notices of the substances they receive and the doses and the health effects and many of them have never been notified. they don't want it swept under the rode and had everyone die. that's why they are doing it. >> we wanted to talk about the lawsuit with the va and defense department. they declined to be interviewed on camera citing litigation. they gave us a statement instead. the department of defense said it made it a priority to identify all service members exposed to chemical and biological substances and the va offered free medical evaluations to thousands of veterans. >> on the fighting front, ground action has been quiet today. >> palmer said most veterans have never been contacted by the va. >> they don't want to know. >> the va denied almost all edgewood related health claims. >> we have no

i want to tell you i'm going to be a huge supporter of your efforts in the defense department. i may have some questions about some of the efforts that you're doing, but we go back to the '60s and darpa, which is the defense of advanced research project, if you go back to the '60s, everybody forgets they decided to do some simple things. they just wanted to communicate between the different facilities, and lo and behold, we had the internet. you took the initiative. you actually hired someone out of the private sector because you thought it was so important -- when i say we, collectively -- back in the '60s how important that was. the military have been the lead in many areas that have damaged this economy in many ways. i use that as an example, 1960s, when the military saw the heightened value of communication and connect activi ivity, and most people didn't even know what we were talking about. the department spent a lot of money back then, and i'm sure there were some criticisms, but i don't know what we would have done without it. i will have some questions on some of the ex

washington is to move this all to washington and make federal agencies responsible whether it's the department of defense or the department of homeland security i think the better approach is to put responsibility where it lies now which is that with the owners of the data with the owners of the networks and the owners of the computers they lose money if they fail to secure their infrastructure from the moment that they if they do fail so you may know owners of the computers so if we're talking about computers that at a large corporation it's to be the head of the corporation that are responsible through the heads will the corporation itself so we won't we don't want to cybersecurity bail out with the government coming in and fix them to be ready for our businesses business is that fail to secure their own infrastructure should fail that's good for all of us because it will strengthen the ones that remain they clearly need those processes to continue working rather and cybersecurity over the government to fix for everybody maybe not fix it all right they haven't made it a priority so i know that you wrot

we can bring department of defenses, h.h.s. if necessary. we can also bring a big paycheck every once in a while. $9 million for loma prieta. we can do that. the state as part of the team can bring a real lot. they do on response. they do on recovery. and to support the local government. and the local governments, to me, are key. because they are to support the survivors. that's what it's all about. supporting the survivors. my congressman from back in boston. not currently, but was for years, a guy by the name of tip o'neal. he used to say our politics are local. and i firmly believe that, but all disasters are local as well. and it's important to remember that. and it's important to remember that as each incident happens, people who are at the local level, the city level know that. sometimes just once in a while, some of the feds might forget that. but it's important to remind people of that. so if you look and you have federal government with all sorts or local and state government. very impressive team. very impressive team. can do a lot

head of the coalition forces there marine corps general john allen will testify along with defense department officials. you can watch it live here on c-span 3 and online at c-span.org. >> starting april 1, see the winners in this year's c-span student cam documentary on the theme the constitution and you, as middle and high school students from across the country showed which part of the constitution was important to them and why. we'll air the top 27 videos, mornings at 6:50 eastern on c-span, and meet the students who created them during "washington journal" each day. for a preview of the winning videos check studentcam.org. and congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's competition. >>> abdel rahim el-keib was named the interim prime minister of libya in november after the fall of moammar gadhafi. in a recent individual to washington, he spoke with the carnegie endowment for international peace about the effort to establish democracy in libya. this is an hour. >> good morning. let me just before we start mention that for security reasons, the doors of the room will be clo