but let me ask mr. hale to comment. >> some of what we're seeing as we shift to the base as the iraq war ended, some of those units, some went to afghanistan, but some are coming home. and we need to get their funding back into the base budget. that's some of what is driving the trends. and then as general dempsey said, we're seeing lower requirements in some case because the tempo of operations will be lower when we're out of iraq. >> those are just much larger percentages of reduction this quickly. we still have some real significant redemands that i understand in maybe '14 and '15 we may see larger reductions. but those are awfully sharp hill turkey, my knowledge, reset is a difficult issue. and it's hard to predict. and it's hard to know exactly when their equipment will be

>> it's part of the overall discussions -- >> mr. hale. >> we need to arrive at sdoosh. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. could you take that one for the record, please? >> thank you. >> secretary panetta, i want so thank foee discussed the issue of a national standard for custody rights for our service members. we asked you to confirm secretary gate's and dod's policy supporting a national standard. unbelievably across the country, there are federal law court that will take custody away from service members. this committee members has been active on this issue, every committee having endorsed the national standard. we would appreciate your support and advocacy to assist us in making that law. >> second day, i appreciate your statement on the budget control act and the issues of sequestration. it's a thing. as we look to sequestration, i think the american public do not know the great risks that could be imperilling our military, your statements on it are important. it's one of the reasons why i voted against the budget control act so

general dempsey, secretary panetta, mr. hale. secretary panetta, first of all i would like to echo the concerns of mr. thornberry regarding the administration's consideration or potential proposal of reducing our nuclear or strategic inventory by as much as 80%. i have to suggest to you i consider that reckless lunacy. and your response, in all deference to you, sir, was really a nonresponse. and it did little to assuage my concerns. and i just have to tell you, for the record, given the need for a broad umbrella that america represents to the world in terms of our nuclear deterrent, given the tangibles of being able to demonstrate in the mind of any enemy, even those that are not all together sound of our overwhelming capability to respond and overwhelming aggression on the part of someone with nuclear capability. i just to go on record that there are many of us that are going to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction. so with that said, let me shift gears and

particularly secretary panetta and mr. hale, your accessibility to members of the committee and congress. it is refreshing. you've been the most accessible leaders of the defense department i've ever encountered and i'm very grateful for that. i also want to thank you, mr. secretary, for your comment on page 3 of your written testimony about the personal attention you put on audit readiness for the department. my friend and colleague mr. conway has taken the lead on this issue. he wrote it into law and has led a panel to try to achieve that reality. all the discussions we've had and in the next couple of mondays may be based on false data if we don't have good financial statements. this is a boring topic but critical to the hard financial choices we have in front of us. i thank you for your very personal investment in that issue. i did want to get to the more controversial question now.

secretary thank you for being with us, mr. hale and i want to recognize colonel toliver, who commanded one of the finest air force bases, in rapid city, south dakota. i think you've touked on this once already. i want to put a fine point on it. you recommended in your budget that congress enact two more back grounds. and it seems like that a lot of that excess capacity among domestic bases could be filled by closing overseas bases, particularly in europe and bringing troops home from bases that back to bases in the continental u.s. and particularly given the fact that it seems that we've had a military presence in europe for a long time, obviously, but it seems to make abundant good sense to get some of these folks home. if you could just kind of elaborate on why you haven't recommended closing overseas bases in this budget, especially in parts of the world where it's perhaps no longer necessary to have that kind of a military footprint? >> well, we have, we have made recommendations with regards to reducing infrastructure abroad.

chairman, secretary panetta, mr. hale, thank you very much for joining us today. i want to go back to some of the statements you made about this effort of budget reductions driven by strategy and ask you this. i know that part of that strategy is an increased operational capability and presence in both the middle east and the asia-pacific. within that context, we're looking now about an additional ssn being moved outside the fit-up. and we know in that pareater, e asia-pacific, the ssn is a very, very frequently utilized asset. also, we're going to be pushing the ssbn next few years down the road. so it's not going to be operational or deployability until at least the 2020s, and we'll have a significant period of time where we have a reduced number of ballistic submarines in a time when we know it's a critical deterrent to our triad. looking where we are reemphasizing our efforts, that seems to be counter to that. and i would ask this. with that in mind, have we looked at and can you tell me from the perspective of china, you tell me how many subs they are buildin

. >> mr. hale, we appreciate you being here, the work you're doing. this hearing is now at an end. >>> in a few moments c-span radio's "washington today" program. more about the administration's 2013 budget request and a hearing with treasury secretary tim geithner. and then we'll reair defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chairman general martin dempsey testifying about the pentagon's 2013 budget request. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. energy secretary steven chu will take questions about his department's budget request from members of the senate energy committee. that's on c-span 3 at 3:30 a.m. eastern. also on c-span 3 at 2:00 p.m. eastern, treasury secretary tim geithner will return to capitol hill to testify about the president's 2013 budget. he's before the house budget committee. >> booktv is live saturday from the savannah book festival. coverage starts at 9:30 eastern with tom clavin on the last hours of the vietnam war followed by karl marlantes on what it's like to go to war and scotty smiley at noon. at

mr. hale, we appreciate you being here and the work you're doing. this hearing is now at an end. >> you have been watching the army's 2013 budget request. it's a 1% decrease in nonwar spending over last year. the budget contains $88.5 million to fight wars and nearly $27 billion less than the previous budget. of course, the army is not the only service branch included in the overall defense budget. here's a brief look at the navy and air force budget presentations. this is just under 10 minutes. >>> good afternoon. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fy-13 budget briefing. next slide, please. today's air force is the tradition across the wide range of difficult and complex challenges. 2011, for example, we helped end the war in iraq and reduce sectarian violence and engage in a myriad of smaller operations around the globe. in addition, we provided the debt terns to underwrite global security. as it evolves, our fiscal environment has changed. it's clear that we need to renew our economic strength at home. the budget control act

general, mr. hale. i also want to welcome the kernel that commanded one of the finest air bases in south dakota. mr. secretary, i think that you've touched on this once already, but i just want to maybe put a fine point on it did you recommend in your budget to more brac rounds in the seems to me like a lot of that excess capacity among the domestic bases can be filled by closing the bases in europe and bringing troops home from the bases in the continental u.s. and in particular given the fact that it seems we've had a military presence for a long time obviously this seems to make a convincing sense so if you could kind of elaborate on why you haven't recommended closing overseas bases in the budget especially in parts of the world where it's perhaps no longer necessary to have that kind of military footprint. >> we have made recommendations with regard to reduced infrastructure abroad. it's an area where we have the authority to be about to make those reductions, and as i pointed out, we've closed abou

senator portman. >> i will start with mr. hale. i appreciate his conversations with me, ensuring that the legislation captive as confirmed -- kept as confirmed, individuals in various departments and agencies, including dod. auditing. it seems that the most critical thing is that we're doing it right, this first $487 billion, or whether we have to go something beyond that, and i am concerned about the kind of this out audit we want to have with the department. could you give us the status report on that what you're doing to accelerate the audit ability of dod, given the sacrifices that dod is being asked to make? >> i can. we have plan set up years ago to move to unauditable statements -- to auditable statements. that secretary panetta's direction, we have accelerated the budget statement portion of one,ecause it is 8a key with all the audits being ready by 2017 as the law requires. we have set aside a fair amount of resources. we have a plan and some near- term successes. the marine corps is going through an audit process now for

general demp circumstances secretary panetta, mr. hale. etary panetta, first of all i would like to echo the concerns of mr. thornberry regarding the administration's consideration or potential proposal of reducing our nuclear or strategic inventory by as much as 80%. i have to suggest to you i consider that reckless lunacy. and your response in all deference to you, sir, was really a nonresponse. and it did little to assuage my concerns. and i just have to tell you, for the record, given the need for a broad umbrella that america represents to the world in terms of our nuclear deterrent, given the tangs of being able to demonstrate in the mindf any enemy, even those that are not all together sound of our overwhelming capability to respond and overwhelming aggression on the part of someone with nuclear capability. i just to go on record that there are many of us that are going to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction. so with that said, let me shift gears and ask you a

secretary. >> thank you, secretary panetta, general dempsey, mr. hale for your demitment and -- commitment and your stamina. we appreciate it. i want to begin actually where you began, mr. secretary, with congress must do everything possible to avoid sequestration because i certainly agree with that. i share the concerns. we've heard expressed from my colleagues and i am not going to ask you to respond to this but i would certainly hope that we in congress would do what you all have been willing to do and in a is to future everything on the table and put aside our posturing and come to some agreement that addresses the long-term debt and deficits of this country. it is inexcusable that we are in this position now with you and all of the men and women who are serving in defense and in our military and across the federal government, not knowing what we're going to do because we have been unable to act. i would like to go -- and my questioning, i'd like to start with where senator gillibrand left off and that is with the guard and reserve and i was very pl

in fy-13, the active component rate is going to be funded in three ways, and mr. halead touched on those. one is the enduring part, 490,000 will be paid for on the base. 490,000 that we're going to end up with by the time we get to the end of fy-17. we also have a nonenduring part that we're going to pay for in oco -- [inaudible] we also have a new category of the temporary end strength, t called the temporary army end strength medical, and that will fund almost 12,400 soldiers who are processing through the integrated disability evaluation system. there is no end strength associate with the the oco temporary end strength increase. you remember tesse from last year and the year prior for deployments, that program will end as scheduled at the end of fy-13. and for the rc, the base request also includes about $83 million for additional training days to enhance the role of the army national guard and the reserves as operational forces. and oco, the active component will fail the -- [inaudible] as it has been for the rc who are on active duty, and then a special pace for a

mr. secretary, that you are here in person. general dempsey, thank you very much for your testimony and service. thank you secretary hale for yours as well -- >> mr. chairman, may i thank the witnesses also for your testimony and for your service to your country, we know that larger cuts already, are working diligently to achieve those in the most effective way that other departments have been asked to a chief. many have been asked to achieve not any cut s zero, that is important it is. with regard to the chart that you were showing, that is dollars not adjusted for inflation, if we continued -- you would not see a growth, i think the relative growth pattern that you showed in that chart is probably accurate. youed a justed it for inflation and energy costs go up, material costs go up. somewhat over the years so i think the sequester represents a greater threat than we would like to admit, and the way to fix it is not to give up the reduction reductions but to look at the other aspects of the government, as senator gram mentioned. we need to make sure that our men and women in uniform know we believe this them and we ar

they represent a balanced approach to the overall budget reduction, and as mr. hale stated, are only two% of the total reductions. in accordance with the principles that got us to the budget, the honor the commitments of america's military force and their families. >> the last area is deployed war fighters. we will ask for $80.5 million for fiscal year '13, down roughly commensurate with the troop reductions in afghanistan. almost all of the funding for afghanistan, $2.9 billion for iraq, supporting the it security corp. for iraq, and the rest of that is new equipment come out of iraq. i will mention one point so that we can get on and hear your questions. we assume that afghan force levels continued through '15 at a level of 68,000 pit that does not mean there will not be later changes in two levels. does not mean we want to bind the hands of the president with budget limits. we want to hear the recommendations from the commanders based on conditions on the ground and, of course, the secretary of defense, before he makes decisions on levels of troops in fiscal year

they represent a balanced approach to the overall budget reduction, and as mr. haled, are only two% of the total reductions. in accordance with the principles that got us to the budget, the honor the commitments of america's military force and their families. >> the last area is deployed war fighters. we will ask for $80.5 million for fiscal year 2013, down roughly commensurate with the troop reductions in afghanistan. almost all of the funding for afghanistan, $2.9 billion for iraq, supporting the it security corp. for iraq, and the rest of that is new equipment come out of iraq. i will mention one point so that we can get on and hear your questions. we assume that afghan force levels continued through 2015 at a level of 68,000 pit that does not mean there will not be later changes in two levels. does not mean we want to bind the hands of the president with budget limits. we want to hear the recommendations from the commanders based on conditions on the ground and, of course, the secretary of defense, before he makes decisions on levels of troops in fiscal year 2013