mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. 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

mr. panetta not to leave afghanistan early? >> i think he was making a broad statement about the fact that we work very closely with our nato allies in afghanistan. >> i want to follow up on the state of the union address and see if you see anything under the trade enforcement unit, whether it would be specifically focused towards china and then also, residential mortgage backed securities working group and how that may be working in alignment with or separately from the work done by secretaries attorney's general with unlawful practices. >> i'm going to attempt to get this right. on the unit, working with the state's attorney general, and part of the idea of creating this unit was to combine focus and resources in the investigation of these matters. it has to do with the servicing of i hope i get this right, the servicing of mortgages. the trade enforcement task force, i think it was as we have described and as the president mentioned. it was one of the issues that we have in relation to china, its fair trade practices, but it

mr. panetta and mr. hill, thank you for your service and it is good afternoon now. thank you for your leadership particularly during this time made the ied proliferation is a key concern of mine, and it certainly has been for quite awhile. i support anything that we can do to counter them and obviously protect our troops, and i also support anything we can do to improve the detection rates and interdict the row and reported last year in afghanistan they cost over half the u.s. military deaths and the ied will continue to pose a threat to our military men and women to be the and i believe we need a capability to counter the threat. however we have to ensure our countermeasures we deal with the types we face now and in the future along with the environment they will likely be legalized in and our efforts must be geared towards countering than in any locale and my figures show that we have spent approximately $17 billion on the various initiatives and equipment not counting the 45 billion spent on drug-resistant vehicles. i see these soldiers all the time with a loss o

mr. panetta, that the defense department needs to be cut and will be cut? do you believe those statements? >> you i believe those statements? with the pentagon, the famous book is "the pentagon papers." it is a book of lies about the pentagon lying. i am always suspicious. one of the pentagon spokespeople -- you know he is telling the truth, because that is when he starts to sweat. i believe that are trying to get the pentagon spending under control. i believe if the right truly believe in fiscal responsibility, the pentagon is the golden example of fiscal irresponsibility. it is also one of the largest corporate welfare states. i think the cuts that have been called for now are not actually cuts. they are cuts against future spending. they are just trying to stop the increase of spending. they have said that are going to try to get half a billion more off. the question is -- i think president obama -- is he going to spend the political capital to do this? i do not know. it is up in the air. if he is forced to cut the budget, i think his base will want to s

mr. 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. panetta. i did yesterday in a hearing and thanked him for saying he would start bringing the combat troops home before -- by 2013. mr. speaker, i've been advised by military marine general for the last three years on afghanistan. i have great respect for him. he's a man of faith and he served our country at the highest rank in this particular type of service. i can't say his name because he asked me not to use his name publicly but this marine has been my advisor for three years. we exchanged emails. i'd like to share with the house some emails. attempting to try a find a true military answer for the problem in afghanistan would take decades, not years, and drain our nation of precious resources with the most precious being our sons and daughters. simply put the united states cannot solve the afghan problem no matter how brave and determined our troops are. he further stated, we need to bring our people home and prepare for the real danger that is growing in the pacific. again, this man, i have

mr. chairman. general dempsey, secretary panetta, mr. hail, thank you for your service. it is good afternoon now. thank you for your leadership, particularly during this time. i.e.d. proliferation is a key concern of mine. it certainly has been for quite a while. i support anything that we can do to counter i.e.d.'s and obviously protect our troops. i also support anything we can do to improve the detection rates and interdict the flow of ammonium nitrate. last year in afghanistan i.e.d.'s caused over half of u.s. military deaths. i.e.d.'s will continue to pose an enduring threat to our military men and women. i believe we need an enduring capability to counter this threat. however, we have got to ensure that our counter measures effectively deal with the types of i.e.d.'s that we face now and in the future along with the environments that they'll likely be utilized in. and our efforts must be geared toward counter i.e.d.'s in any locale. my figures show that we have spent approximately $17 billion on various i.e.d. initiatives and equipment, not counting the $45 billion spent on mine resistant v

mr. panetta telling congress that health care costs for u.s.rmed forces have doubled recently, and cuts have to be made. the current proposal would have some military families and retirees pay a whole lot more for coverage while leaving benefits for some unionized civilian defense workers untouched. we asked fox news legal analyst peter onson jr. to help us through the -- johnson jr. to help us through the changes. why are they doing this? >> because they need to make some cuts, so they're saying we need to do it on the back of military retirees and some active duty with regard to co-pays. megyn: you're talking about premiums in some cases. >> and enrollment fees. we're going to reduce $1.8 billion in 2013, and by 2017 it's going to be $13 billion. and so some retirees over a five-year period may have their enrollment fees increased fivefold. and it's being done based on means. so if you're earning so much in retirement, you're paying more x. for all members of the military service, active and retired, they will pay more in terms of pharmacy co

mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. secretary panetta, again, i want to thank you for visiting the shipyard back in november. you had a chance to climb on board the mississippi and north dakota which is under construction as well as really a pretty extraordinary town hall with the workers on the peer there where you very eloquently described the value of the industrial base to our national security. in light of that, to follow-up on the questions, the mississippi, which was christened a few weeks later came in $64 million under budget 12 months ahead of schedule. there is no question that the momentum of two subs a year that took 20 years to get us up to that pace is achieving savings. that block 4 contract shift, which by the way that's the third time it has been changed, not the second time, mr. hale. there's no question in terms ofe management, in terms of layoffs, which is inevitably going to flow from that shift is going to result in costs. i guess the question is, did you include that in your fit up in terms of the cost of that dip

a huge military presence in his congressional district posing questions to defense secretary panetta. >> mrchairman, thank you very much. and mr. secretary, i might be the only republican on the committee to say thank you for your recent decision about bringing our troops out in 2013. this has been of great interest and concern to me. i have camp lejeune in my district. that's what my question will deal with. you being an elected official, served in the house, i think with my father a few years ago, walter jones sr. you know better than any of us here or as good as any of us, that politics is local. there's no question about it. i have cherry point marine air station in my district. also had the depot in the -- in my district. and so it reads -- it brings the question that mr. bartlett was asking you about the f-35, and of course at cherry point, because of the depot, the interest in the f-35b and knowing that at one point in a discussion i had a few months ago, there was a thought that maybe at some point in time as this f-35 becomes online and becomes a reality that there might be eight s

mr. panetta and mr. hill, thank you for your service and it is good afternoon now. thank you for your leadership particularly during this time made the ied proliferation is a key concern of mine, and it certainly has been for quite awhile. i support anything that we can do to counter them and obviously protect our troops, and i also support anything we can do to improve the detection rates and interdict the row and reported last year in afghanistan they cost over half the u.s. military deaths and the ied will continue to pose a threat to our military men and women to be the and i believe we need a capability to counter the threat. however we have to ensure our countermeasures we deal with the types we face now and in the future along with the environment they will likely be legalized in and our efforts must be geared towards countering than in any locale and my figures show that we have spent approximately $17 billion on the various initiatives and equipment not counting the 45 billion spent on drug-resistant vehicles. i see these soldiers all the time with a loss o

mr. reyes ask more woullike to thank the general and secretary hale for the service to your oncountry. 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.

mr. panetta, that is an unsustainable path? >> there are a lot of unsustainable paths. [laughter] >> i guess what i would say to my colleagues, and i hope we understand this, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security, were exempted from any cuts. not one dime. so the got fell dramatically on other discretionary and the defense. the defense had not had as much increase prior to these cuts taken away. the discretionary did. i think, the defense been a core function of government, this is a dangerous path for us to be in. mr. secretary, we talk about the money shortfall. admiral mullin has said that threatens our national security inevitably. do you agree that it does threaten our national security? >> i do. >> with regard to sequester and the situation we are in, the president's budget calls for an almost $2 trillion in new taxes. as a reality, that is not going to happen. he also basically abandoned the request to increase suspect -- spending to about $1.60 trillion. i am worried that we may not reach a conclusion of this satisfactorily before you face a financial

mr. panetta? that's an unsustainable path. >> there's a lot of unsustainable paths. >> it's an unsustainable path. i guess what i say to my colleagues, and i hope that we understand this, that food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security are exempted from any cuts on the sequester. not a dime. the bill cuts dramatically on other discretionary and the defense, and defense had not had as much increase prior to these cuts taking place as the other discretionary did, so i think that defense being a core function of government, this is a dangerous path for us to be in. we've got to get off of it. mr. secretary, we talk about the money short fall. admiral mullen says that threatens our national security inevitably just as crunching it down as we did. do you agree that it does threaten our national security? >> i do. >> with regard to the sequester, and the situation we're in, the president's budget calls for an welcome $2 trillion in new taxes. as a reality, that's not going to happen. he also basic

mr. chairman, i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, senator mccain, secretary panetta. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee. i ask my statement be made part of the record, and i'd like to summarize key points. >> it is part of the record, and the balance i did not give will be made part of the record. >> members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. let me begin as always by thanking you for the support that you provide to service members and military families. these brave men and women along with the department's civilian professionals who support them have done everything asked of them and more, during more than a decade of war, and i want to thank you for the support that you have given them in the past, the present, and hopefully in the future. the fy13 budget request for the department of defense was the product of an intensive strategy review conducted by the senior military and civilian leaders of the department through advice and guidanc

what is your interpretation of secretary panetta's remarks? >> thank you, mr. johnson. first, i think that we have seen continued increase in capabilities of the afghan security force. i was there just before christmas. i'm encouraged by the progress that's been made by the afghan security forces. i think as you see us move forward, we are putting that more and more in front. i think we'll continue to do that. as we learned in iraq, it's important to do this slowly and do it right and be sure they're ready to take over. i think we're on the right track. in terms of secretary panetta's comments, i would say all along our strategy is to turn over responsibility to the afghan security forces. i think that as we continue to make progress, general allen and others on the ground will make the decision when this happens. but i think we all agree with secretary panetta that over time we're going to turn responsibility over to afghan security forces and move back from combat operations and allow them to take the lead. we will do that when the time is right. at the end of 2013 mi

mr. chairman, i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, senator mccain, secretary panetta. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee. i ask my statement be made part of the record, and i'd like to summarize key points. >> it is part of the record, and the balance i did not give will be made part of the record. >> members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. let me begin as always by thanking you for the support that you provide to service members and military families. these brave men and women along with the department's civilian professionals who support them have done everything asked of them and more, during more than a decade of war, and i want to thank you for the support that you have given them in the past, the present, and hopefully in the future. the fy13 budget request for the department of defense was the product of an intensive strategy review conducted by the senior military and civilian leaders of the department through advice and guidanc

mr. panetta, who i have a lot of respect for, will keep to that 2013 time frame. but i share with ms. woolsey that i don't trust him. it has nothing to do with the person, i want to make that clear, he's an honorable man, but there are too many factors playing into this issue of staying in afghanistan there are too many people that are, sadly, making money on war. i won't get into that, because i don't have enough time. as the host said to me today, you know, if we would just spend money on the defense of america instead of building empires around the world, we probably would save a lot of money and we would have a strong defense, which we need. that brings me to this poster, mr. speaker. i have a book called the $-- called "the $3 trillion war," written by a noble prize winner in economics named dr. joe stieglitz, and his co-author, linda belims is an economics professor at harvard an they testified a year ago on the -- before the veterans health committee, i am not on that committee, but as they finish thared discussion, excuse me, they were saying that if they wrote the book today,

mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. 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

what is your interpretation of secretary panetta's remarks? >> thank you, mr. johnson. first, i think that we've seen continued increase in capabilities of the afghan security force. i got back the day before christmas there. i'm encouraged by the progress made by the afghan security forces. as you see us move forward we are putting them more and more in front. we'll continue to do that. as we learned in iraq it's important to do it slowly, do it right and

panetta. >> nice to meet you, sir. >> mr. vice-president, it is truly an honor to be able to host you at the pentagon today. >> [interpreter] >> the united states and china are pacific powers. and we welcome the rise of a prosperous and successful china. that plays an active and responsible role in regional and global security affairs. we want to work with china to build an open, transparent, and in close of regional security order. to build a cooperative partnership, it is essential that we enhance mutual trust. mutual trust and understanding between our two military establishments. it is in the interest of both of our countries to work toward genuine strategic transparency. and to build trust and cooperation on both sides. by forging these common bonds and by forging a stronger working relationship. i believe that the united states and china can work together for continued peace, stability, and prosperity in the asia-pacific region. again, we welcome you here. >> [speaking in chinese] >> honorable secretary panetta it is my

defense secretary panetta at the pentagon earlier today. >> mr. secretary, on afghanistan, what significance do you see in the statement by president karzai that u.s. and afghan officials are now -- or have very recently held peace talks with the taliban in a three-way setting? is this an indication that the process of pursuing a political settlement is now finally advancing? >> it's always been important for us to make clear that reconciliation has to be afghan-led. and what president karzai's statement confirmed is that afghanistan is now very much involved in the process of reconciliation. and that's extremely helpful and important to determining whether or not we are ultimately going to be able to succeed with reconciliation or not. >> three-way talks planned, do you know? >> i don't know. i'm not directly involved with rarts regards to that effort. but the in us that afghan has joined those reconciliation discussions is important. >> may i -- just one sentence. these talks will be better the less we talk on them. >> james clapper testified to

mr. chairman. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, senator mccain. secretary panetta. >> thank you. i ask that my statement be made part of the record. i would like to summarize some of the key points. >> it will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. that began as always by thanking -- let me begin, as always, by thanking you for the support you provideo our military members and their families. these men and women have done everything asked of them and more during more than a decade of war. and i want to thank you for the support you have given them in the past, the present, and, hopefully, in the future. the fy 2013 budget request for the department of defense was the product of an intensive strategy review that was conducted by the senior military and civilian leaders of the deptment of the device -- at the advice and guidance of the president. the delauro request represents a $614 billion investment -- the total reques

mrs. obama joined secretary of defense leon panetta today for the announcement at the pentagon a new reporthows military spouses are ten times more likely to move across state lines. more than one-third of them have trouble landing jobs because their careers, including nursing, teaching and law require state certification. the first lady says the goal is by 2014 for all states to have laws addressing these licensing issues. >>> coming up next, a man grabs his gun when he finds out hi brad, where we going? just a second. just, just one second. ♪ what are you looking at? don't look up there. why are you looking up? ♪ get outta the car. get outta the car. ♪ are you ok? the... get in the car. get in the car! [ male announcer ] the epa estimated 42 mpg highway chevy cruze eco. from spending time together, to spending your lives together, chevy runs deep. >>> a texas man didn't hesitate to help when he heard his neighbor yelling for help during an attempted robbery. >> that neighbor, in his underwear, grabbed his gun, chased down the thief and held him until police arrived. nbc's correspondent re

mr. chairman and secretary and general dempsey thank you for being here this morning. i have told secretary panetta i was going back and forth between the committee and the budget committee, and it's interesting because i am seeing two different points of view and i commend both of you today and your comments about the need for us to deal with the unsustainable growth on the entitlement or mandatory side of the spending in response to your question from senator gramm is the mandatory for the system but you gave the simple answer colin no. i will tell you to be honest, having just engaged in the budget committee of the president's budget that was submitted yesterday it not only adds another 11 or $12 trillion to our debt taking it up to over $25 trillion but it takes a pass on any tough decisions that have to be made on the biggest part of the budget and the fastest-growing part of the budget and that is the entitlement side to beat actually grows under the numbers from 64% of the total budget now this would be medicare, medicaid, social security on the debt to gross from 64% now to the largest part

mr. chairman. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, senator mccain. secretary panetta thank you. i ask that my statement be made part of the record. i would like to summarize some of the key points. >> it will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. that began as always by thanking -- let me begin, as always, by thanking you for the support you provide to our military members and their families. these men and women have done everything asked of them and more during more than a decade of war. and i want to thank you for the support you have given them in the past, the present, and, hopefully, in the future. the fy 2013 budget request for the department of defense was the product of an intensive strategy review that was conducted by the senior military and civilian leaders of the department of the device -- at the advice and guidance of the president. the delauro request represents a $614 billion investment -- the total reque

mr. zakaria. >>> defense secretary leon panetta says the u.s.afghanistan a year earlier than expected. panetta says the plan is to transition the mission from a combat role to more training, and advisory starting next year. a new cnn/orc poll shows americans want out. 63% oppose the war in afghanistan. 63% even those it's the nation many consider the birthplace of the 9/11 attacks. many analysts say the power vacuum, many of them say the power vacuum in afghanistan in the late '70s led to the rise of osama bin laden. i want to turn to fareed zakaria. have americans forgotten that? why do you think the majority of people want us out of afghanistan knowing the history? >> reporter: because the majority of people are right and the experts are wrong. this is now the longest war america has fought. this has been going on for ten years. we have killed osama bin laden. we have decimated al qaeda, most of its senior leadership is destroyed. there will be a power vacuum in afghanistan. some bad guys will come into power. guess what, what's different from

mr. 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 ve

members of the president's cabinet including leon panetta, and marvin dempsey testifying about the president's budget on capitol hill. we wanted to share with you mr. dempsey takes questions from the republican chairman marc thornberry. >> one thing that intrigues me that under s.t.a.r.t. there is weapons that will be cut down 80% for 500 just for round, and that is generous. it seems to me that if we end up with 500 nuclear weapons and country a has a couple of hundred, all of the incentive for them in the world is to catch us, because it is not that fa and not that hard for them to do, so i would appreciate your best professional military judgment regarding whether cuts in 80%f of the nuclear stockpile are really good for the national security of the united states. >> i won't comment on the 80% figure, congressman, but what i will say is that what has been reported is the cliff notes version and not that you would ever understand what cliff notes are from your personal education, but it is the cliff notes version of what is a comprehensive set of discussions internal to the military with the national security staff on what is our next negotiatin

mr. chairman. >> the comments and questions from senator joe lieberman, a member of the senate armed services committee, leon panetta, defense secretary, and general martin dempsey testifying on capitol hill in the first of three days of congressional hearings for pentagon leaders, discussing the pentagon budget. leon panetta saying both military and civilian leaders within the pentagon remain unified behind a revised strategy that essentially shifts the focus from the long wars to future challenges in asia, the mideast, also concerns about cyberspace. the budget for the fiscal year, by the way, begins on october the 1st. news from capitol hill about rand paul, republican from kentucky, is delaying a senate debate over a two-year transportation bill to make a statement on egypt. after unsuccessfully trying to block a judicial nominee, paul refused to offer consent to quickly move ahead on the senate's $109 billion transportation bill which the president offered his support for last week. the move expected to delay consideration on the plan until later this week according to politico, the reason, senator paul wants t

well, apparently, joe biden, also the chief of staff, and leon panetta all said mr.n sabelius and david plouffe, they won. yesterday, joe biden was on a radio station out in ohio, i believe, and he said i am determined to see this get worked out. >> that's the first real comment that he's had on this whole thing. another person you got to factor into this is the former chief of staff bill daley because he resigned on january 9th or was told to leave, however you want to think about that situation and then this contraception decision came out on january 20th so if he was against it, is that one of the reasons he's not working at the white house anymore? could it be? >> i was shocked by joe biden coming out and saying we're going to work it out. he didn't say right out the president is wrong. that would have been huge news but it seems to be how he really feels. archbishop dolan, i think, did make huge news yesterday when he essentially said the president broke a promise with him when they addressed this issue face to face. we're going to work it out in a way that's go

. >> i think secretary panetta has a very well thought through plan and i suggest that you put that question to him. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and for your testimony. quick question in relation to something that mr. garrett raised the issue of the -- however you characterize it, fine tax under the affordable care act. you said there were no new taxes in this budget. if i'm not mistaken, that final budget or tax was in existing law prior to this budget being submitted. therefore by the chairman's own standards those things that are in existing law you don't get credit for or blamed for. the implication that in some way this budget raised revenue through that vehicle doesn't meet the standard the chairman said. would you agree with that? >> i think it's important in this budget there are no increases on families earning less than $250,000 and, in fact, important tax breaks, including the america opportunity tax credit which is up to $10,000 for tuition credit, tax against tuition, which is important as part of our groebl competitiveness and ensuring

mr. chairman. thank you both for service to our country. i think it was mentioned that the intelligence budget is sort of wrapped up in the department of defense budget. secretary panetta said if we did sequestration. if we took another 500 on top of the 487 planned, it would be fascinating, it would be ir expense i believe to the defense side. >> yes. >> then would you agree with me that if americans ever needed a smarter network, it's now. they don't want you to dine, in i if i had. >> the positions that would move or pick and choose where every single program within intelligence would have to make a proportional hit. so we were responsible for helping a lot of employees, plus it would rock every system i had -- it would result in -- sir, i would have a hard time saying that as the director of national intelligence that i could face a group like this and say i have any degree of

panetta. joining me from washington is former u.s. ambassador mark ginsburg. good to see you, mr.see you, chris. >> you are not adjusting your plan to wind down the war by 2014 but it has reinforced a feeling among a lot of americans that the u.s. needs to get out as quick as possible. how do you think the latest violence has changed the equation? >> well, i think it has brought into sharp focus the fact that general petraeus' surge has not worked. despite what his supporters claim politically, the president has reached the end of the road in so far as reconstructing afghanistan. it's got to be back, we have to revert back to vice president biden's strategy of engaging largely and countering terrorism from the air. whether karzai stays or leaves, i think he'll end up with a pot of money in geneva. tinge taliban will continue to control a good part of the eastern part of the country. the pakistanis have no intention of supporting u.s. aims in afghanistan. and the u.s. military, i think, has already come to the conclusion that whatever they have valiantly tried to achieve on the gro

panetta on this. that's his judgment as well. he was stating what his estimate would be right now and we'll don't assess that as we move forward. >> thank you. mr. secretary, the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization required the department of defense to provide congress with a full analysis of alternatives for the ground combat vehicle. we still have not received that analysis of the alternatives, and when will we get it? >> well, we're -- pardon me. we're working through the dictates of the congressional mandate but also what be our normal procurement and part of that as you just noted is an analysis of alternatives but also an analysis of nondevelopmental platforms as well. our current plan, i think, calls for 2014 on the next step for that. so hopefully at the end of this year we'll have some input for you and get back to you. i don't recall that -- i don't recall the legislation itself had a specific deadline. >> but i'll tell you we're aggressively going after this. it's not only developmental but we want to look at nondevelopmental items in this and that's clearly part of the process we'll go through. once we meet milestone a as part of