mr. thornberry said, the net savings is still years away. and, you know, obviously we all sort of get pinned as sort of looking at our own backyard when this issue gets discussed. but i think there is a legitimate question here, particularly with the fact that we've got a deal with the budget control caps. how you do this, in terms of not costing money in the short-term, the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is that it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. so zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's annulty in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. and frankly, i think that's a very threshold question which the department has to answer before i think there is going to be any willingness to look at this at all. >> you know, i hear what you're saying, and the 2005 costs are frankly unacceptable, the way that process ultimately worked out in terms of how much it cost us. on the other hand, obviously in the long run, it will produce some savings. i guess

mr. thornberry's point on brac. i respect the fact that you have deep profound personal went through in your time in congress. some of us have our own experience as well. i served on the readiness subcommit for the last five years. we've been following 2005 brac like a box score in terms of its results. it cost about twice as much as predicted and as mr. thornberry said the results are years away. we're sort of pinned in the backyard when this issue is discussed. i think there is a legitimate question here. particularly with the fact that we have to deal with the budget control caps. how do do you this in terms of not costing money in the short term. the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's a nullity in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. frankly, i think that's a very big threshold question which the department has to answer before i think

mr. thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me add brief facts to a conversation you've already had this morning. one is that the president instructed the pentagon in the spring of 2011 to look for money in the defense budget. that's before your time. but any notion it sprung out of congress because of the budget control act spontaneously in some way is not true. it was under way long before we ever got to that point. the second point i want to throw out, a little more specificity on brac. by the way, i have supported every round of brac since i've been in congress. but the 2005 round of brac will not even break even until 2018, according to gao. that means for 13 years, it's going to cost more money to have more brac than it would if it didn't have brac. so the pentagon suggesting two more rounds when it will aggravate the budget situation for 13 years, or at least a decade, leaves me scratching my hports that the military and -- head a little bit. i think it's important to put a little specificity. it doesn't even break e

mr. thornberry brought up and we pulled the quote to make sure we had it right, by the secretary, "by mid part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training/advising role." i can't find anyone here that believed that was the time line of which we are on, both from the armed services committee, the hacd on appropriations and intelligence community, that was never our understand so long that is, in fact, a change, because if you're going to make it by mid 2013, even by the directors' assumption of time lines you have to start that earlier. so i guess why i'm confused by all this is because the rhetoric of which we are pursuing this doesn't match the intelligence of which we are receiving. we've just clarified that they are, in fact, still using political assassination. we have clarified by our intelligence forces -- sources, excuse me, that the taliban is, in fact, looking at, this is triumphant. they know what their time line is when they have to survive, that we've seen reports of defections to the taliban, and it's all about intimidation. that's who we know

mr. thornberry say the president came out and said he wanted $400 billion in cuts before the strategic cut was taking place. if your discussions with the president and looking at the strategy, at anytime has the president ever voiced to you the fact that he thought this $487 billion of cuts was too much? >> i think the president understood that this was not going to be easy and that there would be risks involved in doing that. >> i understand that. that's not my question. did the president ever voice to you the fact that he felt this $487 billion in cuts was too much? >> he felt as i did, the congress and the president had gone forward with this budget control act when we were obligated to fulfill it. >> you disagree with that figure, i disagree with that figure. had the president disagreed with that figure could he not have put any of those cuts back into the budget that he has just presented to congress? >> i think the president shared your concern, which is what do we do about reducing the deficit? >> did he put the cuts back in this budge. >> and that was the only thing that was worked

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 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 ask you a question related to missile defense. as you know, homeland defense is listed as the first policy priority in the ballistic missile defense review. and furthermore, the

mr. thornberry said, the net savings is still years away., you know, obviously we all sort of get pinned as sort of looking at our own backyard when this issue gets discussed. but i think there is a legitimate question here, particularly with the fact that we've got a deal with the budget control caps. how you do this, in terms of not costing money in the short-term the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is that it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. so zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's annulty in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. and frankly, i think that's a very threshold question which the department has to answer before i think there is going to be any willingness to look at this at all. >> you know, i hear what you're saying, and the 2005 costs are frankly unacceptable, the way that process ultimately worked out in terms of how much it cost us. on the other hand, obviously in the long run, it will produce some savings. i guess what

mr. thornberry brought this up and we wouldn't pull the quote to make sure we have a right, it said fromthe secretary by the mid part of 2013 would be able to make a transition from the combat role to the training advising rule. i can't find anyone here that would find the timeline that we are on from the time services committee on the appropriations and certainly the intelligence community. i was never a more understanding so that is in fact the change because if you're going to begin by mid 2013 by the director's the assumption of time lines you have to start that earlier. so i guess i am confused about all this is the rhetoric of which we are pursuing this doesn't match the intelligence of which we are receiving. we have just clarify that they are still using political assassination and by our intelligence sources of the taliban is in fact looking at -- this is triumphant. they know the time line is when they have to survive. but we've seen the reports of the defections to the tel dan and it's all about intimidation. that is who we know they are. are you familiar with the -- in 2006,

mr. thornberry brought up and we wouldn't the vehicle went and told the senate sure we have a right we saidy the secretary by mid part of 2013 will be able to make a transition to the combat role to the training advising will. i can't find anyone here that believed that was the time line over which we were on both from the armed services committee the appropriations and certainly the intelligence community. the was never our understanding so that is the fact of change because if you were going to make it by mid 2013 even by the directors time lines you have to start earlier. so i guess i'm confused about all of this is because the rhetoric of which we are pursuing this doesn't match the intelligence of which we are receiving. we've just clarified they are in fact still using the political assassination. we've clarified by our intelligence sources excuse me that the taliban is in fact looking at this is triumphant, we know their timeliness they have to survive but we've seen reports of the defections to the taliban but it's all about intimidation that's how we know where they are. in 2006 it

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 negotiating strategy notably with russia. the status quo is always an option, and one that is in play, and at th