we also have the operations and maintenance oco. i said earlier it does fully fund our operations sustainment and support of operation "enduring freedom" in the theater. our planning numbers includes force level decreases of 25.4,000 for the army personnel. 33,000 of all services but 25.4 for army personal until in fy 12. by september 2012. for fy 13 we're planning on a steady state of 41,000 soldiers. 68,000 of all the services. there are going to be no changes in the nine dcts planning and budgeting for for the program. our major cost drivers have been and continue to be log cap, transportation, reset and intel. looking at ocm continuing the training going on, all the personnel readiness and all postdeployment and reintegration of soldier with his family and work. we'd like to turn our attention over to investments. >> thank you. as we turn to investments i'd like to first note as you know, as the general alluded to, ourster services all made tough choices about how to continue to sustain the readiness of our force, the capability

in fact, the base and oco together is basically five. is up 1%. >> my question is, you know, since there are discretionary spending cuts going into effect for the first time based on the debt control budget act, you expect that to be funded in the regular budget and you expect congress to just be shifted back. >> you've watched this for a long time. this is the beginning of a process. i mean, obviously, the benefit of the oco account in general allows for all of you who report on this and for the hill to look at the cost where front line stays. to look at iraq and afghanistan and pakistan. and that's important because you better see those costs come down over time. i think that's why the idea of putting the oco part of the state department as relates to the united states is critically important. that's the benefit of the oco and i think the congress will look at that in 13. my assumption is it will continue to fund the oco in a way that they feel reflects those costs. >> one specific thing is $626 million forses assistance in europe and

we also have the operations and maintenance oco.gain, as i said earlier, it does fully fund our operation, sustainability and support of operation enduring freedom in theater. our planning numbers include force levels decreases of 25.4,000 for the army personnel, 33,000 of all services, but 25.4 for army personnel in fy-12. by september o 201 -- 2012. for fy-13, we're planning on a steady state of 41,000 soldiers, 68,000 of all the services. there are going to be no changeses in the nine bcts that we're planning and budgeting for for the program. our major cost drivers for oco have and continue to be log cap, transportation and intel. rcom continues to fund all the training that's going on, all the personnel readiness and all the postdeployment and the reintegration of the soldier with his family and his work. what we'd like to do now is turn our attention over to ms. bonessa. >> as we turn to investments, i'd like to first note as you know and as general mcgheee has alluded to, the army had to make a lot of tough choices about how

>> very small and not in fy 13. >> 4.1 billion affected by that from base oco? >> active component, appropriation, yes. >> from bloomberg news. i want to ask about the personnel, the fore structure review. if i understand you correctly, that the result of that might be additional reductions in the overall and strength levels in some of the out years and, also, have you done any calculations, any projections, ballpark, about what pro portion of the currently projected reductions might require involuntary separation? >> i want to first make sure that i did not misspeak, and it's not additional. at the end of the day, we're going to, we're ramping down to the 57,000. really, for the army leadership, what's most important is, not the forward 90 but the rampdown to make sure we do not put ripples in the force and we have the ability, we have reversibility. if something happens between now and the next five, six years as we do this rampdown, that we have the capability to reverse that and bring that back up. there are many things we can do for it, and so we can start

but there is also a piece of oco that will also be used to fund this. i think that's where the rest of this will come as we come out of iraq and afghanistan. >> i share the sentiments of mr. reyes when he talked about not letting this base go cold and what it can mean to us. as you know, the army depot has the largest public/private partnerships of any installation in the country. and we worry very much. we can talk about striker being one of those lines that would go cold, but losing those folks. >> i was just -- i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt you, mr. rogers. but the chief makes a good point. a lot of what we need to do, a lot of what we hope to be able to do will be dependent not just after or up until drying out of the heater in afghanistan, but for two to three years afterwards in terms of sustaining oco. and it is not just in the kinds of things that people often think about it as critical for our depots to have those funds available for our reset of equipment as we draw out of afghanistan as well. >> based on this budget, this core budget

>> the issue becomes, oco is a one-year -- we don't know what we get from year to career. what we're getting in '13 we have enough to do what i think we need to do. what we don't know is what the oco would be in '14, '15, '16 and '17, two or three years after we finish coming out of afghanistan. we are making it clear we need support for reset in those years in order to not only -- it would not only support the depots but also is about the readiness of our capabilities. >> i have had several conversations with general dunwoody and general stein about my concerns over our depot network and readiness. as the secretary knows, when we went into iraq and afghanistan, our depots were not up to speed and it took us 18 months. and general dunwoody has assured me you all have learned those lessons and will not let that happen again. but when i look at these numbers, it worries me because you all know we could be in iran or somewhere over there in the next six months for all we know. i want to make sure that you're confident that you've got what you need for a surge capability. and

those, the oco funding is not capped, but it is subject to this, to this reduction. the second question, the other thing you used was the term 050 for people who don't follow this, that's a budget function for national defense. which i'm proud to say i've learned. the other question you asked was how we decided what to include in this alternative fiscal scenario. so we have for some time shown in our outlooks, a menu of alternative fiscal policy assumptions. so that members in congress and their staffs who are coming themselves from a different starting point than current law can see what would happen to the budget under that, under that starting point. i think as the last few years have gone on, and more and more aspects of the budget have either been enacted on temporary basis or extended on a temporary basis, we felt that the current law baseline provides less an less useful guide to what the current stance of fiscal policy is. so we tried to lengthen the menu of the alternatives we showeded. because there are different sorts of policies that people on the hill wi

the reduction in oco is over $13 billion. half of that is due to the understated 2012 star point that included over $3 billion relied on by the congress. we have growth from inflation, fuel rates and our federal civilian pay raise. our number one objective is providing trained and ready forces to win the current fight and sustain a high level of readiness. funding for ground tempo increased by $3 billion. it also funds an additional training and professional military education because we have so many soldiers at home now available to train. it sustains our commitment to care for our soldiers and our families. we put another $1.7 billion into those family programs to reinforce holistic fitness, mitigates stress and build resilience. that includes comprehensive soldier fitness, sexual harassment, sexual response and army substance abuse. it includes funding for recruitment and training and education. that will continue to attract, develop and retain both our high-quality soldiers and our civilian work force. we are committed to

that's being covered by the oco? >> half. about half. just generally about half. >> which is about how much? >> 200 and what? $230 billion. >> part of it, as i come to town, part of the reason our gas tax rev senue is down is becaus fuel efficiency is up. it's poisonous to think about increasing the gas tax to refund that -- or refill that revenue stream. why not look more seriously at utilizing energy resources as a funding mechanism? you know, more drilling in the gulf, opening up anwar? >> i assume, you know, when we put out -- when the president puts out a pay for, i assume that's what the debate is going to be about, senator. that's what they're debating over in the house now. they to split the bill up into three bills. one is transportation. one of them is energy because they're trying to figure out a pay for. >> i was just asking your opinion. do you think that's a good idea? >> i like the idea of the president put out. i like the idea of half of it highway trust fund and half of it iraq money. i think it's a pretty good formula.

last question, we've had a lot of discussion about oco. again, i disagree with you on projecting $850 billion worth of savings.llion wo how do you do that unless you can figure out what we're going to spend if we go to war someplace else.ure out you're taking savings saying we're ending wars.so the next ten years is very unpredictable.s. you have no place in there where you would assume that we would d spend money to go to war.end mo it's a pretty good chance --neto >> i don't want to speculate on national scene and that spe definitely is for secretary panetta. i will point out that there aret $450 billion in oco still in th4 budget in this situation where e we're saving over $800 billion.t it's not as many oco is going to zero. there's $450 billion. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. honda?he >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. agree and thank you for your presencet here. the budget is, i think, for the public and i agree with mr. simpson that when we talk in terms of percentage of gdp, peop

using the same methodology from last year's request, we've asked for $8.2 in oco and $3.7 billion in our base budget for a total of $11.9 billion for the front line states. let me break it down to you specifically. in iraq, we're requesting $4.8 billion for next year which is about 10% less than last year. the transition is already saving american taxpayers a great deal of money, with now with state in the lead and the troops no long on the ground, the government is spending $40 billion less this year than last. as discussed during last week's press briefing, question ear continuing to be thoughtful about the right sizing of our staff, hiring more local staff, procuring more goods locally which should further reduce our spending. in afghanistan, requesting $4.6 billion. civilians are vital to our efforts. they are curing our gains against the taliban. they're helping us take afghan's lead, responsibility for their own security. they're laying the groundwork for what comes less. sustainable economic growth. national reconciliation and the long-term civilian partnership, all of which h

it also underscores the need for oco funding because a great sh will war.out of those oco accounts we need that line for at least two years, we hope two to three years after the hostilities. >> thank you. that's all i have. being where alone in here. thank boston you for being in here. taking time out four testimony. this committee looks forward to working with you as we service services and with that being said the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >>> if you missed any of this hearing on the army's budget for fiscal year to 13 you can see it in its entirety in the c-span video library. the house adopted the conference report to the payroll tax agreement. moments after that the senate voted 60-36 to approve the agreement. it now goes to president obama for his signature. you can see how are you congressman voted if you go to our website c-span.org and this is the final piece of legislation in the house and the senate for the day as members head out for the president's daybreak. the president has requested $525 billion for the defense department for next year. 1% cut in discretionar

capping oco closes the back door on security spending. then there are other categories. a net savings of $141 billion. a bit of a catch all. disaster adjustments and program integrity and general fund transfers for the programs that are no longer necessary given we are paying for them in the previous bar. debt service costs decreased by a total of $800 billion. finally in the small pink bar, there are $176 billion of investments in short-term job initiatives that cut in the other direction. these are investments. this is the remainder of the $354 billion of job initiatives that aren't spent in 2012. i want to be clear that we do not count the sequester in our total deficit reduction. we believe the sequester is bad policy and we propose that it be replaced by this larger, more balanced package of deficit reduction. the bottom line is these efforts represent a total of more than $5 trillion in net deficit reduction. even as we achieve this deficit reduction, we continue to make key investments in priority areas. these include short-term measures for job growth totaling $3

not counting oco. with counting oko. if you look across agencies, beyond dod, half of our agencies have flat or negative spending, in 13 versus 12. this is a budget that i would argue has a lot of spending control and at the end of the day, the bottom line as i mentioned earlier is that we're down to -- in 2013 to 5.5% of gdp and then in 2014, 3.9% of gdb. significant progress not where we need to go. we need to get the deficits lower. we need to have debts stable as a percentage of gdp, but we're on the right path of this budget. >> but you have adjusted the base line which allows you to make the claims that you're making in a number of contexts here. let's forget about the base line. let's forget about the percentages and all of the arguments that have been made about how we're going to be reducing percentages of spending. is it not accurate to say that the president proposes in this budget for 2013 more spending than he proposed for this same 2013 budget last year and the same 2013 budget the year before. >> i think y

on oco, i made the points, i'll repeat them. it closes the back door. i think we all agree that cbo is our refer free cbo scores it as savings. as for the deficit, the back door is more discretionary spending. second, on deficits, i don't think you want to look at this in nominal dollars. no one thinks a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow. so i would rather have the dollar today than tomorrow. let's pivot to gdp. >> no one cares about that. they care about what the dollar amount is that you are creating deficits. >> at the end of the day -- >> the constituents talk to me don't say, as a percentage of gdp what is our debt going to be in den years? >> as a percentage of gdp -- >> how much are we spending and how much are we going in debt and are we becoming greece? this plan is greece's plan. >> let him answer. >> right. >> i mean, i think what you're seeing is declining deficits in real dollars, which is the right way to look at it. you're seeing debt stabilize as a percent of gdp. we are hardly greece. look at our interest rates. people want to inv

all this funding last year and this year is oco. the numbers for depot maintenance for the army reserve is 57% of last year, for the national guard is 64% of last year. and my question is if we want to make sure we're ready -- by the way, obviously we're still in a war. and we have other theaters threatening. a wise depot maintenance has been cut so much and why is there no funding in the traditional accounts, general dempsey? >> the demand is going down. yes, we remain in conflict. but iraq we went from 50,000 a year ago down to roughly 300 uniform personnel now. and when that demand goes down, so too does the demand signal back into the depots. as you correctly point out, there will be a period of residual recapitalization retrofit and so forth. some of what you see there, this it was based upon the demand signal and how we have to take action. 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

some of those effects will beats mitigated in the near term by oco. that's what he's talking that we've kind of a part over thepri problem.th. i don't accept that.ular,s the army in particular has 10 to 12,000 nondeployable soldiers directly resulting from repeated deployments, and we pay that out of oco because it's related to that. >> we don't know what the expected challenges and threats the country will face in the future is my point. >> we do not, and i accept that, but that's what contingency funds are for. >> senator mansion. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, thank you, mr. controller as well, and i understand you touched on the value of the garden reserves and how important their services have been serving in afghanistan and iraq. with regard to your air national guard strategy, your air -- excuse me, your air force restructuring strategy, about half the cuts have come out of the guard even though the only represent a third of the cost, and i believe the joint chiefs did a -- who did the report? yeah, vice chairman of the joint chiefs

on oco, i've made the points, it closes the back door. i think we all agree cbo is our referee -- >> what back door are you talking about? >> the deficit. the back door to more discretionary spending. second, on deficits, i don't think you want to look at this in nominal dollars. no one thinks a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow. i'd rather have the dollar today than tomorrow. gdp -- >> nobody cares about that, they care about the dollar amount is that you are creating in deficit spending. constituents don't say, as a percentage of gpd, what is our debt going to be in ten years? they say, how much are we spending, how much are we going in debt, are we goinging greece? this plan is greece's plan. >> let him answer. >> i think what you're seeing is declining deficits in real dollars which is the right way to look at it. you're seeing debt stabilize as a percentage of gdp. we are hardly greece. if we get on the president's plan people will continue to invest. this budget achieves significant savings in the ten-year window. it is a step

there isn't an oco fund in a sense of a set of money sitting somewhere. what our baseline does do is for discretionary spending that is not capped by a budget control fact, and this is not capped by the budget control act. that sort of funding we project, we take the latest level of a appropriations provided by congress and extrapolate that for increases over time. that extrapolation from the latest funding that congress provided for those purposes amounts to $1.4 trillion over the coming decade. but that is just our extrapolation based on the latest actions of congress. and how the congress might want to think about that money relationship to other things that congress wants to do is really up to you all, not -- >> which is all borrowed money. >> well, a lot of times revenue, a lot more spending than tax revenue. we're borrowing a lot for some purpose. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i really appreciate your testimony today. i think we would all be wise to take your report and act upon it. i'd like to touch on tw

and as i also mentioned, the funding for humvee recap is only in oco, it's $271 million, and it's to provide for continued upgrading of equipment that's being returned from both iraq, and we're now beginning to return, return systems from afghanistan as well. now looking to the future to our research development test and evaluation appropriation, 8.9 billion in the request, that's actually a very slight increase oh the fy-12 appropriated level of about $200 million. and in the interest of time, i'm just going to highlight a couple of key priorities. again, going to the network. we have 546 million included in our request for the -- [inaudible] under the network. i'm sorry, 546 million in total for the network of which 278 million is for win t. that funds increment two which gives the force on the move command and control capability. also included is the common ground system, army, $41 million. that's the army component of the dod-wide family of isr systems. for the army that lets us take a number of independent systems, i think nine independent systems and collapse them into one. wan

oco is down 5%. if you look across the agencies beyond dod, half of the agencies have flat or negative spending in 13 verses 12, so this is a budget that bible argue has a lot of spending control. and at the end of the day the bottom line as i mentioned earlier is we are down in 2013 to 5.5% of gdp, and then in 2014, 3.1% of gdp. we need to get the deficit soared and have the debt stable as a percent of gdp but we are on the right path in the budget. >> you adjust to the baseline which is what allows you to make the claims you are making in a number of contexts. let's forget about the baseline, let's forget about the percentages and all of the arguments that have been made about how we are going to be deducing the percentages of spending. is it not activate to say the president proposes in this budget for 2013 more spending than he proposed for the same 2013 budget last year and the same 2013 budget the year before? >> if you have to go back and benchmark those numbers. i don't have them in front of

this is happening on southbound 280 in cupertin oco. a tanker overturned and spilled some sort of liquid. traffic backed up ever since. just start noing

the gas tax is not funny, just to kind of restate, what is that amount that's being covered by the oco? >> about half. just generally about half. >> which is about how much? >> $230 billion. >> part of it as i have come to realize, part of the reason our gas tax revenue is down is because fuel efficiency up. and it's politically poison to even think about raising the gas tax to refill that revenue stream. why not look for seriously at utilizing energy resources as a funding mechanism, more exploration in the gulf. >> when the president puts out a pay for, i assume that's what the debate's going to be about, that's what they're debating over in the house. they had to split their bill up into three bills, one of them is transportation and one of them is energy because they're trying to figure out a pay for. >> do you like the idea? >> i like the idea the president put out, half of it highway trust fund and half of it iraq money. i think it's a pretty good formula. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank all senators who have participated and i thank the secretary very much for being here.

from health care, we have $270 billion of cuts from other mandatory programs, we have savings from oco that cbo scores. in total it's $2.50 of spend being cuts for every dollar of revenue. that's a balanced approach and it's the approach we should have. >> mr. chairman, this budget taxes more and it spends more. it does not alter the debt course of america and i am disappointed that we can't get an honest response to these difficult questions at this important time in our history. >> just a portion of the hearing earlier today before the senate budget committee. you are hearing from senator jeff sessions, the republican of alabama and acting director of the office of management of budget. one of a number of hearings today and all week as members of the president's cabinet appear before various congressional committees outlining the president's 2013 spending plan. you heard senator sessions go after the omb director on the issue of this budget and the ongoing discussion about taxes. there was also the ongoing discussion about payroll tax kud for middle-class families and individuals. th

the group of six, we did not use oco as an offset. what's your position? >> my position is this. the last two years that i've and before congress, i have taken a heap of criticism for bringing proposals forward that aren't paid for. that's over. the idea that the president didn't want to pay for these things over the past two years, we were criticized royally for that. by a bunch of people on this side of the capital and a bunch of peoploon the other side. so the president came up with a pay for. debate it, talk about it, figure it out, but no more excuses about no pay fors. we have one. we take the highway trust fund, which is $230 billion and we take half the money from the iraq, afghanistan fund and we pay for what we're talking about here. i'm proud of that. i'm proud the president came up with that. i'm also happy no one around here can criticizes us for not having to pay for it. >> all right. i've exceeded my time. senator session. >> well, you don't have a pay for in any realistic sense. mr. elmendorf basically told us that at the hearing, there's no way to pay for the war

oco.y -- you will see the transportation funding has been paid for include -- assuming we will get savings in iraq and afghanistan. the aircraft and republicans look at this as a budget gimmick to be used in the context of the super committee for payroll tax and determined it was not appropriate. you have the president putting it out there. hundreds of billions of dollars. the troops are coming home from iraq and afghanistan. i think these are at a new level. you also have to look at what this budget does in terms of long-term debt. instead of reducing the debt, it increases it. not just by a few trillion. sometimes between $14.12 dollars trillion. the historic numbers of dead we have seen and are not fair to future generations are increase dramatically to the point that the debt will be over $25 trillion 10 years from now. >> we did acknowledge that the war was not an emergency. it was funded with borrowed money. most -- some complain but both voted for that. it was open decision. with re

ensure, really, that its capabilities are maintained in order to respond in case we do have another oco at some point down the road. and if there's a plan, how will it be implemented to ensure these critical capabilities are maintained? >> thank you for your concerns. and on a very important area. generally when people talk about so-called reversibility, i think they perhaps naturally think about reversing our end strength numbers. that's something we spend a lot of time on, and i think one of the more important components of the way in which the army has shaped itself through this budget is we retain those nco, senior nco positions and particularly field grade officers who would be so critical to expanding our numbers. but there's another component to that reversibility as well as you noted, sir, and that is our ability to produce the products, the weapons, the platforms that are necessary to -- when we send our war fighters out to do the hard work of freedom. i mentioned earlier, one of the critical components of how we're going forward right now are the various analyses that both the

capping oco closes the back door on security spending. there are other savings of $143 billion. these include disaster adjustments, program integrity, at the portion of oco funding for transportation that averts a general fund transfer that happens every year. as a result of all these initiatives, you have $800 billion less in debt service. that is the bar next to the pink are. let me go to the pink are. that cuts the other direction. these are $176 billion of investments in short-term job initiatives. this is the remainder in fy 2013 of the $354 billion of java initiatives that is not spent in fy 12. -- job initiatives that were not spent in fiscal year 12. we firmly believe they sequester is bad policy. as i said, we propose that it be replaced by the larger, more balanced package of deficit reduction i have just -- described. these efforts represent more than $5 trillion in net deficit reduction. even as we achieve this deficit reduction, we continue to make key investments in presidential priorities. these include short-term measures for job growth totaling $354 billion, tax

the number we had is a target number in order to support the oco funding that we need for the future. >> will the decision be made as to when reductions will be made for the 60,000 level, and that level again is going to be reached by the end of this summer -- when will that decision be made on for the reductions after the 68,000 level as a jeep? -- is achieved? >> the target right now is to focus on the reduction of the surge. as a general them see pointed out, we've not yet received the plan from general allen as to how we will complete the reduction of 23,000. once we have done that and we learned the lessons of that, we will apply it to what deciding the next steps with regards to further reductions. >> that will be done by the end of summer as it is currently contemplated. what will the next decisions be made up for reductions beyondsurge reductions? >> i suspect by the latter part of this year. >> begin it or -- >> i assume begin it, but the first thing is to discuss the lessons we have learned, what we should apply, what level of force we will need for 2013. >> do you assume th

good >> what about oco? >> is capped at $450 billion. that saves $800 billion. we use out for transportation. >> which is another policy change. >> the super committee was meeting, and we wanted to put forward a provision that were deficit savings. the president thought that would be helpful to the process to have savings people could agree to, knowing they had the blessing of the president, so we tried to put in all the deficit savings. we did not put in all our aspirations, so there is also a different purpose to that submission. >> is this a situation where if you have a compromise you would be going above and beyond 4 trillion dollars? would you go beyond the numbers in this budget, or would they just changed? >> obviously, i probably will not negotiate a compromise with you right now. i think that is called negotiating against yourself. i think we all realize when you engage in a good face bipartisan effort, if you have a common goal, which is to strengthen our economy. when we put out a budget, it has $600 billion in entitlement savings, and we have alread

all this funding last year and this year is oco. numbers for depot maintenance for the army reserve is 57% of last year,for the national guard is 64% of last year. and my question is if we want to make sure we're ready -- by the way, obviously we're still in a war. and we have other theaters threatening. a wise depot maintenance has been cut so much and why is there no funding in the traditional accounts general dempsey? >> the demand is going down. yes, we remain in conflict. but iraq we went from 50,000 a year ago down to roughly 300 uniform personnel now. and when that demand goes down, so too does the demand signal back into the depots. as you correctly point out, there will be a period of residual recapitalization retrofit and so forth. some of wt you see there, this wasn't done as a budget drill, it was based upon the demand signal and how we have to take action. 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 som

a long island man out walking his dog, comes across p; thing wrapped in trash .oco[o bags and now police as they are also investigating a series of killings. a live report, is there any connection? and on a much lighter note now, a success story that's captured the hearts of so many americans. jeremy lin of the new york knicks was sleeping on the couch a couple of weeks ago and now he's the toast of the town and the big apple today lin and knicks beat the defending nba champions dallas mavs. sorry mom and dad in big d it's his time, baby. i'd race down that hill without a helmet. i took some steep risks in my teens. i'd never ride without one now. and since my doctor prescribed lipitor, i won't go without it for my high cholesterol. why kid myself? diet and exercise weren't lowering my cholesterol enough. now i'm eating healthier, exercising more, taking lipitor. numbers don't lie. my cholesterol has stayed down. and here's another number you might be interested in. lipitor may be available for as little as $4 a month with the lipitor co-pay card. terms and conditions apply. visit lipito

. >> oco. good morning. >> a little bit of your oklahoma weather here, huh? >> yeah, beautiful weather. >> great to have you here. a recent census showed between 50 and 85% of native americans are unemployed, many living below the poverty level. what accounts for these alarming statistics? >> well, generally, if you look where tribes are, they're in poverty areas anyhow. rural areas, lack of resources, lack of urban markets. so we see that as a contributor. and then we see a poverty cycle. we see generational poverty. and we've tried many, many ways to try to break that, and i think we're on the edge of an innovative project to do that. >> well, you say most of the native children, specifically cherokee children, are raised by their grandparents. why is that? where are the parents? >> we did a study. approximately 60% of cherokee children -- we believe that's across the indian country, are raised by their grandparents. some of the parents are dysfunctional. but a lot of the parents are out working two jobs, trying to make ends meet, so it's the grandparents w

the oco is less than last year's level -- last year's enacted level.s conforms with the budget control act that congress passed last summer. the senate approved a budget control act on a bipartisan basis with 74 senators voting for it. but the control act locked in defense and non-defense -- the budget control act lot in defense and non-defense spending caps -- locked in defense and non-defense spending caps for 10 years. the department responded with a new program to meet our security challenges. the budget control act also included language requiring the congress to pass legislation with additional, far reaching a deficit-reduction. if congress does not come up with the deficit-reduction package by next january, one that locks in another $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, then automatic spending cuts will be imposed on both defense and non-defense programs. the budget the president sent us yesterday avoid sequestration by meeting the $1.20 trillion additional defense reduction target, and approximately 1/2 in additional spending and 1

the oco is less than last year's level -- last year's enacted level. this conforms with the budget control act that congress passed last summer. the senate approved a budget control act on a bipartisan basis with 74 senators voting for it. but the control act locked in defense and non-defense -- the budget control act lot in defense and non-defense spending caps -- locked in defense and non-defense spending caps for 10 years. the department rponded with a new program to meet our security challenges. the budget control act also included language requiring the congress to pass legislation with additional, far reaching a deficit-reduction. if congress does not come up with the deficit-reduction package by next january, one that locks in another $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, then automatic spending cuts will be imposed on both defense and non-defense programs. the budget the president sent us yesterday avoid sequestration by meeting the $1.20 trillion additional defense reduction target and approximately 1/2 in additional spending and

the base budget request is $5 billion less than the fy2012 enacted level of $530 billion, and the oco request is $27 billion less than last year's enable #* acted level of -- enacted level. the base budget request conforms with the budget control act that congress passed last summer. the senator approved the budget control act on a bipartisan basis with 74 senators voting for it. the budget control act locked in defense and non-defense discretionary spending caps over ten years. the defense caps reduced projected defense spending by nearly half a trillion dollars over ten years, and department responded with a new strategy and new program to meet the nation's security challenges and preserve our military capabilities. the budget control act including language requiring the congress to pass legislation with additional far-reaching deficit reduction. if congress does not come up with a deficit reduction package by next january, one that locks in another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years, then automatic spending cuts will be imposed on defense and non-defense programs. th

the oco funding is not capped but it is subject to this reduction. and second question, it is the term050 bge used the term -- used the term 050 in what to include in this fiscal scenario. we have for some time shown in our outlook a menu of alternative fiscal policy assumptions. so that members of congress and their staffs who are coming themselves from different starting point in the current law and see what happened to the budget and that starting point. as the last few years have gone on and more and more aspects of the budget have been enacted or extended on a temporary basis we felt that the current law baseline provides less and less useful guide to the current stance of fiscal policy. we tried to link and the menu of alternatives that we show because there are more and more different sorts of policies were people on the hill will say we won't do that or we don't like this i want to thank of bridgette, to think about this. -- i want to think about this. we want to try to pull together some of those policies that many people in congress and out

the base budget request is $5 billion less than the fy2012 enacted level of $530 billion, and the oco request is $27 billion less than last year's enable #* acted level of -- enacted level. the base budget request conforms with the budget control act that congress passed last summer. the senator approved the budget control act on a bipartisan basis with 74 senators voting for it. the budget control act locked in defense and non-defense discretionary spending caps over ten years. the defense caps reduced projected defense spending by nearly half a trillion dollars over ten years, and department responded with a new strategy and new program to meet the nation's security challenges and preserve our military capabilities. the budget control act including language requiring the congress to pass legislation with additional far-reaching deficit reduction. if congress does not come up with a deficit reduction package by next january, one that locks in another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years, then automatic spending cuts will be imposed on defense and non-defense programs. th

some those effects will be mitigated by oco. we've kind of papered over the problem. i don't accept that. the army in particular has 10,000 to 12,000 nondeemployable soldiers directly resulting from the repeated deployments and we're going to pay that bill out of o.c.o. because it is related to o.c.o. >> and we don't know what sort of unexpected challenges and threats our country will face in the future. >> we do not sir, and i accept that, but that's what contingency funds are for. >> thank you, senator cornyn. senator gillibrand followed by senator she houston. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general dempsey. thank you, mr. comptroller, as well. i understand you touched early on today on the value of the guard and reserves and how important their services have been serving shoulder to shoulder in afghanistan and iraq. with regard to your air national guard strategy -- about half the cuts have come out of the guard even though they only represent about a third of the costs, and i believe the joint chiefs did a -- the vice chairman of the joint chiefs did a rep