In 2024, it becomes the entire dod budget. That will not happen obviously. What highlights is the danger of that crowding out of other defense investments and acquisitions and capabilities that we will need in the future. Brad talk to lead a bit talked a little bit about how we make sure we have the right mix of capability that we want in the future . There is a question of who you trade off current capacity for readiness for future capabilities . Even if we are looking at only the 500 billion in cuts over 10 years, money has got to come from somewhere. There is a limited number of places where you can generate that from. Secretary hagel and the vice chairman, when they announced the results of the strategic choices in management review back in july, they want to prioritize and emphasize the feature capability and we are willing to take some risk in current capacity. I think in an ideal world, all of us would say that. I would say that there is a bit of a danger. One of the things we have not talked about as a panel put on the table as well is make sure as we do this, as we try to figure out what the feature capability is, number one, all become victims of the belief that the Current Program of record is necessarily what we need in 20 years. There is a danger that bureaucratically, elements of the department of defense invested in the Current Program will defend it and that other promising capabilities and technology will be shortchanged in the process. Secondly, i think that we have to make sure we do not end up like britain between the wars. We will not go to war over the next 10 years. As doug points out, you do not know if you will go to war or not. The brits folder 10 year rule forward every year until they got to the late 1930s and decided they needed to rearm in the face of german aggressive policy. By the time they got there, they discovered that there per chairman policy of the 1920s and 1930s had essentially destroyed britains shipbuilding industry. They were unable to engage in the naval buildup they needed to. Since 1945, we got used to not talking about or worrying about the impact of Defense Budgets and cuts. I think we have reached a point where we dont have that anymore. We have to think carefully about what the impact would be certain cuts on the apply chain and the Industrial Defense base. Supply chain and Industrial Defense base. Not allowing the sub costs to be a driver of what we do, but it has a was been a driver. The problem is breaking some of these habits that you mentioned. The habit of accepting the program of record as of late it will be. What can be done . I will take a shot at that. I will begin with an anecdote. When i came to that reagan administration, there had been an Election Campaign that focused heavily on defense. I remember meeting with a bunch of two star level folks. The army says it does not matter what your secretary says. I never forgot this. It doesnt matter what your secretary says. He have a fiveyear defense plan. He is stuck. Of course, everyone knows that turned out not to be the case. What i am pointing to is leadership. The only way you can affect change in any institution and especially in institution that is as a hierarchy is the pentagon, is from the top. If the commanderinchief, secretary of defense wanted to change, there would be change. People will salute and do it. Do not expect them to do it by themselves. Dont expect it to come from the bottom. That is not the way it works. You cannot change that culture. Unless it comes from the top. I have seen over the course of my career guys come in and leave each with a new buzzword. The staff would repeat the buzzword for the new person to come in with a new Organization Chart and a new buzzword. And nothing changes eerie what you need is not a secretary of defense, but all secretary of defense to be consistent about the changes. If you get that and it does not become a stand to inherit what youre good assessor did and to carry it forward, then youll get progress. But every time a new person hums in and you toss it all up again and you start all over, you will not get anything done. That is bipartisan. We have talked a lot about names in the United States and in the pentagon on capitol hill at the white house. Maybe we should turn our view outward for a moment. They talked about thing that has become known as a pivot. The syrian situation, along with the arab spring, it is not easy to make that pivot. Think about that strategy and what it means. Well, let me say one observation. The u. S. Is increasingly become more energy selfsufficient. When i say independent. I do not think we are ever truly going to be energy independent. We are becoming more self sufficient with shale gas. I think in some quarters, that has made people think that the middle east in which we have been heavily invested in for much of the last two and half decades is not important anymore or we can relegate it on the secondary position and we can reallocate our attention. There is no doubt that we need to be spending plenty of time and attention on east asia. I have no doubt about that. There is a giant flow of wealth and Economic Activity to east asia and the u. S. It has a was been a civic power. We have to give more attention to the pacific. I do not think it will be so easy to disengage ourselves from the middle east. Even if we end up with no residual force in afghanistan, i think we will still be engaged in their because number one, oil remains a globally traded commodity. The price of oil even if we are not getting a lot of it from the middle east can affect the u. S. Economy. It will very much affect our treaty allies in europe and in asia who are still dependent on those sources of hydrocarbon energy. It will be much more difficult. We wrote an oped together about the socalled rebalance. One of the things that worries me about the rebalance is is that there has been a little bit more talk than reality to it in the sense that the rebalance if you look at them military were really talking essentially about a rotational deployment of 2500 marines to darwin, australia. Ships home ported in singapore an increase in exercises of the type you have been doing with the philippines. All of which is good, but not sufficient i think to really carry assuring them that in an area that the u. S. Will be able to come to their defense and meet its treaty obligation. On the atlantic to the pacific, it is occurring against the backdrop of overall declining sides of the navy. The net less capability is not too great. I worry a little bit that we should not to be talking a big game about a rebalance, but need to be focused on producing more military assets that can change that calculation of folks in the western pacific. Before we start doing the q a with the audience that is very important, or have to not turn it in view the rebalance of asia. There was a feeling that we really had neglected asia as the americans were very much involved and focused on iraq and afghanistan in the last decade. If we were to look at the u. S. And asia, it is as indispensable as ever. Our military alliances have been reinvigorated in part because of the tremendous economic role that north korea plays along with the threat of kim jong un. Also, our relations with japan have been very much reinvigorated. Secretary pineda and hagel are making regular visits to their. We have spent some time in an area where we have had spent a lot of time the cousin our courses were employed to the middle east. We have got to look at the rebalance in asia as more than simply a military strategy. It is a National Security foreignpolicy strategy. The middle east, as much as we think that there is a path forward, it will demand more attention. It goes back to fdr. There is a book that talks about the breakup of the colonial era. It was a combination of world war i am definitely and definitely world war ii. It left them in a very your friend position. There was a tremendous stabilizing influence in the region. Some of it is the rise of radical islam. Some of it is a huge and graphic bulge. Bulge. Graphic all of these things make it harder. My first week on capitol hill as a young staffer was 1975. They were publicly in high school in those days. [laughter] this was five years before camp david. It was a huge strategic moment. Egypt was aligned with the soviet union. When that came, it was a real alignment to the west. It was a critical will the block for the u. S. , part of a Peace Process that every president has worked to go forward. In november 19 75, the population of egypt was about ready million. Very prosperous middle class. The economic tools of how to keep a dynamic middleclass with three times the population that you prior had is a huge challenge of Economic Strategy and all could be reflected that there isnt enough jobs for young people in the region, particularly in egypt right now. The u. S. Can have a big, stabilizing impact. Some have to be solved internally to those countries. I would agree with the ambassador that the u. S. Role is going to be important in asia. We are there in the middle east because we have been the broker how we have helped it out board avoid big wars. That is a challenge for the future. Do you want to take a crack at it . No. It is question time. What do you see the future for major platforms . I think that we have to be judicious about what we get. The long range is a very interesting question. There have been questions about manned bombers for Strategic Forces for a long time. On the other hand, if you move away from Nuclear Forces come at the longrange bomber might be useful. If youre focusing on the pacific where there are vast tracts of ocean and uncertainty, that make might make sense. The jury is still out. We have to be avoiding kneejerk responses. There are debates over Defense Systems that tend to be very stylized. Fewer carriers or more carriers. We have to be more subtle about what we do and the mixes of capabilities we have. It is different. There are areas where we are clearly ahead of everyone else and we want to make sure we stay that way. On the longrange bombers, you probably want to work on developing them, and how far we go is still to be determined. How involved militarily or be likely to be in the future in africa . You just mentioned egypt. Ambassador, do you want to take that one . Probably more than we want to be. Again, a panel that we served on years ago identified a number of trends that were going to be important for the Nations Defense and future security. One is something that the secretary gates had identified as a problem, which is that threat to our Global Security represented by frail states. We have had several instances in africa of this. We had in kenya and reminder of the spillover effect on the chronically failed state of somalia and generator for much over the last 20 years. Our french allies did a good job of going in to molly mali. We dont know if we have completely seen the last of the second and third order consequences of the success of operation odyssey don and the overthrow of the qaddafi regime. There are some Energy Security issues in africa and in the gulf of guinea and nigeria where the state frailty might have some Broad International implications that will be called upon and have the u. S. Play a role. Not to mention the humanitarian issues or just kind of law and order issues that the search for kony and things i cap. I suspect we will be involved in africa much more than and rings like that. I suspect we will be involved in africa. To prove that you never know where you will end up fighting surely after the general became the second commander, he was fighting a war. I think that is indicative of what we are likely to face there over the next decade. Here is one from twitter. In a time of budget and continue strategic is the time to reduce our Nuclear Arsenal . I think we need to make smart decisions about how we deploy all of our forces. The Strategic Forces have been pivotal to the best ability. The proliferation issue has to be at the top of the list. The countries with Nuclear Weapons have understood the rule that if you use a nuclear weapon, it will be catastrophic. Holding the spread of those weapons whether it is in iran or north korea or other places that we can only guess right now, i think that is the biggest challenge. With respect there is a whole question of followup systems and replacement for the marines. In addition to the bomber question that will require a lot of sharpening the pencils to make sure these programs are affordable, i think we know that some of the programs you can price as pivotal as they may become i think we learned this from secretary cheney during his tenure as secretary of defense that there are some programs where they can cross themselves out and no longer be relevant because you do not get the effectiveness in terms of the same amount if it were spent on ships. I think we need to look at the size of our Nuclear Arsenal. I think some changes can be made. In terms of what the u. S. Feels each requirement is, look at that and size the force accordingly. I think this is a good question to end on. How do we get back to bipartisan defense . Well, since these two guys spoke about it as well, getting back is not going to be easy. I think that the end of the day, getting back the responsibility of this country, what informed folks like all of you and presumably those who will be watching this, if they care enough to watch it, they are probably reasonably informed. And from people have to put the word out that you cannot mess with defense. You can disagree. You can disagree about how many Nuclear Weapons you should have her how many carriers to have. Those are disagreements that are based on the fundamental acceptance of the fact that the countrys prosperity and way of life depend on its National Security. That has been what has govern both congress and administrations for 60 years and certainly for our professional lifetime. It is up to the voters. If voters do not understand us and are fed all kinds of to lead them to believe that defense is just another trade off of entitlements or whatever, then we will have a serious problem. They will elect people who believe that same thing. I do not inc. We can afford that. Think we can afford that. There are a lot of folks who in recent years have talked about going back to a stricter to the constitution. To those folks, in the constitution, the number one obligation of the federal government is to provide for their common defense. By the way, it is the only obligation that is mandated and not optional for them. They might do other things, but they must provide for the common defense. I think you need to get more folks who understand that is the primary responsibility. I think they have made a good comment. When the truman guys were writing the marshall plan, the later secretary of defense and was one of those pillars of National Security, americas security is rooted in its unique economic strength. As we talk about our defense needs and to provide for the common defense as ambassador just mentioned, i think that we have got to figure out one comment how to do a budget in washington that we can manage all of the pillars of defense of entitlement and revenues and not make it political every time we have this debate, but also fundamentally look at our own economy to build the next generation. Just as we need volunteers to serve in the armed forces, we need young people i can go into the hightech sector your or into the medical or pharmaceutical or transportation sectors. Were College Students are graduating with a huge burden of debt that previous generations have not had. We have got to figure out how to get the economy generating jobs for our Young Americans who have great skills. Leaders will have to work together. There was a deal done. President reagan in his Social Security bill with tip oneill. Both sides had to give. He seemed to have lost that capability in that era we have seen to lost that capability in this era. We have to find the area in the middle that we can all work toward. I think that is a fine sentiment. Do we have a hand for all of our panel . Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the discussion of no budget cuts are affecting the u. S. Role in the world. I think women are getting a very complex message. Told theywomen are have to have a great career, they have to be great mothers, they have to be goodlooking, they have to manage their home well, and there is a sense of they can do everything a young man does, including having a glass of wine or two after work. To medicate stress and anxiety. I think there is a lot of anxiety in this generation in terms of how to i manage it all . I dont think this is what Gloria Steinem had in mind. The closing gender gap on the onld of risky drinking tom a after words, part of book tv this weekend on cspan2. Join other viewers reading walking with the wind, by john lewis. Find out more at book tv. Org bookclub. The cspan student cam video competition asked, what is the most important Issue Congress should consider in 2014 . The competition is open to all middle and High School Students am a with the grand prize of 5,000. This year, we have doubled the number of winners and total prizes. Entries are due by january 20, 2014. For more information, go to student cam. Org. Navy, air force, and marines testified about how Defense Budget constraints are affecting military readiness. This is about two hours. The hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. The subcommittee meets today in open session to receive testimony from each of the four military services on the impact of sequestration and the continuing resolution. Cr. For over two years, thi