Secretary Panetta, did you have an opportunity to advocate to the OMB or the President for a smaller reduction than $487 billion in cuts over 10 years?

5 years have passed since revelations by the press of substandard care management for wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

I am concerned that a rapid reduction in the end strength of the Army and the Marine Corps will degrade the readiness of the combat forces and break faith with an All-Volunteer Force that defeated the insurgency in Iraq, that continues to fight in Afghanistan, and may be called on again to defend this Nation against its enemies.

I am concerned that returning to pre-September 11 personnel levels within 5 years may damage readiness and create structural problems within the Services.

General Dempsey, how will you avoid the repeat of the poorly executed drawdown of the 1990s, which slashed recruiting and first-term soldier strength, thus creating gaps that hurt the Army--in order to retain more mid-career personnel?

I think it is tremendously shortsighted if they reduce funds that are absolutely essential for modernization . . . if we aren't staying ahead of it, we jeopardize the security of this country.

Further reductions below 33 amphibious ships is inconsistent with the Marine Corps mission to maintain a viable amphibious assault capability.

Secretary Panetta, why, given these recent developments, did you believe that lifting the F-35B from probation 1 year early was appropriate?

If Congress does not provide us with needed support, DOD's new Defense Strategy Guidance will be at risk.

Based on the most current data available to DOD (fiscal year 2011), the negotiated rates provided to the USFHP plans currently exceed the amounts mandated under Sec 726(b) of Public Law 104-201.

Secretary Panetta, please provide a comparison of the per beneficiary costs for those enrolled to the USFHP...

Does the cost of TRICARE Prime comply with current law for cost neutrality? If not, why not?

the Department of Defense is committed to removing all barriers that would prevent servicemembers from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant.

Sequestration would likely result in a smaller force structure that is ill-equipped, ill-trained, and ill-prepared to meet future challenges.

Sequestration, however, would clearly pose unacceptable risk by significantly reducing U.S. military readiness, investment, and force structure, hollowing the force and degrading U.S. military power.

Secretary Panetta, since announced plans call for Marine Corps forces to rotate to Australia or Guam, 8,700 marines and their families will be leaving Okinawa to be stationed somewhere else--where will they go?

Do the contracts in effect today comply with the statutory requirement for cost neutrality? If not, why not?

Secretary Panetta, if there is any further postponement of transition of future Medicare eligible enrollees to Medicare/TFL...