>> future years covered by the budget control act. will we continue to see budget that is ignore provisions, ignore the sequester provisions? can you expect budgets like that to be sent to congress that don't reflect the law? secretary hagel? >> the fy15 budget we'll present earl next year will reflect the

reality of whatever the situation is. i don't know if between now and next february if they worked hair on it, both parties, president has. >> that's why we're surprised when it didn't reflect this time around, but happy to hear it reflects the law of the land next time around. you know, last month, the addition of 15 additional intercepters will be deployed to alaska as reaction to the provocations we've had from north korea. this brings the numbers of alaska to the number of originally planned during the bush administration, i believe,

later we deuced by president obama. i have a question to you about this. was the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made, and if so, when did that occur? >> the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government who was not consulted in any way, and it was not that decision, that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally, i addthat those als not yeally lasted, but some ar in -- california. >> okay. to your tog, they were not cop culted? if the department decides additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would

the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about.

>> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, secretary hagel, general dempsey, and secretary hale, thank you for the service, and we thank the men and women of the armed services and their families. we want to acknowledge the work you're doing to stop sexual assault in the services because as has been the subject of a separate hara subcomtteefhi committee,

and secretary hagel, thank you for your quick action in changing the mcmj in regarding the convening authority's right to overturn decisions of the court or overturn verdicts, and i expect to continue to work with you and general dempsey on the issues, and i'd like to thank you, secretary hagel, for continuing cooperation with the veterans' cooperation to create a seamless transition for the men and women who are transitioning from active service to civilian life. there are major issues regarding all of that, as you know. my colleague asked you questions about the department of defense, and, of course, given the unstable fuel costs and the rising fuel costs and impact of

fuel costs on budget estimates as well as the overall fiscal environment, i believe that controlling energy costs across the board now and in the future is an important goal for the department of defense. the operational energy implementation plan that was -- that identified incorporating energy security concerns into the requirements and acquisitions process as one of the targets for the department to implement, you know, i wtedte importance of those goals and how we are doing and making sure that energy use criteria and factors are consideredded in acquisition planning processes. >> thank you, senator.

as i noted in my response for me or the leadership in the department of defense, our energy use, our energy sources, cost and energy, are and must be a high priority. that's research and development. it's not just budget, but it's the security, reliant of our sources of energy, so we continue to put a high priority on programs. we continue to invest in those programs. as you noted, as has been much of the conversation this morning, we have less money. >> uh-huh. >> appears we're going to have even less money, so we have to balance the resources we have with the responsibilities we have. with that said, we're all committed, i'm committed to follow through on energy programs we have in existence and continue to find more reliable, cheaper forms of energy. i thtorae, the

kinds of energy security concerns should be very much part and parcel of how you analyze various priority, going to equipment, needs, all of those qrns that should be an across the board part of our consideration as we meet our fiscal challenges. >> yes. >> i wanted to turn to general dempsey, the military-to-military relationships we have, working to engage china in the discussions, and you're going to china soon. would you expect that the issue of our rebalance to the pacific to be a matter of the concern to the chinese? do you expect this to become part of the conversation you

have in china? >> i do, senator. i had telesonic contact with the new chinese counterpart indicating he's eager to get my views and understand our intentions, and i'm prepared to have the conversation. >> and at the same time to ensure one of our intentions is to strengthen our communications and relations with them because as some colleagues said, china is 5 --a big of the activities d actions of north korea, andan stronger relationship we can have with the chinese, i think, would be -- >> yeah -- >> would be sought. >> yeah k i'm committed to that, committed to strengthening our relationship with china. >> thank you. >> regarding recruiting, i know we're withdrawing numbers in the service, but at the same time with all the news about the

challenges facing our military, the department of defense, the cuts, the furloughs of that, secretary hagel and regime dempsey, do you for see or have you seen an impact of all of this kind of news on recruitment now and in thet re? >> i'm going to ask the chairman to respond to that. as far as i can see and know, i don't think it has yet to impact that recruitment, but the chairman is closer to it than i am. >> and the answer is we're having no difficulties either recruiting or retaining high quality individuals. here's the prediction, senator. if sequesteration affects readiness and young men who come into be pilots sit and not or commit to be seamen or

sailors, and they come in and sit dock side and come in on training on tanks and parked, we'll have a retenti problem i havet t-shirt. we did this before, didn't do it correctly, and shame on us if we do it again. >> i worry about the civilian work force, three pay freezes, furlough potential, i don't know why anyone wants to work for us, frankly. we have to do better. there's problems with 7.8% unemployment, but as the economy recovers, we have to worry about the ability to recruit civiles. >> thank you for that point. we have some 18,000 civilian members, civilians in hawaii who work for the department of defense, and very concerned about potential furloughs and other changes. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel.

general dempsey, thank you for being here, thank you for your testimony this morning, and i want to thank all three of you for your service to this nation. as recent events powerfully underscored, these are perilous time whether you speak of the terrorist attack in boston this week or the escalating situation in north korea, your services are greatly appreciated it, and i thank all three of you for serving on the front lines and protecting americans. the questions i'd like to ask focus on two areas. one, financial planning, going forward at the department, and, number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the home land. i want to start with there's quese budgetscussion today about does not reflect the cuts in

sequestering, but i understand that the department will hopefully, in the month of may submit a plan to comply with the cuts presenting short term challenges and long term challenges. in addition, the budget contemplates a renewed barak commission c forward. i suggest in the process, both in aseesing sequestering, in the short term and long term, and in the bracket process, that a significant component of the department's assessment should include consideration of the degree to which we can reduce our footprint overseas, reduce our bases overseas, reduce our manpower overseas consistent with the central imperative of protecting our national security, and so the first question i wanted to ask secretary hgel s

extent is the department currently extenting with the ability to apply to the pressures, reduce bases, i would suggest it's preferable to reduce bases overseas than here at home, if it's done consistent with national security, and to what extent is the department engaged in right now in that assessment and analysis? >> thank you, senator. let me clarify a point you made so there's no misunderstanding. i don't want an expectation that may be inaccurate. i did not say we're going to present a plan by the end of may to the committee on how we're going to deal with sequesteration. what i said is the strategic choice management review asked for will come back to me by the end of may which then we'll start making some assessments

and decisions on that that affect complying with the law of the land if we have to. >> if i may follow up then, do you have, right now, intention for a timetable for when the department gets back to the committee on its intention and plan for complying? >> well, this is evolving, and i have to look at the review that the depp tear secretary of defense and chairman joint chiefs are leading, and we'loc that basis. i don't want an xpectation here that isn't correct soth's why i wantedto make sure i understand what's expected. as to questions about overseas, overhead, manpower, the other

observations about how we assess what we have to do to comply with the new realities, yes is the first. we have been console dieding and closing facilities oversea r for the last few years. we'll have a study complete by the end of this year,ically on l commeotiing facilities and consolidating overseas, so, yes, that has been an ongoing, should be, i agree. at the same time, i think, the president thinks, the leadership of dod, that we have to also take a look at our infrastructure in this country as well. >> can i add a couple facts that could be helpful? we transferred a hundred sites to the allies since 2003 with 30 # more scheduled over several years in addition to any identified by the consolidation. we'vggsse

looking at overseas infrastructure. >> thank you very much. general dempsey, i'd like your thoughts, in particular, on north korea, both how grave athn situation poses and what is our capacity riht ow with missile defense to intercept and defend against a hostile launch from north korea? >> yeah, senator, as you know, there's been discussion in the intelligence community whether they weaponnized, but as you might expect, as the chairman joint chiefs, we will react to what we think could be the worst case secretary scenario so we pd ourselves to be capable of intercepting and destroying any ballistic missile that would be launched at our facilities or our personnel, and we are postured to do that.

>> you know, i would note that the president's budget, while not counting sequesteraton cuts from missile defense, and in my judgment, particularly begin the threats we're seeing from north korea, potential threat we'd have from the nation of iran, reducing our commitment to missile defense at this point seems ill-advised, and, indeed, our current posture on missile defense is minimum of to months in that we are right now deploying a system, and at the same time reinstating brown based intercepters captured in alaska, both of which are reasonable and possible responses to the threat seen, and, yet, that seems inconsistent with reducing funding for missile defense and

seems driven by enemies rather than a comprehensive strategic plan for missile defense, and i would welcome thoughts of hagel or dempsey on that exchange. >> i think the budget reflects priorities of our missile defense programsand il defense is an essential component of securing the interest of the country. i certainly would never sign off on any budget that would lessen that ability to fulfill that commitment to the country. i speak for the chairman and every leader in the pentagon, so it is my sense that it does purport with our requirements, add anything?

>> happy to have someone give you a lay down of the lay of the land, what we've done this year and why and where it's going. i'alo sy ballistic missile e is an in.stment it's also -- it can get to be extraordinarily expensive, and so what we have to do is balance defense and offense. i often use the phrase that at some point, you have to stop worrying about the arrow and start worrying about the archer, and i suggest to the potential adversaries we have not forgotten, that we also have capabilities to deal with the archer. >> thank you. i look forward 20 that ongoing discussion, and i would think all three of you for being here, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cruz. relative to the facilities overseas that are being closed, we do have rules as to the reimbursement to us forthe

ovemenn vera facility, and issued a committee report, we hope you'll take up a showing of failure to achieve we're burst away in the way it's to be made, and it's going on too long. part is failure of oversight, and mainly, it's failure of department to enforce the rules relative to reimburse by our allies for the improvements made in the facilities which are turning back to them. that was a report at least yesterday. i know it is on your desk, and we look forward to your response. senator? >> just one comment about the facilities as we know, and one of the problems that came up is because of the environmental controls over there, and they were restricting in germany, for

example, the ability to use a live read, and, finally, we said, you know, if we can't train, we leave. i think we need to use the tools that we have to be most first timely and train the people. >> thank you, senator. >> welcome to all of you, thank you for the testimony this morning. i'm just going to jump right to it. i'd like to say a word about then a comment about syrirack, a lot of discussion about sequester. i believe what senator sessions said earlier, it's a horrible idea. i don't have the ability of being around when it was put in place. that makes me free to criticize. we shouldn't have allowed it to happen to allow the sixth of the budget to take 50% of the cuts, to make one eighth of the budget nondefense discretionary take 50% of the cuts, that was

foolish. it is important to acknowledge the alternative. we had an alternative in this body that had 53 votes, a majority of the body that wanted to turn off sequester and do it another way. had sufficient votes to pass unless filibuster is invoked by the minority. it was invoked by the minority, and we needed more than 50 votes. that's not an automatic. there was a sufficient vote in the body to turn off sequester that's having, in my view, a significant and negative effect. especially, the senator mckaine suggestion was helpful, if there to be any chance of this congress considering a second sequester, the sooner the better, the more have the understanding about the good faith most considered judgment at the pentagon of what's cut if we knock the extra 5 # 2 billion off, and there specifics about that, the more

we look and say, boy, we don't want that to happen. we better come up with an alternative. in the absence of the alternative, it's so specific, granad'altive. i view senator mckaine's suggestion was help. on brack, i worry, kind of about the rounds, and we saved 12.5 billion annually, and i look forward to theing ifing of that. what was is every community with military access, whether they are on the chopping block or not, they lawyer up and help with relations up, there's an economic effect on the community of anxiety and uncertainty that has its own economic effects, and if we do that to produce, if it's been 12.5 billion for five rounds, if we're going to do

that to produce savings, i wonder if it's worth the trouble. it is important to lay out cuts with the budget tear realities. two examples. as governor, had an $80 # billion budget, and in four years, you get 5 billion out of the budget. i didn't convene a commission to do it. i sat in with a bunch of budget folks making specific reduction proposals, and i gave them to the legislature, and they all, democratic and republican, as soon as they saw ey e, and this was succes on ias a hertless dope for everything proposed, and then after they spent a bunch of time going through everything i proposed, aapproved 90%. i didn't make every last person or community in virginia by announcing the round or

something like that, saying, uh-oh, we have to lawyer up and lobby. the one thing i just encourage you and encourage the committee members, and i know senators had concerns, is whether that is -- we are dealing with the need to make some challenges, but whether a round really is the best way to reduce costs, when you add in the anxiety and economic effect of that and all the externt transaction costs it generates is a approach the west away to reduce costs? after the last round, your predecessor, one of them, secretary hagel, secretary gates, reached a conclusion that a particular joint forces in virginia was not the best six minutes. it was a joint miseffort that might have been inspired by an early secretary of defense, and i think secretary gates said if they have offices near each other in the pentagon anyway, why do we need a separatejt forces command in norfolk.

there was not a brack, but said i'm not sure we know this. the local omnity ent delegation called it a bad idea, reached an accommodation where the structure was removed, but the military missions provided and continued to be provided and there was compromisest compromise. that was done not in a process, but with dod laying down, we think we should get rid of this, and then members of congress saying we think you're wrong, and then a compromise reached. i recommend that as a potential way of thinking about it as an alternative because brack produces a lot of wrong, and it it's going to do that and it's going to produce a $2.5 billion savings, which, by my quick math is about, you know, .6 of 1% of the savings, and that's what

it's going to produce, i'm not sure the process and all the drama associated with it is worthwhile. i would just commend you to ponder that. the last thing, a word, mr. chair, with your permission on syria, there's additional discussions on syria this afternoon, but there's a competing hearing on personnel aspect, and i'm on personnel, and i think i'm going to do that. i'm on foreign relations, talking about syria, and i have sympathy. we have to explore, and the recommendation to go from nonlethal eaalistance and what's the conditions, my concern about syria is that it looks sectarian. it's becomes a struggle for the community, a sixth of the

population. if they believe the only outcome of this is likely whether they survive or whether they are purged as that community, it's a fight to the death whether we over lethal aid or not. if the pop cigs, and one of the factors that weighs in heavily on any decision about whether to provide aid is what's the character of the opposition, and can we trust with the weapons and end up at the wrong place? if t oppositioncan dohings that will bring into the opposition and convince the minority it's not a purge against that ethnic group, that would delude the jihad elements giving us an opposition that we could have more trust in, and in your hearing, general dempsey, as you know, nonpermissive, permissive, or collaborative with another tier in that that's

hostile, permissive, nonpermissive, collaborative. efforts that we would undertake to ensure the character of the opposition included members of the minority so they don't fear a purge in the aftermath of a conflict would make our decision easier, make the costs less, make the consequences less severe, and so, you know i would just put that on the table as part of the discussion, and for purposes of my committee members and others, i just wanted to state that. >> thanks, senator. we could have you put a chair right here and testify with us this afternoon. [laughter] >> thank you, i listened carefully, and you make a lot of sense, so we'll take all points under advisement. thank you. >> can i add briefly? ths stop

us from closing bay bases above certain leel. ewpons. m noture it coul ork,# 2 n ar ten years is 20 billion. i don't know. sounds interesting to me. we have to think about it. >> i'm not against it, but suggesting you might be able to find a way to create less drama. >> yeah. >> lawyering up, and just by the mention of the possibility of barak, and i urge them not to lawyer up and hire consultants because there's a long, long way to go before congress approves another brack round. i think they implied suggestions, and senator mccain is wise. secondly, i hope you didn't

suggest, mr. secretary, both senate, the house, and the president did not comply with the law in your 2000 budget request. the budget control act made certain requirements in order to avoid sequestering. the president avoided it in his budget, away from what the house did, the house avoided it in a different way from what the senate did. hopefully now the house and senate get togetherand adopt joint budget, butient, i hope you did not mean toimply in any way that the three budgets that are now out there are not in compliance with the budget control act, and that i hope you didn't mean to comply or imply that our budget, that these 201 budgets that are not in compliance. they do it in two ways, one with

greater focus on cults, another greater cuts and revenues; another greater balance on additional revenue. they are compliance, are they not, all three of them? >> yes, and i did not mean to imply that. my point in bringing that up was in reference to somehow, at least i interpret the esident's budget was somehow out here in the ether, and, in fact, all three budget was working closely in line. >> as i said before, senator mccain made the comments. i agree with senator mccain said. he said it before. it will be helpful for us to avoid this if we get to us as quickly as you can some of the details of what specific impacts would be if we do not avoid

sequestering. >> we intend too that, as i said, but at the same time, we want to make sure whatever we come up with, we can defend and make sensednat's why i referenced the review until we get the review, and then go forward. i agree with that. >> senator graham? >> i'll be last and certainly least. secretary hagel, i want to congratulate you and administration for i think a responsible handling in north korea, very quickly, but i think 2013 is a major year for national security issues. if we don't deal with north korea between now and the end of the year we're probably in trouble one way or the other? >> i have been disappointed, and i think the urgency oly increases. >> as i understand it, as we

negotiate the d5 plus one, intelligence tells us that the level of enriched uranium has gone up in the negotiations, not down. do you agree with that? >> there's a pattern for them to stable what they think. >> the information i've received is that the amount of enriched uranium increased over the last six months, i very much support captions and diplomatic resolution. secretary hagel, with afghanistan, you're still evaluating; is that correct? >> when you say "evaluations" -- >> post 2014. ye, th r >> d you agree with me that the iranians are watching us on multiple fronts in terms of our resolve? >> yes, i do, and i said that publicly, not specifically about the iranians, but we have a global audience. that's why i'm upset for lack of a better word that we pick now,

of all the times to basically gut our military. do you agree, regime dempsey that it's time to say we live in pretty dangerous times? >> i do. >> we're in the whirlwind of defense spending and conflict; is that correct, secretary hagel? >> we are. we were talking about this the other day, the ups and downs, and you're right. >> it's not that we can't reform pentagon and the spending we have, 489 billion and more to do, but 600 billion, i agree with both of you, make us a hollow force at the time we need it the most. i just urge you, as you meet with the president, there's a lot of bipartisan support for the idea that it is unacceptable to the iranians to get a nuclear capability. there's no good ending to a nuclear armed iran. our friends in israel, our sunni arab allies, would just take the

whole region and throw it into chaos. do you agree, general dempsey? >> i do. >> it's a critical time, how do you evaluate the security situation in iraq at this point? >> in iraq? >> yes, sir. >> well, obviously, that's a country stilldealing withintessh ey, unfortunately, are playing out in some ways, al-qaeda, and they have a difficult job. >> they are on the rise and the political process is broken. when it comes back to afghanistan, a frustrating country, and i think the detainee agreement you have negotiated is a good one, really resolves the issues in a good way for us, so my question, really, is now the time, given all the things going on in the world, to really be engaged in

sequesteration? >> well, senator, i wish we weren't. i'm right with you on this, but as i have beenonsntly re allmindedorning, it's the law of the land, so we have a responsibility to deal with that law, and we are. >> the people who made the law, we have the ability to choose to replace it. it's not that i don't want to put us on a sound financial footing, but i don't want to score the military in the process, so between now and this year, we have to talk about that in detail, how we end the war in afghanistan, and general dempsey, what would winning look like in afghanistan? do you agree with the definition of winning? >> yeah, i do, senator. by the way, thank you personally for your help on the detention issue. >> you found a good resolution to the hard problems. what would losing look like,n your opinion, in afghanistan?

>> i think the recurrence and inability to control urban areas, and i think as well, and there's a long term relationship with them. >> is mori real affected by this uncertainty created in the budget process? >> absolutely. >> we are hurting morale but not having a better budget solution. i take that to heart. secretary hagel, what do you want to see the budget do this year? if you have a two or three item wish list to confront threats we all face? >> i would start with uncertainty dealing with sequestering on that budget.

if we get that, and as we said this morning, and particularly, the chairman's comments, and i noted it, it gives us, senator, the time, flexibility to do what we need to do to adjust to the realities we adjust to as we unwind from two wars and the consequences with that. that would be my main priority. >> i end with this. there's al-qaeda element on the pakistan side of the border; is that yeght? >> yes. >> the drone program has been successful. >> it has been. >> the infrastructure in place to identify al-qaeda movements in pakistan and afghanistan to neutralize their ability to hit us, i hope we don't dismantle that. as we wind down, i hope we realize this is the place we're attacked by, that al-qaeda still niists in that region, and that

would be a tremendous win for us and end the war on terror. i look forward to talking to you about both of you about troop levels, keeping the afghan army at 352, one of the most important the president makes in his second term. thank you, all, for your service. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator bliewmen thal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, both, for being here, and thank you for the service to our country. i want to to begin with one of the questions that was asked earlier concerning that the court was under preparation, expected to be delivered at the end of march regarding potential changes in recommendations, and i know that you've answered a number of inquiries, but i

wonder if you could tell us whether that support has been received and whether you can commit? >> thank you, senator. that request of the general counsel as well as the officer of the secretary of air force was given to me, and one. requests was to give me their thoughts on recommendations on how they believe section 60 of ucmj should be amended. they did. i accepted those recommendations. we are now moving forward from working with our coup sill to draft legislation if you'd ask the congress to look at in proposed changes to section 60. we announced this a week ago. is that report available? >> it's not exactly a report.

it's a recommendation which i will get back to the general counsel's office and ask him. >> if you could provide them to us, i'd appreciate it, thank you. i want to turn now to app area that i think is important for the national security, submarine building pgr, alked ab at various points, and ibelieve that the president's budget envisions continuing to build two submarines a year, both in this fiscal year and going guard in the -- forward in the next, and i assume you share his apparent view that submarines are more important than ever to our strategic security? >> yes, i do. >> and op another issue not covered, the joint strike fighter, bring us up to date as to your views regarding what i view as an essential platform

for our air superiority. >> well, you know the background, the problems, and the issues so i w rrse that territory. i met with director of the 35 program two weeks ago and asked for a report. he spent a couple hours with me. it's my assessment that we're making progress. we're getting to where we need to be. we're not there yet. our partners, our other allies who went in with us on joining us in procurement of copies of the 35 # are essentially hanging with us on this. they delayed most of the countries on their orders, but the program is moving forward. i think it should. we put a lot of money in it.

you know it's the largest acquisition program we've ever had, but i think overall it's the answer for our services. >> well, i appreciate that, general dempsey. >> if i could add, senator, submarines are truly our asymmetric globally. nobody comes near to our ability under the sea. we have to keep that prom innocentment on the joint strike fighter, i happened to meet the lieutenant colonel running the operational squadron down in eggland, and i was kind of open minded to hear whether he thought it was good ord. i'm a ground pounder so i didn't have any predisposed notions, but i'm telling you, he convinced me. we have not been attacked from the air of april 15th, 1953, and i'm not going to be the chairman on who watched that reverse, so i'm an advocate. both submarines andabh

joint strike fighter because i strongly share a commitment to the programs, not only because they are stealthy, strong, and extraordinary versatile speaking on the submarines and joint strike fighter, is, in my view, the lynch pin to our air peor in defending thaggressionyul to many, many years ago, so i thank you, both, for those answers. mr. secretary, one of the reasons that i was so proud to support you and so grateful that you have been confirmed is your commitment to the well being of our troops, and on health issues and health care, on their well being while they are in service, but, also, i think you share my view more needs to be done to

able and prepare them for lives after their service, particularly concerning employment, skill training, and i know the minute-plus i have left here will be absolutely inadequate to an answer on a score from you and general dempsey, but, perhaps, you can give us your view as to how we are doing and where to go in terms of preparing men and women, particularly, many who leave the service in the near future for civilian life. >> thank you. i'll ask general dempsey for his comments as well. first, i share absolutely your comments for the reasons you noted. these are young men and women who came forward to serve our

country unsellishly with tremendous sacrifices, most cases, made with their families. we have some responsibility here. we have programs now underway. we've continued to fund, to assist that transition of can we do more? yes. can we coordinate that better? yes. all the services are in complete agreement on this, and no one is more committed than the joint chiefs and senior enlisted and general dempsey as i am so you have my continued commitment on this issue. let me ask gnalem >> a transition assistance programs are going well. they can continue to be improved at times. they are researched in the budget submissions. we're working on credentially across states. as you know, there's initiatives to allow welders in the army and the navy, marines to be welders

elsewhere. working with, for example, career trackers so that right from the time a young man and woman comes in, they think of the transition rather than wait for the last six weeks so i think we get it. we also know that as we downsize, we'll make the challenge more challenging, but we're ready for it. >> thank you, thank you, all, for your testimony here today, and thank you for your service. thank yo, chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. senator king. >> secretary hagel, welcome. news to see you. one of the advantages of going last is that most of the other questions have been asked, but i have one, it's more of a request. yesterday, in the intelligence comet, we had a briefing by general clapper on the intelligence budget going forward, and he produced a chart which basically showed, that started with fy2012 #, but then showed the effects of the

effects of the first sequester, ongoing sequester, president's budget, and other things that have affected that budget. it was a very powerful chart, and can you check wt perhaps, numr 11 in his presentation, and gius a similar visual breakdown of what your budget looks like including, as we now know, the sequester on an ongoing basis. if we don't do anything about it, what's it do? i found this information yesterday to be very important because it shows real cuts, not cuts to growth, but real cults to the amounts available, and i think it's helpful to the committee to be able to see that data as it looks over the next ten years building in different slices. you look at the directer's cht, aou'lsee what i'm

saying. >> we will. >> a question on the budget, and you know this as well as i do. one of the first thing you have to do in a situation like this is to defer maintenance, but that doesn't save. it's just the cost of somebody's going to have to pay. i'm sure you agree. >> we do agree, and, general dempsey -- >> you end up paying more. as i said earlier, even in things like training, it costs less to sustain training than it same with maps. it. >i don't know if you d this question, and i apologize for not being here the entire hearing, and my sense is this budgetary uncertainty is hurting morale and retention and those things of intangible such ta part of our

force structure and our troops readiness. is that app accurate statement? >> i have a formula that says today's readiness challenge is tomorrow's retention problems, and that always proves true. allow readiness to erode, young men and women who come into serve and be trained and ready lltickvery n >> that's the essence of the deal. final question, general dempsey, you've been involved with two draw downs, one at the end of vietnam, and one at the end of the cold war. there was a significant draw down. >> thank you for asking. i'm not happy you asked about how long i've been serving, but a couple things. one is the draw down produced

hollowness in different ways each time. first time it was manpower hallowness, second was equipment, and second in this is a res diness hallowing of the force. although we learned lessons each , beetimena ff to r what e isime for rees we have incredible young men and women in qiewn form, so the personnel side is good. we got -- our equipment has been recapitalized and reset over time so equipment is adequate, and we don't want to stop modernizing. where we suffer now is in readiness. we are not training to the level we should be training because of sequestering and the mechanism. each draw down is the much lower start point.

the army, a million men in uniform in vietnam down to 781 by the end of the 70s. sttr 781 th 1990s toy 500,000. today, we start at 40. we'll be at 490 in the army active as a result of the budget control act 487. that's where you start from to observe sequestering. you got to remember that. >> thank you very much, general, and thank you, all, for your testimony. >> thank you very much, senator king. just one quick reference, a reference to article 60. i believe that you consider generic changes in terms of the community convening authority's power not just relating to sexual assault, but a generic change for all -- >> major offenses. >> major onses. >> that's right. >> i think that's what we understood. i think senator inhofe has a

quick last comment. >> yeah, senator lee came out and expressed a concern. i don't think he had time to fully develop it, but that is to what degree are we going to be influenced by russia in our missile defense decisions that we make, and i -- goes back to the decisions this president made the first year he was president to pull the rug out from under poe land and czech republic on the ground with a bis intercepter, and i can remember o and we are going to do this, and it will anger russia, but can we be sure you don't pull the rug out from under us? that's what i referred to, and he did in the first year. i will always think it as a result of his effort to get along with russia. now, you had answered his questions about not having that

influence. i would call your attention to the -- and i'm sure that plcht secretary that you had communication with the defense minister whose name i never pronounce right who wanted to as developed, as the nexith you misse defense developed, and miespltat nator lee is pretty accurate i his oncern over how much influence that will be r us. do you have any thoughts, any willingness to talk about how 1234 >> yes, and thank you, senator. a couple thoughts in response. first on poland, announcement we had made regarding the phase of the active approach. as you know, the polish row mainian government were supportive of the announcement, what we were doing, and i spoke,

incidentally, to both ministers about this, and they have publicly -- >> this happens before you were on board. >> this was the latest announcement made in the ground base. >> okay. four years ago, that decision that was made, you whether or not there. >> well, there's nothing i can say abt tha, but a again, when senator lee asked about the latest decision, that i announced the decision as you know, the conversation i had with the russian defense minister who after that decision was made and announced, and he did say one of the things we talked about was further missile defense issues, but we talked a number of things, not the intent of the call, but it was the announcement was made. >> yeah, okay. >> glad we're not afraid to talk , we'll reess in 30 minutese

which will be ten to two. thank you. >> i strongly urge you to come up with a number to tell the american people and the committee that we have a speedometer as well for you to say, well, we're going to see how it turns out to determine the size of the 2014 force. i believe it's tragic and a terrible mistake for which we may pay a heavy price. i have no -- >> senator, can i comment on that? >> sure. >> senator, to be clear, i didn't see leave it completely vague. we are, today, add r advising this fall. they are linked to the level we believe we have to provide

advice and -- >> we have to wait until 20 # 14 to determine that? >> we do not, senator. what i suggested was that this is the afghan's first summer in the league. i believe this summer will be the bellweather for afghan performance in the 2014 and beyond. >> this weekend on c-span, commander of u.s. and allied forces in afghanistan on expected december 2014 troop numbers, saturday afternoon at 12:30 eastern. at 8:30 p.m., the dedication of the zimmerman meeting room who was fatally shot rushing the gunman who wounded his boss, giffords, and sunday, 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. pacific, london, margaret thatcher's funeral service. on c-span2 this week, booktv heads to los angeles for the l.a. times festival of books, live coverage both days with book panels and your questions for authors at the festival, and

on c-span3, american history tv looks at revolutionary era printing from the american society in massachusetts. that's sunday at 7 p.m. eastern. >> russian prime minister was in the u.s. today to expect the economy to improve, but at a slower rate than the united states and develops nations. he's attending the g20 finance minister meetings. from the council on foreign relations, this is an hour.