of readiness back home. we'll be unacceptable. so the answer in both cases is no. >> mr. chairman, i would just like this say that if nothing else, that message ought to be communicated. we need to have a commitment to make sure that we are doing whatever we can in congress to get this foolish thing stopped so we can make that requirement. i yield back. >> and some of us that met last week, we had just gone into the field asking the american people if they felt like they would be more safe or less safe. and they said 83% felt like they would be less safe 10 years from now than they are now. that is before they heard this testimony. you can see if the american people, if they are listening to

this, 95 to 100%, with great reason. mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i admire you, gentlemen, for your service to the nation and your work particularly since you are having to operate an irrational budget environment. almost none of your predecessors have ever had to do that. ..

when we have a house of representatives that refuses to even open discussions with the senate on a budget for america. our media environment, many folks back home are unaware of this. they're mad at congress in general. they don't understand that one house of congress is unwilling to talk to another house of congress about having a budget for america. somehow we have gotten in our heads especially the younger members it's okay for the house to have a budget and senate to have a separate budget. never the two shall meet. we're supposed to have a budget for america. this committee and markup of it my amendment voted overwhelmingly by voice to give

the pentagon flexibility to address the mo defensing need. when a recorded vote of asked for. people put on the partisan jersey and the same vote failed. this is the largest committee in the house of representatives presumably, we vom influence of only the member on our colleagues. and we're somehow unable to behave responsibly ourselves. much less uncourage our colleagues in the house. we have the end of the fiscal year coming up. many of the pundits are predicting there will be a government shut down perhapses a default on our national credit. all the cause of political bickering. and you gentlemen and most of all men and women in uniform shouldn't have to suffer as a result of the fighting. so why aren't the comprising more forthcoming on the side of the aisle? so you gentlemen have to resolve

your differences. you center to make very important life and death decisions almost every day. we on this side of the desk are unwilling to come up with a budget for america. you're not able to start any new projects. so you to operate in an an constrained budget requirement for what? two or three months at the time. in addition to have probably furlough again all your civilian military employee. the message of the hearing should be it take the valuable information you have given us. for us on this side to resolve

to do better. to come up with bipartisan and more comprises that get budget for america, budget for our military, budgets for the national deafen. as i said in the committee markup amendment, if sequestration were forced by an enme we would declare an act of war. we have done it to ourself. they are unto be come up with a bipartisan agreement. the departments are in chaos. it shouldn't be happening in america. i'm hopeful the committee with the large membership will take the message to hardin ourselves and other members so we can do better and can get a budget for america before the end of the miscall year.

can get the proper appropriations bill passed. i hope for better thing for our country. >> i have greatest -- excuse me. greatest respect for the gentleman, but there are a couple of things i would like to clarify for the record. one is there is another body. and while swrent worked together to resolve our budget, they didn't pass one for about three or four years, and this time the one they passed they have 91 billion in our budget than we have in our. we followed the budget control act, which gave us a number we had to work with. so i agree that we have --

we haven't done that type of job that we should. and we need dig in and really work hard on this problem. so it's not any of your fault. it is us. we need to work together on it. the other thing for the record was the voice on the gentleman's amendment. he's correct, but it was not when we did a role call vote. it was not a partisan vote. it was and did change for several reasons. so next wee -- we have mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gent gentleman. i appreciate you being here. i have empathy for the job you have. i am grateful so you it at this

time. challenging situation. especially in an era as the chairman and the other member recently said when the military has gone through three cuts in the budget. you have to manage through all of those. had we had not the two prior cuts i hope the senate would pass the bill so we can move forward. i have, general, three questions i would like to ask. let me see if i can get through those in a relatively quick fashion. general, first of all, i had the opportunity of hearing from the

generals this morning in which you have a good team under you. i'm proud of what they're doing. i asked some of the questions to them as well, but, as you know in the last sequestration issue there was an issue with the faa, and after our last discussion on this topic, actually, we established a process with the faa where as soon as they come up with a list of contract towers, it comes to the department. the air force takes the lead on that. we are connected to them. they share it with the services that do aviation work. >> thank you. >> we will continue that cycle. >> i appreciate that. let me talk about the record of decision for the location for

the f35, which has been postponed again. my concern is obviously that every delay you have in signing that record decision, causes problems in financing the capital improvement as you go along with it. indian the idea to wait until there's a new secretary. if you're actually signing that. is there some way could speed up the process. are you looking at the time table when the secretary comes in it will be signed? >> congressman, we are not waiting on the secretary. the time to be put the data together to complete the report and findings with the updated census data is after the secretary hopefully will be confirmed if that goes well. it not, we will not delay the decision. [inaudible conversations] >> that -- i have not heard that intent expressed. it was a discussion between the acting secretary and myself. >> that's good news. i'm looking anxiously for that. question move forward in that, it's a wonderful thing that will help the air force. in the -- the appropriations act, we went through a great statement to

restate what i think is still federal law and title x that deals with the working capital fund. if indeed we have a problem going forward in the next -- we do not actually have a senate passing our appropriations bill. are you looking forward, -- are you looking nod forward. are you looking toward using furlough in the working capital fund. i think is being prohibited by the section we -- i just mentioned? >> sir, we are not planning to do furlough at all in fy '14. if the cr is six months or less. it if there is one, i think it is completely avoidable. >> that's a better answer that i would hope for. let me go to the admiral, representative forbes, i thought, did great questions in presentings a to what the concept could be. our policies always beenble to a to defeat any adversary in any area. in your written testimony, you stated we would not be able to conduct one large scale operation and counter aggression

by an opportunist agreaser in a second theater. are you stating they wouldn't be able to deter and defeat aggression specifically in one theater if our forces were committed to a large-scale operation elsewhere? >> yes, sir, i am. and let me clarify, if i may. the defense strategic guidance just what you stated, the reduced -- i described. the readiness of the strike groups and the strike groups, et. cetera, i believe can react to one major contingency operation, or can in each theater, the two major theaters deny. so that's a statement. deny and two theaters or respond to one. that is what i have concluded. based on what i know right now. >> are you using denying to defeat interchangeably? >> no. deny would be the alleged aggressor would look and say it doesn't work out well. there seem to be good force

here. i'm not saying deter. that's a tough one. tenth annual der, deny. i don't do a good job pulling them together. the point is you preclude in each theater the contingency. or you roll to one. >> i appreciate your answers. i appreciate your leadership. i have an air force base in my district. we appreciate what you are doing for us, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin outset express my condolences and outrage, actually, in term of what happened on monday. the sea systems command. i have had a change upclose to deal with the -- admiral mccoy and the great team that is over there. we talk lot mtd committee about protecting the industrial base. that's what they do every day. and a lot of them don't wear uniforms. they are civilian employees who took a hit with sequester and furloughs already, and again, i just have the highest regard and

admiration for all of them. it's incredible to see the events unfold on monday. please convey, i'm sure from the whole committee and myself, our thoughts and prayers are with the great group of individualities. >> i'll do that, congressman. i know, you are a great friend. they are our shipmates. i'll pass it along. >> i'm pleased to to hear that the ig report is something the navy will incorporate. frankly, this is sort of me speaking, coming from connecticut, it's been nine months since sandy hook elementary school, there are too many mentally ill people getting easy access to weapons. it's time for the congress to pass a background check bill, which would help, frankly, all installation in term of trying to make sure the incidents don't ever happen again. and hopefully people are going to respond in this congress to something that is perfectly constitutional and obviously necessary. admiral, in your testimony, again, i want to say, as far as i'm concerned you've been

explicit and specific in term of what the impact of cr and sequestration has been and will be. we had 85 shipyard workers on monday, who received layoff notices because of the cancellation of the miami repairs and -- again, i think we spend a lot of time talking about shipbuilding and platform. the fact is the repair and maintenance end of your department is oivelt another critical piece to the industrial base. your testimony indicated you're going to be canceling 34 of 54 planned maintenance availability. can you describe what it means in terms of, again, protecting critical skills particularly in some of the private shipyards. >> well, if i were to quantify, congressman, i would -- it's about 8,000 jobs. that's our best estimate. and our big areas are the hampton roads area and the san san diego area. it's the big shipyards. it's up-and-down the coast to your point earlier. those individuals, those presidents and those companies

can't plan. so as i mentioned, i really want to be able to do a reprogramming or give appropriations bill and question preclude many of those 34 -- half would be my plan. if i get that billion dollars i mentioned in the oral statement. we could preclude at least half. we would take to repair the ships that are going to deploy next year or the year after. or the ones that absolutely have do a life upgrade because it's necessary. in other words, we have a priority in this scheme. he can converse with the ship imrard, make plans, and recover. subject to that, that's where i am, congressman. it's about balance sequestration -- the cr stops and put me at last year, no new starts. sequestrations taking everybody down. we go where the money is. we have to operate and meet the commits of today, number one. >> and receipt pair and maintenance work is also, i think, a heck drk mechanism you've employed to protect critical skills. if frs a six or seven shipyards

around the country. you actually, again, protect welders, carpenters, machinists, et. cetera if there's maybe a down tech in one of the shipyards and so losing that, i think, is really, again, hip, muscle, and bone in term of our base? >> yes, sir, that's correct. you're referring to what we call the one-shipyard concept. we'll move workers to another area of the country. they'll assist. there's good cooperation between our pin public shipyards and some of the private are adopting it as well. >> it emerging of -- in term of the operational force, and sequester cr minus scwisser goes through, again, at the six-month delay on the truman, number of other deployments. what do you see in twowrtd, and '15 for the operational force? >> what i see is we would be able to maintain one carrier on deployment and one in surge.

and in george washington in the air force. she's in japan. at any given time. you have one carrier in the arabian gulf, and the gulf, and one that can respond. the others are in waiting to get to maintenance, because i don't have the capacity to move them in to maintenance or they are in maintenance. key in critical part are the air. when carrier come back. instead of keeping at the proficiency level able to respond, we'll let them gracefully decline. they'll shut down. for a period of about three months, then we'll take what we call hard deck. that's just a level of -- statistically determined to be safe. it's sort of like driving your car occasionally. when the time comes in you can get in and practice and maybe become a delivery person or whatever. that's when the air waives work up. we would have any given time three attack --

this is situation we haven't to be afford. it's not the covenant with the combat and commanders. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. gentleman, thank you for the clarity you're providing. i appreciate your strong answer to forbes' as to the effect of the second year of sequestration. the president's sequestration was intended to be a process by which the president would seek with congress alternate offsets so that defense would not bear the brunt of the cuts. the president now not bringing forth any other offset but calling on congress to repeal it has placed this stasis, this gridlock we have. i opposed it from the beginning, i feared we would be here where we're. the president is not come together table with any recommendations for us to be able to find those offsets.

but with the clarity that you're providing, this is important, because it's going help us frame the discussion of how important it is that this process be stopped. dr. miller was before congress when he was discussing syria, and he said the administration is very well aware of the message that you provided today. but we need it in the public. we need the message of clarity that you're sounding the alarm. one more year of sequestration would be absolutely devastating to our military. i want to go to strategic choice and management review. known as the skimmer analysis. which appear to be largely sequestration-drink. i would like to focus on the general and general on the effect of the conclusions of the swimmer analysis. you said that they have some rosie assumption. it's my understanding that the --

six as a such month duration for war. no followup on stability and support operation. and 90 had of day mobilization for reserve component formation and as you're saying, their readiness is declining not remaining stability. i'm certain you have concerns to how it effects air force squadron. if the two of you might speak of whether or not you also have similar concerns the skimmer analysis conclusions affect our ability. >> congressman, you had it just right. i have some concerns. i mentioned that i think some somewhat rose sincerity aseemingses that can be somewhat dangerous. as you mentioned conflict six month in duration. no casual any the conflict. the fact we fully disengage anything we're doing. we got done fighting two wars in iraq and afghanistan. we didn't

why is there belief we'll disengage in the future when we haven't done it when we got done fighting two wars at the same time? there's no mission for weapons of mass destruction that was not considered, which is a significant scenario in many of the scenarios that we have to address. all of those are my concerns that were really nut there so we can say we need a smaller army. and that's concerning to me. and have raised the issues vibrantly and all of our discussions that we've had during the skimmer process. >> again i think it's important to know as part of the discussion that those conclusions shouldn't be merely accepted. related to sequestration. actually create a capacity versus capability discussion. they referred to previously. that is a long-term issue you

can deal with in some kind of meth call approach. what the mechanism of sequestration does and the swimmer analysis made it very clear. it creates a ready force today versus modern force tomorrow.

capability right now. that requires a readiness level that is not sometime in the future will be ready to go. and that's to me that was a significant take qea from skimmer. the cost of that is marginal compared to the corse of actually having it. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here. as a member of the armed services committee, i've been here almost six years. i can recall when i was appointed. i didn't realize it was and have a proud dray addition of being bipartisan in it thinking, it's commitment to producing a bill bringing that bill to the floor. passing it out of the house. then going to conference. after the senate. similarly passes a bill. it's in the conference where we

resolve our differences. swallow some of them proudly proclaim success in others and move on. we understand how important it is to the deafen of our country. i think the chairman in his honor of that tradition. i'm suggesting maybe he should become head of the house budget committee. we know the house passed a budget, the senate passed a budget. there's a process and called conference committee. t a process we honor and engage in every year. but baseball to sequester. i'm dismayed we have many hearings we talked about dajt of sequesters and now we talk about how to weather them. and i commend you all. i for one, do think there is room for additional cuts i'm ranking member of oversight investigates. we've had a hearing around the growth in the office of the secretary of defense there's growth in overhead. there are areas where we can look carefully and bring about

savings in order to put more funds in to things that really count. but sequestration obviously is not the way forward. because of the kind of as cross the board lack of discretion that you all confront. and general ohed area know, when i hear you talk about readynd and i see the extraordinary bravery for of those who serve in behalf. the wounds they have to ash issue. the life-changing nature of being in war to think we would ever comprise their readiness i think and put them in harm's way knowing they are not adequately trained. i know, you would not do that. you would find a way to avoid it. i think it's a way of bringing home to the american people what sequestration means. it's an all-volunteer force. it's not one we call upon all americans to think about. our young people coming to serve and we would never want to send our young people to war without knowing they were trained.

i think the other way of sequestration has become so hard. it's a big term dollar amount are so large. you hear about it in the district and the furloughing of people. and one of the places in which i've heard about it, in my district it is home to soldier system center. it's a center that really invests in research and development, sign and technology with a focus, again, protect our soldiers and find new ways forward to protect them as they engage in war. i've seen some great work done there around lightening the load of body armor. developing body armor tailored to women. making uniform fire retardant. the way in which you can conserve energy and recycle water out so our soldiers strong to put themselves in harm's way. i have also learned there's been a real bleeding of that work

force. it's my understanding they sustained a work force of 52 personnel in the fiscal year. more than double the annual average and including a number of ph.d.es. for an installation that develops the life-saving equipment. we know ph.d. the heart and soul of research development and technology and sign are key. key we cannot develop the new cost saving, life-protecting measure without the tremendous investment. we're not going to be revealing sequestration any time soon. how do you protect that investment? in this important work so we know we're also on the cutting edge prejudicing our soldier. first, thank you very much for your question. i would just say number one priority is our soldiers systems, as you mentioned. getting them the best equipment

possible for them to be able to conduct the operation you want them to do. all the thing you mentioned to include many others. the problem is that, you know, because we've had to go to a hiring freeze, because of furloughs, because of incident like this. we are starting to lose some of our very important work force. because they are uncertain about the future they have working with us. so we have to make sure that we maintain a balanced force that allows us to continue in our highest priority. which is what you just talked about. for us it's concerning. ly take a look at programs that will allow us keep the best. because we need our scientists. we need our engineers. we need our ph.d. to help us to come up with the new ideas and technology for us to take care of our young men and women in uniform. >> i, you to do it despite the financial challenge. thank you. >> thank thank you very much.

mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all four of do you a great job in -- sequestration how wrong headed it is. for the country with respect to sf branches, and i appreciate your can do for on that. the american people need to hear it. a lot of members on congress and the democratic national committee need to hear it. i think most of us may understood the impact. we appreciate your candor. general, the disruption and uncertainty that sequestration is causing the civilian work force and the impact on the readiness, i think is a wrong way for us to budget for our military. sir, what current maintenance overhaul programs are you looking to preserve? >> well, first off, our problem is we still have --

we're trying to -- we want to sustain our reset program which is resitting our equipment coming back from war. right now we don't have the dollar to completely do that. and so i want to preserve all of that. i need that equipment in order feetback to all of our units. right now we're looking at because of sequestration having to lay off 2400 people who do that very important work for us. then another 1400 because of lack of workload. not because we don't have the workload. because we don't have the collar to support the workload over the next two to three years. i need that, because what that means the delay modernization -- the reset of our trucks, our soldier systems, or mortar system, our individual weapons, and that causes us reduce readiness down the road if it continues. >> how did the possible reduction that you describe those reduction in the force

impact the equipment mix and the workload of depos? >> obviously as we reduce the force over time and reduce the number of combat team, that reduces amount of equipment we have to sustain our readiness. i mentioned earlier if we go to full sequestration, just in the active component, we look at the potentially 45% reduction in our brigade. in impacts all of our workload. because we're getting smaller. fen, as i stated it's too small. it will have a significant impact on the civilian work force as we move through the process. >> thank you. i think everybody in the room would agree the sequestration maneuver was a tactical error made by the congress.

i pledge become an aggressive member in trying to bring it to a quick and immediate halt. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and gentleman, thank you very much for your service and the good work and tough situations that you face. general welsh, i think you're aware. i'm going ask a question about the kc10. it's been quoted in the newspaper that a decision it is in process to eliminate the entire fleet at the kc tent. of course a major impact. particularly on travis air force base which houses half the fleet. at the time when we are going reposition ourselves to the pacific. can you explain in detail eni guess as briefly as possible why you are suggesting the elimination of the kc10 as i understand at the time for the

2015 budget proposal. >> yes, sir, first of all, anything that was in the paper is not a decision yesterday. we are considering the message of the fleet along with the lot of other thing. one of the things that we got to

you can't e limb the nate the fleet and dot job we do for the department of defense world wide. it's too large. there's nothing good about the -- any aircraft fleet right now. what we're looking at is where can we take save and not completely stop our ability to do our job. >> we have little time here. i won't go further. with you and your staff. >> i look forward to it. ask you take a look at the triad. i guess it's for the admiral for you, general. there's no mention of the try adhere. there's no mention of that in the testimony. did you consider that? i'll start with you, admiral.

>> my number one statement is my top program is the strategic nuclear nuclear program. and that is number one. i'll fund above else in any scenario; however, sir it's not exempt from sequestration. that program, and i'm concerned you have sequester in 13. we're able to reprogram. sequester again in '14. the delays months and months add up to years. this program is very tight. we have looked at every modernization program.

it's low compared to the cost of other things. the modernization is what we're discussing. where can you make savings and work together with the navy on pieces of the weapon development or development infrastructure to make sure we're saving costs there. command and control. those area. we're looking at all of that, congressman. it's all on the table. i would appreciate if you would do that. also, general, -- admiral. very quickly you're going build a new base what i call camp malibu. otherwise known as venn tour are a county. why are you not using the existing facilities there? >>

can you give us real example recently you needed that capacity and how it's used. then, give us a focus two on what diminished search capacity needs. if our nation is challenged, does it mean we deploy not ready forces? or do we refuse actual deployment or in those situations listen, we can't respond. if you give us that perspective. >> yes, sir. i'll go backyard ward. we have in the read sea. she was on the way home. soon she goes off station, whom every the strike group is they become the search. has she gone back to her port she would would be on call if you will until further notice.

she was called. she's the forward that one they spoke of. if this situation continues, there will be a coming a time when it's time for them to go home. we'll call on one other strike group. now so that is how that works. if there's more than one. we have a problem. the destroyers organized train e quite a bitted profesht. for a whole host of mission. for example, they're there for ballistic missile defense. they happen to be multimission. they could if called upon other missions which we're well aware of. back to the red sea. those destroyers that are there, they're on a nine months now. ten or 11. we need sustain this. we'll need to reach for

destroyers coming out of the west coast, probably, and they're not ready yet. we'll have to now tailor and be very clear on what they're certified to do. we've never had to do that before, congressman. we could be soon in the arena. to summarize, we have a confident with the global -- we provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment. that's general two. we have two to three generally three ready to respond within 14 day. we have about 3 within 60 20eu9 days. we signed up. that's the fleet response plan. it has to change now. i think those are great point. when we have a strike group what is that operational tempo mean for sailor.

ed exampled capacity to respond. give -- the personnel we tell our sailor and shoot for the -- said talk about the well and talk about turn around ratio and rotation. we when you get to 11. then they come home. then turning around within about a year. you're getting close to one to 1.2 or 1.3 you do that by the time the particular carrier turn around. we're at the point in the economy, thingses are changing i'm concerned about the tenth annual habilitating effect of that. take the kind of carrier strike

group with the one sitting there. these are shut down. so i have pilot looking out the window saying i wish i could fly. industry -- i have others saying i'm flying so much i can't get a will done. now they are stuck in there. they're not ready to deploy eventually. thank you, mr. basher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i begin my question, admiral, i want to -- along with my colleagues extend my condolences to you and the entire navy family. the whole country, i think is heart broken over what happened on monday. i spoke yesterday with secretary and offered my personal assistance wells condolences.

ic you'll seek your counsel on how to deal with this sin you have the experience. thank you very much. let me turn to the questions at hand. this is we've had the discussion so many times. i want to say at the outset sequestration was a bad idea. and i've opposed it since i got here a little over a year ago. general, i want to ask a question specific to a fleet of aircraft that are stationed in my community. there have been recent reports as discussed here other --

some people made the argument that the doesn't fit. support and i know fully as you do the roll in combat search and rescue -- relying information. e courting helicopter in and out of combat zones. and the based in my district and across the country have been receipt to fitted with the frames wing and packages now have given them a lifespan of 2028. it's built on four guiding principles. i want to quote a couple. the first is that we must remain

ready for the full spectrum of military operations. the another is that we will remain strategy-driven based upon the defense strategic guy dan in our ability to execute the five core missions. the full spectrum of high-end threats. can you tell me why it is we consider retiring an entire fleet of the valuable aircraft. >> the cannot of deafen of $1 trillion plus we have to pay over the next 1995 and a half years. i have a 1,000 hours flying. it's no the the best at lot of other things. t capable in many areas. if we're going to look what we must invest we have to be very

honest with about how much question afford. maybe not do well as one other airplane. the limited to a specific type mission area becoming the one most at risk. i think there is largic at this hard press to avoid. >> how is it possible, we can support the ground troop? deployed again that's not even close. it's a small percentage of the support being done by many other platforms. we have got to provide united army, marine corps., and coalition partner we coit every day with a number of platforms we'll continue do it.

i want to say it's an important area. let me turn quickly, general, with remaining time. i'm concerned about the future of our ability to do cyber and intelligence work. as you know. t major area of this. how do you see sequestration effecting that obviously it's important to our war fighters today and tomorrow. >> term of cyber as stated be i the other chief of services, that we were going increase our investment in cyber. even though were decreasing our budget. e were increasing our investment in cyber. we increase by 1800 people right now. that's part of what we're doing. in term of intel, as you know, we provide not only intel for the army but the rode broader strategic operational force. which is key to combat commanders. we are reviewing how we do that. but the -- what we do in the intelligence community will not change and

the requirement we have in our community will continue to be a key piece of our strategy as we move forward. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as always, i thank you for coming. it's days like this i suppose we're all a limb more cognizant of the sacrifice you per son fie here today. i suppose it's impossible for us to be aware as we are all the time of the importance of people being willing to sacrifice all of the tomorrow so we can have freedom today and certainly great respect and appreciation.

your started your speak with a thought about partnership and how during time of fiscal austerity. if that's what we can call this rather than backing away from our or defunding our training opportunities. we should, quote, hold our partners close. i would like perhaps for all of you to e lab elaborate to a degree how important they are with the ally. especially with the region of great instability and how sequestration might effect these specifically with israel. and what does it tell our ally and foes when we choose, in my mind, to spend our money wisely on exercises like this. >> i think it increases the trust and their belief and willing to partner with them. even when it's not convenient. and i think if we assume that the future is about colation engagement. i would assume that's the best

way for the nation to go whenever possible. we have to have the ability to engage as a coalition. it requires training. it's a practical matter for the military. it benefits a term of time and cost in the future. and it creates cape thability is meaningful and brought together very, very quickly as opposed to spending month trying to train together before conducting an activity. whether it's a humanitarian relief or contingency operation. any other thoughts? >> congressman, it's key. i mean, i just returned from the pacific army expanders conference. and the whole point of the multilateral engagement. sharing of information. interoperability. that's the key as we move forward. we are going next week to the european commanders con friday. why is that important? nato and our close allies are helping us as we work issues in other part of the world.

the interoperability piece. it's important to them. and to me it's key. we're know that and have to do it the best we can. my only last point would be our partners are significantly reducing their investments in their military. we have to be careful about our assumption about what we think they will do for us. they are reducing as well. st it's a combination of all of those things. >> if i may. partner and ally very important. we need to look beyond it. i had the opportunity last week to sit down with my counter part and the people's liberation army navy. and negotiate eight opportunities for further engagement and partnership potentials at sea. so this goes as my colleague said. it goes beyond that.

>> general, i might ask you one more question. i had the privilege, i guess you called that of being in a helicopter at 150-feet off the ground at 150 miles per hour pitch black going over iraq. you are one cool customer. [laughter] you had a lot of faith in that helicopter pilot. but would you agree that relying more on operational guard and reserve will help mitigate the rising personnel expenditure in know knowing these men and women are obviously paid only when trained and mobilized but recognizing they have a proven combat capability. we would maintain a strong protection for our country? >> we have to have the right combination, congressman. it's not guard versus active. i have to have the right number of active. and the right depth provided by the national guard and u.s. army reserve. it's not one or the other. and you can't compare costs. they provide different capabilities based on the dollars they are given. obviously in a time they have to train and the time they --

it's gaining that right synergy between the two. as i've developed, and testify we're taking a 26% reduction in the active component and 12% reduction in the national guard. so i have taken that in to consideration. to go further than is dangerous. you lose the immediate readiness. we need both. i'm an advocate of having both. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you. >> mr. kill her. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as presented in the report under sequestration. the cuts will be either in capability or capacity. and admiral, i was hoping to ask you if you can describe those trade-offs when discussing the submarine fleet. we need to billed -- we need to have an adequate submarine fleet to distribute in a proper way what the combat commanders need. we need to respond to around the

world for the mission. that is a capacity piece where -- but you can't cover all the ocean with the world in submarine. it gets to what capabilities do we need have an undersee networking of submarines fixed and unmanned systems under the education. we have to develop the capability and aircraft and the broad area maritime surveillance. it's a global hawk tricked out for maritime operations. it's a combination of that networking and number one, you have to have all the capability of the networking. number two, the capacity to broaden it. i think step one, we need bring in the capability. that's the priority i put in there when i talk under sea domain. >> thank you. i think the focus of the hearing is on sequestration, which i think i have concluded is a latin word for stupid. now we're also facing a

potential government shut down, and essential in my neck of the woods we have navel bases a lot of the focus has been on the potential parochial impact. i have seen a lot of civilian workers not receiving a paycheck. i was hoping you can could speak to the national security impact of the a potential shut down. >> first, i would like that talk about the impact on the individuals. you know, we furloughed this year. it was horrible. and it kind of comes to -- when you look what happened this week. you have the dedicated civilians who dedicate their live to the military. because of the redubses, we are furloughing people who are -- who have given their lives to us. yet we're forced to these things. it's unconsciousble we have to do this. if can ever adestroyed we'll never do it again.

reducing size of our civilian work force. it was mentioned earlier the ph.d., the scientist, the engineer, that support us. we're going to lose that capability. and one you lose it, it's very difficult to get it back. that becomes a concern for us. in a time need people think you can regenerate the capability. you can't. we now have a problem. for me that is the real strategic impact of those reductions. >> if you look in the parking lot. those are civil yab to me sailor and airmen and marines and soldiers and so i think the national security implications are obviously. got air force base it's strategic command. grow to, you know, what you and i are familiar with. our public shipyards and navel shipyards. we have to get that worked on. it starts falling behind.

we have aircraft carrier not ready to go out. whoever is out there is stuck. it's untenable. from a corporate perspective. it you forget the personal impact which is dramatic. 8 million man hours lost for the air force. six days of sequestration this year. it's an awful lot of work not getting done on behalf of the nation. >> i had another question. i don't think time will permit. i'll end by echoing the donl ins extended to you and your team. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, to all of you and admiral, on behalf of my family. we certainly are thinking of you and the navy and all the fakes and personnel effected by this. and to each of you, i always want to thank you for the service to our country.

and extend the thank you to your families and your spouses and children. and all the sacrifice in this case make. general, first and foremost, i appreciate the execution of the -- [inaudible] the improved turbine engine program and the acquisition strategy of maintaining competition. congress continues to support this important program as evidence in our defense bills for the increase capability it provides and because it is in compliance with best practices and acquisition reform issues to reduce risk early on in a program. and so i believe that maintain ing competition in schedule reduces the risk considerably for the army and the taxpayer. can you please comment on the army's commitment to competition and support of the program? >> no, you have hit the points.

we agree, it's about the best engine for the best price while preserving competition to minimize our written. that's what it does. and so for us, we're totally committed to it. we wait for the analysis and alternative. as we decide for our future investment in this. it becomes more important. sequestration makes it more difficult. ..

particularly in light of all of the things that have been discussed here today tom cannot just sequester but the potential to operate under a continuing resolution as well as issues surrounding the debt ceiling today. >> thank you commerce woman. i do share your view on education training being -- two air force. iceman three weeks ago in montgomery and last week talking to training command. we discussed the program under development in the continuing of learning. the same thing on the offers are so the house. what can we afford to do and what can we not afford to do to stop educating our professional force and training better than anyone else trains their airmen. we are committed to this and everything pertains to sequestration but this is not something that would be a wise long-term move to take a lot of capability out of four

eligibility to train. >> i appreciate that continued commitment and again to each of you thank you for all you do and i appreciate your candor in light of these difficult decisions we have ahead and we appreciate your continual efforts to educate us so that we are better prepared as we move into that phase. mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you. mr. inert. >> thank you mr. chairman. general welsh i had a couple of questions specifically for you. yesterday afternoon i had an air force reserve wing commander in my office and he was talking to me about the sequester and the effects of sequestration on his role. and he particularly expressed to me concerned that about the way

he -- have been handled going from 22 days to 11 days to six days over a period of time. and because of the impact it had on those people, there are now serious trust issues between his air reserve technicians and his civilian workforce and the air force and d.o.t. and as is the wing commander he feels attention of those trust issues. general i am sure that those trust issues extend throughout the entire dod civilian workforce. you no, earlier this morning he testified that the air force is not planning for any furloughs for fy2014. so with scott air force base in my district and my able to go

back to my district and assure my anxious constituents as well as air force reserve commander in my able to ensure to them that the air force is not planning any furloughs in 2014? >> i meant exactly what i said. we have no plans to for low and fy14. i will at this. we had no plans or concept of for lowing fy13. i had never heard of it. we have got to resolve whatever we call this thing sequestration are fiscal crisis whatever it is, we have got to fix fix it. we we are doing things that are unprecedented including furloughs. it was a breach of faith with our civilian workforce. i tell everybody in the air force and i had to send a letter to everyone in the civilian workforce to say that. i understand why we couldn't have the transfer authority to take money from other places to put in the accounts but we have is that governments have got to

tube better on this front. >> general i couldn't agree with you more and i think that it's been clearly expressed here today but sequestration was a bad idea to begin with and it's a worse idea as we go forward particularly when we are dealing with cr's and all the problems that impacts on your budgets in the budgets of everyone frankly. general i did have one other question for you and that is that if sequestration continues will the air force have to reconsider its casey 46 alpha leasing decisions? >> i don't believe there's any reason to reconsider the decision as the result of the sequester, no sir. >> thank you. admiral as the son of the navy firefighter even though i chose the path of go army beat navy i would like to express my condolences to the entire navy family.

>> thank you congressmcongressm an. another comes from the heart and i appreciate it. >> mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you mr. nugent. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank all of my service chiefs for all that you do and obviously you care immensely about this nation but more importantly i believe you care about those that serve under you and they carry the tasks out on a daily basis. general odierno i really do appreciate your calm in regards to soldiers have got to be number one. they have got to be the number one priority and i worry and i'm new to this committee as if it least january, kia i worry that through sequestration and through the political gyrations that got us there, doesn't

matter how we got here but we got here, the damage that we are doing to our services and i think you hit it on the head when he said we really don't do a good job of identifying future threats. i think the major threats the strategic threats probably so but i don't think anybody saw afghanistan or iraq coming up on the horizon and now we are bringing our force structure -- i agree with you -- dangerously low and the lack of writing this across the whole mission area should concern everyone. and i'm concerned and i'm concerned about the readiness of our troops and in particular across all the services but the army because of the large nature of it and in the marine corps the personal nature of that type

of combat that you have to engage in puts people at extreme risk on a very close basis. how do we continue to keep a force that is all volunteer? how do we continue to keep them in place when we hear particularly talking about and if it's for those that are going to serve us and have volunteered their service and put themselves at risk like. >> thank you for that question. it's a very important question as we look to the future. there is no doubt in my mind it's essential we keep an all-volunteer force for a lot of different reasons. let me talk a little bit about compensation. we have very generous appropriate benefits packages today for our soldiers sailors airmen and marines and --

but as i go around and talk to our soldiers they understand the fact that we are -- our thoughts it least on pay and benefits is not to do decrease them but decrease the rate of increase and if we do that we can save enough money that allows us to appropriately continue to have an all-volunteer force. i think we have to work together with congress on this because i know how much you care about taking care of our men and women in uniform. that's very clear but we have to come together to decide -- there are ways to do this in such a way that we don't reduce their pay but increase -- and that will enable us in the long run to maintain an all-volunteer force. >> i face the same issues when i was sheriff regarding budgeting and looking at the increases to forecast down the road so i get that but i also hear you now as

it relates to not just pay. i had the same thing in the civilian world but this is about training and in particular about our men and women having the ability to fly. our men and women having the will it be to go to advanced training. yes, sir. >> in the navy we talk about a formula. the quality of service of the sailor equates to the quality of life and that's the stuff we were talking about. their pay and housing entitlement and all that in the quality of their work. do i have spare parts and do i have a boss that cares for me? in my training? do i feel like i'm doing something worthwhile? is my schedule predictable clacks what is the work environment. in our world when they leave the pier walk across the road and get in their car and drive off off -- when they go back down the pier

and go back into that we afford to do there and i'm concerned that we focus so much on the quality of life and the quality of work is going down a lot. we need to balance that in my opinion. >> i agree in one last statement you don't have the answer on this one but i call upon the commander-in-chief to take a more active role in regards to working with this congress and particularly with the senate to move issue sets it relate strictly to our security here in this country and having the ability to project force but also to protect the forces we are projecting. i think the commander-in-chief owes that to those that he commands and has that overall responsibility and i yield back. >> thank you. mr. gallego. >> thank you mr. chairman. admiral i will confess to you that there is not a lot of water where i live that i will also tell you that every single

resident of that congressional district the 23 in texas feels your pain and on behalf of the constituency that i represent i wanted to note know that our prayers are with you, with your fellow members of the service and certainly with all of the families who have lost someone over the course of those days. >> thank you, sera. >> i have the privilege of representing several military facilities in san antonio that includes multiple air force laughlin air force base and in el paso county there is fort bliss. they are all very dedicated public servants both on the uniform side and the nonuniform side. my view is they deserve better than what would they are getting from our government and certainly from the congress as i listen to the testimony seems to me in some instances congress is

a very difficult partner because we make it a lot harder instead of easier and you can't say that i can especially since i just got here in january. so when i listen to the idea for example that having to reduce pilot production potentially reducing 25,000 airmen are 9% cut in aircraft were choosing between readiness today and a modern air force tomorrow, or when i listen to the testimony about how it's unconscionable to do the furloughs, i understand all of that is not in your control. it's in the control of the members of the institution and the institution is a very interesting word. i would like to talk general odierno about the impact of one

of the disconnects i think there is. many people don't understand the importance of the civilian side with respect to the uniform side so when you look at the base in san antonio or you look at laughlin people don't understand the importance of the contribution of the civilian side. can you talk a little bit about that and how that spillover affects the uniform side and how they work in tandem and if you have specific examples. at some point i would like some specific information off-line about the basis that i represent and how they would be impacted. general? >> for us you know we have three major commands actually for major commands in san antonio. we have medical command ,-com,-com ma installation and management command u.s. army

north and u.s. army south all in san antonio. they are three or four components what we do in the army. medical has the hugest possibility providing support to our soldiers both in combat and their families that are not in combat and our civilians managed all of our installations both in the united states and outside the united states, a huge role and army north is the one who is really the army component to provide homeland defense and homeland security for a nation. they all have key civilian workforce and it's essential for them to accomplish the mission. and in fact the hospital in san antonio there, we have some concern. we are losing some of our civilian employees because of the furlough. they have to work for a veteran va or other opportunities because now they have lost this

dimension. there is faith and trust in the fact that they will have consistent employment with the department of defense of those things i would tell you is so important to us. >> i will give an example. the maintenance group at randolph air force base. i was visiting the directors a civilian. the entire maintenance group at randolph, the civilian -- the training is civilian. because of the furlough we lost enough of those 8 million man-hours and mentioned in the percentage of those were at randolph a large enough percentage that we lost the ability to support a number of flying hours equaled to an entire pilot training class which is why i said to my opening statement we will look at changing our private production numbers next year because we learned here we will have to cut a class whether we not want to or not just because they impact on our civilian workforce.

the other place it affects us is when you take a million man-hours off the books there are tasks that would have been done during those 8 million man-hours that can't wait because of the operational activities that they support so the uniform workforce will pick those up an additional duty but the civilians would done it and worked a longer day before they took their furlough but we are not letting them so we can limit the number of hours we have to put in each furlough. we are not letting them work overtime. everybody is frustrated because they would like to do their job not just because they are losing 20% of their pay. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. palazzo. >> thank you for your answers to her questions. there has been a lot of talk about sequestration and i don't think anybody in their heart voted for sequestration. i think it was just something that was a part of a bad deal that was put together and we were never meant to get here. i think everybody is pretty much said that in different ways that

we go back to admiral mullen. the greatest threat to our national security is our national debt. we are $17 trillion in debt and there seems to be no turning that around. we have had record deficits. we have had it on employment for the last four years and there seems to be no solution to it. that is why we are having these arguments come that these fights not just inside each party but also with the outside of the party. it is because we are fighting over the shrinking discretionary budget and while we do nothing to address the number one driver of our deficits and their debt and that is the mandatory out of control entitlement spending and i hate this because i feel like this is going to be groundhog day over and over long as we are in congress or déjà vu. we are going to keep having these conversations but until we

put people in policy head of politics we are going to keep having these squabbles amongst one another. we can get there. we can fix our economy. it's simple. we just have to listen to the american people and i think they want to see our spending cut but they want to see it done responsibly. i think they want to see a balanced budget. all 50 states have a balanced budget. why is the federal government different? is a somehow more special? they want to see us grow the economy. people are talking about in my district when they are not being distracted with syria or obama cared or something else they are talking about jobs. they want to see the economy get back on track and they're some of us the know-how to create jobs in congress. we need to elevate their voices and we do that through less taxes and less regulation. we don't need to have -- there's a lot of money sitting on the sidelines but people are insert. they don't know what's going to happen tomorrow so they are very

much reserved. i would just like to say a few comments. i hope that the guard and the reserves do not go back to being a strategic reserve. i hope they maintain an operational force presence. i think it's extremely important and i think they have earned their place in our military and they have also -- they cause -- cost one third of what they had to the component would. i know they have had some order enforcement opportunities in the past. instead of adding 40,000 more border patrol agents with to see how we can serve guard at the border and maybe other homeland security. also the pacific i know we are going to need ships. we are going to need destroyers and i know with the multiyear ship procurement and being able to plan and it dance and i hope congress continues to do that to give the ability to drive down costs and get the best quality

product for a taxpayer. general wells i can't think the air force and enough for delaying the c-130 j prosco. there's so much uncertainty and we don't know what the forces force is going to look like tomorrow. the mississippi community is appreciative because after winning the commander-in-chief's excellencexcellenc e award out of all the bases in the military we think -- we hope you take a hard look moving forward and hopefully you will determine that they need to stay there. and i do have one question. this question is for general amos. as the sequestration settles on the force we hear often that services will be forced to do less with less and in your unvarnished opinion what are the risks to major contingency operations as well as state office if they continue and in these cuts are realized? >> congressman thanks for the

opportunity to speak about that. i don't see any requirements for all of our services for the next decade. i read the same pundits, i read what they say. i listen to them and they talk about a peace deal coming out of afghanistan and it i think that's totally optimistic at best. i don't see the requirements changing that i would say the world is probably more dangerous today than it was prior to 9/11. folks have said and i began to shape the marine corps down in this 174 for synthesized into my opening statement it was a budget driven effort. it wasn't a strategic driven effort. i started with okay we will to lose with less but what we do we will do very well. i don't believe that. i think we are going to do the

same with less and we are going to do that very well and we are going to work hard to do that but i don't see any slacking congressman. i think we will be doing the same with less. >> i know we we are at this time but if i could just add. the issue is let's take 13. 13 we were under continuing resolution with sequestrasequestra tion and if you asked each one of us we would tell you our requirements went up in 13. that's the concern. so budget went down, forced by her sequestration in our requirements increases the went on. that's the conundrum we are in right now and that's my concern as we continue down this road so thank you mr. chairman. >> is ours as well. thank you. ms. shea-porter. >> i too would like to offer my

condolences. i would like to say that while the sequester is absolutely devastating i have concerns about what we are saying and letting people know and i am amazed that probably more people abroad and our enemies know the impact more than the members of congress and that's absolutely shameful. there's a bill that could remove the sequester today if it would only come to the floor. i am very concerned as we all are. while we are dealing with this i would like to talk to all of you about the impact on the civilians, the impact on the members of the services and what appears to be the lack of impact on contractors right now. i know that for they headquarter budgets they are talking about a 20% cut for the civilians who work for the government and also seeing it in the budget but i

haven't heard them talk about contractors. could each of you address that? i actually saw the contractor's numbers. they have dropped along with a pay that dropped for some of the people who are serving our country so i'd like you to address that these. >> thank you for the question. as part of the -- the secretary of the army and i dashed the army had a 25% reduction in headquarters. the first place to look is with contractors. knowledgebase contractors we call them as well as other types of contractors that we have. because we want to try did keep as much of the civilian force and of military force as possible so we are absolutely looking at that as we move forward. that is one of the key pieces of the of the study group that's coming back to us with recommendations that we expect will happen within the next several months. >> i do expect it will help you save money.

the contractor costs two and a half times more than a government employee. >> they do. the balance is they give short-term capability. guess it will save us money and allow us to invest in other places or not take cuts in other places. >> do you agree with that admiral? >> yes, maam. as i look out to the -- that skimmer peace and we address this. we are looking at about a one third reduction in overhead and that includes contractors. we have methodically in partnership with our research development acquisition executive gone through and reduced contracts. this has been quite a drilled to go in there and peel apart where the money goes precisely. that is 20 billion dollars of the $60 billion we are targeting. that is a cross a five-year plan. the overhead like ray said we

are at about the 20% on reduction of headquarters. that is not contracting but it's overhead. >> exactly the same man. contract reductions will be the same if not greater then ripped it -- reductions of the civilian armed force. >> congresswoman the role in reducing civilian personnel over the long run. in my service we are reducing 25,000 active marines. we don't know what that is going going to be but we look seriously at our contractors. i would just like to make an anecdotal comment on civilians. we have talked a lot about furloughs here today. we have talked about in essence keeping the faith. i think we are in danger of losing those wonderful highly-skilled professionals

that my colleagues have talked about here today because of the furlough and the anticipation of the government shutdown. they will reach a point where they will look at employment elsewhere whether it whether itn antonio whether you are a medical professional or it ph.d.. it became a point of faith in the united united states marine corps as i looked at our civilian marines. i think we are in danger of losing an awful lot. >> i thank you for saying that. we have the naval shipyard in our district and the men and women who serve our country every day deserve better than what we are seeing. we also the national guard may deserve better. it's across the whole spectrum. the men and women who serve this country deserve to know their paycheck will be there and they can count on us and so far we have failed them. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. ms. duckworth. >> thank you mr. chairman. i join my colleagues and adding

my condolences and i will tell you i was very impressed by the actions of your personal and helping one another survive that situation. >> thank you man. i appreciate it paradigm now that's from a heart. >> general odni you and i've had this conversation before and i would love for you to expand a little bit on the role of the guard and reserve. you have been very clear and i appreciate it in terms of defining a role for the guard and reserve not only in a new strategic environment that is an operational force and also in the current budget climate. i don't have any military aces in my district that i said we have a lot of national guard and reservists and i also have a lot of technicians who are suffering from the furloughs trying to keep those helicopters and aircraft functional. as we see in colorado right now the national guard has really stepped up with those efforts. could you speak a little bed general given the guard men and

reserve component compared to active duty can you speak to what the reduction would like to see with regard to the the guard and reserve? >> as i have testified if we have to go to full sequestration there will be a 26% reduction in the active component a 12% reduction in the national guard and had 9% reduction in u.s. army reserves. i want to go back to the question asked. the real reason is that they keep their structure i'm not going to build the fund them as an operational reserve. i can't afford the training to keep them as an operational force which is what i want so i've got to reduce the structure a little bit but not as much as the active component. i don't get as much savings. the overall balance i have to maintain -- obviously we have lost 33% of the active force but the readiness is less than the force so i have to keep that right

balance. i need the right amount of guard and active component and i'm very conscious of that as i worked my way through this. i have in fact taken more out of the active component because of that cost factor but i have to take a little bit out of the guard card so i can continue to keep them and fund them as an operational reserve. so that is the balance i'm trying to achieve. they are some that say we should increase the guard and further reduce -- but to me that's not a balance and we will not have the capability to respond the way we need to contingency operation so i'm trying to find that right balance. >> thank you. general welsh could you address that as well? >> yes maam. the cost is different and you can save more capacity and force structure by putting in a reserve component over time. you just have have to balance how far you can go. you do hit a point where

operational capability or ability to respond quickly or impacted. it's different in every mission from space to mobility to fighters and we are looking at each one. the other thing i think that's important for us to consider is the real benefit of a reserve component and an experienced force overtime available to respond quickly and any type of contingency small or large won the most troubling things we are seeing over the last couple of years is a much diminished desire of people leaving the active air force to go into the reserve component. only 15% of those eligible are doing so over the last two years. that is much lower than traditional and if we get to the point where reserve components are inexperienced while they may be cheaper they will not provide the operational reserve that you need to be a balance fighting force as an entire total force and we have got to make sure we aren't doing things in the active component to keep people from becoming members of the

reserve component. we are looking at all of that right now. we have actually got a very robust discussion going on. the biggest issue is what are the cost factors in each of these areas. we decided on a model we are using for planning that model still needs to be refined a bit. speaking you speak to the role of military technicians in your role? >> yes maam. they are essential. they are essentially four days a week a civilian member of the air force. our civilian workforce is essential. we can do our job without them. like the maintenance group i mentioned before and the same thing is true of the guard and reserve units. that is what the status technicians do. they are fantastic. >> we should and sequestration and i don't think people realize those technicians are soldiers airmen and do both jobs and if you're going to ask them to give up their jobs on the full-time side they're not going to be

there on the dash side. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. castro. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you gentlemen for your testimony. i add my condolences for the tragedy of the navy yard along with the other members. i represent san antonio texas and i had a few questions about some of the operations there. the first one is do we know what impact another round of sequestration cuts will have on the services on the wilford hall ambulatory service and can you address whether the -- that wilford hall will be impacted? >> congressman i can't give an answer in the specific impacts of sequestration of wilford hall but i will get back to you. >> the second one concern san antonio. in my district i have lackland air force base. we'll sequestration affect any of the programs related to combating sexual assault in the

military. >> no, serve. >> so those will be protected? >> we protect our civilian workforce involved in sexual assault response coordinators. a few big dems advocates etc. from berlin to prevent that from occurring and will continue to put the emphasis on those programs. >> those were my two questions. thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you for your testimony and for your work and for the continued efforts that you make to live with these very restrictive budgetary problems you are dealing with. i know that this is going to be an interesting week for us. we have to get a cr passed. we have to shortly get a debt ceiling limit increased and i

think every member of congress is taking these issues seriously but they there are 435, maybe 433 members now and they come at it from everyone of those those come from different directions. i know that the armed services committee is keenly aware of the points you bring up and i think very supportive of the military and we are the largest committee in congress. maybe we can have some sway in some of these discussions. we haven't done so well so far but maybe going forward we can. again thank you for your service. please let the men and women you serve with know that we appreciate greatly their efforts

in the things that they do. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> this week house republicans are threatening to shut down, to shut down the entire government

unless the affordable act is completely refunded. republicans want to eliminate health coverage for tens of millions of americans. return the keys to the insurance companies and go back to the days of discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. ladies and gentlemen i have said it and i will say it again, we can do better. the chairman is right. there are things we can do to improve this but -- and this may be hard but this is america. we do hard things all the time. we can do this because people's lives are dependent upon it. with that i yield back. >> i point out the gentleman talked about the law implementing the whole law. was the president upholding and implementing the whole law when he gave it to late to big business? the great speech. give to the president of united states. he's one that said this business

gets delayed but the rest of america doesn't. >> come on now. mr. chairman. he knows what the president was trying to do was to try to again again -- are you going to let me answer the question? >> you have seven minutes. >> go ahead and answer the question serve. >> again the president can't i've said it before. this is hard and they could not get certain things in congress and the president gave them that leeway. a lot of the problems we have in the laws because of things that happened when we were trying to pass it. and trying to compromise here and compromise there but again the chairman of the committee is right. you are right. there are things that could be better if that does not mean they scrap it and throw it out because people will die. they will literally die and you know it. >> the gentleman --

the gentleman was making the fundamental point. he specifically said and we can read it back, he said specifically the whole law. i just want to know if it's the whole law is should be the whole law and we shouldn't give special dispensation to big business with the president did without even having congress vote on it. >> mr. chairman? i take no special privilege but as a member of the committee i know that we have witnesses who can deal with some of the challenges that everyone is concerned about. the individual mandate, go the corporate mandate the timeliness of it and so on so i hope we can get to it. i join with the ranking member in one sense. this is an important hearing. we will disagree on the purpose of it or haps but i think as we hear from our witnesses both sets of witnesses i think the witnesses will speak for the real intent of the hearing and i look forward to getting into it

in a lively debate afterwards. c-span's studentcam video competition is underway. it's open to all middle and high school students in this year we are doubling the number of

winners and prizewinners. entry should include c-span video show varying points of view and are due by january 20, 2014. need more information? visit studentcam.org. >> now a house foreign affairs committee hearing on the attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi libya last year that killed four americans. under secretarsecretar y of state patrick kennedy testified about additional embassy security measures implemented since a report on the attack was issued last december. [inaudible conversations] >> the this hearing of the committee will come to order at this time. since september 11 of 2012 the committee has been focused on

the tragedy in benghazi libya where terrorists killed four americans that day including our ambassador. the first ambassador, u.s. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979. the focus of today's hearing which is our fourth, is the troubling lack of accountability we have seen within the state department since that time. the bottom line is that over one year later, kia no state department personnel have been held accountable for the department's failure to protect the benghazi consulate and the u.s. personnel there. not one. as we know there were so many things wrong with the state department's decision-making before the failed attack. in the face of the glaring need with violence in benghazi mounting, critical security requests from the field were denied.

the department was asleep on 9/11 and this led to the accountability review boards to find in their words systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two state department euros, but no state department personnel had been fired or even disciplined. no one has missed eight -- accountability can be painful. those make him bad decisions may have long and otherwise good records but the department cannot have a culture of accountability which is what any well-functioning organization needs and which is essential to protecting its personnel if no one, literally no one is held accountabaccountab le for the mismanagement and poor leadership the aarp itself identified.

i always look at how the department's review process has played out. the aarp failed to interview the secretary of state and kept responsibility at the assistant secretary level. for faux should -- officials have been placed on administrative leave. state department personnel policies. the former secretary ceded her authority to take action against the four individuals or others to a new secretary and finally officials on paid leave were reinstated and reassigned into unspecified decisions at the reviews conclusion while at least one individual connected with failed management policies that received a promotion. i wish i did, but i just don't see the level of accountability

that then go see warrants. indeed that benghazi divans and meanwhile not one terrorist perpetrator has been captured. not one terrorist perpetrator has been killed despite the president saying that was the highest priority. the terrorist threat in much of the world and fortunately is only increasing. u.s. facilities obviously are tempting targets. the state department with this committee's encouragement has undertaken some important embassy security reforms. we have put many of those reforms into legislation passed out of the committee which also authorize the administration's full funding request for embassy security. but no amount of money will ever overcome poor management and poor management is a given without accountability. i would ask all committee

members are you comfortable with this process that has no state department official being held accountable in any meaningful way? of the committees have been working on other aspects. many questions have been answered. this committee will continue to focus on accountability including legislation to reform the board process so it's truly independent and future secretaries of state of either party cannot stack the deck. i would hope to have bipartisan support from that. as we hold this hearing we should focus on the facts. we should ask the questions but work it in a way that's going to lead to the most productive outcome and that is learning from mistakes and improving the security of u.s. diplomatic personnel serving overseas. many by the way in and increasingly threatening

surroundings. that is a goal i know we can all agree on and i will now turn to ranking member angle for his opening statement. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and as i said many times before i would like to thank you for the bipartisan way you have presided and we have worked together in a very bipartisan way. unlike some other committees are members have conducted themselves with dignity and a corpsman i hope we can continue to did that today despite the strong feelings of many of us have an different opinions on both sides of the aisle. all of us agree that the -- four americans in benghazi september 11, at 200012 for a terrible tragedy. secretary clinton determined what made wrong and to make recommendations to improve security and our diplomatic posts. among those chosen to serve on

the arp were ambassador pickering and admiral mike mullen who have had impeccable reputations. in its report submitted last december the board found that there were quote systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus at the state department unquote that led to inadequate security in benghazi. secretary clinton took personal responsibility for the attacks and accepted all of the recommendations of the arp. the state department under the leadership of secretary kerry has implemented or is in the process of implementing all the recommendations to support the work of the arp and the efforts of the state department today introduced the embassy security and enhancement act of 2013. this noncontroversial legislation much of which was incorporated in the state department authorization bill that the amedi recently passed

would help improve diplomatic security planning strengthens security and enhanced security training. mr. chairman are committee has a responsibility to ensure that our brave diplomats and aid workers have the security they deserve. at the same time we must recognize that as christie then surely did if there's a certain amount and inherent in these occupations that effect to diplomacy cannot we conducted from behind the walls of a fortress. i've heard a lot during said about personal blame of president obama but let me say this. barack obama and hillary linton are no more responsible for what happened in benghazi then george bush for what happened on 9/11 or 200 military personnel in beirut. the congress cut funding for embassy security and they're lots of -- all the way around but we shouldn't point fingers and we should try to get to the bottom of this and hopefully end an

unpolitical way. i look forward to hearing from art distinguished witness under secretary of state pat kennedy for whom i have tremendous respect on how we should best manage and mitigate risk in diplomatic posts around the world. i would also like to hear from him about the progress made in implementing the recommendation of the arp in the department's decision regarding the employment status of the department officials identified in the arp. mr. chairman and closing other like to reiterate my hope it can manage a high-level stability in our discussion today and that we will engage -- wanting gauge and got to politics like some other committees do and i yield back. >> is why we are pleased to chime by the under secretary of state or management patrick kennedy. he is responsible for the people resources facilities technology and financial operations consulate affairs and security for the department of state operations and he is the secretary's principle advisor on

management issues. ambassador kennedy will come. without objection the witnesses full prepared statements will be made part of the record. members will have five days to submit statements questions and extraneous materials for the record and i would like to remind everyone including our witness that today's hearing is part of this committees continuing investigation and review on these matters does any willful misrepresentation or false statement by a witness as a criminal offense under 18 u.s. code section 1001. indeed, that is the case at all of their hearing so i look forward to a full and frank exchange during our proceedings today and ambassador kennedy would you please summarize your remarks at this time? >> thank you very much chairman royce ranking member angle and distinguished members. thank you for inviting me to testify about the tragic events of september 11, 2012 in

benghazi lipid department into robust presence in 285 locations many and challenging security environments where for u.s. national security interests are at stake trade every day we work to protect our people and nation by constantly assessing threats and their security posture and all the overseas security over the past year. one strong point of agreement is that america needs to have a robust presence abroad to advance our national security interest even in dangerous places. the department cites tears and enhances the rule of law fights disease and promotes fair trade. these myriad activities are often accomplished by the whole of united states government. over 30 different government agencies have a presence overseas in the facilities the state department manages. almost as long as the united states has been the -- sent diplomats are sent diplomats are in the world there've been those who afford the freedoms america represents and those who seek to do us

harm. the attacks in benghazi in september were a tragedy for the family and loved ones of these four patriots the department of state and foreign nation. mr. -- as the prisoners make her the united states is committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice. we are also committed to seeking necessary steps to prevent such tragedies in the future. while we can never eliminate all the risks our constant goal is to mitigate risk to the maximum extent possible. as described in my written statement the department mitigates risk in large part with two major security programs. security of rates and construction of new facilities by the hero of overseas building operations and role and procedural security programs implemented by the bureau diplomatic sea 30. the september attacks president obama and secretary clinton immediately called the state department to review and improve securities with the assistancassistanc e of the department of defense to deploy interagency security assessment teams to 19 height reg post to

identify security improvements to be enhanced and implemented both in the near and long term. independent accountability review board was convened. on september 19, 201229 recommendations to the secretary of state. the state is stressed almost all these recommendations and is working diligently with defense and others to implement those that remain. does it require more time and resources such as deploying a contingent of marine security guards. if not the department has articulated a deputy assistant secretary at the high threat post-responsible for focusing attention on those particular locations. all threat post-have safety equipment designed in arabic language specifically for personnel and security field that will be in next month. we are reinforcing throughout the departments workforce the

predicate that security is everyone's responsibility. over the past year we have been working with defense to establish 35 additional barring security guard detachments to increase the size of the existing marine detachment and to establish a rapid response in quantico to add additional moorings to pose as the situation warrants. following the efforts in the autumn of 2012 the department requested authority to transfer $1.4 billion from one account to another foreign increase security proposal and in the 2013 continuing approach rations had congress funded its request for which we are deeply grateful. these funds are being used to provide facilities for the additional marine guard attachments as well as for embassy construction and security renovation. we have also examined the recruitment of additional diplomatic security personnel and 1133 we have made implementing the recommendations a priority so we can better prevent similar tragedies.

that is where we are focused in the state state department and i know this is your priority as well. the unfortunate fact is our diplomats and facilities of god will face attacks again if they just did last week in afghanistan. since the tragic attack in benghazi the tempo is threatening attacks against us. we'll do everything we can do to turn and mitigate the effectiveness of any attack that we will not even with the most willing and capable government ever stop terrorist or extremist from mounting attacks against us in all cases and we must continue to operate in places where host governments may not always be as willing or capable of fully defending us as we would wish. the rest of of the united states is a nation however are greater if we withdraw them the risks of depraved u.s. diplomat development and military personnel on the front lines of our foreign diplomacy efforts today. i appreciate benghazi from

security to accountability. i'm here today to answer questions. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you ambassador. i would like to focus on the benghazi accountability review boards and i think the administration likes to characterize that as an independent word. that was that ford really independent because the secretary of state selected for the five members the chairman of the board ambassador pickering has told congressional staff that you asked for recommendations as to who else might serve with him on the board. is that correct that you asked ambassador pickering for his recommendations as to who else might serve on the board? >> that is correct sir. >> there have also been reports that you played a role in selecting and designing those

department employees whose staff and assisted with its investigation. did you in fact supervise the assignment of state employees to assist? >> i had absolutely nothing to do with the assignment of staff to the boards are, absolutely nothing. >> well i think you but here is a concern that we have in terms of the way it was staffed. a well-conducted investigation demands that there be sensible limitations on who can serve as an investigator and benghazi arp staff had too many ties and close working relationships with those officials that they were charred with investigating. consider i think these points and the assistant secretary for near eastern affairs elizabeth jones not only worked with ambassador pickering at the state department but also served

with him on to the nonprofit awards. the arp fleet staff are also known as the arp's executive director previously served as chief of staff to deputy secretary william byrnes and had worked closely with a number of other senior department officials. these relationships can affect impartiality and many state department employees including some who have testified before this congress have questioned the arb's ability and willingness to conduct a truly unbiased investigation. that goes to the question of whether this really was an independent report. and the other aspect of this that is concerning is the way it has been packaged.

packaged as independent. i think that in light of these facts it is important going forward, given the departments lack of accountability,.we chane the procedures for the arb so in fact we have independent voices on it. otherwise you under find the credible claims of independents and create an environment that is to clubby. i think that the legislation that we have put forward will change that. they wanted your observation to support or opposition of the measure that we are proposing in order to change the way in which

arb boards are conducted. >> mr. chairman i believe that this was an independent investigation. if one reads as i know you have, the very hard-hitting and very very critical comments of the accountability review board as you noted in your opening statement it is hard for me to accept the fact that the board was staffed as the state department favorable board when they rendered the very critical opinions that they did. three members of the board mr. chairman had no relationship at all with the state department. all the members of the lord had decades of experience working for both republican and democrats presidents over the period of time. it is impossiblimpossibl e i believe to find someone with

state department senior expertise to be a member of the board with the gravity and someone with many years of experience who is retired to his not work -- >> can i interrupt just for a minute please. we are here today because at the end of the day no one is held accountable. that is contradictory to the thesis that you are at dancing here. no one is held accountable. >> mr. chairman i respectfully disagree about the subject of accountability. for four employees of the state department were relieved of their senior positions. the assistant secretary or deputy assistant secretary of state that are no longer holding the senior positions. i submit respectfully mr. chairman that accountability includes being relieved from your job and assigned to other positions.

to me that is serious accountability. >> well, no one missed a paycheck, all right? no one has been held accountable and the lord did not take this to the upper levels of management where clearly for those who are observing from the outside where many of these decisions were made and indeed that is why we are here. in order to chide you change a system in which you have a hand in suggesting who does the investigation can't cut it would be far wiser and this is one of the most frustrating parts about feeling with the state department. it went for years without the appointment internally of an investigator that would take on this responsibility and in this

process we go through and arb process in which you choose who is going to do the investigation and afterwards he moved people form one position to another. they are on the paycheck and on the clock whether they are working or not through all of this and there is no accountability in the process from our perspective. the idea that no one is held accountable at the end of the day is the problem and reassignment just doesn't cut it in terms of addressing that issue. >> we are going to go to mr. engel. >> thank you mr. chairman. i am more concerned with preventing another benghazi type attack in the future rather than worrying about who was brought

to justice so to speak for what they did or didn't do. i want to make sure that we do everything we can so that there are no future benghazi's. the state department led by secretary clinton and now secretary kerry has put forward a lot of effort to improve how it provides resources to manage security over the past years. the bottom line is the state department does a better job in serving around the world and dangerous parts of the world and explain what you have learned. obviously things were problematic. what have we learned from the benghazi experience that could not be repeated today because we made changes? >> congressman i think one of the things the accountability

people have drawn to her question -- which is is the focus of security only the management responsibility or should the culture of the responsibility extend to all elements of the state department? in other words to security everyone's responsibility and is there accountability review board pointed out that was an issue. we have taken steps there through assigning diplomatic security agents to brief the assistant secretary every day to the regional offices morning staff meetings, officers from all the regional bureaus and can the diplomatic security director's morning briefings that lays out all the security issues that we are facing in and around the world. we have court appointed a deputy assistant secretary and diplomatic security for high

threat posed so that we can focus specifically on those posts that are particularly endangered so to speak because of the world offense in that part of the world and that obviously is not a static situation. world initiatives change in our focus has to be changed the way of also built in an institutional program so regular review of water at the highest threats so we can change our focus as the situation requires. thanks to this congress we have achieved additional funding levels and we are deploying. we have party deployed a number of marine security guard attachments in endangered periods in working with the united states marine corps. we are well on the way to increasing the number of marine security guards to 35. we have enhanced our training program as well so i think there was a bill to be run by the

accountability review board and the state department is taking many and varied steps to improve what we are doing in many facets give these are already in place. >> the pickering mullen panel called for the establishment of multi-support cells opening or reopening the post and legislation which i introduced was included in the authorization bill by our committee last month. can you tell us a little bit about this? >> yes, sir. it is clear when you are going to open a post in endangered achieve security with a small s. it requires logistics. it requires construction and requires telecommunications. it requires the way personnel with the right training. the multiunit support cells have already been established and there is one already that it is working on the situation. for example should we have to go

back into syria at some point? the multi-concept supports cell it's already stood up and working on that question. >> let me ask you one final question. your written testimony called the report with the best practices panel led by the former head of the secret services mark sullivan and one of those recommendations that the diplomatic security be elevated and a similar change was approved by former secretary of state madeleine albright following the east africa bombings in the late 1990s however changes were not made it what with you think about this recommendation and if a new undersecretary is not created should be undersecrundersecr etary the diplomatic security report directly to the secretary?

>> all assistant secretaries report directly to the secretary but given that dep time which infinite there are a number of undersecretaries in the state department who insist the secretary -- assists the secretary and various challenges whether they be international economic affairs arms control and security. so the undersecretary in my humble opinion forms an important assistant function to the secretary in order that he or she has the right amount of time to focus on the most critical issues. we are still reviewing the results of the best practices. i might make one comment on the rationale of the current structure in the state department. security is not just the responsibility of the bureau of diplomatic security. security needs new facility construction. it needs medical support.

it needs telecommunications. it needs training. it needs logistics. it needs the right kind of recruiting tools. all those activities that are carried on in the state department under the auspices of the undersecretary for management that form the platform that provides a robust security capability. i believe it is very important that there be on behalf of the secretary of state a coordinator. that is why the department is organizing itself as it has but we will be looking at the recommendations of the soul of an that is the reason why the hamilton report which is really a report on intelligence and security and that report when it said in undersecretary would have also taken the bureau of intelligence and research and the counterterrorism office and diplomatic security and put it all into one. >> we will go to congressman

ileana ros-lehtinen. >> no one has been held accountable for the disastrous decisions made at the state department before during and after the attack. the state continues to shuffle the deck chairs and employ officials who were part of the management deficiency and systematic failures that were tragically made earlier this year. two senior officials resigned over the irs scandal yet no one has resigned. no one has been fired with the misguided decisions related to the september 11, 2012 terrorist attacks. this is unacceptable and it is appalling. the administration is asking us to trust it when it says is doing everything he can to hold their people accountable in this tragedy and will bring those

terrorists responsible to justice. really? who believes this? this is the same administration that deliberately politicized the talking points and set out a false narrative designed -- and attributing blame to a videomaker. secretary panetta has said there was little communication with the white house and president obama during the night of the attack. in this time of great need was the president missing in action? the white house has failed to answer the question of where the president was and what he was doing during the attack and why he failed to call for military backup. the former deputy chief in libya testified the gave the stand-down order to present -- prevent a rescue team from going into benghazi to hell. who gave that stand down order? can you describe the coordination between the white house secretary clinton and secretary panetta to give our

personnel mep and support and assistance? did anyone even lift a finger? libya was a high threat posed initiative made continues security requests an urgent prayer he within the department and those request should have been granted immediately. ..

>> ha over 20 embassies and consulates the host nation based on their full cooperation with implementing a plan to protect our forests service officers overseas what about the stand down order? what is a coordination between the warehouse and what about the implementation?

>> thank you very much. what i have been briefed to is as soon as the president has learned on the attack on benghazi he asset the national security staff to assist us around the globe. >> can you answer who gave the stand down order? >> there was none. there was no standout order. >> thank you what about the court nation between the department of state and the white house and secretary panetta? >> there was coordination albright. the call came in 3:45 p.m. washington time. >> who decided there was no

reason to hope for they had no capabilities our resources? >> u.s. military was put on a letter to a reid platoon. >> how long did the fire point long dash fryer flat -- firefight take place? >> on a temporary mission facility. >> eight hours to make no. when our then there was a six hour lag then a 50 minute second attack. the nearest u.s. and -- u.s. military forces were of a distance of about washington d.c. to dallas this. >> so it would have been impossible over seven hours?

there is nothing we could do? '' when you are in trouble over seven hours it in the 1930's we cannot get to you? >> no congressman we are working with the department but there is only so vague it military installations around the world of the distances from those installations come with the reason why that is relevant is we are trying to increase the funding. >> figure very much it was not a problem of funding and every witness has said it is not a problem of lack of funding it was a problem of a lack of resolve to do something for a problem that lasted more than seven hours. think you. >> mr. chairman unfortunately ambassador

kennedy all of what we just heard we have heard it and it has been asked before at other hearings. here we go again with the same questions again. you were cut off but is there something else you would like to say? you have heard these questions a thousand times people want to correct the answers but please add on to that. >> i would like to cover the funding question. the accountability review board was correct about funding but there are two types. there is a micro funding and macro funding. the state department responded to every single one of the request for increased security enhancements in benghazi i will submit for the record a list of all the security enhancements we put into

place. in increasing the wall, alarm system coming cameras, barbwire, barriers to major bob vehicles could not crash. all of the micro enhancements that they requested were attended to. then there is the macro question of that is the best defense is to construct a new facility the provided additional funds for. subsequent to the attack there is a major attack on a compound into the shatt a.m. to in part to. those buildings and held out by a single american was killed and injured intel host nations could mobilize but those buildings were the

new modern buildings in this that we had the assistance of congress have funding to build the of the macro sense because of the increase of the value of the dollar and inflation worldwide the program that we started in nairobi we were building eight embassies per year than because of a decrease of sending now we're building three now thanks to your help it is back up at eight. >> now to move for love that i wish this was about moving forward to make sure we support our diplomats and a better way but as we continue to implement recommendations of the arb people are worried about the new security protocols that made him what -- and given our limited the ability to engage the local community to reach out to key contacts to do their jobs well. how can we balance the need of more security precautions

in with said diplomats to do their jobs? >> that is something the state department works very hard. there have been articles over the last few years to discuss a fortress embassy that are unavailable to local population but i think they have a purpose in the operating style of the agency's overall -- overseas backward and we don't demand people come to see us in our home. we go to their home. the foreign ministry and visit the journalists so our people go out all the time but if there is a crisis brewing in a country will we need is a place our

diplomats kiev hawker down that is the new compound so the steps we're taking with armored vehicles will continue to allow people to go out. >> we have to work with host governments has the department implemented any new procedures they have responsibility also? specially had read mitigate the risk without the constant instability? >> we work closely with the host nation that is the primary responsibility we also depart on dash partner with the department of defense that trade in local host nation security forces. the state department also are under the anti-terrorism

assistance program with the bureau of diplomatic security that brings for a national police leaders to the united states this is ongoing in reworking to enhance it. >> mr. ambassador, let me ask you a few questions. madeleine albright her senior staff but it did interview you as assistant secretary at the time but it seems that we stop at that level when the people who

have even more knowledge those who are responsible accounting of what they did or did not do i ask the secretary of state is straightforward question and she said the information did not come to her attention. is that true? did you know, about any of the request through any means about ambassador stevens request for more security help? >> except for one request and i will touch on all request that were filed by our embassy in tripoli on behalf of the temporary mission facility were met. they ask for funding for concrete jersey barriers to increase the upper river -- perimeter also to make sure that cars could not crash

through the gate. increased compound glading. >> who knew? not what they ask for but who do? >> these requests since they were all that i believe i was generally aware that. >> there was no request that went unanswered? to a fair one -- one was debated if we should direct massive guard towers. >> did they know any of that? >> no because the request was being that. >> wasn't the senior staff interviewed? >> that is a question you'll have to ask them. >> can you conveyed that? >> other than and talking to ambassador pickering. >> informally? >> i was the press reports i

was i interviewed is categorically false. i was. >> you listed on the list? >> yes. said deployment of florida emergency support teams you made that decision not to deploy into with that decision in? >> was asked in my role worthies to be deployed? i said no. number one, it is not a military spawns unit but command-and-control. >> was the request made dave you approve 40 night it? >> the decision is the interagency decisions i was simply asked to i meet the capabilities? since it did not bring any military assets to pare it was based in the u.s.

>> mr. ambassador was the california a security team reported to repeatedly stand-downs'. >> i am not aware of any speeeighteen being ordered to stand down. >> cells that were in close proximity weber they not released to assist? limit there was never a standout order. >> let me ask a question how many people were forced to sign nondisclosure eat -- statements? direct estate department does not tell people to sign nondisclosure agreements. >> how many are there? rebecca i am not aware of any. >> then where are the survivors access has been very difficult.

>> one survivor was seriously injured in the second attack and is still in the hospital the other four have resumed duties around the world to. >> for people get censored the keep receiving a full pay for a vacation and it appears that famous scene in the fictional clear and present danger were the president tells it is the old potomac two-step fell lower level takes the hit but those who should have been in the know are never interviewed. how to respond? we are concerned the lessons learned, i chaired the hearings all of the arb and wrote the law to beef up the security and it is lot yet we still have a situation we

have learned more than one dozen years later the very people who should be held accountable are not even interviewed? that is appalling. >> there are several questions there. let me try to take them in sequence. talking about accountability i do think they were held accountable by relieving them of their position in one of them actually resigned for this is a secretary for diplomatic security. >> so this whole entire time of their resignation? where do they work? >> i believe it is the essential element of american fairness that i know this committee fully supports i have seen the legislation pieces that say a person is entitled to a review the secretary kerry

did did they initiate a review of themselves? >> not that i am aware of. >> we go to mr. condoleezza of virginia. >> before the clock starts by a request i am given the same amount of time. >> without question. >> i also began the statement with the same town all should follow your advice which is try to understand happened to make sure we take whatever measures we can to prevent this occurrence not to exploit it for partisan and political gain. i have been involved for a long time i was on the senate committee staff when the tragedy of love and on record twice under ronald

reagan's watch to remember people calling for heads to roll or to the arb review of what happened although there should have been one. we henderson was a national tragedy and we came together. i wish more of our colleagues would follow suit as you said the tone of this hearing and i thank you for doing so. would ask unanimous consent my full statement including the appendix be entered. >> without objection. >> and by the way the statement called fact reverses' fiction performed -- laid out a many of the commonly repeated accusations of benghazi that just are not true. mr. ambassador my good friend from a florida would have us believe absolutely played no role in the

decision of security allocations around the rose. >> of the gentleman would yield that is the witness's testimony and the tea to report. >> that we were actually everything together were i put that very question and he most certainly did a good knowledge of course, many plays the role of they say it is not about money it is about money. but let me ask mr. kennedy, do i have my facts right? this congress cut $327 million for the request of diplomatic security? >> i believe that is right. >> 327 million the following fiscal year you can another 123 million? >> i believe that is correct. >> then it cut 145 million.

is that correct? of america believe that is correct. >> then became to our senses to became the the state department more flexibility. >> corrected we appreciate it. >> the idea that money does not play a role is not true. the chairman indicated in his opening statement that we're all troubled about the accountability but talk about the follow-up the antisense no one was captured or killed. i deeply respect committee had chairman but they did with the previous one could not do by capture and kill the man who perpetrated 9/11 the memorial of which we just remembered.

what is the status of the benghazi fall? what about the terrorist that perpetuated this heinous crime? and engineer the death of over four braved embassadors? >> we are engaged to bring every terrorists to justice. with the state department and intelligence committee and from the briefings i have received and that i cannot go into detail they are engaged in a full-court press. no one is leaving any stones unturned to bring these individuals to justice. >> what about libyan security is frankly a libyan security dissolved?

>> what is the status of that? >> the state apart in department of defense are working with the government of libya to get them a secure place but in tripoli with the state department personnel and a significant number of u.s. military personnel who were on the scene now. >> the status of the mission ? >> it is close. >> because of security? >> this situation in their there is nothing we can do at the moment to mitigate the security risk of a reopened presence there. >> with respect to arb in

your opinion this was a rigorous and hard-hitting report? >> guests are. >> is there anything with respect to the recommendations and findings that the state department is not following up on or employment? >> note. we're working on every single one. there are 29 recommendations as a representative from florida indicated we have broken that up into separate tasks and to manage efficiently as possible and working through every single one and have completed many of them but others take time because they involve construction nor other matters. there is nothing we are lagging. >> the issue if an order was

given to stand down preventing a the military from responding and you say not true that colleagues this summer issued a press release from the majority staff that said in his testimony kids in clarify his actions during the attack contrary to news reports coming gibson was not ordered tuesday and down by authorities in response to his understandable desire to be the group of other soldiers to benghazi civic that statement has also been cooperated by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at teeeighteen there is no stand down order given. >> we now go to the

gentleman from california. >> before my time starts running i would request of the same amount of time. >> may i suggest that members on the democratic and republican side have kept copious notes and i know exactly how much time everyone has gone over and we are dead even because we have a lot of freshmen we will now hold everyone to five minutes but i will start the clock right now. >> let us hope this is a step forward with our effort to break down what i consider to be a wall of deceits and denial to hide the truth from the american people of the benghazi attack it has been over one year the american people have the right to know the truth there has been a full-court press it is so for one year now since the ambassador is murdered along with the other brave

americans who died that night. don't tell me that is a full-court press when we have known even pointed our figure a people at the organization of those who actually murdered those people. about funding with all due respect to my friend from virginia the assistant secretary lamb who was responsible to take the decision said a security level testified and it was my question specifically did budget considerations play any role in the decision to let those securities would be at? she said no. just for the record by saying no to make sure it was a matter of policy and not budget she has been one of the ones relieved of her position i wonder why after she could testify something like that before ogress.

mr. ambassador ready to go tions was there an autopsy conducted on ambassador stephen spotty? >> yes. by the u.s. military. >> when there are homicides committed how are they permitted to be made public for a congressional investigation? >> the autopsy was turned over to the fbi as the investigating agency i was informed he died of smoke inhalation. >> by unmasking right now if there is an autopsy is being kept from congressional investigators? >> double take that back. >> talk about military units not dispatched there was not a standout order but they were not sent because let me

say this point. no one knew how long this attack would exist. anybody who did not dispatch troops or aid or assistance of some kind to our ambassador under attack had no idea if it was a one-hour come before hour or the today battle in to the dispatch help is a dereliction of some type of responsibility. you keep saying the military team was not ordered to stand down. were there other government employees perhaps that the caa in benghazi at that time who could have gone to assistants? were they ordered to stand down? >> there was a team from the

aniks that to go to the temporary mission facility to relieve the pressure of that facility. >> yes. apparently those today be seals that got there were ordered not to go. is that correct? >> nosair i am not aware of that at all. >> okay. not aware does not mean no. >> a quick reaction team went from the annexes to the mission facility main building and then the index was reinforced. >> okay. there is no standout order even to cia personnel? okay to made the choice to create this fictitious narrative it was the devastation that got out of hand and not a terrorist attack? we go from the first minutes

of this attack we have been told they do was a terrorist attack but yet for a full week we had top-level people cleaning it was a movie rage who created back narrative? >> identify a canoe to that question but i can tell you the narrative. >> okay. if you cannot answer the question then we have to go to mr. sicily from rhode island. >> the queue ambassador kennedy for being here. listening to the report and the recommendation to hear the and i thank you for your testimony today.

but 29 recommendations involved 64 different tasks that seem very comprehensive. i a agreed this was a hard-hitting report and they do respect of work that was done. flows are being implemented are there anything that we can do to facilitate? or are there in the obstacles in the way we should respond to do to make sure the work you're doing to employment will continue appropriately? >> the most important thing is for the embassy construction is security is the f y 14 budget request will give us the resources including the necessary new

construction and upgrades we need. second is we have the authority of the in certain locations around the world to do best value contacting. now of course, we take the lowest bidder now having that with the authorization bill that this committee is working on would be very helpful to get the best kind of local security forces possible. >> everytime we have been hearing we have to remember those american heroes whose lives were lost and to have an application -- and obligation to protect individuals who are representing our country all over the world and to follow up, the panel in this report and i quote a more serious sustained commitment from congress to support state

department needs which will constitute a small percentage of the national budget for national security but they do their part to meet the challenge to provide necessary resources to be the mission imperative and the budget passed $327 million less in the fiscal year 2012 the year of the attacked the proposed almost $200 billion last so the notion that resurfacing is important to keep the diplomatic corps safe is something identified in the report? >> that is correct. >> could you address the

department is operating with the very high risk and high threat locations all over the world including places with capable security support a. this raises security risk for the development experts also those of the existing resources. should we as a congress begin to think differently that we plan and appropriately manage these requirements in the changing landscape of the high risk high threat locations that we serve around the world? >> this is an effort that has to be undertaken jointly by the executive branch in the congress they have made changes on how we look at my threat and high risk post and the two things as was pointed out we need to continue to work with those

nations to increase their capabilities there additional training of their security forces and we need additional appropriations in the bill that has passed out does exactly that purpose of we can construct facilities from khartoum and tunis but after 9/11 those buildings held up and our people remain safe. >> it is important in all the terrorists responsible for those who were relieved of their responsibilities that we need to keep others stayed. >> we know go to the gentleman from ohio. >> i do want to address something that has troubled

me for some time talking about the hoops that committee had to jump through to get the fax to of the murders of our those coming forth with information when we were finally presented with relevant data a few months ago that clearly amounted to the document dump with a wide in disarray with the terms of relevance to make it very difficult to locate documents. i brought this up with secretary clinton she was not particularly responsive. you are welcome to weigh in. >> as i understand it, the state department was asked for every document that was relevant to benghazi. when we received we try to give everything for freer to

be accused of holding something back so this generates with worldwide security efforts lists and generates many cubic feet of documents. >> it was a total mess and not particularly helpful. august 23rd the state department sent a letter to the committee that stated of the tea to the only people responsible for the of legal attack on the compound were the terrorist to orchestrated the attack there must be brought to justice and the government remains committed to that. no one will argue he was directly to blame in the death of those four americans but as the arb has revealed there other people that need to be held accountable for the fact the terrorist attacks succeeded but by the language the this

a state department really want us to believe the bureaucracy could have done nothing more to protect our diplomats? >> that was not the finding. the actions that were referenced of the august 23rd letter was reaffirming the recommendations, and four individuals were held accountable in did relieved of their positions. >> and former secretary of state clinton testified she stated repeatedly and took responsibility in fact, i will quote as i have said multiple times i take responsibility and nobody is more committed to getting this right. un''. do you believe secretary clinton has been held truly accountable for failures under her watch? >> i think that arb to the

original intent of the congress that established the arb because. >> that is not what i asked. >> you asked if she has been true be held accountable? >> she said she was responsible and i will not challenge her statement. >> where is the accountability? >> every organization are cabinet department a line of authority. people who set the policy in those implements the policy or go back up to senior leadership to say, and that. >> let me move on but to say that state department employees had failed in the performance of their duties under'' with respect to benghazi. this has been covered before but it is important.

the only disciplinary action and for those who were in the performance of their duties were put on administrative leave then reassigned to other positions as they continue during that time there would be subject to obamacare they have not missed a paycheck. it seems like pitiful discipline to me. >> i believe being a assisted secretary of any office or the at it is the senior position of grave responsibility to be relieved of your position i believe is serious for accountability. >> let me say that feeling to call secretary clinton to

actually interview her was a gross oversight by the arb and is almost incomprehensible they did not call her as a witness. >> as a point of clarification it was brought up with secretary kerry, the comment that was made about the documents and this affects all of us, we're still in a position where those documents as you know, , a copy is not made available to us. you can go down there and somebody can see a document but we cannot make copies of them. we have asked for a set of those documents and when we ask the secretary of state thomas secretary kerry said it is not a policy of mine. this is one of the reasons this is on going because we don't have copies of those documents.

again, we would like to have copies of the documents turned over to this committee. think you ambassador. >> now we go to the gentleman from florida. >> to talk about benghazi the scandal that never was who decided investor stevens would go there? >> it was the ambassadors' decision.>> was secretary clintn responsible for reviewing were proving the in country movement he their ambassadors stevens or anyone else? >> no. embassadors only need washington permission to leave the country of assignment that the capital city. >> did they have the normal security detail?

>> yes, sir. he had to use diplomatic security agents that accompanied him from tripoli to benghazi. >> was a diplomatic post? >> contemporary mission facilities. >> is even possible to give that type of security as we try to provide at the embassies? >> we can never achieve the perfect security that we need other they and the embassy. we have a series of standards in the working through those and constantly adding in response i offered to submit for the record a list of what improvements we have made to the temporary mission facility. >> was there any money appropriated that was not spent at that time? >> no sir no specific many

we were just taking money from other locations but all request just like the guard towers that were determined to be unnecessary and to the attention and getting all others were fulfilled. >> approximately how long from the time the attack began from the time of the ambassador's unfortunate death? >> probably somewhere under 90 minutes. >> was there any kind of military force, a substantial force even close enough to engage the attackers as thin and they demanded period? >> was there any forced to rescue the ambassador given the actual situation on the ground? >> tragically, no sir. >> to the warehouse ignore reports regarding this attack? >> not that i am aware of. >> secretary clinton?

>> i personally spoke to secretary clinton that evening she was constantly briefed by the operations center all evening. >> katy ben the president would you do anything different? >> what i know the president did was to say to secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs to everything that you can and i think that is what i would have done is to turn to my a senior military command authority to do whatever was necessary which is what he did. . .

them, we've nonetheless encouraged the department of defense to fully plan for sequestration. our attitude has been work for the best, but prepare for the worst. with that said, we welcome this review in the hopes that it would answer some of the many unanswered questions we have about how the department will operate in a post-sequestration budget environment. while i appreciate the intent of this review as an assessment, frankly, i was disappointed and troubled by the lack of specificity it offered. the review contained little in the way of new information, leaving us only marginally more informed than we were two years ago. last month, secretary hagel directed each service to develop two separate future years defense programs for fiscal year 2015. one at the president's budget level and an alternate accounting for full sequestration. while we all would agree that the higher budget level would be preferable, our focus today is

on the alternative -- alternate program under development. earlier this month, i wrote to secretary hagel urging him to authorize each of you to discuss the specific impacts you've identified in the preparation of your alternate program, including the reductions in size of the force, the modernization programs that will be cancelled or curtailed, bases that will have to be closed, capabilities that no longer can be sustained, and training that will be limited. in your testimony today, i hope you'll be frank about the deviations that will have to occur to the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request as a result of sequestration and how those decisions will impact the execution plans for fiscal year 2014. gentlemen, for two years you or your predecessors have come to this committee describing the consequences of sequestration,

in generalties and percentages. the chairman of the joint chiefs told us you can't be cut one more dollar without changing the defense strategy. but when your cut administration downplays the impacts, your credibility with this committee and with me is on the line this morning. i respect each of you deeply, but now is the time for you to act. each of you carries the responsibility to give congress your best and unbiased military advice. each of you has a higher obligation to provide security for the american people. today i expect to hear in very clear terms what elements of that security you will no longer be in a position to provide, should sequestration continue. i expect to hear what risk you will have to assume in order to provide it. last week we had a hearing with secretary kerry, secretary

hagel, and general dempsey. i have been talking for the last couple of weeks against going into syria or going anywhere else with this military until the sequestration problem is fixed, until we have backloaded the money that's been taken from defense over and above the $487 billion, which all of you said you could live with, but not a dollar more. but they each pointed out in their testimony that i was probably focused too much on just money. when things developed occurred about our national security, we'd find the money. there's no question we'll find the money, but it comes out of something else, something else that's very important. i'd like to hear from you today what that would be. i look forward to hearing your testimony. i thank all of you for your witnesses for being here, for your service to this nation, and

now i recognize ranking member smith for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i join the chairman in expressing my condolences to admiral greenert and the navy and our military family for the tragic and horrific incident this week. our thoughts and prayers are with you. whatever we can do to help, please let us know. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> i thank the chairman for his leadership on this and the consistent hearings we've had on sequestration. this is a significant challenge, and i don't think anybody in this congress has been more out front than chairman mckeyon and early explaining what was coming and the challenges in trying to sound the alarms so hopefully we could do something about this. i appreciate those hearings and those discussions. i would hope today that we would skip the normal partisan arguments about whose fault it is. we've, gosh, gone that back and forth throughout so many times that just about everybody in this room could probably repeat what i would say and what others

would say, so we know all that. we don't need to have that argument. we need to figure out where we're going to go, how we're going to deal with this. it is a multifaceted problem. sequestration, which is set to go on for another nine and a half years. we've only been dealing with it since march, do the math in my head, i think that's roughly six months. those six months have been bad. the choices that have had to be made, members in their individual districts, if you have military bases there, you see the impact on the military. you certainly see the impact on the contractors, but that's six months. we got nine and a half more years to go of sequestration if we don't do something about it. in addition, here we go again in terms of another threat of government shutdown as we come up to september 30th, and it's to the point where there's virtually no hope of getting an appropriations bill. we're hoping that we can get a c.r. and a c.r. is, in many ways

depending on who you are, as bad as sequestration in terms of how it impacts what money can be spent by the various departments within d.o.d. then, of course, shortly thereafter we have the debt ceiling, and the debate whether or not to raise that. i will just say you don't have the debate with your credit card once you've incurred the charges, you pay the bill. then you can have a discussion about whether or not you want to continue to rack up bills that are that high, but, you know, if you're the united states government, i don't think you have the option of not paying your bills, but we will face that, as well. and all of those fronts, you know, we need to figure out, you know, what money we have. i would hope that congress will continue to work to solve sequestration, to pass appropriations bills to get past the debt ceiling. i know that's going to be a challenge, but it's not something we can throw up our hands and say, we're not going to get there. we have to keep trying to get

there. in the meantime, you gentlemen have to figure out whether or not we are going to get there, or how short of there we're going to wind up and try to figure out how to spend the money. i take the chairman's point about we'd like more specifics, but part of the challenge that i do want to remind the committee is you are not free at d.o.d. to simply make the decisions that you want to make. you are, to some degree, reliant upon us for a number of those decisions. personnel costs are an enormous part of what you face, but if you wanted to do anything with retirement or anything with health care, you have to come through us. and about the only clear message that congress has sent you is, don't cut that. that has been a lot of different things, from the guard, to retirement of certain ships, and on and on and on, but you are limited by what we allow you to do, in many instances, and then you sort of have to back fill from there. as we have this discussion, i hope members will approach it in that cooperative spirit, not just say what are you doing to

do, but more accurately look at it and say what can we realistically do together, because i agree with the chairman. with the cuts we're facing, we're going to have a fundamental change in our strategy, but to get to that change in strategy, it is the nature of our system, no one person's in charge of it. the executive branch and the legislative branch have to work together to come up with whatever that new system is, and right now we're not. i guess if i have one hope for this hearing, we can sort of have that cooperative spirit. and if you gentlemen tell us, look, here's where we need to cut and a member of the committee says we can't do that, then where do you want to cut? what advice do we have for you on what would be acceptable to us on how we restructure our military strategy, given the fiscal realities that we've all talked about. so i hope we can have that discussion. again, i thank the chairman for his leadership on focusing on this issue and i would say i look forward to your testimony and the questions, but honestly, i really don't, because this is not an easy subject, and there is no good way out of it. we'll deal with it the best we

can. thank you. >> thank you. let's start with general odierno and go right down the line, please. general? >> chairman mckeon, ranking member smith and other distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and the strategic choices facing the army. united states has drawn down military forces at the close of every war, and today is no different. this time, however, we are drawing down our army before