service. i know you sincerely believe this, we've got to get the message out. just the word sequestration puts people to sleep. so please, byoe very much. >> congressman, i forgot to thank you for your 31 years of service. thank you. >> thank you. ms. bordello. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome secretary panetta and general te t administration's continued focus on the asia-pacific region and the dod intends to press forward with the build-up in guam. thank you, gentlemen. dod announced a changed realignment for guam. what's the rationale for changing the implementation plan with japan. what prompted these decisions? what's the benefit of the proposed realignment? to what extent did the passage of the budget control act play in these changes? and can you also elaborate on the strategic importance of keeping marines forward

deployed? how is this necessary to keep our treaty agreement with japan? secretary? >> congresswoman, first and foremost, let me indicate that no decisions have been made with regards to what exactly that realignment will be. we're in discussions with japan. >> i understand. >> we're trying to make decisions. this is an issue, as you know, that has been out there for a long time. we just think it's time to try to get it done and to try to resolve it. and japan has been very helpful and cooperative in trying to work with us in that effort. we'll continue to keep you informed because obviously it affects your home area, and we want to make sure that you know what we're thinking about before we actually make any final decisions here. it is important to try to keep that presence forward.

my view is we need a marine presence that is forward, that is -- that i do not want to draw that marine presence back to this country. i think it has to be forward in the pacific. >> thank you. >> we're trying to be innovative in the way we're doing that. the approach we're taking in australia is an example of the kind of rotational presence we think can make sense. we're talking to the philippines about doing the same thing. bue to maintain the marine force forward presence in the pacific. that's an essential element of our strategy. >> thank you. >> another question i have is when the japanese see the updated plans from dod and identify the reduced number of marines coming, will they reduce the overall funding that they were going to supply for the buildup? support for civilian infrastructure that's needed to support the military population on guam? if the japanese do reduce their funding commitment, how will the department ensure the infrastructure needs continue to be addressed?

>> that's also one of the things we're discussing. here is a development of a new futenma air force facility.e me been very generous in saying whatever moves they have to made, they will support -- they will give us a lot of the funds to try to support that. that continues to be part of our conversation. i think, as i said, i'm very pleased with the attitude the japanese are taking. >> so you don't think there will be any reduction at this point? >> no. >> mr. secretary, deputy secretary carter certified in writing, and i know this question has been asked before i arrived by congressman bartlett. he certified in writing to cong system was essential to national security. global hawk was $220 million

cheaper per year to operate than the u2. the decision to pull 18 global hawk block 30 global hawk out is shortsighted in my opinion. your recommendation to terminate block 30 is a complete reversal of your position. can you explain how an asset can be critical to national security and then less than one year later be terminated? and can you answer how the air force will compensate for the >> i'm going to have general dempsey speak to that. but it is -- i mean -- look, we systems. we think that's the future. but at the same time, we've got to make judgments about which ones are most cost effective. and i think that was behind the decision here. >> this isn't about global hawk. this isn't about global hawk. it's about global hawk block 30. it's become too expensive in relation to other capabilities we have. >> i have one final question, if

i could. the f-512 requires that dod meet five requirements in order to spend government of japan funding that's currently sitting unobligated to the u.s. treasury. this is a matter of great concern in our community. what steps is dod taking to meet these five requirements? >> it's part of the overall discussions -- >> mr. hale. >> we need to arrive at -- >> we need to arrive at an agreement with japan. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. could you take that one for the record for her, please? >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. turner. >> thank you for being here. >> secretary panetta, i want so thank you for meeting with congressman andrews where we discussed the issue of a national standard for custody rights for our service members. we asked you to confirm secretary gate's and dod's policy supporting a national standard. unbelievably across the country,

there are federal law court judges that will take custody away from service members based on their time away serving our country. this committee members has been active on this issue, every committee having endorsed the national standard. we would appreciate your support and advocacy to assist us in making that law. sexdly -- secondly i appreciate your statement on the budget control act and the issues of sequestration. as we look to sequestration, i think the american public do not know the great risks that could be imperilling our military, your statements on it are important. it's one of the reasons why i voted against the budget control act so we would not have this gambling with our military security. mr. secretary, as you know, i'm the chairman of the subcommittee, weapons fall under my category. mr. secretary, as you know, your predecessor, secretary gates agreed to transfer some $5.7 billion to the national nuclear security administration for specific purposes that were

articulated in this document, which i ask to be included in the record that was to govern the transfer of these billions to the national nuclear security administration. i would ask if you would characterize the department of defense level of comfort with how the initial $5 billion tranche has been spent. for example, where did dod's $1.2 billion go that it gave to nasa to begin construction on the plutonium facility, cmrr. how about the funding for the warhead, which is again delayed, in the budget this year, seemingly kout regard to the navy's need for this warhead. and secondly, mr. secretary, you kindly in a correspondence in november responded to the chairman and myself, requesting that we receive briefings on the nuclear warhead -- excuse me, the nuclear war plan, and you had indicated that you would agree to reinstitute those briefings with our committee.

they have not commenced and we are afraid they may be stuck in the beaurocracy of dod. we'll appreciate your assistance there. and with the proposed 80% cut to our nuclear arsenal, you know, you indicated that these were just proposals or plans being reviewed and might be premature for discussing them. i would like your input on the initiation of where these are coming from. it's our understanding the president has asked to consider an 80% cut going to a warhead inventory of some around 300. if you can confirm the administration is, in fact, initiating it and not just coming from someone arbitrary within the beaurocracy it would be helpful. mr. secretary. >> if i can comment on your last question. this was all part of a nuclear review mandated by law and the administration began the process

of going through that review. the second step was basically how do we now implement the review that was taking place. that followed that procedure. there a number of options that are being discussed. as the general pointed out, one of those options is maintaining the status quo. no decisions have been made. this is something that is part of a process for discussion within the national security team and remains there at this point. as you know, reductions that have been made at least in this administration have only been made as part of the start process. not outside of that process. i would expect that that would be the same in the future. with regard to your question on the funding issue, let me ask bob hale to respond to that. that's the 5.7. >> we are working closely with the nsa and their concerns on our part and theirs too.h th it sounds like you are aware of.

they are fully committed to meeting our needs. we're trying to work with them. they are important programs and we need to carry forward with them. i will provide you more detail for the record. we have a weapons council that meets regular with nssa and representatives as well as ours. they are deeply engaged in the issues. >> you do have concerns? correct? >> yes. >> finally let me commend your leadership on the adoption issue. we did have the chance to discuss it. i share the concern that you raised. i think it does need to be addressed. you've been successful at passing it in the house said. it doesn't seem to come out of the senate. i think the one thing i indicated to you, i want to work with you to see if we can actually try to get something done on this issue this year. >> thank you. mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. secretary panetta, again, i want to thank you for visiting the shipyard back in november. you had a chance to climb on

board the mississippi and north dakota which is under construction as well as really a pretty extraordinary town hall with the workers on the peer there where you very eloquently described the value of the industrial base to our national security. in light of that, to follow-up on the questions, the mississippi, which was christened a few weeks later came in $64 million under budget 12 months ahead of schedule. there is no question that the momentum of two subs a year that took 20 years to get us up to that pace is achieving savings. that block 4 contract shift, which by the way that's the third time it has been changed, not the second time, mr. hale. there's no question in terms ofe management, in terms of layoffs, which is inevitably going to flow from that shift is going to result in costs. i guess the question is, did you include that in your fit up in

terms of the cost of that dip in production. again, we're seeing real results now in terms of savings because of the higher production rate. >> so far as i know it's fully funded. i hear your point. take $487 billion out of the budget and we tried to do it in a way consistent with our strategy but we had to do it. this was one of the issues raised with the navy, discussed with them. they would have preferred not to do it, so would we. it's where it is. it is a fiscal' 14 decision. we will get a chance to look at it in light of current fiscal realities. >> the strategy that was articulated focuses on transpacific. the long-term effects will be decades. >> i was impressed with what i saw. i don't want to lose those skills and abilities.

i want to maintain that kind of industrial base. we'll do whatever we can to work with you to see what we can do to reduce those costs in the future. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i want to go back to mr. thornberry's point on brac. i respect the fact that you have deep profound personal went through in your time in congress. some of us have our own experience as well. i served on the readiness subcommit for the last five years. we've been following 2005 brac like a box score in terms of its results. it cost about twice as much as predicted and as mr. thornberry said the results are years away. we're sort of pinned in the backyard when this issue is discussed. i think there is a legitimate question here. particularly with the fact that we have to deal with the budget control caps. how do do you this in terms of not costing money in the short

term. the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's a nullity in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. frankly, i think that's a very big threshold question which the department has to answer before i think there's going to be any willingness to look at this thing at all. >> i hear what you are saying and i -- the 2005 costs are frankly -- it's just unacceptable the way that worked out in terms of how much it cost us. on the other hand in the long run it will produce savings. what i would suggest to you is we have been through three

backgrounds. perhaps there's lessons to be learned. if we do another one, perhaps we need to do it in a way that tries to acknowledge the lessons learned to make sure we achieve the savings we have to achieve as part of the process. that's a better way to approach this issue. >> my understanding, sometime in march, in terms of the proposal, again there is going to be a high degree of skepticism for those who have been tracking the overall results of the last round. certainly i know you've gotten mixed comments here today, but i just want to at least share certainly for some of us, this is a real problem, and i yield back. the committee will take a five-minute break and reconvene at five minutes after. mr. conway will be next. after. and mr. coay will be next. excuse me. it will be mr. klein.

>> come to order. the meeting will come to order. chair recognizes mr. klein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here, for your testimony, for your extraordinary service to our country. i very much appreciated, general dempsey, your testimony when you mentioned that the families have stood with us talking

about our men and women in uniform and stressing the importance of keeping faith with the true source of our strength. that's our people. and it's in that line and vain that i want to raise a subject that i raised in the past in this committee. that's the subject of the sort of convoluted name of the post deployment mobilization absence -- deployment mobilization respite absence program. pdmra. the name is convoluted but pretty strayed forward. dod enacted this program in january of 2007 an recognizing that we have men and women deployed for extraordinarily long periods of time and rewarding them with this program so they could spend more time with the families, the families that stood with us, so we could keep faith with our men and women in uniform and their

families. this program has been in effect and running doing what it's supposed to do and easing stress on our men and women in uniform, rewarding the families. then on october 1st of 2011, the department came out with a new policy. it came out with this policy, of course, it affects soldiers who are deployed today to kuwait or afghanistan, changing the number of days you can get as a reward for extended periods of service. you could have a negative impact of over three or four weeks in some cases because it's new policy. i understand the department is perfectly allowed to make policy changes but i'm very concerned it looks like there's no

provision for grand fathering those that are overseas now. we have a part of a brigade combat team of the famous red bulls out of minnesota and surrounding states that are over in kuwait right now. there's a lot of confusion about what the policy is going to be. i think it's important that we keep faith, that we not change things around. during the middle of a deployment. we don't have the soldiers sitting over there wondering and their families wondering what this policy is going to be. i have a question for you, mr. secretary. will you grandfather this new policy so that the soldiers that are deployed now get what they thought they were going to get when they deployed. it applies to all, but i'm talking about members of the guard and reserve making decisions on these sorts of policies. if you know that answer, i will take it now. if you don't, i take for the record. i sent you a letter a month ago,

january 18th to be exact, requesting the answer to this. i understand from talking to your staff that's in the works and i will get an answer, but i think it's really, really exact, requesting the answer to this. and i understand from talking to your staff that that's in the works. and i'm going to get an answer. but i just think it's really, really important that we keep that faith and we not change policy. we not have that kind of an impact on our men and women in uniform. that's my first question. >> congressman, if i could just respond to that. we are looking at that program. it is an important program. and i'm looking at the implications of what happened with the policy change to determine whether or not we should make any adjustments. we're not going to make any promises to you. but i will assure you that i will take a hard look at this before we get you the answer. >> please do. and i would just reiterate from in my opinion, from where i'm sitting, looking at my own experience in talking to many of my constituents and many people in minnesota who have been really impacted by these deployment, the red bulls have the longest deployment of any unit of active national guard of any service. i think it's really important

that we keep faith with those men and women. now i have another really quick question. before. but i see we're talking. and general dempsey, you mentioned that or the secretary, both of you talked about modifying the retirement system for our men and women in uniform. i just want to underscore again that any such changes will not affect those already serving. is that correct? >> our position, strong position here is that all those that are currently serving would be grandfathered in under the present system as the commission reviews future changes, they're not going to be affected. >> thank you. my time has expired mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. before i say anything else, i do want to conquer with mr. klein.

iowans are in that red bull group as well, and we have many of the same concerns in iowa when it comes to the reserve. i want to thank all three of you for your service. i want to quote from the defense strategy. i quote the concept of reversibility, including the vectors on which we place our industrial base, our people, our active reserve component balance, our posture and our partnership emphasis is a key part of our decision calculus, unquote. the strategic guidance also states that dod will, quote, make every effort to maintain an adequate industrial base, unquote. i strongly believe that a critical part of our industrialr arsenals. certainly our ammunition plants and our depos. they provide i believe a critical function or a readiness and our ability to supply our troops in the event othe wconfl. we're drawing down now. but in the event we have future conflicts, we've got to maintain i think the capabilities of the organic base to respond to future contingencies.

there is no doubt about it. and allow for reversibility, highlighted in the strategy. and i strongly believe that the department must ensure that we -- that this organic manufacturing base be preserved, but that it be actively supported. secretary panetta, chairman dempsey, has the department actively engaged the military services to develop a plan to sustain our organic industrial base, including our organic manufacturing capabilities, and if so, what is that plan? >> well, that's part and parcel of the whole strategy here, which is to maintain that industrial base that you talked about. the industrial base i think does include the areas you just defined. we need to have that as part of our ability to be able to mobilize and to be able to reverse any steps we've taken in order to be prepared for the future. we are looking at a broad

strategy here as to how best do we do this to make sure that as we fund the industrial base, we do it in ways that obviously are cost savings. but at the same time, maintain those areas in place. it's sometimes not an easy balance. but my goal is i do not want to put anybody out of business in that area. i think we need to have it. and we're going to do everythin around. >> thank you. general dempsey? >> i can assure you, congressman, that as the service chiefs have briefed me on their plans, they've also briefed the secretary. and it's always part of the conversation. >> thank you. strategic guidance also states, quote, the challenges facing the united states today and the future will require that we continue to deploy national guard and reserve forces, unquote. questions related to that.

both secretary panetta and chairman dempsey. can you explain what role dod total force policy will be implementing policy across each of the services? and can you explain further how the total force policy will be implemented in light of the total reduction as among the services and within that how well the experience and readiness of the operational reserve will be maintained? that's a big question, i understand, kind of a series of questions. >> yes, sir, it is a very big question, and one that is a work in progress. what we're taking a look at is -- it's fundamentally how do we balance active guard and reserve. >> right. >> and within that subset, as you balance the force, how much of it is operational? that is to say ready to go today. and how much is strategic ready to go in 30 days, six months or a year. as the service chiefs come and

appear before you, they are doing that work within their rotational schemes. every service has a rotational scheme. and they'll be able to articulate what portions of each of those components need to be available in those bins, now, 30 days, 60 days, a year. may not be able to give you the details, but that's what we're working toward. >> right. >> mr. secretary? >> it's really -- it's really essential here. we've -- we have learned a great deal over the last few years in our ability to make the fullest use of the reserve and the guard. i mean if you go out to the battlefield, you can't tell the difference between national guard units and active duty. >> right. >> they're out there doing exactly the same thing. and they're getting tremendous experience, they're getting tremendous capabilities.

i want to be able to continue that capability so that they're ready to go. and you know, the services are working on plans to make sure that we have that kind of rotational ability. >> i just want to echo that. fantastic, not just in iowa and minnesota, but throughout the country, and they've done a great job in the operational -- in their operational roles, not just strategic. thank you very much to all of you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i appreciate the gentleman's concern for the workforce and would encourage you to look at my bill because they're going to be making layoffs, you know, planning for next january's sequestration that could be avoided if we can fix that problem now. mr. rogers? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm on your bill, by the way. and i share the gentleman from iowa's concerns. i have spoken repeatedly in recent months with general stein and general dunwoody about this very issue. and i'm sad to say general dunwoody retired, by the way. she is a class act. one of the things she has assured me is that y'all are determined to not get caught like we were caught offguard going into iraq and afghanistan when it came to our depot's capabilities. and i believe -- believe her and general stein when they say that

then i look budget just proposed, 82% of last year. last year the funding was in oco, this year, this year 93% of last year. all this funding last year and this year is oco. the numbers for depot maintenance for the army reserve is 57% of last year, for the national guard is 64% of last year. and my question is if we want to make sure we're ready -- by the way, obviously we're still in a war. and we have other theaters threatening. a wise depot maintenance has been cut so much and why is there no funding in the traditional accounts, general dempsey? >> the demand is going down. yes, we remain in conflict. but iraq we went from 50,000 a year ago down to roughly 300 uniform personnel now. and when that demand goes down, so too does the demand signal back into the depots. as you correctly point out, there will be a period of residual recapitalization retrofit and so forth. some of what you see there, this

it was based upon the demand signal and how we have to take action. but let me ask mr. hale to comment. >> some of what we're seeing as we shift to the base as the iraq war ended, some of those units, some went to afghanistan, but some are coming home. and we need to get their funding back into the base budget. that's some of what is driving the trends. and then as general dempsey said, we're seeing lower requirements in some case because the tempo of operations will be lower when we're out of iraq. >> those are just much larger percentages of reduction this quickly. we still have some real significant redemands that i understand in maybe '14 and '15 we may see larger reductions. but those are awfully sharp hill turkey, my knowledge, reset is a difficult issue. and it's hard to predict. and it's hard to know exactly when their equipment will be