accumulating so much that the economy is at a high risk. >> our debt is the percentage of gdp. in the last 30 or 40 years, it >> our debt is the percentage of g inr yearst has en less than 40%. itly in recent years that we have seen it climb. the fact is we are entering dangerous territory. >> deborah solomon of the "bloomberg view" says that the policymakers are arguing and debating over causes but missing the main culprit -- a shellshocked u.s. economy. >> joshua gordon says that the deficit is continuing to expand because of job loss, causing less revenue and more spending on aid programs. >> you have a large deficit for four years because you have low revenues and people don't have jobs, or they're getting paid less. but also we have this mandatory spending program, which grow on autopilot. unemployment compensation, food stamps programs, medicaid-- they spe ecy is

evils are here," says that the entire financial crisis is unclear. >> i think that the underlying issues of the financial crisis have not been fixed at all. indeed, there is no easy fix. >> but there are still fixes to consider. >> if we want to lift the cloud of debt that is hanging over our country -- we will not solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight. what we can do is avert the cliff in a manner that serves as a down payment on, and a catalyst for, major solutions enacted in 2013 that begin to solve the problem. ♪ >> if you can reduce and then eliminate the deficit through two ways.

one is increasing the amount of revenue coming through tax policy, or reduce the amount of expenditures by cutting back on expenses and spending or some combination of those two. i believe that the most credible way is through what we call a balanced approach. >> john boehner, republican speaker of the house, emphasizes that spending cuts are the most important and effective way to solve the debt problem. >> republicans want to solve this problem by getting the spending line down. the chart depict what i have said for long time. washington has a spending probleatixed withax incaseslone. he wants to keep chasing higher spending with higher taxes. this chart will look a lot worse. our kids and our grandkids are the ones who are going to because washington was too shortsighted to fix the problem. >> the younger generation will suffer from this issue in the

future. >> if we don't solve the national debt problem, eventually they're going to cut more government services, and one of the cuts will be education. >> we should invest in education. it has to be a continuing priority because number one, we owe it to the american people to make sure that each individual can obtain and attain their full potential. but also we need as a country to maintain it. it is important to allow people to pursue their dreams and achieve their potential. >> so the kids will get affected. we will not be able to hire good teachers. our class size may grow. and we won't be able to provide a good education. then they will not really get skills for them to get better jobs down the road. then they are not able to pay

their income taxes, get higher paying jobs, pay higher income taxes for the government. that goes into a vicious cycle. >> if we don't have the money, we cannot buy textbooks and supplies for our students. >> college seniors who graduated in 2009 carried on average of $24,000 in student loan debt, up 6% from 2008. >> it continues growing. today, student loan debt has climbed to an average of nationwide. >> if they don't go to college, how they're going to afford a place to live, and once they get t of clege, how they're going to pay back these student loans that are so huge. >> i just think everything is just up in the air and nobody knows from year to year what is going to happen. >> we inherent the nation and therefore the debt and the

economy. if our nation is unable to support our futures, how will we be able to pursue our own happiness and dreams? >> the economy supports the people. >> from small businesses, to jobs, to income -- >> and as a younger generation -- >> we hope to begin our lives in a nation -- >> that creates many opportunities -- >> for a brighter future. >> congratulations to all of the winners in this year's student cam competition. to see more winning videos, go to studentcam.org. >> next, a senate hearing with chuck hagel on the 2014 budget request. after that, "q&a" with rajiv chandrasekaran. monday, republican senator mike lee of utah on the future of the republican party. noonis beginning live at eastern on c-span2.

>> defense secretary chuck hagel testified before the senate armed services committee wednesday. secretary hagel said there is a $22 billion shortfall this year. general dempsey said the department is not sure how this will impact military readiness. this is three hoursnd 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. today, the committee gives a warm welcome to general chuck dempsey,neral accompanied by the department comptroller undersecretary bob hale, for being on the department of defense fiscal year 2014. we welcomet

secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before the committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, and marines at home and in harm's way, we can never say that enough. your st today is a key component of the committee's review of the two dozen 14 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.60 billion for the base and $88.50 billion for overseas contingency operations , although, as your testimony notes, the number is simply a place holder figure pending final force level and deployment decisions. the future of the defense budget

is in flux due to congress's failure to reduce the deficit by $1.20 to land. the dod funding for 2013 was reduced b sequestration in the amountf $41 billion. unless congress acts, the fiscal year 2014 dod budget will be cut $15 billiononal for 2014 and also the budgets passed in the senate and also the house of representatives. congress can fix the budget problem by enacting legislation that reduces the deficit by $1.20 trillion over 10 years. that would take a grand bargain, including both spending cuts and additional revenues. it would turn off the automac spending cuts of sequestration.

i remain hopeful we can develop such a bipartisan plan. absent a grand bargain, surely, we can devise a balanced deficit reduction package for one year that avoids sequestration in fiscal year 2014. we simply cannot continue to ignore the effects of sequestration. sequestration will have a major impact on military personnel. the pay has been exempted, but the sequester will reduce military readiness and needed services for our troops, including schools for military children, family support programs, and training assistance programs and mental health and other counseling programs. the president's budget request continues the measure drawn out of active duty. we have in recent years given the department numerous authorities to allow it to reduce its strength in a

respsible way, ensuring the services maintain the props -- proper force mix. if sequestration continues, the result would be more precipitous reductions, leaving us with a structure out of sync wiheequr defense strategy. sequestration has already affected our military readiness. we have heard testimony as a result of cuts to training testimony thed readiness will fall below acceptable levels for all three military services by the end of the summer, the army has informed us that by the end of september, only one-third of its active units will hav accepted ratings far below the two-thirds level needed to meet national

security requirements. these cuts are having an operational impact, as well. in europeer squadrons have been grounded. the deployment of the truman kerry group -- carrier group has been postponed indefinitely. it will costdo bill the shofalls in training and maintenance. it will be nearly impossible for us to do so if we have a second round of sequestration in fiscal year 2014. our men and women in the military and their families should not have to face the pressure of military service and the uncertainty about future financial support from the government. the department faces the budget shortfalls at a time where 68,000 u.s. troops remain in harm's way in afghanistan. we must ensure our troops in afghanistan have what they need

to carry out their mission. the campaign in afghanistan is on track to reach a major milestone later this spring. will transition float -- fully two afghans 34 disparate as our commander in afghanistan told us yesterday, there are clear signs the afghan security forces are capable of taking the fight to the taliban and are doing so effectively. operations by afghan security forces are increasingly conducted. without international forces present. there are fewer afghan security -- afghan casualty's in the flat -- in the last few months, including a four-week stretch earlier this year with no coalition. the budgetent's but challenges, the topic of today's hearing, are occurring in a

world full of threats to u.s. security, including north anda's reckless behavior, iran's nuclear program. we will have a separate hearing on the growing bloodshed in syria after the conclusion of this morning's session. we will take a half-hour break, then we will return to hear from our witnesses about the situation in syria. we look forward to your testimony and then now call on the senator. >> i welcome our guests, especially my friend, senator hagel. we worked together for a long

time. we had disagreements but always remained good friends. our military is facing unprecedented challenges. the budget before oday is symbolic for its lack of presidential leadership necessary to overcome the challenges facing our military. most troubling, the budget does not even acknowledge the mandatory cuts associated with sequestration. less propose a plan to replace the cuts that can pass congress. defense budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty have become the hallmark of this administration. since entering office four years ago, the president has already cut $600 billion from our security at a time non-

related domestic spending has increased by nearly 30%. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is recently testifying that after observing what is a military cannot give another dollar if they are to maintain current capabilities. our military leaders are warning that we are on the brink of creating a hollow course, and prepared to contingencies from the world, yet, according to the fiscal year 14 budget request, the white house feels we can have a better -- another 120 out of the -- $120 billion out of the pentagon. our military strategy is no longer depending on the threats we face or an honest assessment of the resources needed to protect our critical interest. the discussion in washington has centered around how deeply we can cut the defense. our forces are now being asked to do more with less training,

less equipment, less ability, and no one assessing the increased risk in the battlefield and the increased risk of our servicemen and women makinghe sacrifice. this i acceptable -- this is not acceptable. 14 budget does little to reverse this. at a time our intelligence experts tell us we face damaging threats to our national security, we are poised to slash the defense budget by over $1 trillion during that time. we have made this mistake before. the military is too small to meet the instability and the rising threats of the world. we need to stop the stupid

argument that runaway defense spending is what is driving our country's unsustainable debt. this is disingenuous and it is just wrong. defense spending accounts for 18% of the federal spending annually. spendingity mandatory accounts for 60%. we are on a path with an insatiable appetite for spending and medicare programs are consuming our defense budget. it will result in a hollow military. the commander in chief must take a lead in restoring a shirt -- certainty to our process and to assure that military leaders have the appropriate resources to develop and execute plans efficiently. of the vicearnings chairman of the joint chiefs many times. he reform --uote

reaffirmed. "i know of no other time in history where we have come potentially down this far this fast and -- in the defense budget. there could be for the first time in my career instances in which we may be asked to respond to a private and we will have to say, we cannot do it. we have to correct this." a cute. >> thank you. senator hagel, welcome. nominations and i know you will want us to do that. i ask the committee to consider 549 pending military nominations, included in the

list, the nomination of the general to be the commander u.s. european command and supreme allied command in europe. of the nominations, 311 are one day short of the committee's requirement that denomination's be in the committee for seven days before we report th out. no oection has been raised to the nominations. i recommend we waive the seven day rule in order to permit a confirmation of the nominations of these 311 officers, as well as the others. is there a motion? is there a second? all in favor, say aye. the ayes carried. thank you. >> is the hearing over? >> it is. [laughter] damn efficient committee. thank you. general dempsey and all of us

are very pleased with that action, as will be the other members of our team. we appreciate it. and yourberation action. before i began my formal presentation, and i have a longer version that has been distributed last night to committee members on the 2014 budget. let me say on behalf of the men and women who represent our armed forces, both in uniform and civilians, our prayers' and hearts go out to the people in boston, the families who have lost loved ones, those who were injured, wounded, by this despicable act. how ourery proud of leaders and those responsible for assisting in dealing with

the tragedy in boston, how they responded, we are particularly proud of our national guard, who are still working with local officials. i wanted to put that on the record, mr. chairman, and make that a considerable note. >> we thank you very much for that. this was reflected yesterday at a hearing we had he. weoin you in yountou. allow me to express my appreciation to this committee for its continued support of our men and women in uniform and our civilian workforce. they are doing tremendous work and making great sacrifices, along with their families, as they have for the more than 11 years our nation has been at war.

as we discuss numbers and budgets, we should not lose sight of those men and women across the globe. as you all know, their well-being depends on the decisions we make here in washington. today, the department of defense faces the significant challenge of conducting long-term planning and budgeting at a time of considerable uncertainty -- both in terms of the security challenges we face around the world and the levels of defense spending we can expect here at home. even as the military emerges -- and recovers -- from more than a decade of sustained conflict in iraq and afghanistan, it confronts an array of complex threats of varying vintage and degrees of risk to the united

states, to include -- the persistence of violent extremism throughout weak states and ungoverned spaces in the middle east and north africa, the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, the rise of new powers competing for influence, the risk of conflicts which could draw in the united states, faceless, nameless, silent and destructive cyberattacks, the debilitating and dangerous curse of human despair and poverty, as well as the uncertain implications of environmental degradation. wh fnetic pace of technolocal change and the spread of advanced military technology to state and non- state actors pose an increasing challenge to america's military. this is the strategic environment facing the department of defense as it enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. the onset of these resource constraints has already led to significant and ongoing belt- tightening in military modernization, force structure, personnel costs, and overhead expenditures. it has also given us an opportunity to reshape the

military and reform defense institutions to better reflect 21st century realities. the process began under the leadership of secretary gates, who canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed overhead within the military services and across the defense enterprise. these efforts reduced the department's topline by $78 billion over a five year period, as detailed in the department's fy 2012 budget plan. the realignment continued under secretary panetta, who worked closely with the president and the joint chiefs of staff to craft new defense strategic guidance and a fy 2013 defense budget plan which reduced the department's topline by $487 billion over the course of a decade.

the president's request of $526.6 billion for the department of defense's base budget for fy 2014 continues to implement the president's defense strategic guidance and enhances the department's efforts at institutional reform. most critically, it sustains the quality of the all-volunteer force and the care we provide our service members and their families, which underpins everything we do as an organization. before discussing the particulars of this budget request, however, allow me to address the profound budget ltsequms facing the depa a b -- because they have significantly disrupted operations for the current fiscal year and greatly complicated efforts to plan for the future. the congress and the department of defense have a responsibility to find answers to these problems together -- because we have a shared responsibility to protect our national security. dod is going to need the help of congress to manage through this uncertainty. appropriations bill enacted by the congress last month addressed many urgent problems by allocating dod funding more closely in line with the president's budget request than a continuing resolution would

have, giving the department authorities to start new programs, and allowing us to proceed with important military construction projects. nonetheless, the bill still left in place the deep and abrupt cuts associated with sequester -- as much as $41 billion in spending r er the next six months. exter, andary pay and our internal decision to shift the impact of sequestration away from those serving in .arm's way the military is experiencing higher operating tempos, and higher transportation costs than expected when the budget request was formulated more than a year

ago. as a result of all these factors, the department is now facing a shortfall in our operation and maintenance accounts for fy 2013 of at least $22 billion in our base budget for active forces. in response, the department has reduced official travel, cut back sharply on facilities maintenance, imposed hiring freezes, and halted many other important but lower-priority activities. however, we will have to do more. we will soon send to congress a large reprogramming request designed to offset some of our shortfalls, especially shortfalls in wartime funding, anwe ask your help with its speedy review and approval. this reprogramming will be limited by ceilings on transfer authority and so can only solve part of our problem. we will have to continue to consider furloughing civilian personnel in the months ahead. there will also be significant cuts in maintenance and training, which further erodes the readiness of the force and will be costly to regain in the future. as the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our readiness. meanwhile, our investment accounts and the defense industrial base are not spared damage as we also take indiscriminate cuts across these areas of the budget. we will continue to need the

strong partnership of this committee to help us address these shortfalls. if the sequester-related provisions of the budget control act of 2011 are not changed, fy 2014 funding for national defense programs will be subject to a steereduce cap, which would cut dod funding by roughly $52 billion further. and, if there is no action by the congress, roughly $500 billion in reductions to defense spending would be required over the next nine years. as an alternative, the president's budget proposes some $150 billion in additional defense savings (measured in terms of budget authority) over the next decade when compared with the budget plan submitted last year. these cuts are part of a balanced package of deficit reduction. unlike sequester, these cuts are largely back-loaded -- occurring mainly in the years beyond fy 2018 -- which gives the department time to plan and implement the reductions wisely, and responsibly,

anchored by the president's defense strategic guidance. the president's fy 2014 request continues to balance the compelling demands of supporting troops still very much at war in afghanistan, protecting readiness, modernizing the military's aging weapons inventory in keeping with the president's strategic guidance, and sustaining the quality of the all-volunteer force. the top-line budget request of $526.6 billion for fy 2014 is essentially flat compared to the president's request for fy 2013, and roughly in line with what both the house and senate have passed in their fy 2014 budget resolutions. today's budget request also contains a placeholder request for overseas contingency operations (oco) at the fy 2013 level ($88.5 billion). the submission does not include a formal oco request because afghanistan force level and deployment decisions for this year were delayed in order to provide commanders enough time to fully assess requirements.

we will soon be submitting an oco budget amendment with a revised level and account-level detail. these efforts continue the department's approach of the last several years to first target growing costs in areas of support, acquisition, and pay and benefits, before cutting military capabilities and force structure. reducing support costs in order to maintain balance and readiness, the department of defense must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure as it reduces force structure. dod has been shedding infrastructure in europe for several years and we are undertaking a review of our european footprint this year, but we also need to look at our domestic footprint. dod has been shedding infrastructure in europe.

fy2014 budgetuestsident's ization for one round of n 2015.alignment and closure while the commission would meet in 2015, the actual closing of any bases would involve a multiyear process that would not begin until 2016. brac is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows communities a role in re-use decisions for the property and provides redevelopment assistance. there are up-front costs for brac, and this fydp adds $2.4 billion to pay them, but in the long-term there are significant savings. the previous five rounds of brac are now saving a total of $12 billion annually. we are also taking other important steps to cut back on support costs.

restructuring and terminations of weapons programs the department continues to streamline its acquisition programs and processes, and over the past four years we have realized significant cost savings as a result of reforms implemented by the weapon systems and acquisition reform act of 2009 sponsored by senators levin and mccain. in this budget, the department has shifted priorities within its modernization portfolios and achieved $8.2 billion in savings from weapons program terminations and restructuring. for example, by revising the acquisition strategy for the army's ground combat vehicle (gcv) program, the department will save over $2 billion in development costs. in other cases the department used evolutionary approaches to develop new capabilities instead of relying on leap-ahead gains in technology. the costs of military pay and benefits are another significant driver of spending growth that must be addressed in the current fiscal environment. in this budget, the department is submitting a new package of military compensation proposals that take into consideration congressional concerns associated with those from fy 2013. $1.4 changes save about

billion in fy 2014 and a total of $12.8 billion in fy 2014-2018 this package includes a modest slowing of the growth of rcrae forpay by implti service members in 2014. the department is also seeking additional changes to the tricare program in the fy 2014 budget to bring the beneficiary's cost share closer to the levels envisioned when the program was implemented -- particularly for working age retirees. survivors of military members

who died on active duty or medically retired members would be excluded from all tricare increases. reinanges substantial benefit. thesadjustments to pay and benefits were among the most carefully considered and difficult choices in the budt. they were made with the strong support of the joint chiefs of staff and senior enlisted leadership, in recognition that in order to sustain these benefits over the long term without dramatically reducing the size or readiness of the force, these rising costs need to be brought under control. 2. implementing and deepening our commitment to the president's defense strategic guidance spending reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be implemented through improving efficiency and reducing overhead alone. cuts and changes to capabilities -- force structure and modernization programs -- will also be required. the strategic guidance issued in january 2012 set the priorities and parameters that informed those choices, and the fy 2014 budget submission further implements and deepens program alignment to this strategic guidance. the new strategy calls for a smaller and leaner force. last year we proposed reductions of about 100,000 in military end strength between fy 2012 and fy 2017. most of those reductions occur

in the ground forces and are consistent with a decision not to size u.s. ground forces to accomplish prolonged stability operations, while maintaining adequate capability should such activities again be required. by the end of fy 2014 we will have completed almost two thirds of the drawdown of our ground forces, and the drawdown should be fully complete by fy 2017. increased emphasis on the asia- pacific and middle east represents another key tenet of the new defense strategic guidance. this budget continues to put a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining forces -- such as submarines, long-range bombers, and carrier strike groups -- that can project power over great distance and carry out a variety of missions. as part of the rebalance to the asia-pacific, the department is expanding the marine corps presence in the region, including rotational deployments of marine units to australia.

we continue to develop guam as a strategic hub where we maintain a rotational bomber presence among other capabilities. this new strategy not only recognizes the changing character of the conflicts in which the u.s. must prevail, but also leverages new concepts of operation enabled by advances in space, cyberspace, special operations, global mobility, precision- strike, missile defense, and other capabilities. by making difficult trade-offs in lower priority areas, the fy 2014 budget protects or increases key investments in these critical capabilities, including -- cyberspace operations, including the recruitment and retention of world-class cyber personnel ($4.7 billion for fy2014, an increase of $800 million over fy2013 enacted levels). space operations -- to maintain our superiority in space, the air force continues to modernize the gps program and is investing in improved space surveillance capabilities and a new generation of communications satellites ($10.1 billion). airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (isr) -- the department is investing in both sea-based and extended range, land-based isr platforms ($2.5 billion). rapid global mobility -- to maintain our ability to rapidly deliver and sustain our forces around the globe, the air force is upgrading its c-5, c-17, and c-130 transport aircraft -- replacing the oldest aircraft and modernizing the fleet -- and building the new kc-46 aerial

refueling tanker ($5.0 billion), missile defense -- to protect against ballistic missile threats from asia-pacific and the middle east, the department is increasing its fleet of ground based interceptors (gbi), continuing the conversion of aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capability, and procuring additional terminal high altitude area defense (thaad) interceptors and patriot pac-3 missiles ($9.2 billion), special operations/counterterrorism -- to ensure our special operations forces maintain the highest levels of readiness and to expand the global special operations force network ($7.7 billion).

reductions up to the level of full sequester. the purpose of this strategic choices and management review is to re-assess the basic assumptions that drive the department's investment and force structure decisions. the review will identify the strategic choices and further institutional reforms that may be required -- including those reforms which should be pursued regardless of fiscal pressures. it is designed to help understand the challenges, articulate the risks, and look for opportunities for reform and efficiencies presented by resource constraints. everything will be on the table during this review -- roles and missions, planning, business practices, force structure, personnel and compensation, acquisition and modernization investments, how we operate, and how we measure and maintain readiness. this review is being conducted by deputy secretary carter working with general dempsey. the service secretaries and service chiefs, office of the secretary of defense principals, and combatant commanders will serve as essential participants. our aim is to conclude this review by may 31, 2013.

the results will inform our fy 2015 budget request and will be the foundation for the quadrennial defense review due to congress in february 2014. it is already clear to me that achieving significant additional budget savings without unacceptable risk to national security will require not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices but, if necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that better reflect 21st century realities. and that will require the partnership of congress. the fy2014 budget and the ones before it have made hard choices. in many cases, modest reforms to personnel and benefits, along with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure acquisition programs, met fierce political resistance and were not implemented. we are now in a different fiscal environment dealing with new realities that will force us to more fully confront these tough

and painful choices, and to make the reforms we need to put this department on a path to sustain our military strength for the 21st century. but in order to do that we will need flexibility, time, and some budget certainty. we will also need to fund the military capabilities that are necessary for the complex security threats of the 21st century. i believe the president's budget does that. with the partnership of congress, the defense department can continue to find new ways to operate more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. however, multiple reviews and analyses show that additional major cuts -- especially those on the scale and timeline of sequestration -- would require dramatic reductions in core military capabilities or the scope of our activities around the world. as the executive and that completes my formal remarks

. i have a more detailed form submitted. i know you like to hear from chairman density. >> thank you. you're full statement will be made on the record. >> chairman, ranking member, and distinguished committee like to add myd thoughts and prayers to those boston bombings. ready to provide whatever support they need as the issue involves. on the state of the us armed forces and to comment on the president's budget proposal for fiscal year (fy) 2014. this year's posture testimony comes in the context of extraordinary uncertainty. our nation is going through an historic fiscal correction to

restore the economic foundation of our power. as resources decline, risks to our national security interests rise. men and women are steadfast in their courage and duty. i saw it in their eyes. in afghanistan, our forces are simultaneously -- planning -- redeploying. as they gain confidence, so do the afghan people. the coalition will remain in support as a transition to a sustainable presence beyond 2014. at every point along the way, we must make sure our levels matched the commission we asked our men and women in uniform. been vigil elsewhere, as well. we are working with our inner

agency partners to defend against cyber attacks. we are acting directly with partners to defeat al qaeda. the asia-alancing to pacific region and adapting to a new normal of combustible violence in north africa and the middle east. as we discussed more later today, we are working with others to keep syria's complex conflict from destabilizing the region. we are prepared with options if it can be used effectively to secure our interests without making the situation worse. we must also be ready with options for an uncertain and dangerous future. this budget was built to keep .ur nation immune from coercion let me also be clear about what this budget does not do. it does not reflect the full sequestration amount.

it imposes less production and gives us more time. uncertainty does persist about what the top line for this will be or for any other budget. nor does this budget includes funds to restore lost readiness. we do not yet know the full impact or cost to recover from the readiness shortfalls we are experiencing. we have already curtailed or cancelled trading for many units across all forces, those not preparing to deploy. we know it is more expensive to get ready than it is to stay ready. recovery costs will but this jeep will compete with the cost -- recoveryg the will compete with the cost of us joining. it also lowers manpower costs

and makes health-care more sustainable. it attacks our investment in our people. it treats being the best lead, the best trained, as non- negotiable. never has our nation sustain such a lengthy war solely through the service of an all- volunteer force. the returning home is a new front line. we must continue to invest in traumatic brain injury and combat stress. we have a shared responsibility to address the urgent issue of suicide with the same devotion we have shown. the risks inherent must never include the risk of sexual assault. it betrays the trust on which our profession is founded.

we will pursue every option to drive this crime from our ranks. this is a defining moment for our military. our warriors' will to win is on daunting. the means to prepare to win are becoming uncertain. we have an opportunity a aoblige confidence. we have it within us to stay strong as a global leader and a reliable partner. the joint forces look to us to lead through this period of correction. we need budget certainty, we need time, and we need flexibility. that means a predictable funding stream. force structure, modernization, compensation, and readiness. thank you for all you have done to support our men and women in uniform. i only ask you continually respond a responsible investing in our nation's defense.

i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. secretary hagel, your comment? >> we will have a seven-minute first round. that may likely be the only round here given the large numbsenato that are here today. with you, general dempsey. do you personally support the request for the department of defense budget for fiscal year 14? >> i do. >> whether the chiefs to share your view? >> they do. yesterday, general, quite an optimistic assessment of the security situation in afghanistan, more optimistic than in previous years. we heard that from our commander there. i am wondering whether you might share the generally optimistic assessment you heard. a yes, i as with the general

few weeks ago. my impression after visiting some of the operational cord nascent centers, where, r first time, i afan governmenso of their instruments and governance in economic factors in to security. it leads me to be more optimistic than i have been in the past, where i felt like we have been doing a good job, but not necessarily that they have been shouldering as much as the burden as i think they need to. >> have you reached a conclusion as to the troop level, which he will recommend to the president for the post-2014 time? >> we have not. know, i have said at a previous hearing that the targets that nato has toablished, the range, 8000 12,000, seems to be a reasonable target. we have not selected a specific

number. >> is that a target for u.s. forces? >> no. that part of the mission redto . >> the president has not made a decision on that? >> that is correct. of the reduction -- 2014,ow and 2000 the president announced plans to draw down 34,000 of the 66,000 troops in afghanistan by feb., 2014. is it true the pace of the drawdown will affect the funds needed and when they are needed? >> i am sure it will. that is the reason i think he would agree the oco budget has not been submitted yet. what we have done is given the commander in the field the

flexibility to plan that reduction. tiserimportant. betweenhe equilibrium fighting, transitioning, and redeploying. i think that is why the budget is delayed. >> if the commander has the flexibility, as soon as we learn from the commander how they will exercise that flexibility, and then we will determine the oco? >> that is my understanding. how the you tell us pace is determined by the commander? >> we are making it -- we are making assumptions. >> all right. budget, we have certain

amounts that are going to be utilized for our missile defense. there has been an announcement. you're the one made it. deploy 14ng to additional ground-based interceptors in alaska. relativeade a decision to the final phase of the adapted approach, which was adopted for nato. -- let me ask you, general. do you personally support the missile defense approach that has been decided upon by the administration? >> i do. it is in response to an increasing threat from north korea. >> that includes both parts of the missile defense approach i just identified? one is the modification of the

adaption approach in europe, but also the additional ground-based interceptors, both pieces? you approve both pas? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understand your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost. cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budget korah -- request. is that correct? >> it is excellent 2016 through 2018. >> the additional up-front funding, the cost, is not provided for in the 2014 budget request. made a provision? you say you're going to make a provision into the 15.

is that correct that -- is that correct? >> we are not requesting it until 2015. >> so there is no money impact this year. we met at the pentagon a few days ago. there were a number of us there. the point you made about alleged savings from the last background. you indicated previous rounds. you testified $12 billion annually. ,as that the savings you saved created from the last round? or from all the previous rounds? >> from all the rounds. more detail, maybe mr. hagel could break that out.

all the rounds. >> could you give that to us for the record? that is the detail we need for the record. i thinkha we will call on the senator. i think. since you are on the subject of you might remember -- of brac, the right moment -- you might remember i led the opposition of that, and successfully. the irony was my senior senator was on the other side. lost by two votes. >> you are not holding that against him? >> no. i came in with the first brac round. i opposed it in 2005 for two reasons. one is that it was bringing down our infrastructure to an

artificially low sides. wasmeet what i thought unacceptle. i think that reason is good today. other reason is what the chairman touched on here. that is there is a cost to brac in two different areas. one is in the initial cost. the other is the recurring cost. the government accounting office released a report leicester. that is seven years after the 2005 brac round. from $21me costs grew billion to $35 billion. it increased $14 billion. costresult of the 20-year , the of the expected to achieve from the 2005 round, it

decreased by 72%. in addition, it was determined 75 out of 182 recommendations, about 41%, are now expected to re in a -20-year value. itcost more to implement than any projected savings over a 20-year. period. i know there are different ways of projecting figures. those are the figures. they came from the office. just last year, seven years after. with that in mind, recognizing we may not feel this until 2015, i have no reason to believe we will be in a lot better shape in 2015 as the art today. consider that in this report of the background -- brac round. >> i have not seen the report. , from the same report,

or anoer one, noted tth20 roundy reflected almost a 25% overcapacity in infrastructure at the time. i will ask for a response here quickly, but we have looked at all the factors of the continuing costs. >> if you would come for the record, do this. i know you have read the report i refer to. i would ask you share that with secretary hazel, which i am sure you will want to. -- secretary hagel, which i am sure you will want to. my opposition eight years ago are probably more true today.

the chairman talked about the missile defense thing, i was ry pleas when you made the sise b thenumber of ground-based interceptors sites on the west coast. i thought that was good. what i do not agree, as it has been pointed out, that is probably a good thing to do in light of all the things happening in north korea. i was over there recently. i spoke to you from over there. i realize this is something we need to protect against. i am satisfied. i may not be in the majority appear, but i am satisfied that anything coming from north korea or that way, we have got the capability to look and shoot. i feel comfortable we can knock down anything coming. where i probably disagree, general dempsey, with you, is on our capacity to knock one down

from the other side come from the east. that is the reason we were building initially the ground- based interceptor in poland. now we are talking about a third site. i could quote seral generals here. one general said, we are not in the most optimum posture to defend against an iranian threat. the fight -- despite the fact our intelligence has told us have a007 that iran capability of a weapons delivery system by 2015, secretary hagel, do you disagree with my concern over the threat that would come to the east as opposed to the west? >> i do not disagree. it is something the department of defense and all those responsible for our missile defense capabilities and our strategies and the cactus --

tactics are concerned with, as well. it is a very real issue. it is one we are dealing with. we will have to continue to do with it. s these issues. how do you do with it? what should we be doing? what are we doing? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

.

>> i wanted to turn to general dempsey. the military to military relationship that we have. we have been working to engage china in these exchanges and you arg to china soon. would you expect that su of our rebalance to the pacific to be an matter of some concern to the chinese? do you expect this to become part of the conversation that you have when you are in china? >> i do. i have had some telephonic new chinese my counterpart. he has indicated that he is eager to get my views and understand better our intentions. i am prepared to have a conversation. >> at the same time, to make sure one of our intentions is dispensing our communications and relationships with them. as some of my colleagues have ofd, china is a big part

the activities and actions of north korea. any stronger relationship we can have with the chinese would be -- >> i am committed to that. i am committed to strengthening our relationship with china. >> thank you. -- i knowrecruiting that we are drawing down our numbers and our service. at the same time, with all the news about the challenges facing our military, the department of defense, the cuts, the furloughs, secretary hagel and general, do you foresee an impact of this kind of news on recruitment now and in the future? >> i am going to ask the chairman to respond to that. , as don't k it is yet impacting

recruitment. the chairman is closer to it than i am. is that we are having no difficulties right now. either recruiting or retaining high-quality individuals. here is a prediction. if sequestration affects readiness and young men who come in our setting, -- coming to be pilots, are sitting and not flying. or they come in to be sailors and their setting and not at sea. where they come in to train on tanks and are parked in the motor pool, then we will have a retention problem. i have got the t-shirt. wehave done this before, didn't do it correctly, shame on us if we do it again. >> i worry about our civilian workforce. pay freezes, for low potential. not sure why anybody would want to be workforce right now. --would need to be better

seven point eight percent unemployment. as the economy recovers, we have every reason to worry about the ability to recruit civilians. >> of course, we have some agent thousand civilian members -- 18,000 civilian members. very concerned about potential furloughs and other changes. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator cruise -- cruz. , mr. chairman. secretary hagel, undersecretary hale, thank you for your testimony this morning. i want to thank all three of you for your service to this nation. events have powerfully underscored, these are perilous times. whether we are speaking of the horrific terror attack in boston this week or the escalating situation in north korea. service is greatly appreciated.

i think all three of you for serving on the front lines and protecting america. the questions i would like to ask focus on two areas. goinginancial planning forward at the department. missile defense. and our ability to defend the homeland with, there has been much escutcheon about sequestration and the current budget that does not reflect sequestration but i understand the department will hopefully submit a plan to comply with those cuts. that presents both short-term challenges and long-term challenges. in addition, the budget contemplates a renewed commission process going forward. i would suggest ithe process, both of assessing sequestration in the short and long-term, and that abrack process,

significant component of the department assessment should in whichonsideration we can reduce our footprint overseas. reduce our bases overseas, our amount power overseas, -- manpower overseas, consistent with our imperative to protect national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel is, to what extent of the department , inently assessing complying with these financial pressures, our ability to draw overseasverseas -- our footprint. i would suggest it is preferable to reduce bases overseas instead of here at home if it is consistent with national security. whatent is the department engagegh assessment analysis? >> thank you.

a point youclarify made there is no misunderstanding. expectation may be inaccurate. i did not say we are going to end of maylan by the to the committee on how to deal with sequestration. what i said was, the strategic choice review that i asked for will come back to me by the end of may, then we will start making some assessments and decisions based on that, which obviously will affect complying with the law of the land if we have to. i may follow-up -- do you you right now have intentions for a timetable of when the department would get back to the committee on its intention and plan for complying -- >> this is evolving and i have that they the review

are leading, and then we will proceed on that basis. i don't want an expectation here that isn't correct. that is why wanted to make sure. -- i understand what is expected. as to your bastions about overseas, overhead, and the other observations you made about how we are assessing what we have to do to comply with these new realities. consolidatingeen and closing facilities overseas for the last few years. we will have a study complete by the end of this month -- this on additional recommendations on closing facilities and consolidating overseas. so, yes, that has been ongoing.

i and thee time, president think, the leadership of the doj, but we also need to look at our infrastructure in this country as well. >> can i have a couple of facts -- we transferred more than 100 sites back to our allies since 2003. about 30 more scheduled over the next several years. in addition to any identified by this consolidation. we have been aggressively looking at overseas infrastructure. >> think you very much. general dempsey, i would like to get your thoughts in particular about north korea. about how great a threat the current north korean situation poses and what is our capacity right now with missile defense to intercept and defend against hostile launch from north korea? inas you know, there has

some discussion in the intelligence community about whether they have been able to recognize. as you might expect, as the chairman of the joint chiefs, we will react to what we think would be worst-case scenario. we have postured ourselves ourselves to be capable of intercepting and destroying any ballistic missile that would be ornched at our facilities our personnel. we are postured to do that. the would note that , while not budget accounted for sequestration, nonetheless cuts $500 million for missile defense. my judgment, particularly given the threats we are seeing from north korea, the potential threat from the nation of iran, reducing our commitment to missile defense at this point seems ill advised.

indeed, our current posture on at a minimumse is of two months, and that we are right now deploying a system to timeand at the same reinstating ground-based interceptors that have been canceled in alaska. of which i think are reasonable and positive responses to the threat we are seeing. yet, that seems inconsistent with reducing funding for missile defense. it seems driven by our enemies rather than a copperheads of, strategic plan -- comprehensive strategic plan. >> i think the budget reflects the priorities of our missile .efense programs and plans missile defense is an essential

component ofecuring this counhehi couniertainly would never sign f on any budget that would lessen thatability to fulfill commitment to this country. i think i can speak for the chairman and every leader in the pentagon. it is my sense that it does comply with our requirements. in the interest of time, i would be happy to have someone give you a laydown of the way ahead. what we have done this year, why, and where we think this is going. i would also say that ballistic missile defense is an important investment. it can get to be short nearly expensive. -- extraordinarily expensive erie it i often use the phrase that, at some point you have to the arrowing about

and start worrying about the .ch just to our potential adversaries that we have not forgotten that we also have capabilities to deal with the archer. >> thank you, general. i look forward to that ongoing discussion. i would thank all three of you for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. theust relative to facilities overseas that are being closed, we do have rules as to the reimbursement to us for the improvements which we have made in overseas facilities. we just issued a report yesterday, a committee report which we hope you'll take up, showing the failure of the thattment to achieve reimbursement. the way in which it is supposed to be made. and it has been going on too long. part of it is a failure of oversight. mainly it is a failure of the department to force our roles. relative to reimbursement by ouales.

for the improvements which we have made in those facilities which were turning back to that. that was a report which was released yesterday, i know on your desks, we would look forward to your response. thene comment about overseas facilities. in western europe we had quite a few there, one of the problems is, because of environmental controls over there, they are restricting, in germany for example, our ability to use a live range on so many hours of the day. we had to go in and say, if we can train -- can't train come a we are going to leave. backup their attention. we are going to use the tools that we have most efficiently to train our people as we are supposed to be doing over there. >> thank you, senator in half. senator mccain. >> i do for the test of man and this. i'm going to jump right

i would like to say word about the sequester, iraq, and syria. a lot of discussion about sequester. what senator session said earlier. a horrible idea. i do have the ability of not having been around when it was put in place, so it makes me free critic i -- criticized. the cuts for defense, that was foolish. one a of the budget nondefense discretionary, take verse 50% --ause was foolish areas 50% of the cuts was foolish. the majority of the body that wanted to turn off sequester and do it a different way. in this instance, late february, filibuster was invoked by the minority. we needed more than 50 votes. that is n automatic. there was a sufficient vote in this body to turn off sequester

it is having a very significant and negative affect. especially, i do think that senator mccain's suggestion was extremely helpful. if there is to be any chance of this congress, the senate considering an alternative to sequester, the sooner the better, the more people have an understanding about the good considered judgment of the pentagon about what will be cut if we have to knock that orra $52 billion off, specifically have, the more we look and say, we don't want that to happen. we had better come up with an alternative. in the absence of an alternative that is so clear, it does not put pressure on us at this point to come up with an alternative. i would say, i viewed this -- senator mccain suggestion as a helpful one. on brack, i worry kind of about the storm and wrong of it.

i look forward to the accounting of it, but when brack was announced, every community that has military assets, whether they are ultimately going to be on the chopping ,lock or not, they lawyer up they public relations up. there is an economic effect in the community of anxiety and uncertainty that can have its own economic effect. if we're going to do all that, $12.5 billion for five backgrounds, if we're doing that all to produce -- i really wonder if it is worth the trouble. it is important to lay out potential cuts to deal with these budgetary realities. two examples. as governor, i have an $80 billion budget and in four years, you just get one term in virginia, i cut $5 billion out of the budget. i did not have a commission to do it. i sat with the budget folks and made spe reduction for

puzzles and given to my legislature. they all, democratic and republican, saw everyone, they said it was a heartless don't -- dope with everything. then when this and a bunch of time, they ended up approving -- 90% of it.a by doing it that way, i did not make every last person or community by announcing the brack round or something like it areas taking them think they had to lawyer up and block the. , i knowg i encourage senator and have had some concerns. is whether that is -- we are dealing with a week to make some challenges. whether brack is the best way to reduce costs -- when you add in the anxiety, the economic effect and all the external transaction costs it genates, this

approach the best way to reduce costs? after the last round, one of your predecessors reached a conclusion that a particular is probablyirginia not the best expenditure of money. that was a joint effort that might have been inspired by an early secretary of defense. secretary gates said, if the joint chiefs of staff have offices near each other in the pentagon, why do we need a separate joint forces command in norfolk? he just said, i am not sure we need this. he put it on the table. the local community can forward and said, we think this is a bad idea and laid out a case. they reached an accommodation thee, essentially structure was removed at some of the military missions being provided connue to be provided and there was compromised. that was done, not in a brack process, but with dod laying

down. we think we should get rid of this. congress saying, we think you are wrong, and a compromise being reached. i would recommend that as a potential way of thinking about it as an alternative to brack. --will produce a whole lot if it will produce 2.5 billion dollars savings, by my quick math, about .6% of savings, i am not sure the process and all the drama with it is worthwhile. i would commend you to ponder that. with yourhing, permission, about syria. there will be additional discussions this afternoon. in foreign relations, we spend a

lot of time talking about syria. i have sympathy with senator mccain and others who said we need to explore the recommendation potentially to go from nonlethal to legal assistance in what would be the conditions. my concern about syria right now is that it is -- more and more sectaans ry ths ab70% litary leadership, is becoming sort for theth struggle community. if they believe that the only outcome of this is likely going to be whether they survive or are purged, then this will be a fight to the deaths whether we offer legal aid or not. if the opposition -- and no one at the factors, weight and heavily on any decision about whether to buy a is, what character coming trust to get weapons not the wrong place?

the opposition can do things that will ring hollow lights -- bring aloites into the minority , that would also have the effect of diluting the jihadist elements of the opposition. it would probably giveinpositiot more. -effortsear -- tiers - we would undertake to ensure that members of the opposition included how white -- aloite minority, that would make our decision easier. that would make the cost must, the consequences less severe. i would put thate tathe as part of the discussion in syria. i hi'e not said a

single thing that you all have not fought five steps down the chessboard on. for the purpose of my committee members and others, i wanted to say that. >> happy to have you put a chair right here and testify with us as afternoon. >> senator, thank you. i listened very carefully to all of your main points. you make a lot of sense. your points all under advisement. -- an briefly at on their to brack.re -- $2 billion a year for 10 years is $20 billion. it sounds interesting to me. i think we have got to think about it. >> i am not against the $2 billion. think there might be a way that would create last -- less drama. >> one of the things he referred to has to do with lawyering up and getting other kinds of consultants just by

the mention of the possibility of brack. i would urge our constituents not to start lawyering up and hiring consultants because there is a long way to go before congress approves another brack round. i think the implieduggestn senator cain is wis. thate you didn't suggest congress, both the senate and the house, and the president did not comply with the law in your 2000 budget request. the budget control act made in orderequirements to avoid sequestration. the president did it in his budget, he avoided it. in a way which is different from what the hosted. the house avoided it in a different way from the senate.

hopefully now the house and senate will get together and adopt a joint budget rid in any event, i hope you did not mean to imply that the three budgets now out there are not in compliance with the budget and i hope you did not mean to imply that your these budgets are not in compliance. they do it in different date -- ways reedit one has a balance of cuts in revenues. >> i did not mean to imply that reedit my point in bringing that ,p was in reference to somehow some implication that the president's budget was somehow out here in the ether.

prettyee budgets were closely aligned. not at all to imply that they were not complying with the law. >> as i said before, senator mccain made his comments. i agree with what senator mccain said and what senator cain just said. it would be helpful to us .o avoid sequestration if you can get to us as quickly whatu can the details of the specific impacts would be if we do not avoid sequestration. >> we intend to do that. same time, we wanted to make sure whatever we come up here with, we can defend and it makes sense. that is why i reference the review. until we get that review, we can go forward. i agree with that. i got it. >> senator graham has shown up either just-in-time -- certainlybe last and

least. secretary hagel, i want to congratulate you for a responsible handling of north korea. he probably, beaten to death. but i think 2013 will will be a major year for national security issues. do you believe if we don't deal with the iranian program between now and the end of the year we are probably in tre? >> i have been disappointed about the progress. i think that the urgency will only increase. >> as i understand it, as we have been negotiating the p5 plus one, we are told of the level of enriched uranium has gone up during negotiations, not down. do you agree? >> there has been a pattern of it going up and then being transitioned into oxide. >> the information i have received is that the amount of enriched uranium has increased of the last six months. i very much support sanctions and a diplomatic resolution to the iranian problem.

when it comes to afghanistan, i think you are still an evaluation. is that correct data -- correct? post 2014. >> that is right. >> do you agree that the iranians are probably watching us on multiple fronts in terms -- resolve?ts? >> yes. upsett is why i'm so that we would take now, of all times, to basically gut our military. you agree that this is a time of great national security risk we live in pretty dangerous times? >> i do. >> from a gdp point of view, we are on the low end of defense spending in time of conflict. is that correct? >> we are, the general and i were talking about this. the ups and downs, but you are that. pre-k's it is not

we can't reform our pentagon and reduce spending that we have. 600 billion, i agree, will make -- i urge you see me with the president. there is a lot of bipartisan support for the idea that it is unacceptable for the iranians to get their capability. there is no good ending to a nuclear armed iran. our friends in israel, our sunni arab allies and it would take the whole region and throw it into chaos. do you agree? >> i do. >> we are at a critical time -- how would you evaluate the situation in iraq? >> that is a country still dealing with internal issues. i think they are unfortunately playing out in some sectarian ways.

they still have difficult challenges. >> it seems that al qaeda in iraq is on the rise in the political process is frozen. when it comes to afghanistan, i know it is a fngrustra i the deink thinee agreement is a good one, it really resolves issues in a good way for us. my question really is, is not to time -- now the time, really be engaged in sequestration yako? >> i wish we weren't. i am right with you on this. have been constantly reminded, it is the law of the land. we have responsibility to deal with that line that reality. who made this lot, i think we have the ability, if we choose to replace it. between now and the end of this

year, we have got to deal with syria and we will talk about that in more detail. we have got to deal with how we end the war in afghanistan. general dempsey, wha ing look likn the way, let me thank you for your help on the detention issue. >> the well found a good resolution. what would losing like -- look like in afghanistan? >> the inability of the central government to control experiment areas and arteries. as well, i think it would be a loss if we did not have a long- term relationship with them. >> is more out being affected by this uncertainty we have created in the budget process? >> absolutely. >> the chairman and the joint chiefs of staff told us that we

are hurting morale by not having a better budget solution. i hope we will take that to heart. thank you for your honesty. secretary hagel -- what would you like to see the congress do this year, if you had a-3 item wisli, to help you confront the threats that we all face yako? >> i would start with some certainty on dealing with sequestration on a budget. , as we'ved get that said this morning and particularly the chairman's comments comments. i noted to some extent -- it would give us the time, the flexibility, to do what we need to do to adjust to the realities that we're adjusting to as we unwind from two wars and all the consequences that come with that. irt.would be my main >> and with this thought. an element on the

pakistan side of the border we have been dealing with. is that correct? >> yes. >> the drone program has been pretty successful. the infrastructure we have in e to identil ed movements in pakistan and afghanistan and to neutralize their ability to hit us, i hope we don't dismantle that. as we wind down the war in afghanistan, i hope we realize that this is the place that al qaeda still exists in that region and a stable afghanistan would be a tremendous win for us and the war on terror. i look forward to talking to both of you about troop levels, keeping the afghan army at 352. i think this will be one of the most important decisions a president makes in his second term. thank you all for your service. >> they do, senator. , senator.ou senator blumenthal. thank you for being here,

and thank you for your service to our country. i want to begin by following up one of the questions asked earlier, concerning sexual assault. i understand a report was under preparation, expected to be delivered at the end of march, regarding potential changes in recommendations. i know that you have answered a number of inquiries regarding sexual assault. i wonder if you could tell us if that report has been received and whether you can commit to providing it to us. >> thank you, senator. of the office of general counsel, as well as the office of the secretary of the air force was given to me. one of the requests was to give me their thoughts on a recommendation on how they

believe section 60 of the uc mj should the amended. they did. i accepted those recommendations. we are now moving forward on working with our counsel to draft legislation that we would ask the congress to look at in proposed changes to section 60. we announced this about a week ago. >> is that report available? is not exactly a report, it is recommendations, which i will get back to the general counsel's office and ask them. >> and you could provide them, i would appreciate it. thank you. now to an area i think is important to our national security. our submarine building program. we talked about it at various points. i believe that the president's budget envisions continuing to inld two submarines year

this fiscal year and going forward in the next. that you share this are more submarines important than ever to our strategic security. >> yes, i do. >> on another issue that has not really been if you him a -- covered, could bring us up to date on your views regarding what i view as an essential platform for our air superiority. >> you know the background of the problems and issues. i will -- won't traverse that territory. and with -- i met with the director of the program two weeks ago. it is my assessment that we are making progress.

we are getting to where we need to be. we are not there yet. ,ur partners, our other allies who went in with us on joining us in measurement -- mentournament -- procure have delayed most of the countries on their orders and theams moving forward. i think it should. we have put a lot of money in. it is the largest acquisition program we have ever had. i do think overall it is the answer for our services. >> i appreciate that. >> affected just add -- submarines truly are asymmetric advantage globally. no one comes anywhere near our capability to need to see. i think we have got to keep those asymmetric advantages prominent. joint strike fighter, i happen to meet the lieutenant colonel running the operational

squadron in edlund. i was kind of open-minded to hear whether he thought it was good or bad. i did not have any predisposed notions. he convinced me. we have not been attacked from the air since april 15, 1953. i am not going to be the chairman on whose watch that is reversed. i am an advocate. >> i deeply appreciate of your views on both submarines and joint strike fighter. i strongly share a commitment to this programs. not only because they are still strong and asymmetric emma but extraordinarily versatile. the joint strike fighter is a linchpin to our air superiority against economy aggression you just alluded to many years ago. i thank you for those answers

one of the reasons i was so proud to support you, mr. secretary, and so grateful that you have been confirmed is your commitment to the well-being of our troops. ,n health issues, healthcare their well being while they are in service. my viewhink you share that more needs to be done to enable and prepare them for life after your service. particularly on employment, skill training. iknow that the minute loss have left here with a -- here will be inadequate_-- inadequate on this score. if you could just give your view on how we are doing and where we should go in terms of caring --

preparing men and women who are going to leave the service in the near future for civilian life. >> thank you. for hisral dempsey comments as well. first, i share absolutely your comments for the reasons you noted. these are young men and women who have come forward and serve our country unselfishly with tremendous sacrifices. most cases they make with their families. we do have some responsibility here. we have programs now underway and continue to fund, to assist that transition. do more, yes. can the court made up better, yes. , yes.rdinate that better

you have my continued commitment on this issue. transition assistance programs are going well. bey canon improved upon. they are researched in our budget submissions. potential and on across states. there are initiatives to allow welders in the army and navy air force marines to the welders elsewhere. working on the spouse side as well. , from the time a young man or woman from 20 xi jinping to the book comes in, they- begin thinking about transitioning. >> thank you. thank you all for your testimony here today. >> senator king.

>> nice to see you. going the advantages of last, most of the other questions have been asked. mouest -- yesterday in tntitellige had a briefing by jim clapper on thedg goingforwd. he produced a chart which basically showed, started with fy 2012 and show the effects of the various -- the first sequester and the ongoing sequester, the president's budget and other things that have affected that. it was a very powerful chart. i would ask of you could check with him, perhaps, chart number 11. visual a similar breakdown of what your budget thes like, including

sequester on an ongoing basis. what does it do if we don't do anything about it? filed the suit for richelieu -- i found this information to be ry important. the munitions in the amount of funds available. the hobbled to see that data over the next 10 years, building in different places. look at the chart and you'll see what i am saying. >> we will. on thisther comment will sequester and budget. know this as well as i do. one of the first things you have to do in this situation is deferred maintenance. that is not saving. a cost someone will have to pay in the future. i am sure you agree. >> we do a great. you end up paying more.

as i said earlier, even things like training, and cost less to sustain training managers to restart. ad this question, i apologize for not being here the entire hearing. my sense is that this budgetary uncertainty is hurting morale. is that an accurate statement ?o related tol allow erode, the young men and women will not stick around very long. -- readiness to erode.

.> final question general dempsey has been at the end of vietnam and at the end of theold wa significawdown. gives us some lessons from those experiences that you think might be beneficial to us in this tuition. >> thank you for asking. although i'm not happy you me about how wrong i have been. hollownessn produced in different ways each time. first time it was manpower hollowness. the second time it was equipment. what we're seeing in this one is a readiness following of the ollowing- halloween -- h of the force. we have to be alert for what we're doing this time. . we have incredible young men and women in uniform areas the personal side is good.

our equipment has been recapitalized and reset over time. the other factor is, each time you start from a much lower start point. take the army as an example. one million men in uniform in vietnam. down to 781 by the end of the 1970's. 781 and drawdown in may 1990's to roughly 500,000. today we are starting at 490. we will be at 490 in the army active as a research of the result theelect -- a budget control act. we have got to remember that. >> thank you very much.

thank you for your testimony. one quick reference on senator blumenthal's reference to article 60. i believe it is understood that you are considering here, generic changes in terms of the convening authority's power. not just relating to sexual assault. a generic change for major offenses. >> that is right. >> senator imhoff is a quick last comment. senator lee had a concern. i don't think he had time to develop it. what degree are we going to be influenced by russia in our missile defense decisions that we make? because back to decisions as president made the first year he was president, to pull the rug out from under both poland and

the czech republic on the ground-based interceptor. at theemember talking would go he said we ahead and do this. it will really anger russia. can we be sure that you are not from to hold the rug out under us? and he did in the first year. i think it is a result of his effort to get along with russia. he answered his questions about not having that influence. i would call your attention -- i am sure mr. secretary that you with thecommunication defense minister whose name i never pronounce right from russia. he said that he wanted to carry on conversations with you as this developed as national missile defense. it implies that senator leahy

senatorate -- leave -- lee is accurate in his concerns. a couple slots -- thoughts. for some poland and the amount and that we had made regarding the phase adaptive approach. the ones remaining government were very supportive of that announcement. what we are doing. i spoke to the polish defense minister and the iranian defense minister about this. >> this all happen before you are on board. >> i am talking about the latest announcement made during the ground -- >> i was talking about four years ago, before you were -- >> there's nothing i can say about that. i can say, again, when the senator asked about this latest decision, i announced that decision as you know, the

conversation i had with the defense minister was after that decision was announced. he did say, one of the things he talked about was further missile defense issues. he talked about a number of things. that was not the intent of the call. announcementthe was made. >> ok. >> glad we are not afraid to talk to people. on a positive note. we will recess, in 30 minutes which will be 10 to 2:00. >> today the senate judiciary committee holds second hearing on immigration and from so- called gang of eight.

witnesses will crude -clude boocacgroups. it begins at 10:00 eastern on c- span. next, "two and a cause quote of .he washington post -- "q&a" >> this week on "q&a," rajiv chandrasekaran discusses his story describing the f-35 fighter jet, the defense department's newest and most expensive weapon system.