afghanistan and the bilatter rational security agreement. that is the center piece on how we unwind and transition. i think that is the correct course. there's a lot of things that b.s.a. be put in place, being one of them. we have of the be mindful to pakistan and so on. i will always be available to you if you want to call me or have a one-on-one privately on my thoughts or anyone in this committee. suffice to say i think we're on the right course. we're doing it the right way. it's not done yet, a lot of problems. a question was asked about the budget, how come we're not drawing that down because we're drawing the guys down. lot of expenses remain. every morning i get a report on afghanistan. the general was in two days ago

and we spent two hours with him. the chairman was there last week. there is no higher priority and the focus of d.o.d. in getting this right, getting our people out safely and doing what we got to do. you mention the green on blue attacks, those kinds of things, huge problems. we have to continue to deal with those. we have nato partners in there. the bigger question that came up today is what kind of force do we live behind? that is ain, assist, what the president wants. >> thank you, mr. secretary. . thank you very much mr. franks. >> thank you mr. secretary for your presence here today.

during the march 150 are press conference on missile defense, dr. jim miller stated "at that time, the threat was uncertain. we didn't know we would see today what we are now." it sounds like we were waiting on the north koreans to succeed in developing missile to attack the united states before we need to improve our own missile defenses. i have to ask the hard question, is this going to be the posture of the obama administration in dealing with evolving iranian's program. do we need to wait for success or iranians before we deploy additional capability? are we going to try to meet the threats before they are deployed? >> congressman, thank you. let me begin with this. you know what the

administration's policy is on iran. president obama preventing iran from developing a nuclear weapon. >> i don't think iranians are as clear as the president would like them to be. >> there's a lot of things we would like the iranians to be clear on. but i think the president has been clear on this, our allies have been clear on this, we have, as you know, many channels 5 king on this diplomatic p- plus 1 that has met recently. sanctions against the country, the u.n. support it. we're working all the dynamics on this. our fore structure in the arabian sea, our capabilities, ur military options.

we can't control what decisions they make. we're trying to have influence over the iranian's leadership decisions. if that will have the right effect, the right outcome, i don't know. again, i think the president's position on this is right and has been right and we'll continue to go forward on that basis. >> mr. secretary, i guess my concern is i appreciate the commitment to sanctions and those things. i believe they are right and good. but to rely upon them without the backup of clarity that the iranians that would understood, i believe it is a mistake. e've sanctioned north korea, practically into starvation for 50 years and we find ourself in the position that we are today. my hope was that we could categorize a commitment on

whatever they decide to do. that is my main concern. general dempsey, maybe i ask you a question now. we see lawmakers in south korea for them to develop their own nuclear weapon deterrence. 2/3's of the population con cure ith that strategy. i guess, i would like to ask you with that in mind, what actions do you think we should be taking? do you think that redeploying nuclear weapons to south korea to strengthen our assurances is the best way or do you think it is preferable for south korea to do what they would like to do to develop their own nuclear weapons capabilities? ? we're not encouraging any of our

allies to develop -- we've been clear in the deterrence. i think the actions we took with b-52's was a clear demonstration on that. we've been working with south korea on their guidelines to give them a capability to range than they were able to range previously. i think we're in the right range military to military. >> are you able to address the issue of u.s. nuclear we'lls in south korea? >> we do not advocate nuclear weapons to the peninsula. >> thank youment mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask a couple of questions on the readiness front, if i may. i appreciate everything that our

industrial, organic base provides. we all understand how important that is. obviously, when it comes to our arsenals, depos, our plants, etc. and thinking about going forward in the theavepbt we have another constituent gentcy we have to be ready. that industrial organic base is going to be very, very important as itself shown to be the case with the last two conflicts. i think to pe serve our readiness we have -- preserve our readiness that it stays ready during peacetime as well. mr. secretary, you indicated that reductions in the civilian work force would be based on analysis to preserve capabilities, we have to do those at the depos, the arsenals, whatever the case is. you discuss how the department

would preserve those capabilities in the base and ensure that we have maintain the work force, which is essential. can you elaborate on that? >> congressman, thank you. i agree. i think the entire eliminate of d.o.d. greece with your emphasis on how critical it is to preserve that industrial organic base. there is noish dwhrue. how do we -- issue there. how do we do with it the issues we're facing? that is part of the balancing that the general noted two or three times this morning. how do you balance this and keep that readiness and preserving in the chairman's comments that he got into this morning. preserve the ability for the longer term, for the future? fur you erode that base then

you're going to have a huge problem. one thing i noted that the chiefs said we are consuming our readiness at the cost of the longer term as we allow that base, if that happens to erode. so we're going to do everything we can to preserve that base because it's critical to our future capabilities. >> we know if we have a conflict down the road and we let that base erode it is going to be more costly in the end to get it back up and running. we need to keep that in mind as we make these decisions. i appreciate that. one other question i have about the national guard and reserve. i appreciate your response earlier, secretary hagel but i would like to turn to general dempsey and drill down deep are. we understand how important the reserve has been in the missions they have been on.

we understand how important they are for domestic responses, tornadoes, earthquakes, all the rest. if you could, general, talk about little more about the coming years and how you see active duty versus reserve components and to keep those reserve folks in the event -- i assume we're going look at them as an operational force. how does that play out moving forward? >> hopefully, it won't be active versus reserve. >> we have a concern about that with respect of the air national guard. >> i keep it in mind -- i absolutely have it in mind. the idea here is we take a look at the total force. i really believe in the total force. we determine which capables have to be immediate available and those that have to be in the active component. those that can wait, we migrate

those elsewhere. the chief's and general grass, the chief of the national guard -- burrow, if we go to full sequestration or something less, all the components will be effected. we will go after this answer as a total force. >> thank you. one last point. with to associate myself congressman wilson and the benefits. i know that is something we have to make tough decisions and there's going to be tradeoffs and we're going to have limited budgets. there's no doubt. these are folks who volunteered and we have to make sure we treat them with the dignity and the respect they deserve. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with miads.eals

you assured that you would uphold funding it, what has changed and why are you moving forward with it? >> what has changed is the appropriation bill that passed a few weeks ago that put the money back in the budget to fulfill that last year commitment. our office, they told me we're obligated to finish that contract as a result of the appropriation with the money. that is what has changed. >> i think you need to get new lawyers. i believe it's pretty clear, in e ndaa that we said in the final obligation in 2012 and the

language in the prohibition on the funds. in addition to that, it is foolish for us to be spending almost $400 million on a system that no one is going to buy. in the times we face today with north korea, in this case rattling their missiles. we need to focus on missile defense. i see in the president's budget cut over $500 million in missile defense. to me, this is fool toish spend $400 million on a system that is never going to be deployed. >> i'm not here to defend it but i would respond this way aside from what i've said about our legal council advising me that we're obligated to make that last payment. two other points -- >> they say you're obligated under what law? >> appropriation. this committee we write the

laws. the appropriation cut checks. so the law is clear. >> thank you. that was the advice i got from council we went into it in detail and this was the decision a made. there are a couple of things to this to respond you. again, i'm not here to defend that system. that was in place before i got here. if we didn't fulfill that commitment there would be litigation costs and penalty costs that might have gone more than what we're going to do to fulfill our obligations to our on ers, italy and germany that. i've gotten hit and will get hit again with questions on it and should be. what did we learn from this? this applicable for us

to go forward? there's a lot of things we can use. i know that does not satisfy your question. >> the fact there that is a 2005 memorandum that clearly states that the responsibilities would be subject to the availability funds appropriated for such purposes. we passed a law that prohibts that. so it seems to me that your lawyers are wrong again. as far as the components of interest, the m.s.e. interceptor is something we want and we're integrating it into the missile system. the other thing is we want the 360-degree radar is under a stop work order because of funding of the germans and the italians. the american people, the taxpayers are paying for something that is never going to be deployed while we have harvested the technology that we wanted on the system. so again, we're going down a path here. we've got north korea. everybody has seen the news. who know what is that crazy guy

is going to do. we have to make sure we're beefing up the missile system and the president's budget is cutting it by $500 million. i think you need to go back and talk to the lawyers and i think we can sue and we're going to get into litigation and your resfonlt the american people first and foremost geant another crew of attorneys in here to make sure they understand the law. >> i will ask them again. thank you. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to return to the issue raised by mr. turner, the issue of sexual assault in the military. commend u, mr. turner, you mr. hagel for wants to reform the article so soon after coming into the position and the

proposal to eliminate the ability to change findings after a court-martial. we were shocked by a military convening authority, a general whoed that this authority under the unified code to throw out a jury verdict in the sexual assault case. i appreciate your commitment in solving the problem. py would like to thank you germ dempsey for your efforts to prevent sexual assault in the military. we appreciate your visit to the hill last year to announce changes to the way the military handles the sexual assault. i admire what you have in your written testimony to explore new options. we all know the numbers but to give you a sense of the enor myty of the issue there was a gathering of women and men who had been assaulted while serving in the military. it was here in washington under

the umbrella l.a. of a service organization that has worked on is and i walked into a ballroom who had been assaulted in the military. it made it very real. we've been working on it for years, those who are new to it, those who have been here over many years and we've had the support of our chairman, ranking member smith. as a result we put a lot of tools in the tool box for the services to give you more tools to finally come to a better place. last year's defense authorize included language that created a an independent review panel. i know you mentioned it secretary hagel in your written testimony. how will you go about the process of appointing people to this panel so we have a group

that is really willing to be bold and thoughtfully examine military culture and the uniform code of military justice so we can get a better handle on stopping these crimes? >> congresswoman, thank you. thank you for your leadership. i'm well aware of what you've done and continue to do and we thank you. i look forward to continuing to work with you. we have a lot more to do as you all know. on the sexual assault panel question. i'm currently reviewing a list of names that have been brought forward my office that list started to accumulate, actual before i arrived at the pentagon. it is has come from different services, general council's office, all the components of

d.o.d. to reflect individuals who understand the issue, aware of this issue, has something to contribute if they are part of this panel. i'm currently reviewing those names. i think according to the law, the secretary has five dez in thes on the panel. i think four comes from the congress, if i recall. i will make a decision on those panel members shortly. we'll be letting the congress know about that decision. >> well, i would encourage you to get a diversity of opinions, those who can take a clear-eyed look at the services and what they are doing, not those -- they are remarkable institutions. these crimes do such great harm to the wonderful work that the services seek to do in

protecting our country. i think you can stand up to the harsh scrutiny from those from the outside as well and move ahead in the that can make a dirves in the long run. -- difference in the long run. it just doesn't serve you well. i enyourge -- encourage you to be very bold in the group that you select. >> i will tell you that the group will be diverse and this is the whole point in a panel like this and that's why i'm taking time to personally go through it. >> thank you. >> secretary hagel, welcome to your new responsibility. i have to at least talk to you about auditing the financial tatements of the department of

defense. the risk is change of leadership and with sequester and all the other challenges out there this issue might be own of those that slip to a back burner. i appreciate the letter you sent me the other day but on the record that you're committed as secretary panetta was and getting this done. >> i'm just as committed as secretary panetta. i'm not near as smart as secretary panetta was on these things. he had a long history of these kinds of matters starting in this instukes, as you know some of you served with him on budget issues and statements that made sense. so, yes, i will pick up where he left off. i already am. the comptroller and i have had many discussions about this as well as others in the institutions. everyone is committed in getting this done.

everyone is exactly where secretary panetta was and where we'll continue to be. >> thank you, secretary. i appreciate that and that is music to my ears. i know you have you hard decisions ahead but this is one i appreciate your personal support. i want to publicly acknowledge bob heal's work that he has done on this issue for years. he's done great work. let me turn to syria a little bit. it's been reported last month that syria used chemical weapons or chemical weapons were used. the president says that is one of his red lines. if that is the case. if a red line is crossed and we have to enact the plans i'm assuming that general dempsey and his team have put in place to do whatever it is we need to do, how do we pay for that? i think the chairman has sent the

white house a letter asking that, if we do something like that in these times of budgetary issues, that ought to be a separate appropriation to do that rather than you taking that out? can you give us thoughts on that? >> thank you. i will let the chairman respond specifically but let's start with the question on how do you pay for it if we do something and what we have to do and what we would do. yes, i think it is clear that supplemental would be required. again, i'm going to leave the specifics to the chairman. preparing, we are have prepared, continue to prepare plans for the president, all options on all situations as to syria using chemical weapons.

as you know, the u.n. has em paneled a body to go in but that is not moving forward quickly go in and investigate, take a look. what we have said publicly and what we believe, the united states, we have not detected use of chemical weapons. we stay close to that, obviously, if that line is crossed then we've got a different situation. then you get into the next set of dimensions to this. if chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands. it is a very unstable, unclear situation in syria. a lot of bad elements in play there. so this is a serious and complicated problem that we all have. the borders around there, the refuges so this has to be handled carefully.

i think the way we're proceeding here is responsibly but the bottom line is we may have to take some different action if that is required. let me stop there not to use your time and ask general dempsey for his thoughts. >> i will reaffirm what he said. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. 2014 aring is about the department of defense request for the budget. as soon as we mention budget and the premise that you have in it i'm stuck. let me explain why. first of all, the assumption that the sequester will be appealed and that is what your budget is based on. that's one thing. we assume that the sequester would be repealed before we went

into this continued resolution cycle and it wasn't. the second part of it is the budget control act of 2011 has a second component, which is a cap on spend napping brings us back to the discussion we've had many times in this committee, what is the $487 billion that we've been promised, what does that represent? mr. secretary, in your speech before the national defense university you call it a reduction -- you said to reduce the department's plan spending by $487 billion. that sounds to me like the caps of the budget control agent. we're going to hold down our spending. then also part of this proposal is $150 billion worth of savings. my problem is, i need to understand how all of these interact with each other?

if the fundamental assumption is we must get rid of sequestration, we will have colleagues that want to know how we're going to pay for the $1.2 trillion in terms of defense? i understand the first two years was a 50% burden by the defense. the president comes up with a proposal of $1.8 trillion of which the defense is going to comprise $150 billion. but in order for us to get there we're building on this on a series of assumptions. if you can start by first telling me what is the $487 billion? do you intend for that to be applied to the caps or do you intend for that to be part of sequestration satisfaction? where does that go? after that, then why -- if we're doing all of this why do we need to talk about the "b" word, which no one likes.

>> that is probably three or four hours worth. you asked all the write questions. let me start with your first question, assumption that sequester would not occur. that's the whole point, again, of why i directed a strategic choice in management review. as you know, you noted it in bubblingts control act 2011 that's law. so we're looking at that possibility as the months tick off, the real possibility that's what we're going to have to live with. that's part of the review. we're not assuming anything. that's why we under taken the review, partly. second, why then is that the case you came up with the budget you did? well, as you know, the house/senate resolutions are

essentially the same number for defense. it is not that the president is out there somewhere it is consistent with the resolution that the house and senate passed. probably more fundamental as the chairman know so very well it takes a long time to build a budget. you knt build a budget in a month or two. . you have all the pieces that have to play into everything. so that is a component here that sometimes gets overlooked. so we're looking at everything. we're not assuming anything. as a matter of fact, one of the points i made in the review and i said in the speech that i gave is that we need to challenge every past assumption. i used that technology for the obvious reasons. the $487 billion referred to -- i don't have my speech in front

of me but i was referring to was what d.o.d. started to absorb over a 10-year period as a result of a previous agreement between congress and the president. that's what it i was referring to. if i had not further complicated it -- thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and your contributions. secretary hagel, i would like to ask you a question first. on march 15 when you announced that we would be able to have additional intercepters you were standing next to the vice chairman of the chiefs of staffs. kn08 "we believe the probably has the rain todge reach the united states." would you agree with that statement?

>> i don't are all him -- i was thrnt -- i don't know if i was there or not. i'm not sure if he was referring to hawaii, which is part of the know. states, as we so i don't know. certainly, as i said there are things we don't know. so i'll ask him if he was -- >> let me help. do you recall the launch of the north korean satellite into space, that had a third stage. it was the third stage that was the breakthrough for the north koreans. i think what he was saying was now they have that third stage technology, apparently under control it could migrate to the

kn08. >> thank you. i would like to ask me next question to you, general dempsey. there was a study that finished last month and now while the contents of the study are classified the conclusions and certain statements are not classified. quoting from the unclass fide portion, which i believe has not yet been made public. they say "d.i.a. assesses with moderate confidence that the north has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low." do you agree with that by d.i.a.? >> congressman, with the number that you put on the front end of this i can't touch that one. it has not been released. let me take that one for the record. >> make i caught you off guard.

you've had so many questions today and i understand this is a lengthy process. but they concluded and this is public -- this is unclassified so i can make it public. "d.i.a.th assesses that the north has nuclear weapons cape ability of deferry by nuclear weapons however the reliability will be low." >> so your question is if i agree with it? i haven't seen it and since it is not publicly released so i choose not comment on it. >> ok. then let me ask my third question. secretary hagel, if we didn't have sequestration limiting the funds that the d.o.d. has to operate with, would you prefer -- would you require, would you order that we do have two aircraft carriers present in the

arabian golf. as you know, we're down to one because of funding issues. >> i would add vice the president on that specific issue as i do on others, based on the advice i would get from the hairman. as to what they think we need in order to fulfill the strategic interests and our capabilities of readiness to be prepared. >> do you believe that having ly one aircraft carrier is a limiting factor in our ability to be an acting force and act as a deter rents in that part of the world? >> no, i do not. i base that on conversations i've had with the chairman and others. >> lastly in the short time i

have, it's been told to me, admitly by unanimous sources in parts of the d.o.d. some of the civilian furloughs were not required in their initial plans for funding but they were told to revise those plans and to come up with civilian furloughs. is there any truth to that kind of statement? >> congressman, i don't know. i have not heard that but let me ask the comptroller. thank you. >> i'm not aware of that specific direction. we have not made decisions on furloughs. we're trying to look at a policy that minimizes adverse affects on our mission. that is the key goal. within that and to the extent it does not violate it in we want to see consistency and fairness. if we're going to jump into this pool we're going to jump together. but no final decisions have been made on furloughs. >> thank you.

time has expired. >> thank you, i'm pleased to hear of your commitment of the maintaining the national guard reserves as the operational force. i applaud your commitment to that. my question actually has to do with the acquisition process that d.o.d. under gos. i also sit on the oversight and government reform committee. over the last three months i've been in congress, i've heard a lot of testimony with issues on d.o.d. acquisition processes. with the f-35 process, the concur kent acquisition process. has been called acquisition malpractice. 're moving on to towards a sixth generation aircraft some day. i see also that we're planning only to select one can tractor for the enjine nearing and

manufacturing phase for the ground combat vehicle program instead of two. that cuts cost initially in the long run it places the project in a single contractor. i also see in the budget that you have submitted that we're boosting the ship procurement to $3.2 billion even though naval commanders have said it is not a sufficiently -- let me see, does not have sufficient capability. can you talk in the light of sequestration and the current budget constraints that you're going to be looking at in terms of the defense acquisition process to see if there is not cost savings there? >> thank you. i appreciate your comments. yes, there are save thags need to be found and will be found. stepping back for a moment and i

will get to some of the specific projects. as you know, starget with the current deputy secretary of he worked hard to put in place a whole new accountable acquisition system. it is imperfect, i mean the dollars here are immense, the projects are immense. you know all the complications. it is no excuse. -- excuse. many factors are starting to play out at the same time. holding contractors more accountable. taking a more realistic look at the kind hoff acquisitions we started with -- kind of

acquisitions that we started with. we started within an interesting theory but we were not ready to start the program. after billions of dollars i think we have it on track. i just met with the project director yesterday for an hour yesterday to see where we are. the costs are coming down. there's good news here. the report that just came out that you've seen with your own committee assignments. it was pretty comp me men tarry to our acquisition systems, imperfect we'll do more. it is a big area as i said in my opening statement. acquisition procurement, research development, all of that is 1/3 of our budget. it is huge amount of budge. what do we need?

do we really need this? let me stop there and see if our comptroller has anything wants to add to this. thank you. >> just briefly, on the f-35 we've refazed it significantly to try to reduce the con currency, i think we've had the discussion before. some of the con currency is right, it is hard to judge how much. we don't want to string it out. ground combat vehicle, tough call. but the one we believe that the savings we a achieved were worth it because they allowed us to sustain existing funds for the ground combat for the army. i understand the tradeoff that you're saying. i think we are committed to the combat ship. i believe it is an important part of the navy and will be for many years. >> are you going to continue to

concur kent acquisition process such as the sixth generation fighter aircraft? >> probably some con currency in almost any major project. i think we you have to back it up. it is very expensive. the >> thank you. >> thank you so much for joining as. it is great to be with the year for the commissioning of the arlington this past week. i want to focus on your comments. weng back to the 2005 braque will not enjoy savings until 2018. $2.8 billion in

the cost of the proposed braque. i want to get your perspective of whether you believe in this theyof uncertainty if determined where we need to be strategically. this is really the time to do it based on the recent history? the right time to pursue it? is the right question. that was discussed for hours. i was not part of that decision. supported it when i was in the senate. ask him toto specifically address the savings

issue. is this worth the jus? on the rationale at this time. i think it is important that we look at everything. if we are drawing down our force structure and making all the strategic decisions that have are made, and i know there disagreements on specifics. that is where we are going. me logical that we will have to look overhead. ?hy do you need the basis the strategic priorities? how do you implement those priorities? i do not know how you could come out if any other way without

some type of review? i understand the politics of this. it is very in perfect. you know it. i know it. it is an important time to do it. i think there are savings that you get out of it. important to get some sense of our leaders, they have to have some sense of what that inventory is. have blared commands on commands on commands. we have had over a 10-year time frame of an uninterrupted flow ood. we're going to have to do things differently. let me take the rest of the time to ask him to respond to

the specific numbers. >> let me try to answer it. we spent $35 billion. $4 billion aabout year when it is fully in place. we will not break even because of that huge sum. we do not intend for this to continue. 2005 build a new facilities. it was response from carl 9/11. a ha this is going to be classic realignments. if we do not start mapping get going, some secretary of defense is going to need the money and it will not be there. we're sitting $12 billion a year.

those will go on as long as we do not reopen the basis. we have to do it even though times are tough. believe we need to move forward. finish with this. in your effort to initiate the strategic choices and management review to avoid unacceptable you're willing to accept a fundamental change. i understand the concept here after three rounds of budget cuts, it only avoid unacceptable risk to ways, either restoring resources are reducing emissions. otherwise it'll result in war. what kind of fundamental change do you have in mind? can you name the one reform

that has proven to be unwise? >> the time has expired. if you could please take this one for the record. >> thank you. >> thank you. as a former enlisted guy, i like to congratulate you on your selection of secretary of defense. i think it brings a great perspective that is needed. dempsey, i heard you say that post 2014 in afghanistan we're looking at a force of 8000 or 12,000 folks. what percentage of those approximately will the u.s. forces? nato's debt that coloration was that range. it has been 2/3, 1/3.

i believe you answer the the costs ist why not going down substantially. cost wasated that due to repatriating the equipment. that youunderstanding can give our take $120,000. the cost to rebuild one is given to take $130,000. what considerations have been giving to not repatriate that transition it are whatoying it in place that is your analysis of the cost

factors? >> in some cases it is up. there is a very deliberate process for taking a look at all kinds of equipment and material in afghanistan and making a determination whether to transition it, celtic, bring back, or destroy it. the deputy ofy defense. todaym what i have heard in testimony we have talked ends of your

department. we have the ways and means committee. serious mismatch between our ends and our ways and means? are we seeing that's? if there is, what is your analysis of what we need to do to airline those in ways? thank you for your earlier comments. in that question, i think you have really define the purpose of the review. down to yours come question. is there a match match? is there a disconnect? the expectations of our offense

-- ends, is that distorted light from the beginning the way we're going to provide resources? that is very much the intent aside from the budget issues and prioritized and prior t researches. really gets to the ways and means. what do i expect to come out of this review? i do not see what we're going to do. i did not ask because i had the answer. i ask because i did not have the answers. i do not know what the answers are going to be here. i know enough about this business or any business that you cannot continue what we are doing with less resources in an uncertain world and less

flexibility and time. there is still a question you can show me how that will work. i think your question is the centerpiece. we will be having further discussions with this committee on what the review shows and what decisions will mate. >> thank you. the vote has started. we're not going to finish everyone. , and went have the rest of you if you will please submit your questions for the record. respond.uld please i would appreciate it. thank you off for being here

today. i support your call for a base realignment. we have restructured our forces we can exact sum sufficient sees -- efficiencies. is ai would bulike commitment to let at overseas bases which are not a part. the only look at bases within the united states. lotink we can accomplish a of our goals, whether it is our 28,000 troops in south korea are 79,000 still in europe. as opposed to overseas permanent military bases. >> thank you. i agree with you.

a are currently undertaking review and have been on that very issue. do we need them? can we consolidate them? everything he said we are doing. to your point about allies and tally bring value to those relationships, which not have to carry that overhead. we are exactly right exactly right. long before i got there he has been talking about agility, flexibility, a capability. it must factor in our relationships with our allies. that is why i responded the way i did to the nato questions. are doing with our other

allies around the globe trying to help them build capacity for someelves so that we have partners with some capability. >> i know you have talked about compensation for our personnel. what i would like is a consideration with a greater emphasis right deployed by times overseas. civil affairs, it seemed that there's enough in terms of compensation. i think in terms like has are the -- has a display, we need to look at increasing those instant of the across the board type of

increases that we do. >> i would like to comment. we need a balance. they have an incredibly stabilizing effect. and we do not want to become a sanctuary america. we have to be out in about. the question is how much rotation. we are looking at every possible aspect of compensation. we are looking at the entire spectrum of confrontation issues. >> particularly in afghanistan today, let me mention one last

point. the cost side in terms of this they are looking at slowing down the system. the tension is as high as it is. i am concerned we're forcing out people that are good performers and have a lot of experience. i think we ought to take a look at slowing thadown the system ad allow people to have more time as opposed to the system we have now which i think is fairly rapid. " i spent some time as she sat in the army. army sotrying to the fast.

this is much higher than you would want them to be at a profession. changing retention. this is competing with the reality that we have to reduce this by 100,000. i will take this to heart. there are some competing narratives. >> thank you. service both your past and present. as a country we continue to be in our global objectives in this fiscal environment. to the credit of the senior military, there have been a lot of efforts to reduce administrative costs and those

things. i closing sequestration which have viewed as a mindless policy. and let's say i was not here. i do not believe anybody can be supportive of allowing the sequester to continue but the pro-national defence. they're not congruent in my mind. one of our premier pilot training programs, this plays a key role in readiness. some of the questions have been tinge with partisanship. it is all is disheartening.

you have seen more than probably any others. i want to talk about finding a better way to ensure that we take care of america's core. these are our kids. these are our sons and daughters. we have lost a few folks over the course of the last few years. not necessarily in appreciate that. ouronvince people about sincerity or efforts. as a not been paid so well. awant to make sure we have clearly defined mission understando that we

at the end of the day our first sleep.emost, i would not my little boy is 8. how do we make sure our parents and brothers and sisters are getting as much sleep as possible ta? >> i wish i was wise enough to give you a really good answer. i am not. generation is faced with a set of challenges and threats. no generation has escaped that. each of us who has a great have ane of serving immense responsibility not to fail. you are a hero.

make mistakes in policy. it will be imperfect. andou look at all of this is about your people. that always has to come first. for me this is the starting point. i am not the only one. general dempsey has put a lifetime into this. that is where you start. then you work out word on what is relevant, what is real.

sometimes we do not discipline ourselves as much as we should. history is going to repay the last 12 years. i am not going to get into that. i let history deal with that. did we think through all those things that the consequences we are living va and ouris the country. there are consequences to actions. it is sometimes lost in the overall rush to find a quick decision. it is just an emergency. the world we live and is

different. eisenhower had some luxury of having a little time. that is not a good answer. it is the only one i can give you. >> thank you very much. secretary hagel and hale, thank you for your patience and willingness to share your time. this committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]