tv Washington This Week CSPAN May 13, 2013 2:00am-6:01am EDT
into our system to start a car. >> we have our campaign to draw education against texting and driving. to bring the message home in a safe environment about difficult and dangerousness of texting and driving. see the technology that helped to shape of the oc. -- public policy. at a joint european parliament committee hearing, nato secretary-general anders fell rasmussen told members that europe needed to affect its diplomacy with military effort. he said europe would lose its credibility and influence in the world if there was no real commitment in security and defense. the secretary-general spoke before a joint promontory committee.
-- joint parliamentary committee. >> we have an exchange of views with secretary-general of nato on the future of european defense, a nato perspective. i will come secretary-general rasmussen to this meeting of our committee and they said committee of security and -- and the subcommittee of security and defense. six countries are represented. is almost a year since mr. rasmussen last [indiscernible] of nato chicago summit. this exchange of views is
particularly timely bearing in mind the challenges of nato in light of the important discussion of european defense that is expected in the european council. i would underline that these two issues, operational challenges range from somalia to desire -- -- so my and zaire somalia and zaire. i would remind that the european parliament has been consistent in argument that the eu and nato are complementary , eurozations for european atlantic, and global security interest. i would emphasize that it is
important to be on these declaration and treaty provisions before declining budgets and [indiscernible] undermineabilities our ability to take care of security, especially in our neighborhood and further afield. that, in the fact december, the european council provides an important opportunity for further and deeper defense cooperation toward the of the mentation of permanent structures cooperation for the greater use of coalition of the willing. use battleow to groups. and, of course, for lasting partnerships like the one with nato.
let me express concern about the escalation in attacks in afghanistan as we enter the fighting season. we've saw [indiscernible] last week of seven nato soldiers. toould ask how you think the cure the situation will develop -- how the security situation will develop. i stop here and i leave you the floor for your presentation. thank you very much and welcome again. >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. it is really a great treasure for me to once again meet members of the two committees and persons from foreign relations and the fence committees of international
parliaments. we meet regularly actually. so i am glad to see many familiar faces. and i am looking forward to another lively discussion. let me make just a few points. a strongy committed to and open europe. i firmly believe that europe defensee a strong, and policy. and i believe that there will be a european council dedicated to security and defense next december. it will actually be the first time and start of the global financial crisis, the heads of state and government focus on of a strongimension
and open europe. .ut, let me also be frank makeropean nations do not inirm commitment to invest security and defense, then all a strengthened european defense and security policy will just be hot air. >> first, we europeans must understand that soft power alone is really no power at all. hot capabilities to back
off its diplomacy, europe will lack the ability and inference. a globalisk being spectator rather than the powerful global actor that it can be and should be. in the experience [indiscernible] is a case in point. restoring stability has required a mix of hard and soft power. we saw this with the conclusion of the recent agreement between belgrade and [indiscernible] the agreement was brokered ride the european union -- brokered by the european union. but both parties wanted assurance that nato would
guarantee the security to implement the agreement. a continuing decline in european defense and european defense budgets will inevitably in the declining role for our confidence on the global stage. and europe will be unable to participate in crisis management. is byly way to avoid this holding the line on defense spending to stop the cuts and to start reinvesting in security as soon as our economies recover. meanwhile, we need to make better use of what we have. o mo together as europeans within the european
union and within nato. to deliver the critical defense of abilities that are too expensive for any individual country to deliver alone. , having the right capabilities is important. but it is not enough. we must also have the political will to use them. to deal with security challenges on europe's doorstep, to help manage crises further away that might affect us here at home and to better share the security curtain with our north american allies. european nations
need to develop a truly global perspective -- a global perspective. we must not he come absorbed by art domestic economic woes. he must look outward, not inward. and we need europe and north america to talk more regularly, more openly, and more frankly. transit formique that is nato. and between nato and the european union. , the european council in december should that is bothrope able to act and is willing to act and it should encourage the european union and nato to do
to consult more, coordinate more, and cooperate more. will requirere strong political results, including here in this house as well as in national parliaments. i am confident that we can rise to this challenge. to our we owe it taxpayers and voters to give them the best security that and with that as an introduction, i look very to a stimulating discussion. iq. -- thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, secretary-general, for your
speak and emma for myself, i want to give my right -- and, for myself, i want to give my regards for you coming to us again. >> thank you. >> i am too late and then too fast. [laughter] >> thank you. i won't take any questions away from you. i would like to begin by thanking the secretary-general for his welcome and useful immense at our committee meetings. hank you for extremely clear message on european capabilities and the joint
security defense policy. i have taken note of the fact that you would like to see the policy developed in a vigorous fashion. your speech is very much along the lines of what the u.s. secretary of defense robert gates said two years ago when he was in brussels. he called on europeans to do more, to do better, particularly when it comes to budgets and capabilities. it is indeed a major concern for us all. we are all familiar with the institutional difficulties when it comes to the difficulties between us, europeans, and nato. we know that institutional difficulties cannot be resolved in the short term or easily given -- or easily. given that fact, what can we
expect in more coordination between the two institutions? of thee you think possible or existing areas where we can work more closely together? let me finish up with a comment on a recent trip to north would -- to northwood. we visited the hq there. we met with the maritime command, the nato maritime for [indiscernible] and the nato presence in the indian ocean. so i am thinking about the post 2014 post-afghanistan period. nato is looking to fresh arises
at any cost. is that a reasonable approach? has that been happily correlated with international organizations? is there consensus within nato on this approach? nato plant area does to become more active? thank you. >> thank you. i can't too, would like to thank the nato secretary-general -- i, too, would like to thank these forhe nato secretary-general his presence. deployed tosoldiers afghanistan. our condolences. the europeaneral, union should not just be a military power, but a political and economic force as well.
can beopean union effective and credible in the way it tackles the new threat. so it must be responsible in the positions it takes. todo, however, struggle mobilize 45,000 soldiers for operations. i have two specific questions. -- on syria,ious what analysis have you drawn of the israeli operations in syria? security inffect neighboring countries, such as turkey? what are the lessons that can be drawn?
and what might the impact the on syria? second question -- i would like to pick up on what he said. what is the scenario for afghanistan post-2014? to what extent is nato working on smart defense and how is this compatible with the sharing approach that the european union is applying to security? >> a member of the european
parliament, member of the polish senate and the defense minister now has the floor. >> it is a great leisure -- a great pleasure and i understand the contribution to nato and the european union's [indiscernible] i have three remarks. the first one is about the necessary of cooperation not only in operations, but also in security of europe. militaryes in strategy may change. that we should, it in europe, should deliver more. the americans, after the changes of priorities, their
strategy expressed at the beginning of last year as well as the shift of priorities to far eastern, the region of the pacific, they wait for more contribution from europe. my question is about how do you of right now the performance our defense? this is a crucial initiative that we delivered rain last year. my second remark is about the nato-euro relations. the the working dialogue established several years ago is a working dialogue post up a working dialogue without special legal regulations -- working dialoguea working dialot
special legal regulations that should be maintained for the benefit of the european union and for nato. -- whathe perspectives is the perspective of this in your opinion? and what is the necessary corporation that is crucial not only for both institutions, but also for capabilities of particular national states, especially in this year of sharing and smart defense? say thesetent we can two initiatives are harmonized right now? because they should be harmonized in the progress of both. thank you very much.
>> thank you for that very interesting speech. you said nato was a unique transatlantic for him -- transatlantic forum. there is no doubt about that. and when i think is most encouraging is that nato has concentrated on the new challenges of cybersecurity and the like. yet there is a general view that last season's thing. the usa turning in on itself has, to some next bend best to some extent, downgraded nato. to what extent is the united states now less interested in europe? my second question, pooling and
sharing and the european enthusiasm for that, my question , in research institutions close to nato, has any research been done into how much taxpayer money is being used for the upkeep of old buildings, old equipment, defense infrastructure which is now obsolete? i think there, might the more enthusiasm for pooling and sharing. but my question is -- can you tell me, is there any research into this? to do research on how much public money is wasted in this way?
>> thank you, chair. i would like to thank the nato secretary-general for setting out his position clearly. i would like to thank the secretary general for his comments, brief sustained comments that were very powerful words. he spoke of the need for europe to make a greater investment in its own security. it is true that written sharing is -- that burden-sharing is a two-way street in connection with nato post up this is -- with nato. this is an age old question that predates the fall of the berlin wall. many years later, when i note is that, despite it all, nothing
major has changed. as things stand, the u.s. is clearly setting its sights, its strategic sites on the pacific. i had just come back from india. i could sum up political sentiment in india on europe by saying the following -- india believes in the u.s., believes in major states, but not in the european union. i am summarizing, simplify, but that is more or less the message. there are threats facing us, surrounding us. of thee > every even if opinion is not aware of this. look at what is happening in syria. tocourse, we do not wish see a military intervention there, but it might be necessary if certain forces lay
their hands on chemical weapons. so it would be interesting to hear your assessment of the tuion. now, head of the eu summit on security, i would love to hear from you on behalf of nato -- would you call on your to develop european defense policy? military resources and budgets are dwindling. estimated france serious disastrous choices if we continue to operate under national flights only. we will not have a credible defense policy in europe. the time has come to pool our resources, particularly in light of the dwindling budget. but this is not the discourse we here in national parliament
when discussing the economic crisis. the fact is that this is a vital move. will nato, therefore, clearly adopt such a position? that would be a first. supported countries doing more within nato. will nato call for integration of the military resources of the new member states? >> thank you. >> good afternoon. two points -- the first, we all appreciate that an impediment to stronger relations between is always theu
wood, would -- to north woul could you say something about ofo's approach to the future the atalanta program -- they adalanta program against the somalian pirates? if we withdraw from the operations next year, the pirates will return. do you think that there are fromns that we can draw the experience in the somali
union. mr. click asked questions in the same direction. i think we have three areas in which we need very close cooperation and coordination between nato and the european union. first is operations. inoperate together ighanistan, in kosovo, and also have to say, despite all of the overall political problems, challenges in our cooperation, we managed coordinate smoothly in theater. so leo: isaf work efficiently together enough against a -- in afghanistanhey trk together
in a very efficient manner in kosovo to love each other. i think, in daily life, we managed to get along. closely, we need coronation when it comes to development of capabilities. that leads me to answer the questions about smart defense and pooling and sharing that several of you mentioned. it was mentioned smart defense pooling and sharing. mr. click mentioned that. we have to ensure that we do not , bute parallel programs actually complement each other and ensure efficient use of taxpayers money. unproductive competition, no duplication of work.
and i could mention an excellent anmple of how we have impact on what i would call a productive division of labor. at the chicago summit laster, year in nato allies committed themselves -- european-nato allies committed themselves. overall, we have a lot of capacity within nato when it comes to air-to-air. what we capabilities -- need is a european investment in that capability. so european allies made that commitment in chicago. that is an excellent example of how we can divide labor. no reason for nato to embark on that. that is for the european defense agency. we need more cooperation and consultation and coordination when it comes to politics.
an absurdeally have situation. in informal meetings, we are only allowed to discuss one issue, one issue, bosnia. because the eu conducts an operation in bosnia within the berlin framework as it is called. i will not go into the technical details. the bottom line is that this is the only issue that we are allowed to discuss in formal meetings. and those meetings take place , that is without secure participation. and for the same reason, the eu is reluctant to have two many of those meetings with only 26 out of 27 members. if we suggest to discuss other issues of relevance, kosovo, for instance, then we can only do it in an -- in informal
meetings. that is where we are. that leads me to the conclusion that, unless we find a solution to the cyprus problem, we will absurde to have this situation. so here is really an issue or we should move forward. i have previously tabled some pregnant proposals as to how we can move forward. but i have to realize that to find the lyrical solution, we need the partners in cyprus to find each other. they have economic challenges. they have renewed -- they have resources they could exploit once they reunify the island. here, i think, the european
union could play a role. i think the european union has some level to facilitate in the resolution to the problem. nato also asked about post-2014. are we really looking for new tasks? newe try to it activities just to ensure that nato continues to be relevant? no way. there is no need to invent new things. hands, we have a full plate. our hands are full. post-2014 will be a nato that is prepared to take action if needed. and one way to do that is to make sure that the ability we have developed to work and operate together in a gena stand, that ability will be maintained and further developed in the coming years. we call it the connected forces initiative because it is about
joint exercises, training, education. so that what we learned in afghanistan will be maintained even if we draw down in afghanistan. and believe me, there will be new tasks. we stand ready. we are prepared for the unexpected. if you had asked me when i took office as secretary general in honest 2009, can you imagine nato in libya? i would not only probably but definitely have answered no. but nevertheless, it showed up as a task that we had to handle. and this is my point. we need to stand ready for the unexpected. that is nato post-2014.
i have seen the press reports no suchve noted that activity has taken place in of relevance for our deployments of patriot missiles in turkey. but obviously, the situation in syria remains a matter of concern. we are concerned about the disastrous humanitarian situation. we are concerned about the risk of's lover in the region. we are concerned about the possible use of chemical weapons. -- we are concerned about the
political risk in the region. we are concerned about a in thee spillover region. we are concerned about the possible use of chemical weapons. the only way forward is political solutions. mr. click asked me whether the so-called u.s. could it -- u.s. pivot to asia will weaken the u.s. atlantic relationship. that would very much depend on the europeans. i think it is in our interest that the u.s. rebalance its interests and focus a bit more on the asia-pacific region, taking into account the rising powers in that region. but if we are to ensure that the americans still find europe relevant as a partner, the europeans must also invest in that transatlantic relationship
politically, economically and militarily. that is my point. mrs. jan sorry -- she asked pretty much the same question. with this u.s. move to asia downgrade nato -- would this u.s. move to asia downgrade nato? not in itself. if the europeans don't invest in the transatlantic relationship, it may weekend that point. actually, we have seen a strong u.s. commitment to european security. for instance, the u.s. contribution to a nato missile defense system, that is a u.s. commitment to addressing emerging security challenges. instead of having a lot of cold wary forces in
structures in europe, the u.s. is now engaged in a modern way, in a way that actually addresses the threats of our time. in that respect, you also asked me about obsolete infrastructure. do we have any research that indicates how much money is wasted on obsolete infrastructure and old- fashioned structures in general. i am not aware of such research. but we are very much focused on reforming our military forces in the direction of more so lessility will stop strategy structures, more mobility, more ability --
deployability. strategy structures, more mobility, more ability. i was asked quite directly would you, as nato, recommend the european union to develop a european defense policy? general nato, i will not interfere with eu policies. you have heard my words today. i do believe that we need a strengthened european defense. i don't see any contradiction between a strong nato and a strong european defense cooperation. on the contrary, that is a pillar within nato.
europeanngthened defense policy is dependent on capabilities. now i speak very openly and frankly. not new institutions. then it could contribute in a valuable way to strengthening our overall security. otherwise, it will just be hot air, as i said. in that respect, i am in favor of it, but i don't interfere with it. just to conclude on that point, very often, we are discussing someer -- i know, in political rooms you also discuss whether we should actually have a common european defense. , i, to speak realistically don't think we will see it in my lifetime. -- and i intend
to live for a long time -- [laughter] i say this because, as secretary-general of nato, i have learned how much individual nations protect their integrity and their national sovereignty when it comes to defense and security policy. that is really untouchable. so i don't think that will materialize. but i do believe that, in the coming years, we will see nations cooperate much more across board is -- across borders because they need it. they needed. you will see multilateral -- they need it. you will see multilateral projects. the bottom line will be that nation's are not -- that nations are not able to acquire expensive military clement on their own.
r euations will need -- expensive military equipment on their own. even the bigger european nations will need to work collectively. i was asked whether it would be a good idea to invite ambassador [indiscernible] i would refrain on making european decisions on who they would like to participate in european council meetings. , the lesson learned is that internationale coronation, the eu, nato and individual players -- international coordination, the eu, nato and individual players we can accomplish a lot.
based on these lessons learned, it would be worthwhile deploying maritime assets in in anparts of the world international effort to ensure free and open sea lanes because piracy seems to be able to emerge in other parts of the world. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would like to give the floor to someone who would like to comment on your remarks. [laughter] ,> thank you very much chairman. i am delighted to see you here, secretary-general. it is always a great pleasure to have a width of reality -- a whiff of reality in this institution.
you made remarks that nato has no need to invent things after 2014. of course, the european union wants to invent things all the time. it scours the world looking for a role, trying to find opportunities to put his flag down in order to justify european defense policy. it seems to me that the question we have to ask is how to strengthen the capacity of democracies? how shall we strengthen their ability to act in this world? not how do we justify the role for the european union? secretary-general, you are in a very difficult position. you are a diplomat come better politician. you're mainly a diplomat. you have to speak in a way that not offend any of your 28 member states.
, in this particular case, we are having a different conversation. it is not about strengthening defense capabilities. it is about finding a role for the european union to act. don't you think that, in this time of scarce defense resources, it would make far more sense, rather than have the european union creating parallel structures and institutions, if it was to concentrate on european efforts within nato? because that is really where real certainty will happen. of course, all of this duplication of effort is compounded by the fact that we end up with basically the same member states talking to one another in the same city. my concern, i suppose, the way things are going at the moment, first of all, we don't have a
truthful conversation because the conversation here is about roles for the european union. when in reality, i believe what you want to say is please stop playing politics, stop building new institutions and structures and things and create more capability. that is what we need. and you won't do it through the european union because their objective is something entirely different. but aren't you worried about an it -- an eventual buffer kaisha and of that we will end up with a binary alliance. thatentual bifurcation of and we will end up with a binary alliance. that is the objective, that they have in mind. it strikes me that that is a very dangerous traction to go in. -- very dangerous direction to go in.
secretary-general, what i would ask you to do is encourage the european countries to put their effort into the alliance and to stop all of this duplication and stop dressing it up as if, somehow or other, they are adding capability when they actually are not. >> i have seen mr. rasmussen in many situations. but i have never seen him as a diplomat. [laughter] klovac. i would like to focus on russia and the missile defense. a greatnt, there was friendship between russia and nato and one would work together on missile defense will stop since then, there have been a lot of problems in missile
defense. i would like to hear your assessment now that the americans have postponed, may be canceled, the base for missile defense. does it open up new possibilities with russia on missile defense? and what is the situation in the nato-russia council? i am the chair of the year he iran situation. what would you say is nato's role in this case? thank you. >> first of all, may i say that up rasmussen is constantly
appealing constantly to france and other people across europe, not as a matter principle.e -- of runcible what is going on now is that new systems are being used, new military technology such as drums, which actually kick , which-- such as drones actually kill people. many people ind afghanistan. when you talk about strengthening the european element of nato, it is quite simple for anyone who looks at the state of the facts.
nato wants to be able to decide which crisis it will intervene anywhere it does not fill necessary leave it up to the europeans will sto. what do you think about supplying airplanes in flight? the talk of cooperation, there is no real cooperation because the crisis of interest among nato imperialist powers have obviously -- and obviously the united states will use its leverage in nato. nothing can change in nato unless washington gives the nod. you can only look at the founding charter of nato. it is also clear that, when the --ted states finds a break
look at france -- then the united states will say, let the europeans do it. it happened in somali. the reference made to the 20 yearsfunds -- following the war in yugoslavia, it is still occupied. when will the operation in kosovo him to an end? let me repeat this point. what about afghanistan? when will all of that come to an end? we all read about who is funding it and why. but please be a bit more sincere and explain the very tangible interests influencing nato and europe.
>> you are very brief, very concise. i will try to do the same. three specific questions. first, colleagues have already touched on pooling and sharing -- smart defense. general on the security and defense committee that 300 million euro could be saved by cooling and sharing -- by pooling and sharing, where cuts are being made by member .tates are 30 billion euro in other words, a hundred times more. is anything being done by nato to try to stop these member cuts.'
on missile defense, there are enthusiasts and skeptics. regardless of what the politicians say, how do you intend to persuade the people of europe that missile defense is in the interest of the people of europe rather than just in the interest of the united states? now on georgia, i would like to thank you for your words of hope regarding georgia. the political parties and are very muchgia in favor of nato membership. what will you do? how we persuade major european governments to drop their resistance to nato-georgia [indiscernible]
thank you. >> thank you, secretary-general. there are a lot of a budget bowl -- a lot of unpredictable matters. such factors many at present. that leads me to my question. some scopeeve that of better coordination between nato and the european union might be, for example, anticipating bringing forward as both the cut of
processes we have expected and those that have been harder to ?oresee i think we need to strengthen our cooperation, not just by expanding our logistic capacity, but also our ability to apply some force to our missions will sto. macedoniappening with and its position with nato, you know why i am raising this. i am talking about the international court. this is a region, a country isre the image of nato significant. thank you. >> thank you very much. let me tell you i am not
an institutionalist. i don't care who exactly does what. what i care about is that it is done. we have identified critical tortfalls when it comes military capabilities. we have learned lessons from our , notably in afghanistan and libya, by the way. and we learned a lot lessons. a stone that, we have identified critical shortfalls. my focal point is to fill those gaps. whether that is within a nato framework or a eu framework i don't care. of 21 nations are members both organizations. and obviously we owe it to our taxpayers to make sure that the
work we do is done efficiently. we have one set of taxpayers. we have one set up military capabilities. we need more investment in transports capability. we have a lot of soldiers in europe, but we can't move them. air-to-air-two air -- air refueling. we need better capacity when it comes to surveillance, reconnaissance, and, to speak in very concrete terms about that, that is to invest in drones that can be used together in such information and guide our military and lyrical decisions. -- and political decisions. these are critical shortfalls.
at the natoed, summit in chicago last year, european nato allies committed themselves to invest in the air- -to-rica capabilities -- air air refueling capabilities. i don't care about institutions. i care about the work to be done. now, this is why i do agree that the most important thing to decide at the european council would be toecember invest a sufficient amount of money in critically needed military capacities. that would be the most important decision to take at all.
>> thank you, mr. chair. donnelly, many have been seeing the hearings all week. on the other side of the capital, military branches have to work to end military assault crisis. we have been told over the years that you are, that the navy saw 32% increase in the last report published, the marines at a 30% increase, the air force had a 33% increase. the army showed only a 16% decrease. has figured it out. and maybe we should not be paying for all these different programs. assault is assault. rape is great. we are not tolerating it. one of the things i have been granger to fo, and
and some of our other colleagues were not on this and putting together a special committee. this is going to stop. best isir force, your not good enough. when i was appointing young women to the military academy 12 years ago i gave them my and ial cellphone number said you don't have to take this. i've got your back. you don't have to call your mother. you call me. all the women in my congressional district did not have my cell phone number or anybody to tell them, you don't have to tolerate this. so we had the air force academy scandals and then we had a
the heir folks spokesman confirmed that the air force can bring its own case irregardless of what arlington county does. and god bless them for taking up the charge. but the secretary of the air force must approve a dual prosecution and cannot do so until after the virginia case concludes. findst means if virginia him guilty, my question to you is are you going to charge him? because the buck stops someplace. >> it does. in cases like this, we will wait for the local jurisdiction to reach its conclusion and then we will figure out what the air force can and should proceed
with separately. >> i did say if he was found guilty. so let's take it away from him. let's not talk about this case in particular. it civilian courts had the opportunity to pursue some of these i'm telling them don't turn over, that it's going to be up to the secretary not to say if a court of vauxhall, if a jury found this person guilty, we are going to do the dual track and hold them accountable. everybodythis before, is victimized by this. the woman who has been assaulted or the man who's been assaultive are the primary victims. but everybody wears the uniform, every veteran in this country is victimized by this. you offer to do a hearing on this, graciously.
i know we're wrapping up. i don't want to see you spend more time. we have spent the time we needed discussing this. i have many other questions about this massive budget to talk about. but if we don't get this right, nothing we do with equipment matters. because we are saying you're not even safe to be unlisted in the united states military. and i spoke with military leaders that are here on the war college exchange, and they were asking me about this. and they are looking to us for leadership. so, mr. chair, ms. granger appeared interested in working on this committee -- i have a
draft ready to go. whether we do it jointly with the policy committee or with the briefing or something like this, enough time has been spent on this and the appropriations that go to this, programs that do not work. we have an oversight responsibility. and you have been very, very supportive of this issue and i look forward to the briefing or hearing in the upcoming months. thank you. >> thank you, gentlelady. >> in the interests of time, i understand we might be voting in the next few minutes, i will assess get my comments with mr. moran and others about global hawk. general, there are additional questions that we have got that we have not gone answers from. i will also share my comments with mr. crenshaw about space launch. we have additional questions on that as well. i am going to ask a question on tanker, because it is something that is critically important especially since we just lost one and lost that crew on the kc 135. before i go there, as you are giving us the permission, i asked the army yesterday for our record of the sexual
assaults since 1992. if we could see, to try to glean additional information about whether there is a tendency when we are surging or drawing down, what some additional intermission, not just over the last decade we have been in afghanistan and iraq, but the last 20 years, to try to get additional information. so as we are trying to come up with some ideas and constructive suggestions, maybe we can get something from that. i would like to, though, associate this one comment about social projects sexual assault. ms. granger, mccollum, many have spoken about this, but it become personal because i am going to be nominating one of my daughters very best friends.
she is going to be appointed to the air force academy. i am having dinner with her and her family on monday night. and i want to be able to look her parents in the eyes and i want to be able to look her in the eyes and i want to let them know that the highest levels, the problems that we have been discussing are not going to be ignored. it is -- so a lot has been said, and we look forward to working with you on this to ensure that this problem ceases. let me mention briefly about the tanker, because this is an important program. this certainly the secretary and general know. mr. secretary, the discrepancy between the contractors' estimates and the current government estimates has grown
to $500 million. even though the program is operating under a fixed-price development contract, and the contractor we understand will have to absorb the overrun, does this committee have any reason to be concerned about the growing discrepancy? and secondly, have you made any engineering changes to the aircraft or the subsystems at this time? >> to answer the second question, first, the answer is no. i am required to sign a report to congress on a regular basis on this subject, and it has been consistent over the last couple of years. no engineering changes have been made to the program to which you referred. it is true that the contractors, the estimated completion is above the ceiling that we have set, but it is a fixed price contract.
so the taxpayer's exposure is limited at $4.90 billion. on anything above that is the contractor. we know of no schedule concerns at this point on the program. so far it seems to be on track. >> and we do not anticipate any additional issues as it relates to sequestration, having an impact on haven't these -- on having these planes. >> main thing for the air force is to make sure the programs is funded at the levels necessary to support the contract we agreed to, and the schedule we agreed to. if the air force has the support of congress, we will be able to do that. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. we've got other members who would like to take time. >> mr. kohl. >> thank you.
gentlemen, thank you for your service. thank you for being here. i had not intended to say anything about the sexual assault issue because i knew it was going to be fully covered by others and probably more knowledgeably, but i do want to add one thing. my dad was career non commissioned officer in the united states air force. my brother served honorably in the vietnam era in the air force. and my favorite first cousin just retired after 20 odd years as a lieutenant colonel and served in afghanistan and iraq. and i know what kind of guys those three people are. and they would not tolerate this, and they would look on this -- and they do look on this as a reflection on them, because they were very proud of their service and very proud to be associated with the air force. so when you hear what ms. granger and ms. mccollum have
said, they are speaking for those gentleman, too. congresser said that will probably do something -- it may not be the right thing, but it will. so please take this -- i know both of you do. i do not have any doubt about either one of you, but we cannot collectively, this committee, this congress cannot allows the sort of behavior across the services, certainly not unique to the air force. we see it time and time again. it has got to change. and i would suggest -- i was impressed by what he said about your missile crew and the commander and the actions he took. some people need to get kicked out or you need to do something. i think we have almost got too much judicial process here for the perpetrators and not nearly enough for the victims. and if there have to be some examples made, then they need
to get made, because it is just not tolerable to be in this spond if you want, but i know, again, i do not doubt your sincerity and where you are coming from on this. >> sir, i would like to briefly respond. -- down men and women in our the young men and women in our air force have been entrusted to the secretary and i. nobody, nobody cares more about them than we do. there is no magic that is going to solve this problem. it is going to take a lot of hard work, new ideas, partnership with the congress, with agencies and experts. we are trying to do as much of that in all those areas as we can. i would be happy to discuss the details of that with any member who would like to know more. but we understand the problem and agree with everything you have said. >> i appreciate that.
i have a lot of confidence in you. my dad joined the old army air corps and lived to the integration of the services. he said it was the best thing he had ever seen happen in his service. and he was always very proud of the military for having led in that regard when the rest of the country was awful slow in dealing with this. this is that kind of situation. it is probably not fair to you, but -- because it is not unique to the military services. we have this problem across the board. we are dealing with the violence against women act up here, and it happens a lot. but i guess because you guys and ladies are our brightest and our best, we expect you to figure out a way. i think it will have incredible support, but you do end up being held to a higher standard. you have always come through and i know you will again, but this one is a big, big deal for the country and long term for the service, because it is so counter to what the value structure of the men and women
you lead -- 99 out of a hundred, who they are and what they stand for. anyway. let me move to something else, if i may, quickly. i want to ask some things about the civilian work force in full disclosure -- i have a very large civilian work force in my district at tinker air force base. they are concerned about the furlough situation. i know you have to deal with sequester. i am concerned in what your thoughts -- we talked about this a little bit with the secretary who i admire tremendously. he talked about, we want to be fair to everybody. i understand that. but i do not think all civilian work is of comparable importance of quality as you wrestle with this. particularly my good friend from alabama talked about tankers. we maintained the kc135 from fleet. my dad spent several years working on them in the air
force. as my brother did. and they are still coming through. those are 50-year-old airplanes. and they are funded differently. that work force is funded out of the working capital fund. so i would just ask, as you wrestle with this problem, that was not of your making, please focus on making sure that those maintainers, that those aircraft get the kind of attention they need. i wish we did not have a 50- year-old tanker -- although we are proud that we can keep planes of that age going. and in combat conditions. it tells of the quality of the work force, uniformed and non- uniformed. they are remarkable people. what are you doing -- and again, if all things are not equal, you are going to have to make value judgments as to what
you keep going to make sure we do not have accidents or loss capability. >> i'll offer that first of all that the decision on civilian furloughs has not yet been made. this is that the secretary level. he is in the process of making that decision. we have had extensive discussion about the issues you have race. ised. but we know there is an impact on weapon systems sustainment from sequestration, and there is an impact already to what you referred, which involves the delay and creation of a backlog in repair for probably 60 aircraft and 35 engines, is roughly the current estimate. but this is complex work. so we know that there is an impact on inductions.
and on weapons systems sustainment. there is the issue of the working capital fund and its fiscal health and how to keep it solvent through this period. enhere is the additional issue of the civilian workforce management challenges on top of that. the issue of furloughs and how that will be managed. so all those three things, weapons systems sustainment, working capital fund, and furloughs, are being addressed collectively and we are doing our best to minimize the impacts and to maximize the -- maximize the readiness that we can get out of our depo work force with the funds available. >> i know that you are, and i appreciate that those furloughs came down seven days. i'm not telling you anything and did not tell the secretary of defense, i would hope, again, it is admirable to want to be perfectly fair and treat every employed the same way, but i think where we can,
particularly if there is an issue of safety and maintenance of assets here, that some discrimination might be appropriate. in making sure. so i know you will continue to work to minimize those furloughed days. i know this committee did not like sequestration any more than you did. most of this committee would hope we can arrive at some larger deal. and i suspect people on both sides of the aisle are the kind of people that tend to vote for things like that to make them happen. but, again, we have given you a tough task. please give it a lot of attention, because i do not want airplanes that to not fly. let alone airplanes that come down with crews in them. we want to give -- maintain those assets with the kind of work it takes to do it. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. you have been very generous. >> before i yield to mr. owens, i would say that the vote that is on presently is the camp
amendment. then there will be followed by a vote -- 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit. the next vote will be on that motion to recommit. then the third vote will be final passage, which will be a five minute votes. and then the possible a fourth vote, approval of the journal. mr. owens, i am happy to yield to you now, sir. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wish ms. mccolum was here, as a former jag officer, the regulations provided that in -- event of a commissioned a lieutenantof a colonel, he would be subject to administrative discharge proceedings. it was unfortunate when that discussion was going on that that was not shared with her, because i think it may have given her some, for the basis
for understanding the process you were going through relative to the potential for a dual prosecution versus allowing the prosecution to proceed in the civil arena followed by an administrative action in the military. do those rules still exist? >> i believe they do. >> and depending upon the degree of that conviction, a misdemeanor or felony, then that would move -- that is a potential that you could move to eliminate that officer from the military? >> well, that is a decision that would be initially looked at by the wing commander who supervises him and has ucmj responsibilities. that is the 11th wing at bolling air force base. they are getting legal counsel, of course. we will let that process play out. >> thank you. now to the business at hand. i have taken a look at your
budget request. it is fairly clear when you look at this that you are looking for relatively marginal increase, about 2%. however , sequestration continues into the next year, the next fiscal year. in effect, you will have a further reduction. and my question is -- have you established a prioritization of actions you will take to meet sequestration? so that you are starting with a list and crossing them off as the dollars are eliminated? is that a process you have gone through? >> sir, we are deeply enmeshed in the process and the department of defense right now. it is consuming a lot of time and attention. there is no set-- i would say that we understand the requirements of the budget control act and the potential this sequestration might continue.
we still hope that the congress and the president might reach an agreement to change the budget control act. >> so do i. >> to relieve us from the burdens of sequestration which are on the books now. but we are going through multiple budget alternatives internal to the department to assess the impacts going forward and to prioritize our work, absolutely. >> and are you looking broad brush, are you looking up personnel, equipment, are you looking at o & m? >> we are looking at everything. >> you are looking at everything? know, secretary, as you right after he came in established a strategic choices review. it is referred to in the department as the skimmer,
which is a 75 day review top to bottom on strategic fiscal resources and issues on all of the matters that you asked about. so it is really a complete soup to nuts review of our defense priorities and resourcing. and that will play out further into june, we will get the secretary's direction on how to proceed for planning purposes through 2014 and 2015. cannotill say that you take $1 trillion of the defense budget over 10 years without having a devastating impact on our military capability. so it is not a matter of just choices or strategic choices, which of course, we will make. as i tried to assure every committee i have addressed this year, we will make the best use and get the most out of the resources that you provide.
your military will do that. but at $1 trillion over the next 10 years, every part of our military will be affected. nothing will be protected. so it will affect the force structure, it will affect rate of modernization as i described for the air force. all of our military forces will be smaller. we will have less capacity. it is my hope that we would be a ready force, even if we are smaller, but that cannot be guaranteed at these levels of reductions. so i am just saying, $1 trillion is going to have a huge impact on our military. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my thanks to the secretary. i wish you well when your tenure is over. general welsh, it is always good to see you.
as the secretary said, it has been a long time ago he said this -- we covered a lot of material here. but i want to associate myself with his remarks about regular order. and i think that is one of the true challenges facing this congress. i know there are a lot of things that are challenging our defense department and the services, but we have to get back to regular order and i could not agree more, and i appreciate you so much saying that in your opening comments. i also want to associate myself with remarks that have been provided regarding the critical issue of sexual assault and going on within our services. and i know has been a difficult issue. i think mr. kohl said it pretty well when he said he had absolute confidence in the
leadership of the air force to deal with this issue. but it obviously is something that has spiraled out of control. and general, i would just challenge to as the new chief of staff of the air force to call on your days as the commandant at the air force academy, where you had the future leadership of the air force, many of those men and women now moving through the ranks in our air forces, call on those days when you were dealing with leadership issues there, because this is a true leadership issue for our department of defense. but i have confidence that we'll get-- we'll find the answers and solutions to the challenge. mr. secretary? >> sir, i would just like to
make sure the committee is aware of how much work that the chief has put into this matter. it has been a growing concern to our military leadership. it was a subject that came up in the chief's confirmation hearing. it is one he has focused on absolutely since day one. one of his first acts was to bring in all of the wing commanders from across the air force for a focused day and have a discussion on this issue. they wing commander in united states air force was there to hear and understand the importance of this issue to the chief and to our air force leadership. and the expectations from them as commanders, for not only good order and discipline, but a unit climate that promotes the dignity and respect of every airmen, the respect for the work that every airmen brings to their job.
rman. and so i think we have a chief that understands this and is working very hard. >> i look toward to the results. i have a couple of questions. one is somewhat parochial in nature. as the general knows, one of the air bases -- the national guard air bases -- has been remissioned in my district. in fort smith, arkansas. there was a line of questioning that came up in a senate hearing, and general i will give you an opportunity to for the record to help me reassure the people there that the remissioning into the remote split operational platform for fort smith, ark., it is still the plan. and that the appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that the proper budget and what have you are in place to ensure that
it has, i guess what we call initial operating capacity. just a thought or two on that. >> thank you, congressman. the plans are still in place. the plan is to start drawing down the a-10 unit this summer. that will continue at about two aircraft through next summer. -- two per month. in the spring or summer of 2014, we will move people who are interested from the unit to the new targeting squadron that will be at fort smith. and we will start to look for training opportunities. the intent is to have initial operational capability of operational -- of the mq9. we are working the budgetary issues to go with that. >> is it your initial opinion that these kinds of missions are the most enduring that we have in the force right now? >> that's right. i do not know about most
enduring, but clearly, this is at the leading edge of what our combat commanders expect. intelligence, reconnaissance, and support. that is what these units do. the targeting group can work both in that or arena and in the cyber arena, both of which are clearly growth areas for the future for the air force. >> my last question is about the total force task force and the testimony on march 1, that that task force was stood up. having been involved -- i'm sorry, mr. chairman -- having been involved in military planning throughout my military career, i know that anytime we look into future planning for these kinds of issues, that many times we introduce into the equations certain facts or assumptions that may be in play, initial guidance, for the people that will be coming out with these kinds of reports.
what kind of facts and assumptions have we made as we start looking at the proper force mix over the next decade or so? mr. secretary, this may be -- or the chief, either one. >> our total force task force has been working for the last several months and consultation -- in consultation with a couple of the great tags or around the country who are overseeing the activity and offering suggestions. the next step for the total force task force is to come together next week. i believe the first input is tomorrow. next week, we will sit down and they will get me there update on what they see as potential models for the force mix. should it be a percentage, by mission or by overall force structure? is it better to put emissions into the guard or the active component?
we are going to look at that modeled first. we know the cost drivers. and we know the operational effectiveness. and we're going to start talking to the options. the best part about this discussion so far has been its honesty. all of the myths are on the table. we have been able to come to agreement on what the components see as the problem versus what they do not agree to. the total force task force will also be our principal point of contact and information generating advice offering body for the senate's force structure task force that is standing upright know as well. so lots of activity going on. the intent is to streamline it so that in the 2015 budget, the air force has a proposal. >> mr. secretary? >> chief's on top of it. i would add is we ago forward, and potentially as the services potentially get smaller, depending on the budget outcomes, we are destined to
work more closely together. and this is already recognized across our forces. we have made bed downs. and for the kc46 tanker. there are associate units planned for all of these locations. tighter integration at critical locations around the country is going to be more and more important to ensuring that we have already forced and the force and the most capable force that we can generate across the total force, not just active or not just guard, but working together as a total force. that is where we are focused -- give us the most efficient but
most effective combination of forces and try to do that as efficiently as possible around key locations. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for your service. mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service to our country and the most trying time for the nation and for the air force. i wanted to say something to you that i said to navy and army and that this in terms of the personnel that are now and listing in our services, based on behavioral studies, we know that a much higher percentage of those who are prone to violence because they experienced a violent in their own lives with a volunteer military are investing in the services. enlisting in. in addition to the behavior wo isss we deal with inside the military, during deployment and post-deployment, what i would encourage you to look at screening. because it expresses itself in many forms. as individuals attempt to carry
forward with the tasks that the nation asks them that to do. that is only in the way of the suggestion. number two, i wanted to ask in assessing my remarks with the congresswomen and mr. bonner, what can we as members say to our constituents, our immediate actions that you have taken it as air force? if there is any individual out there who attended the academy and left because of sexual assault. or believes that this has occurred today with in the ranks. is there a hot line we can tell them to go to? is there some person they should report this information to? what can we do. we are asked in our districts. - -- has their force done to tot has the air force done create a special place where people can take these concerns? >> there is a special sexual assault response coordinator at every air force location. so individuals who thinks, who
want to report or need to report either a recent or past event can do so through that channel or through their inspector general. >> i hear what you're saying. i know we ran into the problem with ptsd, or agent orange -- we created a special place. we created another platform with in the department of veterans affairs, within the dod. i would ask you to consider some place where if a congresswoman wanted to allow come forward to you, that there is a special place. if he could think about that, if he could get back to us, a 1- 800 number people can call. it is at that level of public concern. i had a young woman i appointed to the air force academy who was beaten up and went through all of the processes that existed at that time, and it really changed the way i looked
at the academy's forever. only am surely not the member that experience that. so i would like to see your personal involvement at some level as a secretary. because it is that serious. so think about that. if he could get back to me on that. --third question, third, it relates to energy independence. thank you, general, for mentioning it. i would be a very interested in more detail from air force as to how -- where your focus has been in terms of fuel consumption, base powering, are wed, so that-
can exceed the standards that have been adapted. you have already exceeded them on an annual basis. but air force is the largest user of fuel in the military. and any additional detail you could provide so i could see your policy focus on how you are going to move toward air force energy independence and helping the nation get there, i would appreciate more detail. now i want to move and associate myself with the remarks of congressmen -- and that is, i find what happened at myna in conceivable. there have been statements in the press regarding various individuals in charge, calling the situation a crisis. the grade level was d in in terms of oversight. term,l, you used the turmoil in the ranks. what can you do to assure us and assure the american people that this situation has been dealt with aggressively, and
that our missile capability is being properly shepherded and confidence restored? >> congresswoman, that phrase is not one that i would use. it may have been in the press. that is not a quote from me. >> ok. >> to my recollection at all. >> perhaps it is colonel -- >> i think most of the comments in the press came from an email that colonel folds wrote. he is very passionate about his job. there is terminology i would have used differently. if he was here, he would tell you that he would use it differently as well. but the bottom line of this was, the only thing we can tell the american people, because this is the fact -- there was an indication of a problem highlighted by inspection that is there to do exactly that, and the leadership team took aggressive action to ensure the standard never slipped below the minimum required to get the
job done. >> is that what -- -- what d is? >> a marginal as a passing grade. these inspections are extremely difficult. the standard is very high would be graded that low. that is why the wing commander reacted that way. that wayacted immediately. there is nothing good about the fact this happened. the response was a proper. i would be more upset if they had not responded. >> where people reemed out? >> i do not know what the 17 people are thinking. i don't get that impression from the commanders. i have talked to the commanders. their belief is that this is just a matter of getting, refocusing the work force on the standard expected every single day in their job. that is the way that characterize it to me. i can understand that. this is a difficult job.
the congressman alluded to that. it is a tough job. you have to be focused. there is no room for error and there is no room for it commanders accepting less than expected performance. that is why they took this action. >> what about the term used "rot." >> the term "rot" was used by the same individual in the e- mail. in view of his commanders is that he was trying to get the attention of the work force and a way that they would not avoid paying attention. he was very passionate about the fact that he wants his team to perform better. >> can you replace members of the team? >> all members of the team have been decertified. 60-daye going through a retraining program and they will re-earn the right to go back into the missionary or not. i am confident they will not go back and if they do not meet the required expectation. >> how long did you -- when the evaluation was done, did y
react immediately? >> the wing took action immediately. we hear about the inspection results within 24 hours of the inspection. we get a report, the secretary and i both, as did the commanders in the chain of wing. above the wing. the global strike commander told me immediately that the wing was taking action. they were concerned with that kind of a score of their inspection report. we knew this was going on. >> in terms of what occurred at that site, did that alert you to attend and you should pay at other sites? >> yes, ma'am. >> will the gentleman yield? >> windy secretary hagel find out -- when did secretary hagel find out. because there had been problems here once before, one would assume after a problem was identified and reported, as commander did at that base, that something that would be another black eye on the same the potential for high
profile -- the secretary would be informed in person. when did the secretary find out? >> i found out when secretary donley found out. i do not know if he knows when secretary hagel heard. the grade on the report, i heard after the inspection. i do not consider that a black eye. there was corrective action and they took it. >> sir, i am a former teacher. a d is not a good grade. >> the e-mail that we received, the one you are quoting from, we became aware of this past friday evening. and on monday morning, we became aware that they had taken the 17 officers at the end of their review and put them into this grounding status. we found out on monday this week.
i do not know when secdef was informed. these often are inspections done? >> this particular inspection is done every two years. but there are three major inspections. they overlap. they get every -- one major inspection every year. >> i think we will have follow- up questions for the record, but this is really -- it is an astounding development. i know my time is up. mr. chairman, i wanted to ask the secretary or the general could provide for the record on another topic. how you are looking at sequestration and cost savings over the next five years, transferring some of the active duty responsibilities to air guard and reserve forces. how is that influencing your thinking to meet budget requirements as you look at air force?
the very interested in enhanced role of the guard and reserve and the years ahead as a way of meeting our mission, but also saving money. thank you very much. for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, early in your comments you talked about the issue of bases in europe. we are also having conversations -- hearing conversations about another round of brac. has ownership of our presidents in of our presence in a place
like loges? >> i'll ask the chief to speak to these issues as well, since he was our former commander of u.s. air force in europe. but it is, to answer your question directly, loges is under usafes command. >> while there is an air force presence, you are not the owner of the presence? >> the air force is it is a portuguese base as well. >> i understand that. the conversation i am hearing from a number of our colleagues as well as some of our friends in portugal, that they are concerned we might be diminishing our presence there, reducing our footprint to the effect that it might be not a very good investment for them and they may b around for a different tenant. presentese have been there -- presence there. their chance that we would be leaving a major presence there?
i understand we would retain some presence, but it looks to me like this is a tremendously valuable facility right out there in the ocean, that has a commanding presence in europe, africa, and i am just wondering if we are seriously considering just basically moving out, except for a small presence. >> i will let the chief amplify, but we do plan on reducing our footprint at loges and cutting back on the hours. we are not talking about departing altogether, but reducing the hours of operation at that location. thehairman, in response to overseas for structure and the department response, the u.s. air forces in europe and other
components along with u.s. european command looked at all basing installations for options for closure, consolidation, anything we can do to save money in europe, because we consider that a precursor to the congress agreeing to look at anything in the states where we think we have excess capacity. as part of that, but there was an assessment done. of all the u.s. air force installations in europe, loges is one of the ones that has no immediate operational requirement to support activity in the middle east or africa. the type of airplanes we move across the ocean means that we do not use that facility at anywhere near the rate we did 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. so the intent is to downsize from an airbase wing to a squadron. to maintain custody of the fuel facility there, which is very large and it is strategic. but other than that, there is no operational requirement that drives continued large-scale
investment in loges. if we are talking $1 trillion, it has to come from somewhere, sir. this is a tough decision. >> what i am wondering about -- if there to become operational requirement for something like loges, what would we replace loges with? we do not have enough aircraft carriers. >> i think they are doing excellent job of planning for the future. in some of these contingency locations where we have not been utilizing our forces and our presence there as much as we did 10, 15 or 20 years ago, it makes sense to cut back. but we still think we will have access to locations like loges and other parts of europe if we maintain a residual presence there.
and we are doing that at loges. this has been a matter of great focus and a lot of work on the part of the defense department, and including state department leadership over the last few years. obviously,it is a matter of concern to the local residents on this area, the island and inside the portuguese government. so we have had a number of conversations -- i talked to the ambassador. i talked to their minister of defense on these issues. it has been an ongoing dialogue. the portuguese want to be good and effective partners in nato. >> sir, we are pretty convinced that our presence or our influence or our control there will not be replaced by some other foreign interest in view of our, reducing our activity there? >> sir, i cannot speak to what
the portuguese government's plans might be for that base going forward. that has not been a matter of on my plate. >> seems like an awfully good asset. having had a chance to visit a number of times, it is an impressive location and impressive capability. ok. the next series of votes are going to, really quickly. there will be three votes and they will be five-minute votes. and so, we are getting fairly close. again.t ok. all right. there ready for the votes. , ms.ave the final time
mccloskey. but mr. secretary general, relative to the issue of sexual misconduct, i would urge persistence. i cannot imagine how many distractions you have at a given moment, given the budgetary concerns you have, given the responsibilities you have. i would urge persistence for those recruits, for those sargents, for the lieutenant's. in another century when i started practicing law, it was against a wall to drive a car drunk. but it happened. and it was kind of acceptable. and not much happened to you when you went to court if you had a conviction. but persistence paid off. people understand you could hurt yourself, you could hurt somebody else. and i would urge persistence
every day so people know nothing is calling to let up until that culture has changed. second, i would associate thatlf with the concerns the issue of launching nuclear weapons is probably the most critical moment in our military. and so, again, i would urge you ccontinue to work on that. my time is limited. i have a series of questions, but they really relate to nnsa. the air force and navy are critical prosperous. we have been blessed on our committee with having dual membership by the three of us, so we have had that as well. the cost involved. one of the specific questions i have and i have about a minute, refurbishment, that
started out as a, $5 billion a and at this point the cost analysis program evaluation is $10 billion. itnnsa is saying $8 billion. it started out as a less robust change. it is different today. the question for the record is are you concerned about those costs? is aecond question i have recently adopted a long-term strategy to essentially take seven ballistic and five air- delivered systems and reduce them to essentially a three ballistic and two air-delivered. whether you are in concurrence with that and revenue have cost concerns and specifically relative to the air force, do you have strategic concerns with nnsa's push for the warhead and cost issues
involved? could point out any improvements or changes you would like to see relative to your interaction with nnsa? i am wanting to make sure we are doing the right thing as far as strategy, weapons, and stockpiles, but there's good communication going on between the service and the agency and we are doing it as cost effectively as possible. i appreciate your serious consideration and your response for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible] [no audio] h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] with scott shane.
then your calls and comments on washington journal. the house returns for a brief pro-forma session today. legislative business begins on tuesday. the legislation to repeal the 2010 health care law. and a bill requiring the securities and exchange commission to conduct cost- benefit analysis before implementing new regulations. the senate is back today at 2:00 p.m. for morning business only. no roll-call votes are expected to. on tuesday, work continues on the water infrastructure bill, which authorizes dozens of flood protection, sewage, and waterway improvement projects around the country. later this week, key votes on forsident obama's pick medicaid services.
>> this week on "q&a," "new york times" national security reporter scott shane discusses his recent front page story titled "from spy to source to convict" describing his involvement in the cia officer for leaking information to a reporter. >> scott shane back in january, you had something unusual front page in the "new york times" where you led the paper not with a per se news story but something you've been working on for a long time. start to fill us in on what this is about. >> this was a very unusual story. one of them was that the new york times allowed me to write it in the first person which was the only way i would be able to write it because i was involved in the story. normally i would have to recuse myself and they agreed to my pitch that there was an unusual
story about journalism and how journalists cover national security topics and this was the best way to tell it. essentially it was a story of john kiriakou former cia officer who was a source for me and for any number of national security reporters around washington. after he retired from the cia. and how through a lot of twist and turns, he ended up being the first cia officer to be in prison for leaking classified information to the american press. never happened before and now he's in federal prison in