The Insider

By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, delivered a tough opening statement at today's hearing, accusing the nominee of believing in a worldview predicated on "appeasing our enemies," among other things.

The full statement, as prepared:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming Senator Hagel before this committee and appreciate his continued willingness to serve the United States and the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Before I continue with my opening statement, I’d like to raise concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. Senator Hagel only provided four speeches to the committee even though his financial disclosure form reveals that he received honoraria for giving 12 speeches in the last year alone. Late last night just hours before the today’s hearing began the committee received nearly 230 pages of additional speeches given by the nominee.

In my judgment, the Committee cannot vote on this nomination until we have received full and adequate disclosure and have sufficient time to review and consider the contents of materials provided. I understand from discussions with my colleagues that there are additional requests for information that have not received a response.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The President’s nomination of Senator Hagel to serve as the next Secretary of Defense comes at a critical juncture for our military and national security interests. Senator Hagel is a good man who has a record of service and sacrifice that deserves respect. And while his service is commendable, the fate of his nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. It is the votes he has cast and the statements he has made over the many years of his career that will inform us of his judgment, his view of America’s role in the world and his view of the military required to support this role.

As I told him during our meeting in my office, after a long and careful review of his record, we are just too philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our country for me to support his nomination.

His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of sound judgment and steadfast support for policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than core beliefs.

On the defense budget and sequestration, Senator Hagel’s views are contrary to the judgment of our top civilian and military leaders. According to Secretary Panetta, the impact of sequestration to our military would be “catastrophic” and “devastating” to the military. General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that we are “on the brink of creating a hollow force” and that sequestration would pose “unacceptable risk.” Senator Hagel, instead, has stated that the Defense Department is “bloated” and that “the Pentagon needs to be pared down.” I couldn’t disagree more. We need a Secretary of Defense who will stand up and work with Congress to avert this unacceptable outcome.

On many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests around the world, Senator Hagel’s record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream. Too often, it seems, he is willing to subscribe to a worldview that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends.

In 2000, when an overwhelming majority of Senators sent a letter to President Clinton affirming American solidarity with Israel in the face of Palestinian aggression, Senator Hagel was one of just four who refused to sign.

In 2001, he was one of just two Senators who voted against a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization.

He voted against a resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps – a group responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan—a terrorist organization.

And, on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with Iran—a regime that continues to repress its people, doggedly pursue a nuclear weapons capability, and employ terrorist proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, to threaten the security of Israel and the region.

Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement. At a time when North Korea’s belligerent actions threaten our allies with their nuclear capabilities, the security of our own nation and that of our allies requires us to be vigilant with our own nuclear weapons and defense systems.

The Senate ratified the New START treaty on the condition that the president would carry out a nuclear modernization program. The Global Zero report, of which Hagel was involved, does not fully support even the President’s commitment to nuclear modernization. How can we in Congress be confident he will carry out these important modernization efforts?

Of late, however, Senator Hagel has expressed views in meetings with my Senate colleagues and through the press that appear glaringly at odds with many of his long-held positions, particularly on issues dealing with Israel, Iran, and our nuclear arsenal. This apparent willingness to walk-back or alter his positions for the sake of political expediency on such important issues is deeply troubling and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike.

Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date demonstrates he will be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of President Obama’s first term. Retreating from America’s unique global leadership role and shrinking the military will not make Americans safer. On the contrary, it will embolden our enemies, endanger our allies, and provide opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill the global leadership vacuum we leave behind. It is for these reasons, that I believe he is the wrong person to lead the Pentagon at this perilous and consequential time.”

By Jason Sherman
January 31, 2013 at 3:00 PM

While the formal introductions of Hagel continue, here is the nominee's response to an advance policy question on the viability of the Obama administration's pivot to the Asia-Pacific region in the event of sequestration:

Congress passed and the President signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011. The President insisted that the resulting defense cuts be driven by strategy and U.S. defense needs in the coming decade. I understand that the FY13 Department of Defense budget was shaped by the strategic guidance and reflects key mission and capability priorities emerging from the strategic review. If confirmed, I would continue to refine the focus of the Department’s spending in future budget cycles and keep it in line with the President’s strategic guidance. I believe that the Department is facing hard but manageable cuts. The strategy is executable with the resource levels currently detailed in the Budget Control Act, but the potentially severe cuts stemming from sequestration would seriously threaten the Department’s ability to implement the strategic guidance.

By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 2:51 PM

We've obtained and posted the prepared testimony that Hagel is reading today.

An excerpt:

As I told the President, I am committed to his positions on all issues of national security, specifically decisions that the Department of Defense is in the process of implementing. This includes the Defense Strategic Guidance the President outlined in January 2012. Allow me to briefly address a few of those specific issues now.

First, we have a plan in place to transition out of Afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home, and end the war there – which has been the longest war in America’s history. As you know, discussions are ongoing about what the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will look like after 2014. The President has made clear – and I agree – that there should be only two functions for U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan after 2014: counterterrorism – particularly to target al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising Afghan forces. It’s time we forge a new partnership with Afghanistan, with its government and, importantly, with its people.

Second, as Secretary of Defense I will ensure we stay vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as they try to expand their affiliates around the world, in places like Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa. At the Pentagon, that means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in that fight, such as special operations forces and new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies. And it will mean working hand-in-hand with our partners across the national security and intelligence communities, to confront these and other threats, especially the emerging threat of cyber warfare.

Third, as I have made clear, I am fully committed to the President’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and – as I’ve said in the past – all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. My policy is one of prevention, and not one of containment – and the President has made clear that is the policy of our government. As Secretary of Defense, I will make sure the Department is prepared for any contingency. I will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge in the region and will continue to support systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives from terrorist rocket attacks.

Fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed stockpiles and launchers consistent with the New START Treaty, I am committed to maintaining a modern, strong, safe, ready, and effective nuclear arsenal. America’s nuclear deterrent over the last 65 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a World War III. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal.

As we emerge from this decade of war, we also must broaden our nation’s focus overseas as we look at future threats and challenges. As this Committee knows, that’s why DoD is rebalancing its resources towards the Asia-Pacific region. We are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with traditional allies, especially Japan, South Korea, and Australia; to continue to deter and defend against provocations from states like North Korea, as well as non-state actors; and to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide disaster relief, fight piracy, and ensure maritime security.

I will continue this rebalancing, even as we continue to work closely with our longtime NATO allies and friends, and with allies and partners in other regions. At the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, where we have clear national interests. Rather, it is a recognition that the United States has been and always will be a Pacific power, and the Asia-Pacific is an increasingly vital part of the globe for America’s security and economy. That’s why we must become even more engaged in the region over the coming years.

Doing all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. I have made it clear I share Leon Panetta’s and our service chiefs’ serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. And as someone

who has run businesses, I know the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the Pentagon’s resources. If confirmed, I am committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar; to maintaining the strongest military in the world; and to working with Congress to ensure the Department has the resources it needs – and that the disposition of those resources is accountable.

By Jason Sherman
January 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

As the formal introductions begin, we've highlighted select responses to advance policy questions the nominee provided the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On the impact of a full-year continuing resolution on DOD through FY-13:

A year-long CR reduces the Department’s funding flexibility by putting it into a straitjacket, spending money on last year’s priorities not this year’s. Continuing resolutions force the Department to operate inefficiently because it does not know what projects will be funded or at what level of funding. The money provided in the continuing resolution does not provide sufficient funding in the right places, particularly critical operating accounts which could harm military readiness. In addition, continuing resolutions generally push the Department to use month-to-month contracts and prohibits doing “new starts” in military construction or acquisition programs, which leads to inefficiency and backlogs in contracting.

Impact of sequester:

As Secretary Panetta has repeatedly stated, sequestration – both the size and the arbitrary manner of these cuts – would be devastating to the Department. It would harm military readiness and disrupt each and every investment program. Based on my assessment to date, I share his concerns. I urge the Congress to eliminate the sequester threat permanently and pass a balance deficit-reduction plan. Impacts of sequester could include the need to revise the defense strategy, fewer day-to-day global activities reducing our presence and partnerships, less training including cuts to flying and steaming hours which would reduce readiness, near universal disruption of investment including 2,500 procurement programs, research projects, and military construction reduced and delayed weapons system buys with resulting price increases, furloughs and hiring freezes for civilian workers resulting in reduced maintenance of weapons systems, oversight of contracts and financial systems; negative effects on morale and welfare of the force including recruiting and retention problems.

Impact on readiness of a combined year-long CR and sequester:

It is my understanding that under this scenario, the Department would be forced to cut over $40B from our budget in a little over half a year, using a mechanistic formula to do it. It would result in 20% cuts in the Department’s operating budgets. As the Joint Chiefs have warned, such cuts, if allowed to occur, would damage our readiness, our people, and our military families. It would result in the grounding of aircraft and returning ships to port, reducing the Department’s global presence and ability to rapidly respond to contingencies. Vital training would be reduced by half of current plans and the Department would be unable to reset equipment from Afghanistan in a timely manner. The Department would reduce training and maintenance for non-deploying units and would be forced to reduce procurement of vital weapons systems and suffer the subsequent schedule delays and price increases. Civilian employees would be furloughed for up to 22 days. All of these effects also negatively impact long-term readiness. It would send a terrible signal to our military and civilian workforce, to those we hope to recruit, and to both our allies and adversaries around the world.

By
January 31, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has delivered his opening statement, which we've reprinted below.

Today the committee meets to consider the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. But before we begin, I want to first welcome Senator Inhofe as the new Ranking Republican on our committee, succeeding Senator McCain. Senator McCain has been a great partner over the last six years, and I thank him for all he has done to get our bills enacted, for all of his leadership on a host of issues, for his support of the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings lively! Senator Inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the national defense over his 20 years on the committee, and I know that we will work well together to continue the bipartisan tradition of the committee.

We are also pleased to welcome the eight Senators who are joining the committee this year – both those who are new to the Senate and those who are new to our Committee – Senators Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King on the Democratic side, and Senators Blunt, Cruz, Fischer, and Lee on the Republican side. You will find this that is a wonderful committee, where we work across party lines to support our troops and their families, and their national defense mission.

I would also like to pause for a moment to offer my thanks and the thanks of the Committee to Secretary Panetta, who delayed his retirement and his return to California, to serve our country – first as Director of Central Intelligence, and then as Secretary of Defense. Secretary Panetta has provided a steady hand at the Department of Defense through two very difficult years, and has earned our great respect and appreciation.

Finally, before we get started, I would like to announce that the committee will be holding hearings next week and the week thereafter on Benghazi and on the impact of a sequester on the Department of Defense.

Senator Hagel, we welcome you to the Armed Services Committee as an old friend of those of us with whom you served during your years in the Senate. There are few jobs that are more demanding than the position to which you have been nominated: the hours are long and extremely challenging, and require sacrifices from both the Secretary and his family. We traditionally give our nominees an opportunity to introduce their families at these hearings, and we would welcome your doing so during your opening statement.

If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man, and the first veteran of the Vietnam War, to serve as Secretary of Defense. You can’t read Senator Hagel’s account of his military service and not be impressed by it. As Senator Hagel explained a few years ago:

“[P]robably most fundamental for me . . . when we talk of going to war . . . we need to think it through carefully, not just for the political and the geopolitical and the diplomatic and the economic consequences – and those are important. But at least for me, this old infantry sergeant thinks about when I was in Vietnam in 1968 . . . . Someone needs to represent that perspective in our government as well. The people in Washington make the policy, but it’s the little guys who come back in the body bags.”

Senator Hagel’s background provides an invaluable perspective not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations that a Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the commitment of U.S. troops overseas, but also with respect to the day-to-day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in uniform and their families receive the support and assistance that they need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in harm’s way around the world to know that one of their own holds the highest office in the Department of Defense and that he has their backs.

Senator Hagel, you would be in a position to make key recommendations regarding Afghanistan, where we are down to the pre-surge level of troops, with 66,000 military personnel in the country. The Secretary of Defense is called upon to advise the President on the size and mission of a post-2014 so-called “residual” force and the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014. The key to this transition is ensuring the readiness and ability of Afghan security forces to take over the defense of their own country. I have always believed that should be our main mission and its key to success. During my trip to Afghanistan with Senator Jack Reed last month, we heard from U.S. commanders on the ground that Afghan security forces are operating on their own on most operations, including conducting more than 85% of operations with limited or no U.S. support in the difficult Regional Command East.

Yet, significant obstacles remain to the process of reducing our forces and shifting responsibility to Afghan forces, including the difficulty of negotiating a status of forces agreement, including recent reports that the Afghan government might slow down a successful program of growing and training the Afghan Local Police, and including questions about the current plan to reduce the size of the Afghan National Security Forces from 352,000 to around 230,000 after 2015.

We face a number of new and growing threats elsewhere, such as the ongoing threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and the increasingly destructive civil war in Syria, with the risk that that conflict could result in the loss of control over that country’s substantial stockpile of chemical weapons. There is also the continuing instability in other countries affected by the Arab Spring, the growth of al Qaeda affiliates in ungoverned regions including Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa, and the continued unpredictable behavior of the nuclear-armed regime in North Korea.

We face these challenges at a time when the DOD budget is under unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed upon by Congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the impending threat of a sequester. Secretary Panetta has said that a sequester would be devastating for our military. Senator Hagel’s views today on the continuing resolution and the sequester will be of great interest to this committee and to the nation.

Those of us who have served with Senator Hagel in the Senate know that he is a man who is not afraid to speak his mind. Senator Hagel has made a number of statements over the course of his career which committee members will ask him about during today’s hearing.

For example, Senator Hagel has stated that unilateral sanctions against Iran “are exactly the wrong approach,” and that the “worst thing we can do” is to try to isolate Iran. While effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that the Obama Administration has followed and Congress has supported, and it appears that sanctions are producing tremendous pressure on Iran.

Another statement which has raised concern is Senator Hagel’s recommendation that we conduct “direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.” While there is value in communicating with our adversaries, the formulation used by Senator Hagel seemed to imply a willingness to talk to Iran on some issues that I believe most of us would view as non-negotiable, and therefore any willingness to talk to Iran would need to be highly conditional.

Your reassurance to me in my office that you support the Obama Administration’s strong stance against Iran is significant and we look forward to hearing from you in some depth on this subject.

We will also be interested in Senator Hagel’s addressing troubling statements he has made about Israel and its supporters here in the United States, a statement in 2008 that our policy of non-engagement with the Syrians “has isolated us more than the Syrians”, and a 2009 statement that we should not isolate Hamas – a terrorist organization.

There is much to be explored at this hearing. But as we struggle with the difficult security challenges facing our nation, the President needs to have a Secretary of Defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. Senator Hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications to lead the Department of Defense.

By Dan Dupont
January 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel goes before the Senate Armed Services Committee today for his confirmation hearing, and we'll be keeping track right here on Defense: Next.

In case you missed this:

Hagel Answers to Advance Policy Question

On Jan. 31, 2013, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to become the next defense secretary. Includes Hagel's answers to advance policy questions.

By Christopher J. Castelli
January 30, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is heading to Europe for several days of meetings on security issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little announced today.

Carter will travel to France, Germany, and Jordan from Jan. 31 to Feb. 6. The trip will provide "an opportunity to continue U.S. defense consultations on a range of common security challenges," Little said, and help "reinforce our strong commitment to our allies and partners in Europe and the Middle East."

In Germany, Carter will participate in the 49th Munich Security Conference. He also is slated to visit with U.S. service members to thank them for their service.

By John Liang
January 30, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Even though he has no say in the final outcome, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) just put out a statement on what he hopes to hear tomorrow during former Sen. Chuck Hagel's (D-NE) Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing to succeed Leon Panetta as defense secretary:

Tomorrow, I hope to hear testimony from an advocate for a robust and well equipped military.  I hope to hear from a nominee who discusses in real terms the resources and support our men and women in uniform need to meet the inadequate defense strategy that President Obama has mandated.  In short, I want to hear from a supporter of the Department of Defense.

We live in a hostile world going through difficult times.  In this world, perhaps no force is as hostile to our warfighter as the bookkeepers at the Office of Management and Budget. Any Secretary of Defense, Democrat or Republican, Hawk or Dove, must understand that their first obligation is to win the budget battle at the White House. After all, no military victory can be achieved unless our Armed Forces are properly resourced.

President Obama has long advocated a 'lead from behind' approach to National Security.  He places great importance on soft power and stirring words. That is all well and good, but as we have seen, this approach often ends in the need for swift, decisive military action. The job of Secretary of Defense is not to laud the 'lead from behind approach', it is not to act as a surrogate to the Secretary of State nor is it to become OMB’s man on the inside. The Secretary’s job is to make sure that when the Commander-in-Chief orders forces into harm's way, they are ready to go.

I hope Senator Hagel shows that he is willing to fight for our men and women in uniform as Secretaries Gates and Panetta did. I hope his lauded independent streak manifests itself in the form of skepticism over the White House approach. I cannot see supporting a nominee I don't believe puts the readiness and well being of the warfighters above all other concerns.

View Hagel's answers to advance policy questions from the Senate committee.

By John Liang
January 30, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Northrop Grumman officials aren't quite ready to tell Wall Street that sequestration will absolutely impact their financial forecast for 2013. As Northrop's fourth-quarter 2012 earnings statement -- released this morning -- reads:

The company's 2013 financial guidance is based on the assumption that the current six-month Continuing Resolution (CR) will be immediately followed by appropriations, which, even if in the form of a full-year CR, will provide for program spending levels consistent with those set forth in the President's FY 2013 Budget request (PBFY13) and that support and fund the company's programs. Guidance for 2013 also assumes there is no disruption or shutdown of government operations resulting from a federal government debt ceiling breach or lack of immediate appropriations following the current CR, that sequestration is not triggered, and any budgetary approach agreed by Congress to address longer term spending does not result in significant reductions to our customers' FY13 budget levels.

Northrop reported that fourth-quarter 2012 earnings per share from continuing operations increased by 2 percent compared to the same quarter the previous year, and overall 2012 earnings per share from continuing operations went up 5 percent compared to the year before.

View the full statement, along with those of other defense contractors (including Boeing, which also released its earnings report today).

By Jordana Mishory
January 30, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Defense officials are "cautiously optimistic" that the Marine Corps will soon obtain a successful audit opinion for the part of its fiscal year 2012 statement of budgetary resources that is limited to current-year balances, according to a senior service official.

During a Defense Audit Advisory Committee meeting today, Ann-Cecile McDermott, the assistant deputy commandant for resources and the fiscal director of the Marine Corps, said the service is in the "final stages" of the audit. She said the service has answered all questions posed by independent public auditor Grant Thornton and the Defense Department inspector general's office, and supplied all the information and documentation needed for the sample items.

Joe Quinn, the Pentagon's financial improvement and audit readiness director, said the department expects to see an outcome from the effort within a couple of weeks. The effort "certainly is a success in our view as far as being auditable and audit-ready and just a matter of time at this point," Quinn said.

Pentagon Deputy Chief Financial Officer Mark Easton emphasized during the meeting that although defense officials are hopeful, they do not know the conclusions of the audit.

This is the third year the Marine Corps has been under audit. The prior two audits resulted in disclaimers. In contrast to prior years, the FY-12 effort does note include beginning balances.

By John Liang
January 29, 2013 at 9:35 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) has selected Amb. Eric Edelman and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) to serve on the congressionally mandated panel that assesses the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.

"Ambassador Edelman and Senator Talent are two of the most respected defense experts in the business," McKeon said in a statement released this afternoon. "They carry the admiration of their colleagues and decades' worth of indispensable expertise in national security. I'm confident they will add value to the panel's review process and provide Congress with recommendations that will help guide our thinking on the Quadrennial Defense Review."

The defense secretary also appoints two panelists, and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees appoint an additional eight, according to the statement.

"My hope is that the remaining panelists will be seated soon so the group can begin examining the Department of Defense's rationale and process for completing the Quadrennial Defense Review," McKeon said. "The panel is charged with a critical, challenging task.  There has been a significant shift in defense strategy recently, including several rounds of defense cuts in the Budget Control Act and Sequestration, as well as an emerging long-term partnership with our Afghan allies. Ambassador Edelman and Senator Talent are uniquely qualified to meet those challenges," he added.

The statement adds:

Panelists are asked to review the Secretary of Defense's terms of reference, and any other materials providing the basis for, or substantial inputs to, the work of the Department of Defense on the 2013 QDR; conduct an assessment of the assumptions, strategy, findings, and risks in the report of the Secretary of Defense on the 2013 QDR, with particular attention paid to the risks described in that report; conduct an independent assessment of a variety of possible force structures for the Armed Forces, including the force structure reductions mandated under the Budget Control Act.

The panel must submit a report to Congress no later than three months after the Pentagon issues the 2013 QDR, according to the statement.

While the next QDR has not yet begun, possible topics for the Marine Corps may include executing the national strategy under budgetary reductions, force structure and force sizing, Inside the Navy reports this week:

Usually the Marine Corps would already be working on the QDR, but the service will not begin work until March, Maj. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, Marine Corps representative to the QDR, said Jan. 22 during a presentation at the Stimson Center in Washington.

We're going "to see what happens with the continuing resolution, with sequestration, with the debt ceiling, and those decisions on those items are going to actually inform and I think shape the way the QDR is actually going to go," he said.

Another important topic will be the role of forward presence. The QDR may look at how much forward presence is needed, whether it will be permanently forward-based or rotationally based and what the services need to do, McKenzie stated.

"It all boils down to money, it all boils down to force structure and force sizing," he said.

The other services are looking at similar problems. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is beginning to look at these topics internally, McKenzie stated.

View the rest of the story.

And to keep tabs on InsideDefense.com's upcoming coverage of the QDR process, be sure to bookmark our Defense Futures page.

By Jordana Mishory
January 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM

The best way for U.S. Special Operations Command to support the geographic combatant commanders is by improving the theater special operations commands, SOCOM chief Adm. William McRaven said today.

Speaking at a National Defense Industrial Association special operations/low intensity conflict conference, McRaven said the future of special operations lies in how well the geographic combatant commanders are supported. “If we want to adequately address current and emerging challenges with a [special operations forces] solution, we need to increase their capability,” McRaven said, referring to the theater special operations commands, which serve as the COCOMs' primary command and control nodes for special operations in theater.

SOCOM is rebalancing its manpower to better support the TSOCs in a manner that does not increase its budget, McRaven said.

McRaven also noted that the continuing resolution funding the federal government is putting a “greater constraint on us than I think sequestration will,” adding that staying at fiscal year 2012 spending levels will mean about a billion dollars in lost spending capacity.

McRaven expects taht sequestration, if it gets triggered, will take even more off the top. As a result, SOCOM leaders will work to protect warfighting capability through prioritization, McRaven said, noting that lower priorities will not be funded to ensure the “guys at the tip of the spear are fully trained, fully equipped and ready to go.”

By John Liang
January 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) today released their list of subcommittee members for the 113th Congress.

"Our Members serve as the backbone of the Armed Services Committee. I'm pleased with both the leadership and the expertise that our subcommittee chairmen bring to table.  I expect that each of them will continue our strong record of bipartisanship, as we endeavor to fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense," McKeon said in the statement.

"Our committee membership represents a diverse cross-cut of the country with a wide range of expertise and experience," Smith said. "Together, over the coming months and years, we will work to ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have the tools and resources necessary to deter, confront and defeat threats wherever they may emerge."

The subcommittee members are as follows, according to the statement:

Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Republican Members (10)

Mac Thornberry of Texas, Chairman

Jeff Miller of Florida

John Kline of Minnesota

Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania

Rich Nugent of Florida

Trent Franks of Arizona

Duncan Hunter of California

Chris Gibson of New York

Vicky Hartzler of Missouri

Joe Heck of Nevada

Democratic Members (8)

James R. Langevin of Rhode Island, Ranking Member

Susan A. Davis of California

Hank Johnson of Georgia

Andre Carson of Indiana

Dan Maffei of New York

Derek Kilmer of Washington

Joaquin Castro of Texas

Scott Peters of California

 

Military Personnel

Republican Members (8)

Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Chairman

Walter Jones of North Carolina

Joe Heck of Nevada

Austin Scott of Georgia

Brad Wenstrup of Ohio

Jackie Walorski of Indiana

Chris Gibson of New York

Kristi Noem of South Dakota

Democratic Members (6)

Susan A. Davis of California, Ranking Member

Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania

Madeleine Z. Bordallo of Guam

David Loebsack of Iowa

Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts

Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire

 

Readiness

Republican Members (11)

Rob Wittman of Virginia, Chairman

Rob Bishop of Utah

Vicky Hartzler of Missouri

Austin Scott of Georgia

Kristi Noem of South Dakota

Randy Forbes of Virginia

Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey

Mike Rogers of Alabama

Doug Lamborn of Colorado

Scott Rigell of Virginia

Steve Palazzo of Missouri

Democratic Members (9)

Madeleine Z. Bordallo of Guam, Ranking Member

Joe Courtney of Connecticut

David Loebsack of Iowa

Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii

Jackie Speier of California

Ron Barber of Arizona

Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire

Bill Enyart of Illinois

Pete Gallego of Texas

 

Seapower and Projection Forces

Republican Members (10)

Randy Forbes of Virginia, Chairman

Mike Conaway of Texas

Duncan Hunter of California

Scott Rigell of Virginia

Steve Palazzo of Mississippi

Rob Wittman of Virginia

Mike Coffman of Colorado

Jon Runyan of New Jersey

Kristi Noem of South Dakota

Paul Cook of California

Democratic Members (8)

Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Ranking Member

Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Vice Ranking Member

James R. Langevin of Rhode Island

Rick Larsen of Washington

Hank Johnson of Georgia

Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii

Derek Kilmer of Washington

Scott Peters of California

 

Strategic Forces

Republican Members (10)

Mike Rogers of Alabama, Chairman

Trent Franks of Arizona

Doug Lamborn of Colorado

Mike Coffman of Colorado

Mo Brooks or Alabama

Joe Wilson of South Carolina

Mike Turner of Ohio

John Fleming of Louisiana

Rich Nugent of Florida

Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma

Democratic Members (8)

Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Ranking Member

Loretta Sanchez of California

James R. Langevin of Rhode Island

Rick Larsen of Washington

John Garamendi of California

Hank Johnson of Georgia

Andre Carson of Indiana

Marc Veasey of Texas

 

Tactical Air and Land Forces

Republican Members (13)

Mike Turner of Ohio, Chairman

Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey

John Fleming of Louisiana

Chris Gibson of New York

Jon Runyan of New Jersey

Martha Roby of Alabama

Paul Cook of California

Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma

Brad Wenstrup of Ohio

Jackie Walorski of Indiana

Mac Thornberry of Texas

Walter Jones of North Carolina

Rob Bishop of Utah

Democratic Members (11)

Loretta Sanchez of California, Ranking Member

Mike McIntyre of North Carolina

Jim Cooper of Tennessee

John Garamendi of California

Ron Barber of Arizona

Dan Maffei of New York

Joaquin Castro of Texas

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois

Bill Enyart of Illinois

Pete Gallego of Texas

Marc Veasey of Texas

 

Oversight & Investigations

Republican Members (6)

Martha Roby of Alabama, Chairman

Mike Conaway of Texas

Mo Brooks of Alabama

Walter Jones of North Carolina

Austin Scott of Georgia

Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma

Democratic Members (4)

Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts, Ranking Member

Rob Andrews of New Jersey

Jackie Speier of California

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois

By John Liang
January 29, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter recently reissued and updated the Defense Department's policy on the use of the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process:

The PPBE shall serve as the annual resource allocation process for DoD within a quadrennial planning cycle. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), force development guidance, program guidance, and budget guidance are the principal guides used in this process. Programs and budgets shall be formulated annually. The budget shall cover 1 year, and the program shall encompass an additional 4 years.

View the memo.

And to access all of InsideDefense.com's budget reporting, check out Defense Budget Alert.

By John Liang
January 28, 2013 at 4:34 PM

The Defense Business Board held its quarterly meeting last week, during which it discussed the status of a task group's study on "applying best practices for corporate performance management" to the Defense Department.

The impetus for the study, according to briefing slides shown during the meeting, was that "the department currently faces an extraordinary confluence of management challenges, mounting costs and budget reductions, while continuing to provide for the national defense." Consequently, the task group is to "evaluate how successful executives of large and complex corporations plan, implement and maintain strong performance, especially during periods of reduced resources and/or significant changes." The group is also tasked to "identify strategies, practices and performance metrics which could be used by DOD leadership," according to the presentation slides.

View those briefing slides.

The board also discussed the findings of a study on commercial satellite communications services. Our coverage:

The Pentagon should designate a single office to procure all satellite communications assets and services, according to a Defense Business Board task force.

During its quarterly meeting today, the board approved the task force's recommendations for how to better take advantage of commercial satellite communications services. Notably, the task force's new report says the Defense Department should "facilitate future governance by designating a single DOD point for procuring all [satellite communications] assets and services."

The report also calls for the Pentagon to "address which organization(s) has operational and tactical execution authority."

"Multiple DOD officials asserted ownership for key components of SATCOM (i.e. strategy, operational, tactical and acquisition support, etc.)," the report states. "From an outside view, appears current roles and responsibilities are ambiguous."

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center procures military satellite communications assets and selected frequencies to meet end-user requirements, the report states, while the Defense Information Systems Agency procures commercial satellite communications services as needed to augment military satellites. The Defense Space Council serves as an "advisory forum," the report states.

Following the task force's recommendation for a point person on SATCOM would enable the Pentagon to get better value and prevent redundancy, the report states.

The task force believes the Pentagon is on the right track. This month, DOD Chief Information Officer Teri Takai "defined" a satellite communications governance framework, the report notes. Accordingly, the task force calls for DOD to support the CIO in establishing a governance and usage plan for military and commercial satellite "ecosystem," which includes aerial and terrestrial elements.

View the rest of the article.

View the related presentation slides.