Kelly Ayotte

To what extent is DOD actually realizing the intended savings?

The Services historically propose annual budgets that contain an amount for base operating support that is significantly less than the known requirements.

Secretary Westphal and Secretary Matiella, to what extent are these efforts documented sufficiently to help ensure that they will be implemented in a timely and effective manner?

I think it is important. We have to be able to account to taxpayers.

Secretary Hale, according to the 10-K Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the four top defense contractors recently filed, the difference between their pension plan assets and future pension liabilities range from $2.9 billion…

Due to a change in Federal accounting rules that would accelerate the amount contractors can recover from DOD for their employee pension costs, DOD may have to pay billions of dollars more for weapons programs than originally planned.

Without the ability to audit DOD's Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR), how do we actually know we are saving this money?

How can we change this process to ensure the budget proposals reviewed by Congress are an accurate accounting of what we expect to pay?

I am concerned that the annual transfer of funds between defense accounts, especially at the end of the fiscal year, decreases accountability and increases the difficulty in achieving accurate financial statements.

I appreciate that and we certainly would like to see your policies and appreciate that this is something you have already put a focus on prior to this incident that was really a complete debacle.

If we have predictability regarding certain budget expenses, why are these accounts not completely funded in DOD's budget requests?

I think where we become concerned, is when it is leading us in directions that we did not authorize.

I would suggest if it is not already a criteria, that performance evaluations be part of the measure, how much money did you return to the taxpayers.

How do we solve this? How do we get to the point where there is not this position?

Let me just ask you, Secretary Hale.

The studies show that costs increase between 12 and 15 percent when you include a requirement of a project labor agreement.

I think it's an unnecessary Federal burden placed on people who want to do good Federal work and do it at the lowest cost possible.

So you could have proceeded without the project labor agreement?

I think it's very important that New Hampshire have the Job Corps.

I'm really struggling with it. And I feel like the contractors in New Hampshire who do things efficiently and very well are being denied an opportunity here to bid because they are non-union shops, and I think it's wrong.

The absurd result that out of state contractors are the only ones that are bidding on this really important New Hampshire Federal project in our state.

Do you believe the Army should be reducing its end strength before achieving its dwell time goals?

That is a very significant number for many who have done multiple tours for us. So I think the American people need to understand that in terms of some of the choices that we are making.

If future unanticipated contingency operations emerge and the Army's dwell time predictions turn out to be too optimistic, at what point would you recommend pausing or reversing the Army's end strength reductions?

How many are going to receive involuntary termination in terms of officers and NCOs with the drawdown, the 72,000 drawdown?