from oregon to kentucky, louisiana to north dakota and minnesota and new jersey. one size cannot fit all. .. epa can recognize that such measures and programs may be

more effective and that the states can implement these programs. we think these flexible programs will nut the greatest reductions at lowest cost than can be achieved through a federal program. thank you. >> thank you. just a reminder to speakers to please talk into the mic. >> my name is frank cartzo. [inaudible] >> i'm with the international brotherhood of boilermakers, local 45 in virginia. we represent a thousand worker in the state of virginia and west virginia. a lot of our guys make their living by repairing, building,

and maintaining power plants, also constructing these epa- required devices. and we recognize the need to keep the air clean, and we feel like these requirements are to strenuous on the owners that have put billions of dollars into the plants to clean them up as much as they can. technology is starting to cap up with the part of coal we haven't been able to figure out yet, carbon capture and sequestration. we do know that it can be done but right now, we know that coal was our greatest natural resource, and we can't just shove it off to the side at this point. we're the saudi arabia of coal. there are a lot of things we can do, but we're going to need -- these owners need more time to bring their plants into

complains, but also going to need to have a little bit of help from you guys in allowing them to come up with plans that bring sequestration into play and solve this issue with carbon. if we shut down all of our coal-fired power plants -- or don't allow anymore, it's not going to be able to keep up with the 50,000 megawattses loss. the wind and solar projects are slow to bring us up to that stature but nonetheless, we do feel like this is a job-killing proposition for a lot of people, from our craft, all the way down to the coal industry, and i really do feel like there's a lot more jobs affected by this than what you guys realize. that's all. >> thank you.

>> the next two will be seth field and samantha aduce. >> want me to go first? >> good morning. i am seth field. i live in virginia. i retired a month ago after a 35-year career in the department of justice. i did not work on environmental issues, and i never really thought of myself as an environmentalist until a few years ago i became more informed and aware about global warming, climate change, and i'm here today on my own initiative. no one is paying me. i don't represent anyone other

than myself as a concerned citizen, a parent, and perhaps some day a grandparent. i'm also, after i retire, enrolled in a program at johns hopkins university. i'm studying to are masters degree in energy, policy, and climate. anytime my first semester and i have homework. i'm reading a book by distinguished climate scientist david archer, who wrote an introductory textbook on global warming. he is an oceanologist at the university of chicago, and i knew i getting ready for coming here today, and i came across a sentence that just i thought i had to bring up today. the future of the earth's climate depends mostly on what happens to coal. and he might as well have said the future of human civilization depends on what happens to coal. we all know the science tells us that coal-burning and the carbon dioxide emissions are causing

enormous problems for the country and for the world and are going to cause even more. when i hear manufacturers, the electric power industry, the coal industry, argue against taking any significant action, we hear a lot about jobs, we hear a lot about the economy, but they frequently fail to address the problems that are already happening and are going to happen even more seriously in the future from global warming caused in large part by carbon dioxide emissions. just in august, the ceo of a group called the american coalition for clean coal electricity, complained about epa standards. he said they're going to kill jobs. he talked about all the pollute tenants publish pollutantses that have been cleaned up about

he didn't mention carbon dioxide. these are serious issues and science tells us what need to be done. the coal industry ask electric power industry have had lots of time to get ready for this. they have not taken this seriously and i urge the epa to take strong action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution. thank you. >> i am -- dr. samantha arduce. i'm here today on behalf of the aap to express our support for the epa's proposed carbon pollution standard for existing power plants. thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak out today for children on the critical issue of carbon pollution and resulting climated disruption.

children are one of the most vulnerable groups to the adverse fight of chime change, more than 80% of the current health burden due to climate change occurs in children less than five years old, including the broad effects of weather dollarss, increases in rain shifts and climated sensitive infections, increases and allergic and asthmatic diseases. food and water insecurity and heat related deaths. there are reasons for the unique vulnerability of children to climatic change. they breath more air than adults and have greater exposure. the behavior of children are different. they spined more time outside during the peak hours of the day children are also dependent on their caregivers, both for their safety and as their proxies in decision such as this.

lastly, children are still developing, and adverse impact can have effects that will last a life long. the impact of early life experiences and environment on life long health has been called biological -- and results in hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. i'd like you to mention some children's lives that have been affected in 2005, hurricane katrina devastated new orleans and caused the largest displays independent our nations' history, including 163,000 children. children as young as four experience weeks of separation from caregivers, suffered suspected abuse we strangers in homeless shelters, years of homeless sunrise school unstable. approximately 40% of new orleans children developed significant mental health problems as a result. ands a weather dollarss hit communities with greater frequency due to climate change

more families and children will bear the burden. climate change is influencing infectious disease pattern. west nile disease is now endemic in the united states. and valley fever is caused bay fungus that is sendtive to heat -- sensitive to heat and humidity. a young girl in california contracted valley fever when she was six. she required treatment for over a year but remains at risk of relapse. so in summary, carbon and subsequent climate disruption is a major threat to children across the world. the aap applauds the epa to take this step to protect the future of children by reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants. thank you. >> thank you. >> next. we have sean keller and earl

mitchell. [inaudible] >> good morning. thank you very much for allowing us to do this. now you're in for a long day today. i am todd keller. i'm with the advance energy economy as their vice president of federal affairs. and aee as we call it supports the epa efforts. in develops these standard wes urge the epa to provide states with maximum flexibility in the state implementation plan. at national association of business leaders whose companies are making global energy systems more cure, clean, and affordable, we believe that

establishing standards in this manner will move the united states towards a higher performing energy system for he 21st century. thanks to technology and into the vacation we now have more options for meeting energy needs than ever before in history. we call them advanced energy. as documented in the report, economic impacts of advance energy -- it's more than a $1 trillion industry worldwide, and the u.s. advance energy revenue grew an estimated 19% from 2011 to 2012 to $157 billion. it represents an opportunity to create value and prosperity across the economy as we modernize our methods of producing, managing, and using energy. advance energy provides a wide range of technologies, products and services that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. advance energy includes energy efficiency, demand response, solar, wind, natural gas, electric generation, hydro,

nuclear, smart grid, and more. these technologies and services can provide the states with an array of cost affecting options as develop immigrant addition plans in closing, we believe that designing the standard to allow the states the flexibility to incorporate these technologies and services into their plans is simply good policy. such flexibility is the best approach for achieving a cost effective greenhouse gas emission reduction from the power sector across the country. thank you very much. >> i am earl mitchell and i live in springfield, virginia. let's start with what webster says about pollution. a harmful chemical or waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere, to make

unclean, impure, corrupt, dirty. so what we're really discussing here today is how dirty do we want to make our planet? the burning of coal, the dirtiess fuel, harms care and water. my remarks concern water. case in point, the solid residue from burnt coal is known as coal ash and is stored in manmade ponds. in december 2008, the tba, a federal utility, -- a containment pond broke and spilled one billion gallons of toxic waste, including lead, arsenic, sew lenum, which polluted over 300 acres of private farmland and two rivers. the clean yuck work is still ongoing main millions of dollars later and no one can state whether that will if be fit for human use. i am going to tell you the history of something i have witnessed for more than 50 years. this is no case study or

computer model or hypothetical study. these are my observations and experiences, starting in the 1950s, and what i lived with. i'm talking about the tree and how i swam in the pond as i was growing up. the pond was man made as a result of the company building a dam for the mill. it was constructed in the 1800s when the company wanted a steady water supply for power and for water to be used in the bleaching and dying process. the water was prior upsteam but when it was dumped into the stream after the mill finished with it it what contaminated with chemicals and dyes. you could look downstream to see what color cloth they were producing that day. after a three-quarters mile the stream dumped into a cove, tributary of the bay, is an ideal anchorage for small boats, and not much tidal action.

this period of time coincided with the bay having an abundance of clams. whenever you get -- whenever you order clam chowder, it's mostly made with -- not soft shell clams. as many as two dozen kept their work skiffs tied up. they had to travel into the main bode body of water because the cove was declared offlimits by the state of rhode island due to heavy pollution. this was before any clean water act. i visited this summer and i went to the cove. i stood on a hill high above the cove and gazed back and thought of the earlier times. i thought of the workers, jim, nick, al, and the others, and i

became sad because, you see, the cove is still polluted. the bleachery closed after 160 years of operation dumping harmful chemicals. >> it's time to wrap up. >> 50 years have passed and the pollution remains. that is the end result of neglect and weak environmental laws. let's all work to make this ruling as strong as we can. otherwise we will have many greenwich coves off over the -- all over the nation. clean air and water are necessary to sustain life. and, yes, i was a worker and during the break i can explain the trade to you. >> thank you very much, both of you. >> we'll call the next two, please. patricia and ashley goth.

[inaudible] >> remember to speak into the mic. closer than you'd like. >> i am here on behalf of creation justice ministries representing 37 christian denominations and related to care. our members. from methodists to baptists and evangelicals to orthodox traditions, and we do not agree on many things. what we do agree on, however, is the necessity to care for god's creation and for god's people. this morning, right outside of those walls, the faith community hosted a blessing to bring thoughts and prayers to this important process.

standing in the overcast, 28 people who care deeply about our planet, and the health of all people gathered together. it was a time to reflect on the great gift god has given us, as well as the responsibilities that come with them. at stewards of the land we are called to care for creation, and to ensure we leave our planet better for future generations. the faith community has sought to address climate change has we believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. sustainable and renewable practices must be implemented, because meeting our own present needs should not prevent our children and our children's children from meeting their needs. we're looking for cooperation between the epa, states and utilities, to protect god's planet and god's people in a way that makes sense and meets

various needs. we need strict emission reduction standards to reduce pollution, but these standards need to recognize the diversity of state's cultures and economies. the epa should do all it can to guarantee that price does not skyrocket and we urge the epa, states and utilities to prioritize plans that will protect low-income consumers from disproportionate and large increases in utility bills. we have a responsibility to care for our neighbors, and ensure they do not carry heavy burdens from the necessary changes. this carbon rule needs to reduce emissions by 35 to 40% in order to keep the u.s. on pace with our international commitment. we urge you to require existing power plants to reduce their emissions by at least the necessary 35 to 40%. we owe this change our brothers and sisters around the world, who are already suffering at the

hands of climate change, as well as to those that come after us. because for heaven's sake, the time for climate justice is now. >> thank you. >> my name is reverend ashley going to i'm a pastor at a congregation in the presbyterian church, u.s., in dupont circle, washington, dc. 50,000 honey bees call the backyard of the church home. three honey beehives are part of our urban garden. our hon where bees pollinate the vegetables and fruits of our garden. along with an oasis next to us, rock creek park. the eggplantses, butter nuts, squash and carrots we grow in

our urban garden goes to create meals for open table. our lunch every sunday afternoon for 40 hungry neighbors. on sundays the gardens alive, bees around pollen and neighbors eating casseroles. in that moment our backyard is host and home to living beings our society things are disposable. honey bees and hungry homeless folks. honey bees are threatened by colony collapse disorder, an ecological cries created by humans via pesticides, and climate change. hungry people are starving because of the lack of healthy food. we designed o our backyard because of the trust in the holy one and it symbolizes how we leave as people of god's way and show what we live for. zam 104 states we are to renew

the faith of the planet and right now the planet is poor from climate pollution impacting humans and ain't sect like the honey bee. the greek worse for house or household and also the root for the word euchology -- ecology. it is not limited to the private home but referring to the planet as the house, god's home. le it sets intention how to be a sacred anyway. -- a sacred neighbor. we're humans in all of life live into each other's life and die into each other's death. there's no way out or around our inner connectedness. the way of god and life. the role of the epa is to regulate the commons, and at church of the pilgrims we're doing just that. tending to our ecolocations with

the intentional to fine our place in god's home. have nothing national carbon limits for power plants sufficient fates god's design. church of the pilgrims charges the epa to care nor household, the whole house, by regulating and reducing carbon pollution standards for fossil fueled power plants. may it be so. >> our next two are james martha. >> good morning, payne leaders and staff.

i'm the treasurer and member of the board of directors of the building materials reuse association. we are the leading voice of the deconstruction and building reuse industries. it's a proud new member of the american sustainable business council. we currently represent over 175,000 large, small, -- large and small triple bottom line businesses in america. the afbc was extremely pleased to be able to host epaed a maror as a keynote speaker at its business summit on building a sustainable economy just two weeks ago. the afbc is generally supportive of the epa's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. the afbc has urged the state department to disapprove the construction of the keystone xl pipeline to pump oil from canada. up until mid-2012, i was also

the ceo of community fork lift, a used building material store in maryland, just a mile outside of the district of columbia. community forklift is a net negative carbon emitter as has been documented in the research of assistant professor bradley guy who teaches at the graduate sustainable design program at catholic university of the americas. in 2011, community forklift inhibited the release of 513 more mega tons of carbon equivalents in its annual operations than it emetted due too the fact that raw, virgin raw materials were not distracted, nor energy used to manufacture new building materials. i believe that building material reuse is a significant element of our energy future. in general, the bmra and afbc are supportive of the proposal at hand but one element concerns me greatly and i speak now, not representing any organization but as a citizen. i am against the inclusion of

enhanced oil recovery in the types of carbon capture and storage, the proposed standard promotes. do not dispute the science of carbon capture and -- i due not dividivi dispute the science but dubious of the proponents claims i object strongly to its use as a mechanism to distract more fossil fuels from the earth that will for the most part be burned for energy and themselves contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. employing enhanced oil recovery is a form of fuel switching from coal to oil that works against the epa's efforts to reduce carbon pollution, fight climate change, and protect the environment. i will quote from page 280 of the proposed standards. the epa acknowledges that there can be downstream losses of co2 after capture, for example, during transportation, injection or storage.

though a well selected and operated site is expected to contain co2 for the long term, there's the potential for unanticipated leakage. the epa expects the losses to be modest e test with incentives due to the market use as a purchased product there remains an issue whether the standard should be adjusted to reflect the downstream losses. the epa wishes to encourage rather than discourage eor using captured co2 since the practice makes carbon storage itself more economic and thus promotes use of the technology in which the proposed standard is based. i dispute this -- >> market forces or a thin reed on which to rest our environmental policy. in conclusion, i just like to add that as a resident of capitol hill, i urge the standards to serve federally run facilities like the capitol hill power plant, not far from us

today. i thank you for this opportunity to share my views. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible] >> my name is martin hayden, the vice president policy and legislation out earth justice. i want to thank epa for moving forward on developing standards to control power pollution from -- carbon pollution from power plants and holding today's listening sessionment we have an obligation to protect our children and future generations from the effect of climate change and speaking as the parent, i say this is a paramount responsibility in order to meet this obligation it's critical we reduce carbon pollution from the very units responsible for 40% of u.s. greenhouse gas emissions, existing power plants. to meet the president's goal of a 17% economy-wide reduction in

climate pollution by 2020, any rule for existing power plants must ensure a 35 to 40% reduction from 2005 levels, which is a 25 to 30% reduction from 2012. to underscore the importance of achieving reductions in the electric power sector i would point to california. according to the california air resources board, the state experienced a 29% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector between 2001 and 2011, compared to an economy-wide reduction of 6%. i would also add that california's energy production increased during this same period. the epa's rule must set a very clear floor for the states with transparent guidance about what it will take for states to get their plans approved. it is important for both ensuring that the plans effectuate the president's plan

and state plans as quickly as possible. the majority of the dirtiest coal plants in our nation are operating beyond their intended useful life. the clean air act contemplates that epa and the states consider remaining useful life in setting standards for existing facilities. that factor weighs in favor of promoting the shift to clean energy underway. the clean air act has helped reduce the levels of many conventional air pollutants and has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans. much of this progress has been the direct result of successful enforcement of the law by both the agency and citizens. making progress on reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants will be dependent on both the vigor and enforceability of the rule and the state or federal implementation plans that will

implement it. therefore it is vital that the implementation -- that the emissions reductions adopted in the rule be measurable, verifiable, and enforceable, in the subsequent implementation plan. thank you. >> the next two will be james and joel. [inaudible] >> i'm here representing myself. thank you for hosting this session on standards for car been emissions. your generosity is not lost on me. we like to add things up and evaluate the consequences, and

by my reckoning you're going to be sit through one or two thousand of these three-minute testimonial soyuz hope -- testimonials. i am a mother with a busy job as a clinical research scientist i work with tuberculosis, which poses a grave threat tower population given the advances of drug resistance. i am booked up to my eyebrows with family and work and my community, yet every day i get up and wonder what else i should be doing to enhance my visibility as a climate activist. i have hosted for the last two years -- i've joined protests and media campaigns. i've host evidence meet examination provided beds and meals for young activists in town to protest the keystone pipeline.

i've walked, i've divested, i'm engaged in civil disobedience actions, including the one at erm that got me arrested to be here today takes me so far outside my comfort zone that you wouldn't believe it. but i'm here because we all need to do more, because without a course correction on carbon emissions and climate disruption, curing tuberculosis won't matter,ing new will matter. i'm scared. one day two years ago i arrived at this does engage as a climate activist. i'm courageous and practical in every other aspect of my life, so why was i shrinking from that which i most feared? without a good answer, i faced it and i joined up and it's been better since. there are lot of people like me who have engaged and many more who whatnot to but have not, out of fear, and uncertainty about what to do next.

our capacity is huge but largely untapped by governance organizations like yours that could lead on this issue. so, please lead. i support the carbon emissions standards proposed, and i support policies that drive towards conservation and alternatives toesle fuel -- fossil fuels. we need to leave the carbon in the ground. i'm here to ask you to lead the likes of me and all of these people here -- and you can feel it -- to engage, to think, to press, to agitate, to sacrifice, and to demand results. thank you. >> thank you. >> through enter faith power and light hundreds of local

congregations of all religious traditions work together on energy and climate issues. this morning as you have already seen, i'm only one of over a dozen religious voices you will hear, speaking out in support of strong safeguards or carbon pollution from existing power plants, and we are join bid religious voices around the country who are participating in the other listening sessions. the teaching from my extra decision that inform mist thoughts on arbor pollution come from rabbi, 14th century scholar of jewish law. he wrote, one is forbidden from gaining a livelihood at the expense of another's health. one is forbidden from gaming a livelihood at the competence -- at the expense of another's health. simple, ethical wisdom. not bad for the middle ages. for too long, those who operate our power plants have been permitted to gain their lively hides at the expense of people's health. there has been limits on other

kinds of pollutant but no limits at all on carbon pollution. here in d.c. we have one of the nation's highest asthma rates particularly among children. nearly 14,000 children in our nation's capitol city sometimes struggle to breathe because of our dirty air. someone is making their living at the expense of these kids' health. we'll be hearing a lot from polluters today, saying that any limits on carbon pollution with interfere with their jobs. they have every right to make an honorable living, but it should be forbidden in this country for anyone to make their livelihood at the expense of people's health. in the religious communities with which i work, people are heartsick about the role of fossil fuels in producing the heat trapping gases causing climate change. they're working to reduce their electricity use in their sanctuaries and at home. they're climbing up on ladders to change to more efficient light bulbs, working together to support clean energy. they fought hard to bring offshore wind power to

maryland's coast, and they are willing to spend many hours in committee meetings, figuring out how to finance solar panels for the roofs. so often we're told that the change we are trying to make is unrealistic, because clean energy is so expensive, while dirty energy is cheap. but who pays for dirty energy? who bears the cost of that air quality? the cost of kids with asthma, seniors having heart attacks. who bears the cost of stronger storms, extreme drought, devastating floods, and other scary weather caused by climate change? any energy we pay for through the permanent destruction of our climate, any energy people pay for with their health, isn't cheap energy. it is intolerably expensive. on this historic morning the epa is poised to set limits on

carbon pollution. please approve strong carbon standards for existing power plants. >> thank you both. [inaudible] >> next up we have dustin white and robin blakeman. [inaudible] >> good morning. my names robin blakeman. i'm here wearing three hats. one of a presbyterian faith community leader. another is that of the west virginia based ohio valley environmental coalition.

and the third is that of an eighth generation southern west virginia resident. why did i feel the need to travel all the way from southwestern west virginia to attend this listening session? because i want you to hear that there are people in west virginia who support the epa's actions to establish stricter coal-fired power plant regulations. we desperately need this. as a member of the presbyterian faith community i believe i am called to be steward of god's good creation and to care for the most vulnerable populations in all communities. as a member of an organization which actively seeks to preserve clean air, water, and equal justice for all citizens in west virginia, i am here to urge the epa to set strict standards for overall emission reductions, while also working with states

and utilities to prioritize shifting energy sources to truly renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal and microhydropower. instead, of shifting to seemingly lower cost fossil fuels such as shale gas, which in fact has huge hidden costs. west virginia, by the way, is the only state in the country that has both gas fracking and mountaintop removal coal mining going on. we're being ravaged by both, and the head water streams of the eastern coast is at stake. i urge epa, states and utilities, to prioritize plans to protect low-income consumers from disproportionate and large increases in utility bills. i urge the epa to move quickly with the proposed and final rules so that the u.s. can begin to address the inclusion urgent problem of climate change, and

threatens mass extinct for many species and the health and well-being of existing human generations on earth as well as future yet to be born ones. the west virginia department of health and human resources put uproperty titled a strategic plan for addressing asthma in west virginia, 2010-2014. i just want to mention a a few highlights from that. the rate of asthma hospitalizations has more than doubled among seniors in west virginia since 1996. currently we have over 31,000 children and over 123,000 adults in west virginia who have at half. west virginia adult females are near live twice as likely to have asthma. the dhhr study concludes that west virginians of low socioeconomic status, adults with a high school diploma, and with an annual household income of less than $25,000, are significantly more likely to

have asthma. >> time to wrap up. >> in short, from west virginia's example, it seems clear to me that mat-related health effects of living near coal-fired power plants, which we do all through our state -- we have no other alternative -- often cost people who can least afford it. children, seniors, and women. please, establish strict rules. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am dustin white with the ohio valley coalition, member group of the alliance for appalachia. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and i am here to represent the communities that i feel are often not mentioned when talking about reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants. i'm speaking about the communities where they mine the coal for these power plants.

i am from a community of the navajo nation to the powder river bay son and my home in central appalachia who live in the wake of the extraction process can attest that coal from cradle to grave is harmful to public health. i'm from southern west virginia and have been around coal my entire life and we need to talk realistically about carbon emissions and i support epa's efforts and believe there are many mo in appalachia who do as well. i feel you cannot realistically talk about emissions without discussing the ex-extraction because they are linked. with regulating the amount of coal powered pollution produced by plants you're helping the communities where the coal industry on a daily basis rip coal from the ground and blow up entire mountains. let's call it what it is. coal pollution. whether you're living with a coal-fired power plant in your

backyard or mountaintop removal mine sites over your community, you and your neighbors are getting sick because of its impact to air quality among others. the extraction process as well as pollution from power plants is poisoning our air, water, and land. i am not a scientist. i'm just a holler boy from boon county, west virginia. i can't sit here and quote statistics. i do not deal with numbers and statistics. i deal with reality. and the reality is, people are getting sick and dying from this pollution. we know this. there are numerous scientific studies that state this and i know the epa has the studies so i decent have to quote them. i am, however, living witnessness to the illness and death every day back home. i could spend hours telling the stories of those who suffer, likely 19-year-old girl from my home county who is diagnosed with multiple types of cancer and has been given two months to live. i am outliving people i played with as a child at 30 years old.

all because they live around coal. i am sure there are residents living near coal-fired power plant whose can tell similar horror stories. there are those in the coal industry in congress who constantly rebuke and cast doubt on the science while men, women and children die of this pollution. they sim police do -- simply do not care before my people. they only care about profits and campaign dove nationsment politics, specially west virginia delegation, will insist the jobs are at risk. this is not true. and even if it were true, to be clear, no one has a job that is more important than someone else's life. contrary to what the politicians and industry say, we know there are safer and cleaner ways to produce electricity. >> time to wrap up. >> we must come together expend coal's cycle of death. this starts with meaningful regulations. no one should have to live with the respiratory issue, birth defects, cancer, and other human

issues that coal is responsible for. for the sake of our planet, the sake of public health and the sake of future generations, let's stop talking. epa, do your job. thank you. >> thank you, and thank you for making the drive here. >> next on the panel we have -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. i appreciate the chance to come here on behalf of my state. it's my understanding these sessions are intended to gather stakeholder input on what people think about future carbon regulations on existing power plants.

however i couldn't help but notice these sessions are scheduled only for states where coal does not have a large presence. like california, and massachusetts, other regions of the country, however, are well aware that coal provides nearly 40% of the nation's electricity. as such i ask all of you folks to hold a hearing in kentucky. to hear the concerns of coal country. but since epa refuses to cop to kentucky, i decided on behalf of kentucky's coalminers and their families i would bring their concerns to you myself. if the epa won't come to listen to us, we'll come here to the epa. by now it is clear that this administration and your agency declared a war on coal, for kentucky this means a war on jobs, and on our state's economy. the president has outright stated his intentions for the coal industry and this is what he had to say. if somebody wants to build a

coal-power planned they can. it's just it will bankrupt them. because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that is being emitted. the direct quote from the president of the united states. one of the first things president obama did upon taking office in 2009 was to push threwthrough congress' cap and trade bill to try to push it through, i might add, designed to hike utility rates and bankrupt the coal industry. back in 2009, his party, the democratic party, controlled both houses of congress, they haven't a super majority in the senate of 60 votes. they could actually pass anything they wanted to. but the bill only narrowly passed the house, and could never pass the senate. it idled away and ultimately did not pass in the senate. that's how extreme his president's agenda is. he proposed setting unheard of caps on greenhouse gas emissions. and his own party in control of both houseses of congress said

no. so what this president could not get enacted into law he is trying to now enact through the bureaucracy. he is unleashed the epa to fulfill the same extreme mandates that were in his cap and trade bill. before you do, you're going to hear from us. coal employs more than 13,000 people in kentucky, and i think it's important to note that at the beginning of this administration, employed 18,000. we've gone from 18,000 coalminers down to 13,000. we have a independence eastern kentucky. not a recession. a depression, because for every coal job there are three or four additional jobs. so, this administration's declared war on coal. as far as my state is concerned, since 90% of our electricity comes from coal-fired generation, we can anticipate our utility rates, which has been one of the great ways we have been able to attract new industry to the commonwealth. so we're here to remind you that

coal keeps the lights on. for kentucky, and for the nation. i want to introduce you to man who will speak for kentucky coalminers today. as a fifth generation coleman he truly understands the central role coal plays in kentucky's industry, and in our economy. in our history, and, yes in our future. brian patton's great-great grandfather was other coal minner ourland him is father hanged large coal minds in kentucky, and today brian this profit service at the james river coal service company. he knows full well how kentucky coalminers work 14-hour days to bring affordable energy to the state and the country. he knows because he works just as hard himself. if you're truly interested in listening to the people whose way of life you will affect the most, you need to listen to brian's voice of wisdom and experience.

so i'd like now to call on brian for his observations. >> thank you, senator. again to introduce myself, i'm brian patton, president of the james river coal service and very much appreciate the invitation to speak with you. senator mcconnell outlined to you the impacts these regulations and draft regulation going forward are going to have on our local economy, our state economy, and then also on the economy of the nation. as he said before, we have a depression in eastern kentucky. when i left eastern kentucky yesterday after a 48-hour work day, over two days, we furloughed and/or laid off over 200 employee. our company has had to do that for over 725 employees in the last six months. these are communities of just a thousand, 2,000 people, 3,000

people. and when you have that type of an economic impact, due to regulations, many of which that are regulations that come from washington, dc, that have very little understanding of what the outcome is for local folks, for folks that get up and go to work every day, and what the impact will be for their families in the future, and that's wrong. and obviously we're having hearings today in d.c. i find myself again here at the epa having to come to washington, dc to discuss issues. this is not my first visit here. have been here on numerous occasions. i would very much wish and invite you to coal country. i think there's a side and you have heard people speak previously saying they're from coal country, and some of those folks are, some of those folks may be visiting. but there are thousands of folks right now that would love the opportunity to sit and discuss with you the issues they have at hand. those issues are basic. they want a job. they want to go to work. they want to provide for their

families. want to provide college educations for their kids, have a decent retirement, they want to buy a bath tub. just the american dream. all that simple. and in appalachia, without coal, and without the industry that provides jobs, we have very little left for these people to remain employed. now, there may be alternative fuel measures, may be all the other things that can pop out of the woodwork, but at this point there is no alternative. so i ask that you consider the real people of appalachia, the real people of coal country, the people that really matter in this argument, because if you take away our livelihood, then i don't know what we have left. and so, again, invite you to coal country. thank you. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> we're going go ahead and take a ten-minute break.

and then we'll reconvene in ten. [inaudible] >> more live programming to tell you about. join us later today for a panel discussion looking at how to keep weapons of malls destruction out of the wrong hands. the henry -- gets underway at 3:00 eastern on c-span. >> i think regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place. and if america was considered to be a product, and we do try to sell our product overseas -- what's our brand? and i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law, and our value system, and under

that brand and under that value system there's that notion of equal under the eyes of the law, under that brand and value system is the ada and trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. >> this is a treaty. a treaty is a law, the emotional and political arguments in favor of the treaty, no one can disagree with these arguments. the question is, will the treaty actually have the legal effect that is being proffered by the proponents of the treaty. don't hear citations to articles in the treaty. we don't hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observation. by the committee on the rights of persons disability. we don't hear the kind of legal analysis appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty. >> this weekend on c-span, more than 130 countries have ratified the u.s.-inspired united nations disabilities treaty which failed to win senate approval in 2012. this week the senate foreign relations committee took up the

treaty again. saturday morning. they explain how underdogs can use the status as their advantage and the upside of being a big fish in a small pond on saturday night, and on a cried sacramento street lynnette squeaky fromme pulled the trigger. more on sunday at 5:30 p.m. >> after becoming first lady, maime eisenhower con ticketed white glove inspections and approved the menu for state visits. watch our program saturday, and live monday night our series continues. >> mrs. kennedy is very well nope as a style icon, admiration of her fashion sense. she put an awful lot of thought into her wardrobe when she was representing the country, both at the white house and while

traveling abroad. she would think about what colors would mean something to the country i'm about to visit. so for her visits to canada, she chose this red suit by pierre cardin. >> i really admire the thoughts that mrs. kennedy put into her wardrobe and she also knew the advantage of choosing a kole or style that mike her stand out in a crowd. >> first lady jack win kent, monday night, live at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> the country's top military chiefs warn congress thursday that the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, will compromise the military's ability to defend the country, and could cause higher casualties. the senate armed services hearing includes testimony from the chiefs of the army, navy, marines and air force. it's two and a half hours.

>> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning consider the impact on our national security of sequestration required by the budget control act. we welcome today our nation's service chiefs. chief of staff of the army, general raymond odierno. chief of naval operations,s a miller jonathan greenard, the commandant of the marine corps, general james aim -- eamus, and the chief of staff of the air force, general mark well. -- mark welsh. i'd like to thank them for their service to the nation and the

service provided by the men and woman whom they serve, many of whom are in harm's way. we also appreciate the important contribution made by the -- made by our 800,000dod civilians, a talented work force that has been hard hit by both sequestration and the government shutdown. sequestration is ashtrays and irrational. ...ional defense, with sequestration with continued resolutions, government shutdowns and the threat of a default on the nation's debt, we not only fail to sustain our national security but also fail to meet our shared obligation to protect and promote public safety, health, transportation, education and the environment. when we allow this to happen, we put at risk much of what we do

and stand for as a nation and we undermine our position in the world. throughout the two years since the enactment of the budget control act, our military leaders have been warning us of its harmful consequences. if sequestration continues, the services will have to cut active and reserve components and strength, reduce force structure, defer repair of equipment, delay or cancel modernization programs and allow training levels to seriously decline, which will reduce our ability to respond to global crises, thereby, increasing our nation's strategic risk. sequestration has raised questions among our allies about our ability to manage our affairs. it's introduced uncertainty into resources to support operations in afghanistan and around the world. has accelerated the decline of a nondeployed force whose

readiness was seriously underfunded for more than a decade before sequestration. and has painfully furloughed civilian workforce. i know that our senior military leaders are deeply troubled by the impact of sequestration on moral on workforces. it makes little sense to tell members of our military that we'll pay their salaries but we can't afford to train them and we can't justify telling our dedicated civilian workforce, many of whom are veterans and some are disabled veterans, that they aren't essential and they are going to be furloughed and are not going to be paid. another year of sequestration only compounds the damage that will be done to our forces and our national security. if sequestration is allowed to continue into fy '14 and beyond, we will be left with a less ready military that is

significantly less capable of protecting our interests around the world. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and impact that sequestration is already having on department of defense and on our national security. we're all delighted to have jim inhofe back with us today in full force and looking terrific. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much. i made a request to have this hearing and another one before this after the house had their hearing. it's my concern, mr. chairman, that everything you said is true but the general public is just not aware of it. over the last five years the significant cuts to our national security spending forced our men and women to endure steep and damaging drop in capables and readiness. we'll have a chance to talk about this during the questions. our naval fleet is at an historic lowest level.

the army shrinks to a force we haven't seen since the turn of the 20th century. as our security is being threatened by terrorism, the rising china and roman nations like iran, north korea and men and women charged with protecting this nation are being undermined and forced to endure devastating cuts to the tools they need to keep america safe. we have been told that over the next three years as much as $150 billion of cuts will be taken from accounts used to make sure that our military men and women are better trained and equipped. we'll show that with these charts. i know some americans are wondering why this matters and these cuts may affect their everyday lives if they really do and the simple reality is that the world around us is not getting any safer. i've often said that recently i look back at the days of the cold war. we had things that were predictable. and that's not the case anymore.

we have rogue nations have the ability and develop the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and we know that's happening. hopefully this hearing will bring this to the attention of the american people. it's america's leadership, trust in american security partners and our ability to protect this country is receding. we have seen the effects. we're at a point where our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. as america retreats from its role as a global leader, we'll have more failed states like syria and libya as breeding grounds for terrorism. we'll have more brutal dictators acquiring weapons of mass destruction and more aggressive adversaries like china attempting to bully our partners in the south china sea but we'll have fewer options of how to deal with them. this is why i'm so troubled with the disastrous path we're on in

face of the mounting threats to america we're crippling our military and people that are vital to our security and our military leaders use the term hollow to define the forces of the future. the chairman of the joint chiefs warned us that continued national security cuts will severely limit our ability to inplemt our defense strategy and put the nation at greater risk of coercion and it will break face with the american people. i think another quote that i carry with me is one that admiral, our number two person in the overall military that we have, he said there could be a time -- be for the first time in my career instances that we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we'll have to say that we cannot. this faith is sacred to me. our nation relies on our population to volunteer to risk

their lives on our behalf. the faith is being threatened by a growing divide between security our nation expects and the resources being provided then to give us that security. our witnesses testified before the house in september about the potential of not having the readiness capabilities to succeed in one operation. that's something that all of us assume and most americans assume that we still could defend against two ncos. that's just not true. if we have to go through sequestration, we may not be able to do either one. that's why it's so important that we hear from you folks that have the credibility to make sure that the american people understand this. i think about peace obtained through strength. we know that ronald reagan is probably rolling over in his grave seeing what's happened to

the military sdrent of this country. that's what this hearing is about, mr. chairman. and i look forward to this being an opportunity for all of us at this table to use the information that comes from this hearing to make america aware of the problems that are facing us. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. general? >> chairman levin, ranking member inhofe and members of this committee, thank you for the invitation to speak today. if you'll just indulge me for a few seconds i'd like to begin by recognizing the service of ike as the chairman of the house armed services committee he was an incredible leader, mentor and champion of our soldiers, civilians and their families. what was interesting though in his farewell address he made a comment that i think is appropriate for the conversation we're having today. when he remarked, i've always considered each young man and woman in uniform as a son or daughter. they are national treasures and their sacrifices cannot be taken

for granted. they are not chess pieces to be moved upon a board. each and every one is irreplaceable. and i think those words are very important today as we talk about the readiness of our force and as we consider future budget cuts and their impact on our national defense. it is impairtive that ke keep foremost in our minds the impact that this has on the young men and women, our soldiers who we ask to go forward and protect this nation. previous draw downs have taught us that the full burden of an unprepared and hollowed force will fall on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. we have experienced this too many times in our nation's history to repeat this egregious error again. it it may be popular to proclaim that we are entering a new age where land wars are obsolete. yet history leaders never knew

would be fought. in the summer of 1914 a british journal declared that the world is moving away from military ideals in a period of peace, industry and worldwide friendship is dawning. new technology such as airpla airplanes, machine guns, dynamite and radios were sent to ridiculous and impossible. and yet the next year we will mark -- but next year we will mark the 100th anniversary of the war to end all wars. i can give you an example of that for every major conflict. there are many comments that said we would never fight wars again. we would never send our soldiers into harm waes east way, but we did. it was significant consequences to the men and women who wore the uniform. whether it it be in korea with task force smith or whether it be in vietnam in the initial days of vietnam. we cannot allow that to happen again. throughout our nation's history

the united states has drawn down military forces at the close of every war. this time, however, we are drawing down our army not only before a war is over but at a time where unprecedented uncertainty remains in the international security environment. the total army, the active army, the army national guard and the u.s. army reserves remains heavily in operations overseas as well as at home. as we sit here today, more than 70,000 u.s. army soldiers are deployed to contingency operations with nearly 50,000 soldiers in afghanistan alone. additionally there are more than 87,000 soldiers stationed across the globe in nearly 120 countries. during my more than 37 years of service, the u.s. army has deployed soldiers and fought more than 10 conflicts including afghanistan, the longest war in our nation's history. no one desires peace more than the soldier who has lived

through war. but it is our duty as soldiers to prepare for it. as chief of staff, it's my responsibility to man, train and equip the force to provide america with the best army possible. as a member of the joint chiefs of staff, it's my responsibilit advice to ensure the army is capable of meeting our national security needs. if congress does not act to mitigate the speed and reductions of the budget control act with sequestration, the army will be forced to make significant reductions in force, structure and end strength. such reductions will not allow us to execute the 2012 defense strategic guidance and will make it very difficult to conduct ooen one sustained major combat operation. from fiscal year '14 to fiscal year '17, as we draw down and restructure the army into a smaller force, the army will have a degraded readiness and

extensive modernization program shortfalls. we'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk programs such as ground combat vehicle, armed aerial scout, production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades, manned vehicles and modernization of our command and control systems just to name a few. from fy '18 to fy '23 we'll begin to balance modernization. this will only come at the expense of significant reductions in the end strength and force structure. the army will be forced to take additional end strength cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 in the active army, 358,000 in the army national guard and 205,000 in the u.s. army reserves to no more than 420,000 in the active army, 315,000 in the army national guard and 185,000 in the u.s. army res.

this will represent a total army end strength reduction of more than 18% over seven years, a 26% reduction in the active component, a 12% reduction in the national guard and a 9% reduction in the u.s. army reserves this will also cause us to reduce our brigade combat teams by 45%. ultimately the size of our army will be determined by the guidance and funding provided by congress. it is imperative that congress take action to mitigate and ease sequestration reductions. i do not consider myself an al armist. i consider myself a realist. today's international environment's emerging threats require a joint force with a ground xoet that has the capability and capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests. the budget control act and sequestration severely threaten our ability to do this. in the end, our decisions today and in the near future will

impact our nation's security posture for the next ten years. we've already accepted nearly $700 billion in cuts to the department of defense. today we have the premier army in the world. it is our shared responsibility to ensure we remain the premier army and the premier joint force in the world. thank you very much, chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to talk. >> thank you so much general odierno. admiral greener. >> chairman levin, thank you very much for mentions our civilian personnel. those are our ship mates. we still have quite a few still hurting from the tragedy senator inhofe, thanks for being here. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the short and the long-term effects of sequestration and our perspective on the strategic choices and management review.

this morning i'll address two moin points, our budget situation and our plan for fiscal year '14 and the near and the long-term impacts of sequestration. mr. chairman, presence, that remains our mandate, your navy's mandate. we have to operate forward where it matters and we've got to be ready when it matters and we have to be able to respond to contingencies with acceptable readiness. recent events this year alone have clearly demonstrated our ability to do that with deployed forces. navy assets were on station within a few days where needed and offered options to the president whenever the situation dictated, north korea, egypt and syria as an example. this ability to be present reassures our allies and ensures that the u.s. interests around the world are properly served. in 2014 sequestration will further reduce our readiness and surely reduce our ship and aircraft investment. the budget control act revised

discretionary caps will preclude our ability to execute the 2012 defense strategic guidance both in the near term and the long term. restrictions associated with a continuing resolution preclude transfers funds across programs, increasing needed program quantities and starting important new programs. the impacts of sequestration will be realized in two main categories, readiness and investment. there are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reduction in our operations and maintenance will result in only one non-deployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for contingency response. our covenant with the combat commanders is to have at least two carrier strike groups and two amphibious groups deployed and have them ready to respond to a crisis on short notice. so, for example, right now we

have one carrier strike group deployed in both the arabian gulf and the western pacific. and our one response carrier strike group, the nimitz is in the eastern mediterranean. because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're in we don't have another group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of a contingency. we're tapped out. in 2014 we'll be forced to cancel aircraft and ship maintenance that will result in reduced life in our ship and aircraft. we'll only conduct essential renovation of facilities further increasing the large backlog in that area. we'll be required to keep a hiring freeze in place that will further degrade the distribution of skill and balance in the civilian workforce which is so critical. we won't be able to use prior year funds to mitigate like we did in fiscal 2013.

without congressional action we will required to cancel the plachbd procurement of a virginia class submarine a literal combat ship and an afloat forward staging ship and we will be forced to delay the delivery of the ford and delay the overhaul of "the george washington." mr. chairman, the key to a balanced portfolio is a spending bill, and secondarily top shun to propose to the congress the transfer of money between accounts. this at least would enable us to pursue innovative acquisition approaches, start new projects, increase production quantities and complete the ships we have under construction. just to meet minimum, that readiness needs, we need to transfer or reprogram about $1 billion into the o and m account and about $1 billion into our procurement accounts, mostly for ship building. we need to do this by january.

after the strategic choices and management review was completed, our focus has been on crafting a balanced portfolio of programs within the fiscal guidance that we were provided. further details of our approach into what we call the alternative palm are outlined in detail in my written statement which i request be entered for the record. in summary, we will maintain a credible and modern sea-based strategic deterrent, maximize foreign presence to the extent we can using ready deployed forces and continue investing in ace met tick capabilities while with this committee's help we'll do our best to sustain a relevant industrial base. however, there are several missions and needed capabilities specified in the defense strategic guidance that we cannot perform or keep apace with potential adversaries. these will preclude us from meeting the operational requirements as currently written and defined by our combat commanders with acceptable risk. these are also detailed in my written statement. applying one fiscal and prom

attic scenario we would end with a fleet of about 255 ships in 2020. that's about 30 less than we have today. it's about 40 less than was planned in our program -- our president's budget '14 system and 51 less than our assessment we validated and submitted of 306 ships. mr. chairman i understand the pressing need for our nation to get its fiscal house in order. it's imperative that we sustained the appropriate war fighting capability, the appropriate forward presence and we be ready. those republican the attributes we depend on from our navy. i look forward to working with the congress to find the solutions that will ensure our navy retains the ability to organize, to train and to equip our great sailors and our civilians and their families in the defense of our nation. thank you. >> thank you so much, admiral.

now general amos. >> chairman levin, ranking member inhofe, welcome back. committee members thank you for your consistently strong support for your military forces and for your obvious love of our country and justified concern for its defense. all of us sitting before you this morning, my colleagues are mindful of your collective and individual sacrifices and are grateful for your unflagging fidelity. the sequester defense budget falls short in meeting the marine corps's requirements and those of the joint force. your marine corps is ready today. in order to maintain readiness within the current fiscal environment, we are mortgages the readiness of tomorrow's marine corps to do so. we are ready today because your marines are resilient and determined to defend the united states of america. despite year after year continuing resolutions, the budget control act, furloughs and the government shutdown, the monday and women who wear my cloth are patriots first.

the defense of our fellow americans and our way of life is our number one priority, even over the comforts of self. last month's furlough of more than 14,000 of our civilian marines was a grave disservice to an honorable and dedicated workforce who wants nothing more than to advance the security of the american people. our civilian marines are a vital part of our team. they are the technicians, the experts, the teachers, the clerks in our commissaries and our exchanges. they are our corporate memory. they are our surge capacity or depots who provide unique skills in support of the active and reserve force. they deserve better, quite frankly. i'm ashamed of the way they've been treated through the furloughs and the uncertainty. during the first year of sequestration i have realigned fund within my authority to maintain unit readiness to the highest extent possible. my priorities have remained consistent. first and foremost, the near term readiness of our foreign

deployed forces. followed thereafter by those that are next to deploy. this readiness comes at the expense of infrastructure sustainment and modernization. we are funding today's readiness by curtailing future voemt in equipment and in our facilities. this year we are spending approximately 68% of what is required bare minimum to maintain our barracks, our facilities, our bases and stations and our training ranges. this is unsustainable and it can't continue over the long term. if we are to succeed in future conflicts, we must modernize our equipment and maintain the infrastructure that enables our training. we must also invest in our people. to meet the requirements of the defense strategic guidance, we need a marine corps of 186,800 active duty. a force of 186.8 allows us to meet our steady state operations and fight a sij major war. it preserves a one to 312 for

our marines and families. under the 2011 budget control act, the $487 billion reduction cut our strength further to 182,000. with sequestration, ki no longer afford a force of 182. in february we initiated a parallel study to the department of defense's strategic choices management review. our internal review determined the foresize i could afford under a fully sequestered budget, this was not a strategy-driven effort, it was a budget-driven effort, pure and similar. our exhaustive research backed by independent analysis determined a force of 174,000 marines quite simply is the largest force that we can afford. assuming that the requirements for marines remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the marine corps to a one to 212. it will be that way for virtually all my operational units.

six months deployed, 12 months home recuperating, resetting and training and six months deployed once again. this is dangerously close to the same tempo we had in iraq and afghanistan while fighting in nullity theaters and maintaining steady state amphibious operations around the world. the 174,000 force accepts great risk when our nation commits itself to the next major theater war. as there are significant reductions in my service in ground combat and aviation units available for the fight. under sequestration we will effectively lose a marine division's worth of combat power. this is a marine corps that could deploy to a major contingency, fight and not return until the war is over. we will empty the entire bench. there will be no rotational relief like we had in iraq and afghanistan. marines who joined the corps during that law will likely go

straight from the drill field to the battlefield without the benefit of pre combat training. we will have fewer forces arriving less trained, arriving late tore the fight. this would delay the buildup of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build its defenses and would likely prolong combat operations altogether. this is a formula for more american casualties. we only need to look to 1950 and the onset of the korean war to see the hazard and the fallacy in this approach. thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you. i'll continue to work with the members of this committee to fix the problems we're faced with. >> thank you very much, general amos. general welsh. >> thank you, chairman. ranking member inhofe, welcome back, into hope you have your landing currency reset. it's an honor to be here. thank you for everything you do. the real and i'm projected impacts of sequestration are sobering. if it remains in place for fy '14 our air force will be forced

to cut flying hours to the extent that within three to four months many of our flying units won't be able to maintain full misread dins. we'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets which we will unable to avoid in fy '13 because prior year unobligated funds helped of set about 25% of our sequestration bill last year. those funds are no longer available. while we hope to build a viable plan to slow the growth of personnel costs over time and to reduce infrastructure costs when able, the only way to pay the full sequestration bill is by reducing force structure, readiness and modernization. over the next five years, the air force could be forced to cut up to 25,000 airmen and up to 550 aircraft which is about 9% of our inventory. to achieve the necessary cost savings in aircraft force structure we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft. we can't do it by cutting a few aircraft from each fleet. we'll prioritize global, long

range capabilities and multirole platforms required to operate in a highly contested environment. we plan to protect readiness as much as possible. we also plan to prioritize full spectrum training. if we're not ready for all scenarios we're accepting the notion that it's okay to get in the fight late. we're accepting the notion that the joint team may take longer to win and that our war fighters will be placed at greater risk. we should never accept those notions. if sequestration continues, our modernization and recapitalization forecasts are bleak. it will impact every one of our programs and other time these disruptions will cost more money to rectify contract breaches, raise united costs and delay delivery of critical equipment. we're looking at cutting 50% of our modernization programs. we'll favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required. that's why our top three acquisition programs remain the

f-35, the kc 46 and the long range strike bomber. your air force is the best in the world, and it's a vital piece of the world's best military team. that won't change even if sequester persists. but what and how much we'll be capable of doing will absolutely change. thank you for your efforts to pass a bill that gives us stability and predictability over time. those two things are essential as we try to move forward. my personal thanks for your continued support of airmen and their families. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all of your testimony and through, also, for -- by the way, we're going to have a fairly short first round because we have votes at 11:45, two of them. and we also have a large number of senators here. we're going to have to start with a six-minute first round. thank you for mentioning congressman skeleton. most of us have worked with ike

skelton for a long time. our memories of him are extraordinarily fond and warm. he was a unique and wonderful human being. we really appreciate what he did for this nation in war and in peace. we're grateful that you made reference to him. it's something, frankly, i should have done and have already done in a different way, but should have done here. thank you for that reference. the successful conclusion of the budget conference between the senate and the house is essential if we're going to address the problem of sequestrati sequestration. they are hopefully looking at various alternatives forgetting rid of a mindless, a rational way of budgeting for 2014 the way it was for 2013. but much is going to ride on

their success in finding a different approach to deficit reduction. many of us have made suggestions to them as to how to come up with a balanced approach to deficit reduction which can substitute a sensible approach for an irrational approach called sequestration. we're not going to ask you to get into that kind of detail in terms of the work of the budget committee because the conference, because number one, i doubt you are privy to it, but secondly it's a little bit off the subject here today which are the impacts of sequestration the clearer those impacts are laid out -- and you have laid them out very clearly -- the more likely it is, i believe, that that budget conference will find a path replace the sequestration

in '14 with something that makes sense in terms of fiscal responsibility, but something that makes sense in terms of the security of this nation. as you have very powerfully pointed out in both your oral testimony, your written testimony and your prior testimonies, sequestration is damaging to the national security of this country. in fiscal year '13, the department was able to minimize impacts in part by using unobligated funds that were carried over from previous years, in part by deferring program costs into future years, in part by utilizing short-term cost reduction measures such as civilian furloughs and reductions in training and maintenance rather than making program decisions that would be more difficult to reverse. so my question of each of you

is, if sequestration continues into fiscal year 2014 and bey d beyond, will the department be able to continue to rely on those types of temporary measures or, as i think you've clearedly testified, would you have to start reducing force structure and canceling or curtailing major acquisition programs? i think you've given us the answer to the second half, but can you go into the first half of that question? we were able to scramble around -- you were, to a significant degree in 2013, are you going to be able to rely on those temporary ad hoc measures if sequestration continues into 2014? general odierno. >> thank you, chairman. as we -- as you put it very well, scrambled in 2013 to come up with with the dollars to meet

our sequestration marks, there's things we do to mortgage our future. we had to take money out of two places, readiness because we could do that very quickly, so we stopped training. we stopped sending individuals to be prepared at the national training center, joint readiness training center. you can't ever recapture that. what that does, it delays the buildup of future readiness. we will have to pay that price somewhere down the road because we simply cannot ever get that back. so although we were able to do for one year, it comes at risk, our risk to respond, our risk to -- if we have a contingency, will our forces be ready? that's incredible risk that i am definitely not comfortable with the second piece is we've had to furlough individuals who have worked for this government. frankly, they're beginning to lose faith in our that

government, are they able, will they be able to continue to serve? those are temporary measures we do not want to revisit again and that we have to have more personal nentd solutions. >> admiral? >> mr. chairman, first of all we have a $2.3 billion carryover. '13, we deferred into '14. here we go. you can't defer it. these are contracts and things of that nature. that's one. two, in '13 we actually had a quarter of maintenance and training, because we didn't start dealing with this until the new calendar year. we got a lot of maintenance done there that we won't be able to get done this year. so 34 out of 55 ship maintenance availabilities, that will be gone. training we were able to get training done there, we can't get that there. we will have air wings. of the nine air wings we'll have five of them in what we call

minimum sustaining tactical. the one that will affect us the most will be vaemt. what concerns me the most is our ssbnx. that is our top nuclear stra teaming irk deterrent follow-on. the fact of nat ter, it's on continuing resolution. because we want to grow that program in '14, we're $500 million off in '14. so that comes to roost in the schedule of that and we're heel to toe. other ship building, we'll lose a virginia class submarine, literal combat ship and float forward staging base and a lot of costs to continue. the forward carriers werks need about $500 million to finish that carrier and by spring we stop work on it which is not very smart because it's almost done. thank you. >> thank you. general amos, can we continue the kind of of temporary actions we took fy '13 into '14.

>> there's no more money in carry over. we were 99.8% obligated at the end of '13. there's no money to bring over. we're going to live with what we have and 14 other continual resolutions. we've taken measures in the past. civilian hiring was frozen two years ago. we've already gone through our travel accounts. our reserves have been taken off active duty to reduce the t.a.d. costs. there's no more fat on our owns. >> general welsh? >> i echo what you already heard. we paid about $1.5 billion against our sequestration bill last year. that was about 25%. that will not be available this year. we start on a cr for the beginning of 14 that is roughly just in our own account, $500 million less than we had programmed for '14. the program didn't include the funding required to recover the

readiness we set aside last year. we are behind the power curve and dropping farther behind the power curve. >> thank you very much. senator inhofe. >> i appreciate you bringing up skelton. during the years i served in the house we sat next to each other every thursday morning at the house prayer brerk fast and got to know him quite well. he's sorely missed. i asked to have this chart placed up here so you can see it. i think the four of you can see this. this chart was put together by both the minority and majority on the senate armed services staff to kind of put into perspective where we are and where we're going with this thing. i know a lot of improvements have to be made. we had a discussion yesterday on the republican side about some

of the things that will have to be done with personnel, with tricar and some of those things. all of that you would find in the blue section down below. it's not going to really address the we have even though it is important. force structure, i think we individually have that same chart up here. you're talking about fiscal years '14, '15 on through fiscal year '23. so the force structure is a very serious modernization program. the mod defrnization -- we all know when things get tight modernization is one of the things that goes. by far of greatest concern is the orange area. it shows clearly that that is where readiness is. that's where training takes place there. i would like to have each one of

you respond to your concern about that particular part of this chart, the orange part. i've also said readiness equals risk. risk affects lives, lives lost. i'd like to have each one of you kind of tell what you think in terms of the people being at risk and lives lost might be affected by what you're going to have to do in this next fiscal year according to this chart. >> thank you, senator. this chart describes exactly the problem that the aefrm has. we're taking down our end strength. we're looking at speeding um taking down our end strength. you can only speed up so fast when you start to lose the money that you game by taking end strength out. we have a huge readiness issue between '14 to '17 that we frankly will significantly impact our ability to respond in the way we expect to respond. the other pieces will have to

stop some of our modernization programs which means we'll delay getting new equipment five to ten years. we'll have to stop programs and restart them later on when we get back into balance. for us it is significant readiness issues. we will not be able to train fem for the mission they're going to have to do, we veal to send them without the proper training and actually maybe proper equipment that they need in order to do this. it always relates to potentially higher casualties if we have to respond. >> admiral greenert? >> for us it is force structure -- we man equipment, senator. and so what that means is to redu reduce to deal with a reduction, we'd have to reduce force structure. this chart indicates how much we'd have to give up in the near term in order to garner savings. that means what do you do now? for me it's forward presence. i make sure the forces forward are ready, but those that are

there for crisis response, right now i'm sitting at two-thirds reduction in that alone. so you have to be there with confident and proficient people. if they're not confident and proficient, you're talking more casualties and you have to keep a pace with the capabilities of the future or you're unable to deal with a potential adversary. that's increasing casualties. we will be slipping behind in capability, reduced force structure and reduce contingency response. if we're not there, then somebody is out there and they're going to have increased casualties. >> general amos, you covered this in a lot of detail. anything you want to add from your opening statement in terms of readiness sacrifice, how it relates to risk and lives? >> snt senator, as you know as i said in my opening statement, we moved moneys to maintain risk. each service has a different orange wedge. mine is smaller than that, but that's for the near term right now because i'm paying that price to maintain that readiness

to be your crisis response force. but that will only last probably not later than 2017. i'll start seeing erosion in about a year and a half. we're paying that with other moneys, infrastructure training. >> that's what you referred to when you said in your opening statement, you used the phrase, a formula for more american casualties? >> absolutely, yes, sir, senator. we are headed towards a force in not too many years that will be hollow back home and not ready to deploy. if they do deploy, they will enter harm's way, we'll end up with more casualties. >> in responding to the question, general welsh, i heard yesterday someone talking to you about an experience you had in alaska. can you share that with us. i remind people that the cost not necessarily for an f 22, but to get someone to a level of

proficient see f 15, 16 is about $7 million. talking huge rents in personnel. would you like to repeat the statement you had made? >> senator, i've actually had this conversation multiple places in the air force. one of our bases recently i was talking to a group of young pilots who where eligible for our aviation career incentive bonus. of that group there were six to eight in the group. none of them accepted the bonus to that point. >> not one? >> not one. that doesn't necessarily mean they're planning to leave the air forces but certainly means they're keeping their options open as a minimum. it's not just pilots. i was at another base where a couple of very young airmen told me they love the air force but they were bored. their particular squadrons were not flying. they were sitting on the ramp because of the reductions last year. they said at the end of their enlistment they planned to find work that was more exciting.

i haven't heard anybody in the military say they were bored in quite some time. >> i appreciate that. i just want to read one of the most alarming concerns that we had, have raised, was the belief that your service may not be able to support even one major contingency. i'd like for the record -- when you stop and think about the collective service of four of you is 156 years. we're talking a lot of experience, a lot of history. i'd like to have you for the record respond to that in terms of not being able to meet even one major contingency operation. >> thank you, senator. senator reid. >> thank you, chairman. thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation. i think one of the issues we have to ask because so much of our readiness is ready for what? that will be answered in some respects in the qdr which will be affected by the budget regardless of whether we're able to work our way through these

obvious problems. so could you give us a sense, general odierno from from the army's perspective in terms of ready for what? >> thank you, senator. as we learn from the past and look to the future, it's about having the capability to do a multiphase combined arms joint campaign that operates in a very complex environment that includes conventional opponent, irregular warfare, counterinsurgency. that's where future warfare is going. we have to train our forces to do that. right now the army is great in counterinsurgency. we want to continue to keep that expertise. we've got to build our combined arm joint capability to do a multiphase campaign for a major contingency operation. we were supposed to begin training for that in '13. we were not able to because of the cuts we had to make in our training dollars. we're now behind. that's the problem we have. right now we have limited number

brigades that are capability of doing that right now and we're falling further behind as we move forward. >> one of the reasons that we are so well schooled in counterinsurgency is we invested over the last decade billions of dollars in counterintur genesee. looking forward, is that going to be is that going to be a primary mission or ancillary mission in qdr? if that's the case we invested a lot of money in a capability that we're not going to be using. >> i would say it's capability that's going to be needed but will not be at the forefront as it has been in the past. >> admirable greenert, the same question. >> for us it's to ensure we have a sea-based strategic deterrent on track. subject to my comments in my opening statement, this issue we

have with '14 to get the resolution -- we need to grow the program. i can't do that until we get a bill in '14. sequestration, we lose the ability -- $150 million. it sounds sort of nagging, but we have to get design engineers hired. even when we get the money, you can't click your fingers and hire 600 specialized assign engineers. we've got to keep this coherent. we're on a very tight schedule when the ohio phase is out to deliver on time. for us also it's the undersea domain. we have to own it quite simply. it's my job as the navy, and to keep that on track. i'm concerned we fall behind in anti-submarine warfare keeping apace of our potential adversaries. that's a priority regardless of sequestration. we will invest in that. it's integrated air and missile defense. that gets into the electromagnetic spectrum, cyber, bringing those new capabilities in from jammers to cyber

warriors, et cetera. it's also just flat out presence. quaunt has a quality of its own, and being sure we have the right ships with the right capability with my partner to my left, the navy-marine corps team, we can be where we need to take care of the little crises day in and day out so they don't fester and become bigger crises and we get in the situation of a major contingency. >> general amos and then general welsh? >> the requirements for the marine corps is to respond to any crisis today, not a week from now, a month from now, but to day. as we move moneys around to maintain the level of readiness, we're trying to keep a balanced force. as we go forward into this sequestered force, qdr force, what we need to have in my service is a balance between modernization readiness and personnel, the right amount, not hollow, but high state of readiness forces. so to do that we are balancing this thing down, dialing all the

dials trying to make sure we end up with something that is not a hollow force and that is a ready force. amphibious combat vehicle, the replacement for our 40-plus-year-old tractors is the number one priority for me, followed by the f-35b which is performing well. as we go forward, my focus, regardless of how big the marine corps ends up being as a result of how much money i get, will be a balanced high state of readiness force, ready to respond to today's crisis today. >> general welsh please. >> the choice we face is readiness today verse as modern tomorrow. the air force is no different. that's the thin line we're trying to walk. for us we have a requirement for readiness to respond rapidly that's what what we bring to the joint force. we have read dins to be viable ten years from now. we are a high tech force. we are plat formed based much

like the navy. we have to invest now to make sure we have the proper capability ten years from now. that's why modernization of is so critical to us. the other thing that is a major concern for me is getting back to full spectrum training, much like odierno is worried about. we walked away from that because of the demand on the war in afghanistan. last year we canceled our red flag which is high profile and even our weapons instructor courses because we didn't have enough money to conduct them. that's where we train our phd level war fighters to lead and train the rest of the force. we have got to get back to that. >> thank you very much. a final brief comment, from the appropriations perspective, giving certainty in terms of a budget, not a cr -- because that would be very difficult in terms of no new starts, no anything, two years of certainty, total relief sequestration would

probably put you in the best position. i see let the record show, nodding heads. >> thank you, senator reed. senator mccain. >> i want to thank the witnesses. i wish every member of congress and ef yes american were tuning in to your testimony today so we would have a sense of urgency that unfortunately is certainly not significant enough to bring us back into i think a rational approach to our nation's defense. i thank you for your service and i'm very appreciative to be around americans who have respect and admiration of the american people. i share all of your views, but you've left out a couple of items one of them is the continued cost overruns of our weapons systems. admiral greenert, you just talked about you needed 500 additional for the gerald r.

ford. is that correct? you just mentioned that? >> that's correct. >> you didn't mention we have a $2 billion cost overrun in the gerald r. ford. tell me, has anybody been fired from their job as a result of a $2 billion cost overrun of an aircraft carrier? >> i don't know, senator. >> you don't know. actually, you should know. you should know admirable when we have a $2 billion cost overrun on a single ship, now you're asking for $500 million more. i would ask the same question of general welsh. has anybody been fired because of the cost overruns of the f-35? i don't think so. we've had hearing after hearing in this committee concerning the first trillion dollar defense acquisition in history. the numbers are astronomical as to the size, increase in size of your staffs. we have seen double and

redoubling size of the staffs of the major commands and your own. that's never been brought under control. we now have 1.5 million civilian contractors and employees -- civilians and their contractors' employees and only $1.3 million -- excuse me -- 1.3 million uniform personnel. that's got to be cut back. the number of civilian contractors and personnel have got -- they don't fight. they do great jobs, but they don't fight. you're going to have to -- this committee may have to impose cuts in the size of your staffs. they've grown astronomical, by the thousands. finally, i guess i would ask my -- the witnesses, despite what some may think, i agree with former secretary gates who said the, quote, entitlements

are, quote, eating us alive. major one being health care costs consuming a larger and larger percentage of our budget. i'd ask if you would favorably be inclined to address, one, retirement as far as increasing gradually, prospectively the number of years before retirement. two, imposition of increase in fees for tri-care which there hasn't been an increase since 1989 and also perhaps even looking at things like the contribution that used to be made for off-base housing and other costs that have grown so dramatically. maybe i could begin with you, general odierno. not only would i like the answer to that question, bide glad to hear you respond to my comments, particularly about cost

overruns. >> first, on compensation, we have to grapple with compensation within the military. the joint chiefs are working very hard with this issue. the cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001. it's going to almost double again by 2025. we can't go on like this. so we have to come up with compensation packages, not taking money away, but reducing the rate of increase of pay increase. basic housing allowance you brought up, look at the commissaries, look at health care. we have to have a total package that allows us to reduce the cost. >> could i interrupt one second. do you know of a sij soldier, airmen or marine that joined the military because of tri-care? >> it would be difficult to answer that question. what i would tell you, though, senator is they do come with very large families and health

care is a big issue for them. that doesn't mean we can't work with them on that. in terms of cost overruns, i agree with you. we are tackling this problem. i would tell you we're holding people accountable, but not holding them accountable enough. we have to continue to work that, specifically with the issue that you brought up. >> senator, these attributes of changes to compensation i would look at favorably. you're speaking at least my language. i'm sure my colleagues feel the same way. about 50% of every dollar d.o.d. goes to personnel predominantly as compensation. if we keep going this way, it will be at 60 and 70 in a decade plus. we can't do that. i think it's our responsibility to take a hard look at it. when i talk to my people, they say my quality of life is pretty good, that's the pay, the compensation that you mentioned. they say my quality of work, i need help. i got gaps. i want training.

where is my chief? i want to go to the bin and get spare parts. >> it's been referred to, some of the best and the brightest are considering their options which is something that never shows up on a profit and loss basis. is that correct? >> yes, sir, you're absolutely right. if i could talk to headquarters staff just a second. we've been assigned a goal of 20% as we're working to build our budget. we're going beyond that. we got a goal of money, we're looking at four times that reduction. we were looking at -- we had a goal of 400, for example, of civilian personnel. we're looking at five times that. we're taking a hard look at that. we're working our way down to the subhead quarters. as you look at this orange and you look at the blue efficiencies, our piece of that, to get at that, we're looking at about 25% of our reduction is in overhead and contractors. we're taking a pret stay robust look. we look forward to briefing your staff when that time comes.

>> senator, you'll find i think a ready audience up here for benefits. it's more than just the try care. it's everything. it all fits underneath the personnel. i pay 62 cents on the dollar right now for manpower. that's not because marines are more expensive. it's just my portion of the budget is smaller. that's going to go well over 70% by the end of the fid dip if something is not done. you'll see the joint chiefs come to congress through the president talking about a package of cuts and reductions, how we can cut that down. so that's en route. as you're aware, the folks are looking at the retirement. we're open to just about anything. it's in our best interest and our nation's best interest. we're reducing the marine corps if we stay on the sequestered budget by 28,000 marines. inside that, well over 20% of headquarter reductions. i'm eliminating en