they give up to some degree what they can say. most importantly they obviously are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend our nation. and returns these restrictions and expectations, congress has guaranteed these brave men and women the ability to communicate with us. i believe that this is very important and in fact congress put into place a law, code 1034, that prohibits anyone from restricting a member of the armed forces and communicating with a member of congress. to all of you who agree that this law is important, yes or no. >> yes. >> yes, ma'am. >> absolutely. >> yes, senator. >> general wells, i want to ask you about comments that have come to my attention. they were made by the air combat

command general and they are in regards to addressing a group of airmen this month. what he has said to have made in comments to the airmen was anyone who is passing information to congress about these capabilities is committing treason. as part of those comments he has also said that if anyone accuses me of saying this, i will deny it. let me just tell you general welsh. do you find those comments to be acceptable in any way to accuse our men and women in uniform to say you are committing treason if you communicate with congress about the capabilities of any other of our weapons systems? >> no, ma'am, not at all. there is investigation currently ongoing with that incident.

and i actually contacted the general involved and his commander and the department of defense is overseeing an investigation being run by isaf eiji. and they will present that as soon as the investigation is complete. >> i hope that this is a thorough investigation because obviously, i think it's very serious to accuse people of treason for communicating with congress. one thing that i would like your commitment on that i believe is very important. do you use -- do you unconditionally denounced if it is found to be true? either way air combat command in response to press inquiries has not denied that the general made those comments. do you denounce those comments and do you support the legal right of members of the air force to communicate lawfully with congress about the a10 or

any other issue? do you commit that the air force will take no action against airmen that are exercising their rightful right? >> senator, i completely agree and i support any airmen's right to discuss anything you'd like to discuss with them and to give you their honest opinion. in this particular case with the investigation ongoing, my job is to make sure that the facts are known, make recommendations to my secretary, and then we will incorporate those results when it's done. >> i appreciate that, general because it worries me about the climate and tone that is set if members air men and women, are told that they are committing treason for communicating with us. i just want to be clear because what i am hearing is that there's actually an investigation going on in reverse to find out who has communicated with congress. to me that seems the opposite

of what we would be trying to accomplish in looking at what the general said and whether it was lawful or not and i hope that there will be no punishment for any kind of pursuit of people trying to communicate with congress. would you commit to me for that? >> senator, i would be astonished by that. and i know nothing of that. i'm not part of it, the secretary is not part of it and i would not condone it. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen, happy birthday. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we won't talk about what birthday it is. [laughter] but it is certainly better than the alternative and i appreciate it. thank you very much for being here. thank you gentlemen for your service to the country. a poco, senator ayotte and her question is one of the things that i would hope our men and women in the military would let members of congress know about

their concerns with respect to sequestration because i do think it is helpful for us to hear from people serving what they see firsthand about the impacts of these policy decisions. and i'm hopeful that we will hear from this more so in the discussions. so i have been pleased that chairman mccain has started the armed services committee hearings this year with a broader view of of national security policy. one of the issues that has been brought up with respect to national security policy is that one of the concerns is the fact that we have not had an ongoing budget process that people can count on that we have a debt in the future that is a concern and would be important for us to address that.

i certainly put sequestration in that category, that it is important for us to address this and do it in a way that provides certainty that deals with the shortfalls that military is facing. and that it is important for us to do that with respect to all of the agencies of the federal government to deal with national security and i wonder if you would agree that that is an important goal that we should be working towards in congress. general odierno? >> i would agree that the strength of our countries based on many different factors and we understand that as we go forward. we certainly understand that. i would you say to that is that the important part of our defense spending and the role that plays and ensuring security should also be considered as we do that. and i know that you know that

senator. >> thank you. does everyone agree with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> yes. >> yes senator. >> to be a little bit parochial most of you are aware that the naval shipyard is shared between new hampshire and maine and is a very important public shipyard. and i know you know this. i wonder if you could please talk about the importance and the impact of sequestration on the shipyards and the depots and the concerns about provides and we have talked a lot about the impact on our active-duty military. our civilian workforce is also affected. >> thank you, senator. i would say that the impact is very much underestimated and that is part of your point. we lost 75,000 mandates of planned shipyard work so we have had to defer because we have no overtime and we couldn't higher.

of course on top of that we have for load them. and so whether we lose them or not, you understand this -- we lost 1700 submarines. that's like taking five submarines and tying them up for a year. so right now that is the kind of impacts. so i worry about -- and as i said it takes five years to recover from that collectively and we talk about the importance of nuclear deterrence. these public shipyards underwrite all of that and because of portsmouth, i can do other work in other areas. portsmouth is a major part of a ship maintenance enterprise and i worry about that sequestration. >> thank you very much. does anyone want to add on that?

>> senator, from an aviation perspective when we did furlow folks, we lost a lot of engineers. right now 50% our reporting and we are having a difficult time incapacity as a result of this. also importantly because it was mentioned in most of our opening statements, when we talk about trust and retaining high-quality people, predictability is very important and i fear that some of those folks that were for load will not come back if they have other opportunities. >> i certainly share that. i know you appreciate that with respect to the shipyard, one of the things i have heard from the shipyard employees is as we are looking at a work force and we need to hire new people and the shortage of them being educated and educating people, engineers, mathematicians they are in short reply.

so if they don't feel like they have certainty, they are going to look in the air and that creates an issue for all of us. >> we have already reduced about 4500 contract or other employees. but we have followed is the doctors and engineers in our behavior health specialists in all of these people because of how they are worried about the uncertainty and the jobs available from other places, they are taking those jobs at a higher rate than they have in the past. that is the impact that this has and the capability that we have experienced is losing and it is a big concern for us specifically in the stem area that you are talking about. >> thank you all very much. my time has expired. >> joni ernst? >> gentlemen, thank you for being here. i appreciate your continued service for the united states.

general odierno, thank you for mentioning in your brief reserve and national guard force and also to the senator for bringing that point up as well because we feel the impact -- we are hurting as well through sequestration and with respect to the dod and the sequestration generally mentioned just this morning that we must appropriately care for our soldiers. and they are bearing the burden of the decision. we must train and maintain and sustain our force and our equipment. but with the sequestration of place we also recognize that we have to utilize the taxpayer dollars and could you please give examples to the panel on where we are holding our military leaders accountable and

how they are best utilizing taxpayer dollars in such a time as this? >> there are a couple of things we continue to do that i think are important. we are reducing all the headquarters and the reason we are doing that is so we can get more capability to the soldiers that are serving. we made a decision to reduce all the headquarters down by 25% and that could free up dollars in order to train soldiers which helps. we have reorganized this and eliminated headquarters so we are able to fund and train the best that we can. we are trying to organize and reorganize aviation capability and get rid of aircraft that are no longer capable of doing the things we need them to do. we are transforming training strategies and we have just developed a strategy a total for strategy where we are training -- with all the training that we do is

accommodation of u.s. army reserve so we can retain that capacity and make this as efficient as possible and looking at how we are making the most out of our training dollars in virtual training and constructive training. all of those things are the kind of things that we are doing. we are also streamlining some of our streamlined activity especially peak years in iraq and afghanistan. we want to retrain the greens who capability because we have to sustain that a very high levels and that also would reduce the dollar spending that allows us to do that. and so the kind of thing that we need to understand that we have to put money back in to take care of our soldiers. the best way to take care of them is to make sure that they are prepared and trained to do their jobs. >> thank you, general. as a follow-up to that and maybe

all of you can briefly respond last week we had the state of the union and i had invited a friend of mine from iowa state. he lives here in washington dc at least temporarily and he responded that i would love to but i cannot i am being a bit for my new leg. he is stationed at fort bragg lives here at walter reed. a great friend of mine and i was able to visit with him on monday his last tour to afghanistan was a little bit more difficult than most. because of that he has lost his left leg. we have a lot of soldiers and a lot of members are going through difficulties and challenges. i would like to know briefly from each of you the impact of sleep restoration in regard to medical care and for soldiers and their families briefly,

gentlemen. the map one of the things we have to watch very carefully as we have to consolidate our medical capability facilities. as we do that we have to make sure that every member gets provided the same level of support no matter where they are stationed. that becomes a challenge as we start to reduce and so we have to be careful to ensure that. so we have to have sustain care which is the issue over time across the country and overseas because of where our people are serving and to make sure that they get the right coverage for themselves and their families and there will be different decisions that will have to be made that are difficult. i do worry that one of the things that they rely on is medical care what them and their families. and this is something we must watch going forward.

>> the general got the key point there. for us it is about the resiliency program and the wounded care program. we have to make sure that they don't get caught up in overall reductions in press at the program called safe harbor. to make sure that we do not inadvertently heaven help us if we do it consciously, but inadvertently having these things caught up and they get sequestered until we have to watch that. >> thank you. >> senator, the key is what john highlighted identifying where they could get caught up in. and i know you will provide this and the committee will provide this. this is one of the sacred trust things. >> senator, let me address the nonmedical care aspect. we established to take care of our wounded warriors 10 years ago when we are proud of the way we take care of marines as

general welsh said it is about keeping faith and we have funded that through the funding. one of the challenges as we move forward and it goes away. that will remain a priority for us and it competes with the resources that we are going to have fewer of. >> thank you very much mr. chair. >> senator mccain. >> thank you to the witnesses and thank you all. i did the math and this is 156 years of service at the table in military capacity. and we ought to also listen to you. i voted with enthusiasm and there were 42 nominations for lieutenant colonel and colonel and not one woman among the nominees. and they were nominated and part

of the qualifications and that was a fact of interest and i just wanted to make sure that the committee pays attention to that. the sequester voted in august august 2011 and i think some of your testimony indicates that everyone wanted that to happen and all agreed that a sequester path would have exactly the kind of consequences that you have testified to today. since august of 2011 as you have testified to the the world has gotten simpler. we have seen the rise of isis and the of bulla virus threat north korea cyberattacks, devastating syrian civil war decline in the situation in libya and other nations in africa, flexing of muscles by chinese and by the iranian and vittles and the challenges have only gotten more intense since august 2011.

we had our needlessly inflicting pain by budgetary mechanisms on our military. the chairman indicated that it is a powerful statement when you think about it. they can wreck such have it that my list sequestration is achieved. the testimony yesterday is that none of them will have as much effect. we have to take steps to reverse it. if you look at budgets they talk about priorities and we can say all we want about how we value military service. at the end of the day the budgets tell us something about what we value. 1.3% of americans gdp was spent on interest payment and that number is rising.

3.2% of the gdp was on defense and that is dramatically following. 3.3% and that number is following even more dramatically. 5.6% of gdp was spent on federal health care and 4.9% on social security that is growing dramatically. and this includes the $1.5 trillion per year on the loopholes and credits and etc. if 1% is rising. but our budget is telling us that support tax expenditures much more than any of these other areas and we need to find appropriate ways to rebalance the budget and invest what we need to to come back to challenges that we have discussed. general dunford, want to dump into this with the relationships between the relationship and ready employment, we demand that you be more forward with the

horrible tragedy in ungodly we have asked you to restructure and have rapid response teams closer to the action and other service branches. this has a cost and can you talk about what sequester does in terms of this and if that is the case, what is the situation? >> yes, our ability is a base to be part of this. our units have moved forward. if we get sequestered, we will reduce capacity to the point where we will be closer to the capacity, meaning that they will be deployed for seven months and rings and sailors back out for seven months and avoid for seven months. that is a significant cost and we talked earlier about the

impact on training and difficult to talk about these core competence in these with this quick of a turnaround. and that includes the peak of the requirements in afghanistan and iraq and that is the biggest impact that reduces capacity. it will also have an impact on home station training, facilities, the amount of fuel and batteries and the things you need to do to properly change. all of that is part of two things. one is the number of marines deployed as we have discussed before. the marines and sailors will be there, respond with u.s. citizens or interest abroad. and that includes longer time

than it will take for us to respond. with sequestration we have concerns about the capabilities both in equipment and training perspectives and the human factor again because of the quick turnaround from a diplomacy perspective. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> kernel sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you for your wonderful service to our country. i just wanted to echo what the general and what the kernel have mentioned in terms of the general's comments in terms of strategic aspects from a national security perspective of the national debt that we have racked up over the last several years am $18 trillion, and it is increasing. we all see that we are struggling with the issues of sequestration and readiness and

how this fiscal situation in this country actually impact national security. we appreciate the testimony here and also the focus on what is happening with regard to training and readiness and row and though global security threats that we all recognize are out there and is similar to senator shaheen i would like to focus on local impact. it's important that the people that we represent also here, then it could be with regard to sequestration. and i'm sure all of you gentlemen would agree that alaska is one of the most strategic and military places that we have in this country whether its missile defense or world-class unrivaled training platforms for rapid deployment in the asia pacific and to

eurasia. you'll be hearing me talk about that and i'm sure that my colleagues will as well. and i think that the large number of army and air force bases and personnel in alaska is a testament to an important situation. general welsh you mentioned the importance, and that alaska is probably the pamir airspace training in the world larger than several american states. in general, general odierno i know that you are heading to alaska as soon, wanted to let you know that there was an article today in the alaska dispatch that mention how the army is looking to illuminate 120,000 positions, looking at potentially 30 installations including combat brigades possibly from poor rich or in

alaska obviously this is having big concerns in my state. is sequestration driving this focus in the army to look at these installations including brigades in alaska? is that something that is being driven by sequestration? >> yes, it is being driven directly by sequestration and the fact that we will have to reduce significantly the amount of forces that we have in our active component in the national reserve component. so we have to throughout of the united states and overseas, we will have to take reductions and every installation could be affected as we make these decisions. >> that is a direct result of you preparing for sequestration. >> general welsh, know that the f-35 is a top program in regards to the dirt airmen, and this is

a base that we are quite excited about i think it would be great not only for alaska but the country, given our location and i look forward to having a future discussions with you on how to cement our position. i actually want to ask you about the impact of sequestration on that program. if there is any if the future based could be delayed or undermined with regard to the f-35, is that something that could be impacted by sequestration? >> if that occurred again in 2016, it might be necessary to defer some of the aircraft out of 2016. details of that will be in our budget rollout and we will be able to put those in details with you and your staff beginning next week. but that is a possibility and we have defended this program, as you know, is a priority program for us and we hope that that does not become a reality.

that would not, by the way, put the additional capabilities at risk in my view. clearly the training capability are pretty well supported by the decisions we are trying to make is we have a hearty made this as a leading candidate. and i believe everything you said. >> thank you sir. i look forward to having that discussion in more depth with you and other members of your staff. >> general you mentioned your experience -- when you initially join the service and the hollow army or marine corps can you provide a little but more details, any or all of you? quickly on specifics of then and

now. when you joined the service, when he saw the hollow military versus a high level of training that we have had with regard to troops and readiness. >> yes sir talking about the quality of people, there is absolutely no comparison of the quality that we had then and the volley that we have in the late 1970s. we certainly had some very good people in the quality people would be very significant. and what was really going on as we did not have sufficient money to train and the capabilities were not growing. we didn't have taken amount of money to take care of it for structure and their expert i can remember this in the barracks and we had some conditions we were embarrassed about. but the one thing that is

different today than the 1970s is the spirit of the will and the discipline in addition to being very well-equipped. much of the equipment that we had was old, but most importantly the tangible quality of the force today and we have all spoken about the trust and the way to predict support with going to harms way and all those things have given us this and that is the thing that i would be most concerned about losing. the quality of the forced and those soldiers sent in the marines court. ..

we were wanted y'all to abide and pushing it on. there's got to be a more effective, efficient way approach would. we've got to have enough resilience. i know the chairman has fought on this forever. i heard him when i was governor, when i was in the legislature. there's got to be a better way. when eisenhower said beware of the industrial military complex man, he knew what he was talking about. even george washington knew they could be a problem. we've got to break that so we can go back to the people who are willing to sacrifice was in my state or west virginia, arizona or were ever and they said fine, what's everybody else doing? i will sacrifice what are we doing it better? we don't have an audit so i've never been able to run a business without an audit knowing where my problems were. with a hard on getting it out of the department of defense we know where the waste or efficiencies or things of that

sort. we forced to step up on y'all that you don't want and then they can't speak and it makes it politically challenging but we've got to be there for you. and if we're going to have the best readiness and prepared and support, the greatest defense department of the world has ever seen, we got to make sure we're doing it in the most efficient fashion. i look at that and i have a whole different approach to this two years of military service. i was a product of rotc mandatory rotc at wvu, and i joined. i never had a chance if i didn't. the draft process and everything that went with it. i still even two years of public service for every young person. we could tie it to these two years of college and so you earn two years of college if you get two years of public service. doesn't have to be military. you could pick and choose the best if they wanted to go there. we still have that option. i think it has more value and buy into our country if they do

that. i just want to know, and i have the most frustration with the procurement of this process of hours, light takes so long to get an idea for new technology to market. why is it so long for us to get that and the cost because in that? f-35, i know our chairman has been on this for as many years as i can remember. there's no quid quid pro quo, no incentive or reward or penalty seems like. we don't run the private sector the way we run the procurement in the military that i know of. so it's kind of an open and at other like anybody's comments would want to chime in. we could start with general odierno and go down if any of y'all want to chime in on this, but give us some direction that we can help you and how an audit would work to reveal the inefficiencies so the transparency that we need a year to give you all the support you need. general?

>> first we are working very hard towards vulnerability. we are starting to put the systems in place that are enabling us to better see ourselves and where we're spending money, where we are wasting money and where we are underfunding money. we're getting there and i think requirements by 17 but we are working very fast to get there and we're starting to see some of the come to fruition but i want you to know we're taking it very seriously and we're making some progress. not where we need to be a at but we are making progress and we should be prepared by 17 to meet that goal. a couple things i would comment on what you said is yes we are still having to put your systems we don't need. access takes is an example in the army. hundreds of millions of dollars spent on tanks were some they don't have the structure for anymore. there's reason for that. i understand but there are things that go on. when we're talking about a budgets, a couple hundred million dollars is a lot of money.

we've got to understand, the other thing is i know there's lots of people have looked at procurement reform, and the one thing that's been frustrating to me as the chief of staff of the army is how little authority and responsibility that i have in the procurement process. i have a say in requirements to some extent but i have very little say. wanted to do is use my influence, use my influence as a four star general of the chief of staff of the army to try to influence the process, but, frankly, i have no authority. inside the process, outside of requirements. i think when you're in this position, you've been in certain for decades, you have fought wars, you have some experience of what is needed and how we develop and procure items. i would like to see us in the uniform get a bit more involved. i would ask as we review this that we would all take a look at that. >> we, too are working on audit ability. this year we are going under

what's called the schedule budget activity. that means the financial transactions. we should complete that by december. that takes us to the next step which is look at the four classic there is of audit ability so i tell you the navy is on track and will continue to keep the committee and yourself and form. when i look at the procurement process, ray has it about right. i think we have too many come we need to clarify what we call clarify the chain of command. there to meet people involved in the process. if i say i need the thing and it starts moving towards some building and their whole lot of people telling us know this is what you really need. i'm talking about in the pentagon. just get out of the building. that's one. number two, we need to be able to compromise what we tell somebody to go build is something. if i say has to be this fast or this great and on reaching hard, it can be quite expensive and the technology just may not be there, we may need to be scope this, it's too expensive,

it won't deliver on-time. cost and schedule need to become a much bigger factor in this process and it is today. i think it ought to be a key performance parameters that means if you breach this you got to go back and stop take a pause and look at this again. >> if i can finish, my time is up but i would love to speak you'll if i can because i'm really interested in the procurement and change of government, how we do. i'm interested in how many ideas come from you y'all to what you just described as what you need versus what someone else i think she needed. those are the things i'd like for you to think about and i will come and visit with you all, if i may. thank you very much. i'm sorry, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator manchin. and that is our second top priority item i think for this committee in the coming session. senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. your leadership and your service to our nation but i apologized

for being out. i've got a committee meeting over in judiciary with the appointment of the nominee, but my question to you is i came from north carolina legislature and we had a budget crisis back in 2011. we had to cut. what i heard from the heads of the various administration members were that they could absorb some of these cuts if the legislature were willing to provide them with the flexibility to determine where they do it. and potentially even changing some of the processes, including to what the admiral said on procuremeprocureme nt processing. has been much of a comprehensive focus on and if you could make changes to the way you procure, deploy and prioritize spending, and provided feedback to the congress your that's one. another question with respect to sequestration, i don't know that much about it although we do know that i would vote to repeal

it. can you describe what kinds of constraints prevent you from being able to absorb the suggested cuts with sequestration? it may make it easier if it were to stay in place. and go down the line. >> senator, the one thing i would say is i think sequestration level of budget is simply not enough budget for us to meet the demands that are on the force. i want to be her clear about that up front. i just think it is not allowed to me what we believe what is our fence strategy and the defense strategic guidance were operating under now. that said, we are inefficient and just sequestration itself is inefficient because it is in some cases salami sliced cuts that limit how you manage. and what it's done is it's stretched programs longer the need to be so the cost per item is more. it is causing us to reduce the

training and some of our other modernization activities much broader than we need to. it is causing us to cut in strength to quickly. so all of those add to an inefficient use of the resources that we are provided. so we can make some adjustments around that would help if were able to change some of the mechanisms associated with sequestration. that said i just believe the level of funding and sequestration is sadly not enough for us to do the things that we need to do. >> does that suggest that if i were having that discussion with someone in business, the question that i would ask is how productive and how efficient you think your organization is. so are you suggesting that now that the cuts suggested by sequestration are beyond your capacity to drive additional efficiencies and productivity out of the organization? >> no, i would not no. there is always room in the army for continued efficiency.

we have taken several steps to try to improve our efficiency whether it be and how we let contracts, whether it be how we sizer headquarters, whether it be how we manage some of our programs. we always have to be doing that and adjusting and adapting how we do things to be more efficient in our ability to train. we are always looking at those items so there's always room for that. but i think went to understand the levels we are talking about, really hinders us and what i believe in a very difficult security environment to meet the needs of the nation. >> thank you. admiral? >> i echo what general odierno said is the absolute value of money that it takes to do this strategy and what the world, what the country needs the military to do today. it doesn't balance. so what i'm saying in my testimony was you have to change what you're asking us to do while the world is getting a pretty day to vote on this. so there's a mismatch and imbalance in the.

as general odierno said i'll give you just a quick anecdote. in the president's budget 15 which we brought up, there was a $90 billion change over what we say we need, or different than what we said we needed and what we had. 20 billion of that we made up through overhead reduction efficiency, find a more efficient if you will by in power. so we are doing our best to be as efficient as possible. i was a that takes time for these things to come to roost. efficiencies, the kind of reduction we're talking about are today. there's a nation that's in that as well -- there's a mismatch individual. >> sequestration is a plot force interest but -- blunt force instrument. the problem was there's nothing about the instrument you would use in the business world. you would never expect to create, savings the first year you decide to restart your

business. >> for the record that's why i agree just strategically it's a poor approach toward addressing or betting or getting driving efficiency. so i agree with that general welsh. >> when it comes efficiency we in air force have not used our auditor general well. we know that implementation audits for new programs, new ideas, new organizations. we start that 18 months. we funded to get off to a constructive much better chance of success. that same logic applies to acquisition programs but if you start procurement with the bad milestone chart, a bad funding plan or bad acquisition strategy will end up in explain to whether program is failing. we've got to do a better job of starting the right way, that involves a number of people supporting us in changing policy law and does paying more attention to it. >> senator, would associate myself with the comments of the other chiefs maybe because just about what about the methodology makes it very difficult. in 2013 our manpower count was exempt from sequestration.

we spent some were almost 70% over budget towards people. so the full weight of the sequestration then so within 30% over budget so if we went back to sequestration in 2016 it would be a similar impact with the full weight of sequestration comes against 30% of the budget so there's not only do you have no flexibility in its application but it's a very narrow part of my budget with the full weight of sequestration would fall. >> thank you, general. that really gets to the point about the constraints. thank you mr. . >> senator kaine. >> thank you, senator. i just returned from the budget committee. i apologize for missing some of the discussion and i may touch upon some of the points. >> and i've accepted. >> thank you. always a pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman. [laughter] i want to emphasize a point i understand senator kaine made, and that is number one sequestration was designed to be stupid or did you know that? it was expressly designed to be so stupid and an acceptable that

congress would never allowed to go into place. i would never campaign in 2012, peoples of what you think of the sequester? i said it will never happen. congress won't let that happen, but here we are. one of the reasons that it doesn't make much sense is that we are focusing all our budgetary attention on a declining part of the budget. the growth in the budget right now is in mandatory programs, and particularly and health care costs, medicare and medicaid children's health program. that's what's driving the federal deficit. it's not defense but it's not national parks. it's not the head start program. we are focusing, the sequester is like invading brazil after pearl harbor. it's a vigorous reaction, but it's the wrong target. this is not where the problem is, and we are headed, for a

moment by the way, mr. chairman where discretion spending, including defense them is at the lowest level ever, ever. and we simply we really shouldn't even be having this discussion because it's such it's a pointless exercise in terms of trying to deal with the budget. we need to be talking about a much larger question particularly the extraordinary cost of health care in this country as a percentage of gdp and per capita. i know you that all the testimony and i heard at the beginning about how devastating it will be and we'd really have to start talking about how to deal with it. i hope mr. chairman this committee which sees the impact of sequester more than any of the committee in the congress because half of it more than half of it falls within our jurisdiction. can lead the way in trying to find some kind of solution that will make sense.

i don't really have any specific questions, except to underline what i heard all you gentlemen saysaid in your opening statement is that this will really be devastating. americans lives are being put at risk by this policy. would you agree with that general odierno? >> yes, sir. >> admiral? >> yes, sir, i do agree. >> yes, sir. >> yes senator. >> that should be the headline, that americans lives are being put at risk and we go to such extraordinary lengths to protect the lives of our people and yet i compromise in readiness, by compromising morale, by compromising modernization and training, that's the inevitable result. you guys are having to go through these extraordinary gyrations to try to do with this uncertain budget situation, and the danger is risk to american

lives, both our people in uniform and our civilians. so i certainly want to thank you for your testimony. also i would like to ask one other question. i would assume that the uncertainty of this whole situation is almost as bad as the dollars is that correct, general? >> there is. there's a lot of angst in the force about what's in the future, what's going to happen. their folks and what they're doing today but they do worry a bit about what it means to them for the future our soldiers and their families, and so it is good in some angst in the force. that's concerning to me. and for the army especially because we are reducing so much for structure might be required to reduce so much more force structure that's grading great angst in the force itself. >> one final question for you, admiral. talk about the risk to the industrial base. my concern is that you can turn on and off the industrial base.

we will just lead to go somewhere else you can't just pick them back up the next year. isn't that a deep concern to the navy? >> it is, senator. we are at the point in our shipbuilding plan, we're at about if you minimum sustaining. the good news is we are buying efficiently but that all comes unraveled if you start dropping out ships here or there and aircraft and weapons we are. so what happens is people think the big primes are going to go under, and they say that won't happen, that's not an concern. it's what you said. it's kind of imam and pop, the small or big business people that make very specific and refined equipment nuclear. over half of our nuclear and social baseis sole source. we really, really need them. this lack of planning, the inability, it can't keep them open. you can't buy and economic order quantity him and it is a deep

concern. and as you said you can't bring it back fast. >> the irony is when you have to delay multiyear procurement, for example, you end up paying more in the end it comes to the taxpayers lose both ways. >> absolutely do. it's like some say eating at 7-11 every night. it's not sustainable and it's more expensive. >> i have 7-11 in maine so i'm not going to comment. thanks, mr. chairman. >> senator king, i want to thank you for the work you're doing along with the number of efforts to try to address this issue. i thank you very much. senator cotton. >> thank you very much chairman mccain. thank you, gentlemen for distinguished service to our country. want to look back on a few of the statements you made at the last hearing we had. general odierno, starting with you. sequestrasequestra tion levels continued in fy '14 from 85% of our pc case would not be readiness levels.

appropriate for contingency requirements. are been a situation where a 5% are not ready to? >> we got down to actually 90% at one time in 13. because of the dba i think about the backup in in '14 and '15 to 33% to its sequestration begins in 16 we will be headed right back into those numbers again. >> how are you managing that lack of readiness? what we have to do is without to develop a force. so it's an okay we'll take this out of the army, the the the money and training to the highest level which ends the rest of the army a string at a significantly lower level, which really concerns me. because what i worry about is that that have some level of a force capable of deploying to an unknown or no known contingency. what that does is it means we are not funny the rest of the force, affects the route, affects capabilities and it takes longer to recover from it.

>> so in a concrete sense that means certain bcg is only doing individual tasks or platoon and company level collective turn? >> individual squad and some platoon in that sense. >> to you except that on twitterverse and other operating force would've sufficient funds for clicker training, is that the case of? >> that was the case and again when we got the additional money in '14 and '15 about sequestration, we were able to increase that to about 35% of the force. if it kicks in again in 16 it will go right back down again. >> weird we stand on schools now, asic professional schools? >> right now they are funded fully. its sequestration kicks in, we will start to see a reduction in our special training school. so we will try to fund those. where we will have to limit his ranger, airborne pathfinder about 85000 spaces will be

unfunded in our specialty schools which are critical to providing high level competence that we need spent what kind of percentage decrease with the for the specialty training schools like ranger or airborne? >> it will be somewhere around the 50-56 -- 50-60% level. >> have you seen that affect retention? >> we haven't done that yet. we would have to do that if we go back into sequestration. >> do you foresee it affecting attention to? >> all of this affects retention because the most important thing we do is make sure they are trained to do their mission. when we start back and off on their ability to train it will affect the retention. >> you will rejected the need to go from just over 530,000 troops to 420. is that still your assessment? >> that is, in fact, the case senator. >> at what levels we see the most declines in personnel, soldier, junior senior, feels great? >> it's all.

we managed officers dashed that we're going through boards now even just to get to 490 we are in voluntarily separating officers at the captain major lieutenant colonel and colonel level. we are also reducing the amount of ncos the. we are reducing the amount of soldiers we are bringing in and over the last couple years have reduced the ability for people to reenlist. that will increase if we have to go to sequestration. >> at those levels of those are the soldiers who didn't have the multiple combat deployments underneath their build? >> that is correct. >> so you're losing their experience with the privates and the kids who don't have a? >> yes sir. >> general dunford, your predecessor had projected that you have to decrease your in strength of about 187174,000. is that still active? >> senator, that's correct, with sequestration. >> with sequestration. could you explain to a layman what may seem like a relatively

small reduction of about 13,000 could be so hurtful to the core? >> the biggest impact would be that reduce capacity would have an impact on the deployment ratio of our rings. so today we consider the optimal force and we did a study on this and 2011, the optimal force would be 186,800 marines. that would allow marines to be gone for seven months over 21 months and gone for seven months again. we call that a one to three deployment to dual. we can than 182000 that puts us at a one to two deployment dwell so we are deploying some month, over 14, back out for seven. if we go down 104,000 with the marine security guard plus that would be about 175, the only change i would make for my predecessors comment, if we go down to that level many of our units would be closer to one to one and one to two. marines would be home for about eight or nine months between seven-month deployments with an impact on the court after and where able to provide as well as

impact on families. >> admiral come you testified if sequestration remained in place should only be able to sustain about 255 ships which is approximate 50 less than today is that still the case of? >> it's not, senator. that was about 15 months ago when i did that testimony. that was a scenario based on our retirement to garner savings and mandates from congress has cut kind of taken off the table. son would look at other avenues probably other modernization and it concerns me that when i talk to capability in the future, that's more likely where we would go for that kind of savings. >> my time has expired. thank you all. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you might be able to tell i don't have much of a voice today which is the fact of being celebrated many places around here. i won't spent a lot of time questioning because i have questions for the record that i i

would like to i would like the kind of the senator manchin touched on the acquisition process. i would certainly recommend it to the members of this committee and to the latest in a military the report that is issued for the permit subcommittee on investigations under the leadership speed we will leave this hearing at this point. you can see it in its entirety. go to our website c-span.org. we'll go live now to president obama as he talks about his budget which is being released today on capitol hill >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. well good morning, everybody. it is good to be here at the department of homeland security and let me thank jeh johnson not only for the outstanding job he is doing as secretary of dhs but also for a short introduction. i like short introductions. give him a big round of applause. [applause]

this is a great way to start the week, because i get to do something i enjoy doing which is saying thank you. nobody works harder to keep america safe than the people who are gathered here today. and you don't get a lot of attention for it. that's the nature of the job but i know how vital you are and i want to make sure that more americans know how vital you are. because against just about every threat that we face, from terrorist networks microscopic viruses to cyber attacks to weather disasters, you guys are there. you protect us from threats at home and abroad, by air and land and sea. you safeguard our ports. you patrol our borders.

you inspect our chemical plants screen travelers for ebola shield our computer networks, help cut down criminals around the world. you have a busy agenda a full plate. and here at home you all -- you are ready to respond to any emergency at a moments notice. it is simply extraordinary how much the department of homeland security does every single day to keep our nation, our people safe. it's a critical job. you get it done without a lot of fanfare. and i want to make sure that you have what you need to keep getting the job done. but every american has an interest in making sure that the department of homeland security has what it needs to achieve its mission. because we are reliant on that mission every single day.

now today i'm sending congress a budget that will make sure you've got what you need to achieve your mission. it gives you the resources you need to carry out your mission in a way that a smart and strategic, and makes the most of every dollar. also broader blueprint for america's success in this new global economy, because after a breakthrough year for america at a time when our economy is growing and our businesses are grading jobs at the fastest pace since the 1990s, and wages are starting to rise again, we've got some fundamental choices to make about that kind of country we want to be. will we accept any kind were only a few of us do spectacularly well, or are we going to build an economy or everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead? that was the focus of my state of the union address a couple of weeks ago what i called

middle-class economic. the idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules. the budget that congress now has in its hands is built on those values. it helps working families paychecks go farther by treating things like paid sick leave and childcare as the economic priorities that they are. it gives americans of every age the chance to upgrade their skills so they can earn higher wages, and it includes my plan to make two years of community college free for responsible students. it lets us keep building the world's most attractive economy for highways jobs with new investments and resources and infrastructure and manufacturing. as well as expanded access to faster internet, and new markets for goods made in america.

it's also a budget the recognize that our economy flourishes when america is safe and secure. so it invests in our i.t. networks. to protect them from malicious actors. it supports our troops and strengthens our border security. and it gives us the resources to confront global challenges from isil to russian aggression. now, since i took office we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds. i'm going to repeat that, as i always do when i mentioned this fact because the public often times if you ask them think that the deficit has shot up. since i took office we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds. that's the fastest period of sustained deficit reduction cents after the demobilization at the end of world war ii.

so we can afford to make these investments while remaining fiscally responsible. and, in fact, we cannot afford -- we would be making a critical error if we avoided making these investments. we can't afford not to. when the economy is doing well, we are making investments when we were growing. that's part of what keeps deficits and low because the economy is doing well. we've got to be smart about how we pay for our priorities, and that's what my budget does. at the end of 2013 i find that you i signed a bipartisan budget that helps us in some of the arbitrary cuts known in washington speak as sequestration. and folks here at dhs know a little too much about sequestration. because many of you had to do with those cuts and the

uncertainty around them. it made it a lot harder for you to do your job. the 2013 agreements will reverse some of those cuts help boost our economic growth, part of the reason why we grew faster last you was we were no longer being burdened by mindless across-the-board cuts. we are being more strategic about how we handled our federal budget. and now we need to take the next step. so my budget will end sequestration and full of reverse the cuts to the priorities in 2016. and it will match the investments that were made domestically dollar for dollar with increases in our defense funding. just last week top military officials told congress that if congress does nothing to stop sequestration that could be stress consequences for our national security. at a time when our military is stretched on a whole range of

issues. that's why i want to work with congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments to strengthen america, and we can do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. i'm not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward. it would be bad for our security, and bad for our growth. i will not accept a budget that severs the vital links -- link between our national security and our economic security. there are some on capitol hill they would say well, we would be willing to increase defense spending but we are not going to increase investments in infrastructure, for example. or basic research. well, those two things go hand in hand. if we don't have a vital infrastructure, if we don't have broadband lines across the country come if we don't have a smart grid, all that makes us more vulnerable. america can't afford being shortsighted, and i'm not going

to lie. the budget i send to congress today is fully paid for through a combination of smart spending cuts and tax reforms. let me give you an example. right now our tax code is full of loopholes for special interests like the trust fund loophole that allows the wealthiest americans to avoid paying taxes on their unearned income. i think we should fix that and use the savings to cut taxes for middle-class families. that would be good for our economy. now, i know there are republicans who disagreed with my approach, and i've said this before. if they have other ideas for how we can keep america safe grow our economy, while helping middle-class families feel some sense of economic security, i welcome their ideas. but their numbers have to add up. and what we can't do is play

politics with folks economic security our with our national security. you better than anybody know what the stakes are. the work you do hangs in the balance. just a few weeks from now funding for homeland security will run out. that's not because of any this department did. it's because the republicans in congress who funded everything in government through september, except for this department. and they are now threatening to let homeland security funding expired because of their disagreement with my actions to make our immigration system smarter, fairer, and safe. now, it's be clear. i think we can have a reasonable debate about immigration. i'm confident that what we are doing is the right thing and the lawful thing to understand they may have some disagreements with me on that, although i should note that a large

majority, a large percentage of republicans agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform, and we are prepared to act in the senate, and should act in the house. but if they don't agree with me that's fine ma that's how our democracy works. you may have noticed they usually don't agree with me. but don't jeopardize our national security over this disagreement. as one republican put it if you let your funding run out it's not the end of the world. that's what they said. well, i guess literally that's true, it may not be the end of the world but until they passed a funding bill it is the end of the paycheck for tens of thousands of front-line workers who will continue to get to have to work without getting paid, over 40,000 border patrol and customs agents, over 50,000

airport screeners over 13,000 immigration officers, over 40,000 men and women in the coast guard. these americans are just working to keep us safe. they have to take care of their own families. the notion that they would get caught up in a disagreement around policy that has nothing to do with them makes no sense. and if republicans let homeland security funding expire, it's the end to any new initiatives in the event that a new threat emerges. the end of grants, two states and cities that approved local law enforcement and keep our communities safe. the men and women of america's homeland security apparatus did important work to protect us and republicans and democrats in congress should not be playing

politics with that. we need to fund the department, pure and simple. we've got to put politics aside pass a budget that funds our national study parties at home and abroad and gives middle-class families the security they need to get ahead in the new economy. this is one of our most basic and most important responsibilities as a government. so i am calling on congress to get this done. everyday we count on people like you to keep america secure, you are counting on us as well to uphold our end of the bargain. you are counting on us to make sure you've got the resources to your job safely and efficiently. and that you are able to look after your families while you're out there working really hard to keep us safe. we ask a lot of you. the least we can do is have your backs its i'm going to keep on doing it for as long as have the

honor of serving as your president. i have your back and i'm going to keep on fighting to make sure that you get the resources you deserve. i'm going to keep fighting to make sure that every american has the chance not just to share in america's success but to contribute to america's success. that's what this budget is about. it reflects our values making sure that we're making investments we need to keep america safe to keep america growing, to make sure that everybody is participating know matter what they look like, where they come from no matter how they started in life. they've got a chance to get hit in this great country of ours. that's what i believe, that's what you believe. let's get it done. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ going under in -- ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> president obama offering jimmy mars about his budget proposal and funny for the department of homeland security, arriving just a tiny bit earlier than 11:50 time schedule. the budget is about $4 trillion includes public works program that would update the highways bridges and transit systems. more on dhs/ina now from the hill. tomorrow the senate will start consideration of funding for the department of homeland security before it expires at the end of this month. democrats are expected to prevent the senate from moving forward. the house passed measure to fund after federer 27th. the bill includes language to define president obama's executive action to delay deportation for up to fight an the

illegal immigrants and freeze the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. the first senate procedural vote to end debate a motion to proceed to the dhs bill will be tuesday at 2:30 p.m. eastern and requires 60 votes to advance. live coverage on our on c-span2. more on the budget coming up at 12:45 p.m. with shaun donovan and other senior administration officials as they discuss the president budget request. live coverage here on here on here on c-span2 again at 12:45 p.m. eastern. that we discussion on another republican effort to repeal the nation's health care law from "washington journal." >> host: on tuesday the house again voting on repealing the affordable care act, the first vote in this congress but the 60th vote since 2011. what can we expect? >> guest: i think we can expect it to pass. i think some of them when they say 60 votes on repeal, that

somewhat misleading in the sense that the number of the repeal those have been to undo certain aspects of a law. there have been as many that are full repeal but either way obviously this is going to be vetoed by president obama if it passes the senate and gets to his desk. but you have a lot of new members coming in who haven't had a chance to vote against repair the obamacare, but who nonetheless ran a campaign on repealing obamacare. this is a chance to get them the ability to vote against it and then they will probably move on to more targeted type of legislation. >> host: and the way it's been written out on repealing the affordable care act but instructing the key congressional committees and asked to come up with alternatives. can you explain? >> guest: yeah, i think this is a necessary. this new book out overcome the obamacare that looks specifically at the different approaches that republicans and

thinkers on the right have been trying to have an alternative to the law new things anymore free market direction. and the problem has been up until this point is that there are fundamental differences among republicans on what the best type of alternative would be to obamacare. and so as a result of that it's been easier to not raise an alternative and then unify around repealing obamacare which everyone agrees on. however, as an art in my book i think that shortsighted and misguided because if obamacare and other health care programs are allowed to go on autopilot, government will take a larger and larger role in the u.s. economy and eventually democrats will come when they're in charge

again and have the open to do so, with that limit and even more top down central is government run health care system. and if republicans are going to prevent that, then they will have to present an alternative and start making the case for it. and also i will add quickly, there is a supreme court case that is coming out that is expected to be decided by june that has huge ramifications for obamacare. and depending on how that is decided there could be a lot of pressure on republicans to have some sort of fix or an alternative. this is a decision that could theoretically strip away federal exchange subsidies for millions of people. and if that gets decided that way republicans don't have an alternative to present, then they're going to be sort of forced potentially into trying to sign on some so called simple

technical fix that would actually just further entrench and sign on to obamacare. so that's why think that you see a number of things that are now forcing them to the realization that this may be finally figured to present an alternative. >> host: want to follow-up on the president's comments in just a moment. he spoke to house democrats in philadelphia this past week but in your book you talk about key players including the nature of the house ways and means committee paul ryan. what is he on his committee going to propose? >> guest: well, i mean it's unclear. paul ryan has in the past signed onto various alternative health care plans. however, that was before obamacare and obamacare has changed the playing field because now republicans have to deal with the question of what to do with the people have some sort of benefits from obamacare regardless of the fact that

there were many losers from obamacare, there are also people who are getting subsidize health insurance. so what you have among republicans is the divide among several issues, issues such as can't now be fully revealed? does any sort of replacement of obamacare have to somehow account for the beneficiary and whether it's some sort of transitionary relief or is there another way to sort of subsidize people to purchase health insurance. another big question is what budget baseline to use? this gets a little wonky, but as you know in washington we have the way the congressional budget office evaluates all proposals against a baseline of what taxes and spending would look like if those proposals were not implemented. now that obamacare is in the books, the question for republicans who oppose all of the taxes and spending in that

is whether they wipe it all off the books and start from scratch or if they work against the baseline that isn't obamacare taxes are spent because if they do that they could have some sort of alternative that still spends money and raises money in taxes. however, can be seen as a tax cut into and spending reduction relative to obamacare. and on that point, paul ryan when i spoke to him a few months ago, said that he thinks that all the spending and taxes should be wiped off the books. now if he sticks by that that will affect what type of alternative you can produce husband had to respond with the president said in philadelphia. >> bottom line is this. we've got to make sure it continues to work. we should protect the progress we are making. i do republicans are holding their 50th or 60th vote next year to repeal or undermine the

affordable care act. i've lost count at this point. but here's something easy to never. if the bill actually ever reached my desk i would happily veto it. >> host: another veto threat by the president. you sense the frustration in his voice. >> guest: yet. i mean, look this is part of the strategy that has be part of a strategy for republicans going through looking towards 2016, which is that republicans have to say what therefore. and this is what i think it's important for another reason why it's important to advance an alternative. because what republicans have to do, if you look back to democrats, as an example when they took over the house and senate in 2006 and then bush still control everything what they did was they tap a lot of this piece of legislation that were popular and they made the case for them. bush vetoed them, but then when

hillary clinton and obama and all of the democrats were on the campaign trail, they were able to say if you elect a democratic president, then we will be able to sign these pieces of legislation. and republicans need to do that. and so that's what they're doing with keystone pipeline. i think that they should do it with a number of other issues and i think they should do it with an obamacare alternative. because you have to show people that you're not just in there to oppose obamacare but actually you have an idea to make the health care system better by giving them more choice. and republicans sort of talked about that a lot but they haven't had the debate. people don't think. there's a recent kaiser poll that came out that said a majority of americans don't think the republicans have any sort of alternative ideas on health care. they need to change that even if obama vetoes it, then you take the fight to 2016.

>> host: >> house or publics are expected to bring a bill to the floor looking to repeal the health care baltimore but you can see that debate live on c-span. also the house rules committee will be meeting tonight at five eastern to debate rules for the health care bill law. you can see that live on c-span3. again and that starts at 5 p.m. eastern. >> last week dhs secretary jeh johnson spoke about the budget for his department at the wilson center. this is just under one hour. >> it's very quiet. good morning. good morning. this is very -- i'm jane harmon

president and ceo of the wilson center and delighted to welcome secretary jeh johnson here or the second time. in the front row we have the wilson center cabinet counsel and corporate councilmembers. i think we have although i haven't found him yet, general keith alexander. we don't have general keith alexander? where is he? >> he's right there. >> there he is. >> you don't recognize him because he is wearing -- >> no, no, no. i said that the last a muslim and he said he rented it for the occasion. [laughter] we are supposed to have the walter isaacson was the president and ceo of the aspen institute, but we will have him later. and michael chertoff, former dhs secretary, co-chair of the aspen homeland security group at ibm the co-chair. is michael you get? no. members of the aspen home and citigroup some of the market. nevers of the aspen security advisory council.

i am also a member of that. i am a total dhs groupie. and many current and former leaders from homeland security, and many dear to me from past lives. when secretary johnson was first nominated, some didn't know what to expect didn't know how coming from the defense department, he would approach the broader homeland security mission. well today, a little more than a year later, no one would think twice about his leadership. secretary johnson has more than one the trust the washington, of law enforcement around the country, and that his department staff. he is a rock star at this job. he is led dhs through stiff challenges focusing on major strategic priority with mike cyber, dressing with compassion the child of migrant crisis. at first and foremost, protecting the homeland against a very sophisticated terror threat. the threat we face today is very

different from the one that we confronted on september 11. it's less hierarchical, more diffuse come anyways more innovative. that's the new danger. the new jihad is collaborate opportunistically across organization lines. some have cyber skills, some of social media savvy. many are young. many tragically our western. our enemies are making dangerous connections in syria, and they soon in yemen as the country struggles to maintain order. in either have a policy we face the most talented bomb maker al-qaeda has ever had. and he's targeted western aviation before. even if we were to stop every foreign fighter threatened by radicalization at home. here, dhs operates in a challenging grey area. where radical bullies which are protected by our constitution can become violent action which is clued a crime to very

difficult to find that great area to intervene. our society like all free societies protect freedom of thought and that includes radical thought. but inspires how to build a bomb in the kitchen of your mama is not in my opinion free speech. stopping the digital threat of dangerous ideology in partnership with faith communities and law enforcement is as crucial and as difficult as it has ever been. and all this weren't enough dhs attack of some of our nation's other 40 challenges. immigration, disaster response, just to name a few. it's a lot of work on one plate. one of his first trips as secretary of homeland security was to the port of los angeles, which with the port of long beach is the nation's largest container port. surely, the challenges there are huge. i joined in on that visit my

former congressional district we did helicopter flyover. .. [applause] >> thank you very much jane. good morning everybody. i want to start with a family

photograph from 1966. this is me and my kids sister in 1966. i was eight years old. the most striking thing about the photographs is that as recently as 1966, a private everyday tourist like ours could drive our car onto the grounds of the u.s. of the capital and target with no inspection and prior notice from the prior building. this is the same spot today. the public park the public parking lot is gone, replaced by a few black suburban police vehicles and heavily armed members of the capitol police. sadly, there are threads to our homeland security today they did

not exist in 1966. the department for which undersecretaries addressing those threats. a year ago, i stood here and thought of my vision for the department. i was then new to the job. a year later i was here to provide a progress report on our efforts for the benefit of the years experience. i think jane harman in the wilson center for once again providing me with a form for the speech. jane harman is a wide supporter and mentor and at this time people like irving a lot to people like me. we cannot govern without you. thank you in the wilson center for everything you do. i new year's day i run i decided near his resolutions for this year leadership but dhs. at the top of the list were things that go to the manner in which we conduct business and deliver homeland security. the reality is that dhs is a very large conglomerate of 22

component that is only 12 years old. we are a barge bureaucracy. we are still finding our way, but we are headed in the right direction. first over the last year we felt almost all the senior-level bacon days that existed in our department. just prior to the time i took office a year ago the department of homeland security has no secretary no deputy secretary and vacancies that a number of senior-level positions. we now have a new deputy secretary alejandro mayor chris new undersecretary for national protection and programs directorate, suzanne spaulding. a new undersecretary of intelligence and analysis, general frank taylor. a new science and technology, dr. reggio brothers did a new commissioner of customs and border protection. a new director citizenship and

immigration services, lan rodriguez good new assistant secretary for immigration and customs enforcement. a new chief financial officer, a new direct very -- a new deputy dirt, a new deputy administer a he-man, and inspector general, new assistant secretary for legislative affairs brian to balance in a new assistant secretary for public affairs, tina bradsher. we are actively working to fill the vacancies that have arisen this past year a permanent secret service a new administrator of tsa. i see the last one john pistole sitting back there. john good to see you again. we are restructuring the whole manner in which you make decisions for the department of homeland security. in april i directed a unit initiative which has brought about a more centralized and integrated process for making

budget decisions concerning budget request acquisition, strategy another department functions. we are moving away from decisions made in stovepipes here it is part of this initiative we created a joint requirement council consisting of senior leaders in the dhs and conan to identify and recommend investment to maximize efficiencies. we've also realign seven major dhs headquarters functions to consolidate functions and promote efficient date. next as i said here last year, we are committed to greater trends parent the. government transparency breeds credibility and government secrecy breeds suspicion. one of our executive actions the president announced on november 20th is to direct our office of immigration statistics to collect, maintain and report dhs wide data on the number of people we apprehend, remove, return or repatriated every year

in a manner that can be made public. here again we've been far to stovepipes and how we collect and report this information. i applaud chief feature back there for making the border patrol used to all of the last year and commissioner kolakowski for making public the recommendations of the independent police executive research forum about use of force by the border patrol, two documents long sought by the media. the deputy secretary and i are on an aggressive, multifaceted campaign to improve morale within component to dhs. in october of last year, we are at the awards program, which has been dormant since 2008 to recognize more than 300 employees who've made outstanding achievements across dhs. next, dhs is one of 16 departments and agencies. on gao's so-called high risk of

last, we are on a path to get off the list appeared gao has informed us that our interactions with this serve as a model for no other federation thieves can work to address gao's high-risk designation. we have improved the department's responsiveness to congress. this, despite the challenge of how you count 92 committees and subcommittees of congress who claim an oversight role over this department. members of congress on both sides of the i/o, including some of our biggest critics have taken note of our increased responsiveness. finally and this is my favorite one, which i learned about yesterday. earlier this week, and the judgment of the center for plain language, the department of homeland security has gone from worst to first among federal agencies and our ability to

communicate and explain the language, one of my personal passions. in these challenging times and management reform is itself a homeland security imperative. here is where we are on the substance of some important missions. i said here a year ago counterterrorism will remain the corners down of the department of homeland security's mission. 13.5 years after 9/11 is still a dangerous world and in 2015 we must recognize that we have devolved to a new phase in the global terrorist threat. today, the terrorist threat is more decentralized, more complex. we are concerned about the so-called foreign fighter who based his home country, travels to another country to take up the fight there, links up with terrorist extremists and may return home whether it's this country or one of our allies

with a terrorist extremists purpose. we are concerned about terrorist organizations use like in skilled use of the internet to publicly recruit individuals to conduct attacks within their own homeland. aqa pete no longer builds bombs in secret. it is now publicized and is called for people to use it. we are concerned about the domestic base throughout working in our midst, the so-called lone wolf who made it inspired by the extremist propaganda on the internet and who could strike with little or no notice. so what are we doing about this in 2015? first come as everyone knows, we take the fight for these groups at iraq and syria. our intelligence community continues to detect terrorist plots at their earliest stages. domestically, the fbi to investigate, interdict prosecute the homeland.

in response to the recent attacks in paris the public caused by terrorist organizations or attacks on the west. i direct the federal protective service increase its presence at federal buildings in major cities in the united states. we continue to taylor and enhance our security through every appropriate method. the visa waiver program we offer to 38 nations is a valuable tool for international commerce and travel. it is a program that must continue, but there are ways in which security of the program can be improved. to enhance security while maintaining integrity of the program. last november, we identified added information fields to the electronic system to learn more about those who traveled to the united states and we are considering further enhancements to the program.

we are engaging them to maintain and share travel information about individuals that station. we share information and training of state and local law and force meant given the manner in which the terrorist threat is evolving. the cop on the beat must be as vigilant as the intelligence analysts. our efforts must conclude public engagement. dhs along with the justice department are engaging communities, organizations institutions here at home that are themselves in a position to deter others who may be turning towards violence. in 2014 dhs held over 70 of these roundtable meeting with another event in 14 cities around the country. i personally participated in these units in chicago columbus ohio, minneapolis boston. we are doubling down in that if

you see something come to say something. yesterday to pre-super bowl conference in phoenix, i rolled out this new enhanced program. this must be more than a slogan. our counterterrorism efforts include continued vigilance in aviation security. and we are reviewing whether more is necessary. i made it a dhs priority by customs in aviation security person now before a passenger can on a flight to the united states. the 15 overseas airports of which we've screened more than 16 million passengers before they are back in the united states.

the newest of these preclearance operation of abu dhabi and the uae opened last year since that time in abu dhabi alone we have screened 364 at us and passengers in that year and found for the united states and denied to 571 individuals including a number in the terrorist screening database. we want to build more of these that overseas airports where it makes sense from a homeland security point of view and in a way that u.s. air carriers will support. last year we put out a solicitation and received 25 letters of interest from airport around the world. we are taking steps to fix our broken immigration system. some say we should have waited for congress to act. let's not forget that we did way for years and congress did not act. the president continues to urge congress to finish the job and pass a comprehensive bipartisan

immigration bill. he's willing to work with any serious partners, republican democrat or independent to fix the system. in the meantime, we must improve the system within our existing medical authorities. we did that and the president announced these reforms on november 20th last year. we've established a new program for deferred action for undocumented adults. those who have committed no serious crimes in this committee since january 1 2010 and the children here who are citizens or lawful permanent residence are eligible to be considered for this program. these immigrants are not enforced and priorities. therefore, we want to encourage these people to come out of the shadows, be accountable, pay taxes and get on the books so we know who they are. our executive actions also prioritize removal of thousands of her family's include the number of measures to further

secure the border, discontinued and secure communities program to replace it with a new program. streamline legal immigration to boost the economy and promote nationalization. support military families and enhanced options for foreign-born high skilled workers, entrepreneurs and businesses. we are taking a number of vets to further secure the border. i am on a mission to strengthen border security and to replace public misperception with a fax. in june 2013, the pew research conducted a survey and asked the following question. just your best guess compared to 10 years ago, and you think the number of immigrants entering the u.s. illegally today is higher, lower or about the same. amazingly, 55% answered higher and only 15% answered nowhere. the reality is on this slide. in the year 2000 apprehensions

on the southern border, a direct indicator of total attempts to cross the border illegally exceeded 1.6 million. apprehensions on the southern border has dropped considerably to around 400,000 a year in recent years. apprehensions are in fact at the lowest rates and the 1970s. these numbers are no doubt partially due to economic conditions and trends in the united states, mexico and central america, but are also due to the very large investment this nation has made in border security over the last 15 years. today's border patrol has the largest deployment of people vehicles aircraft, boats, but the southern border in its nine-year history. this included 3.50 and i'm a total of 23000 personnel and 20,833 border patrol agents. without a doubt we had a

challenge last summer with the unprecedented number of unaccompanied children and others who crossed an out area of our southern borders into the rio grande valley in search of a theme in number and a better life for the country. we responded aggressively with more people and resources on the southern border. he can in mid june the members of unaccompanied children climbed sharply and are now a far lower levels. but they are not declaring mission accomplished. the president and i are committed to building an even more secure border and a smart strategy to get there. much of the illegal migration is seasonal. the poverty and violence that are the pushback is in honduras guatemala and honduras to look this good the economy in this country, you pull factor getting better. there's still more we can and should do. we are including border security meaning our intelligence and surveillance

tell us the threats exist. this is a smart comic effect and efficient use of taxpayer resources. there are more aircraft, surveillance great technology and other equipment that our experts have determined we need, which we have requested for fiscal year 2015. in december we open a new family facility in texas that will house up to 2400 individuals. we are continuing aggressive public awareness and central america and elsewhere. the fax campaign was launched on january 5th. on january 21st i wrote another open letter spanish-language press to repeat the message. finally we have launched a department of homeland security wide southern border campaign plan. we are doing away with the stovepipe approach to border security.

instead, we put to use in a combined and coordinated way that personnel at cbp, ice, cics, the coast hard towards the goal of order security. we've established three new department taskforces, each headed by a senior official to direct the resources of cbp, i.c.e., coast guard in three areas. first come east will be responsible for maritime ports and approaches across this art piece. they will be responsible for southwest land order on the west coast of california and the third will be a standing joint task force for investigations to support the work of the other two task forces. a key part of our mission is to facilitate trade and travel. this is file to commerce and our economy. the president is committed.

last year tsa continue to expand the very popular tsa pre-check program which administer pistol administered in berlin new participants. at the same time tsa screened 653 total millions air passengers, 14 million more than the year before. four and 43 million check back than 1.7 billion carry-on bags. i didn't know that much even makes this day. last year, cbp screens 374 million passengers at land sea and airports an increase of 4% from the year before and enrolled an additional 1.25 million travelers and our various trusted traveler programs to bring total enrollment to 3.3 million members. in 2014 cbp also process 2.0 trillion in truly an increase of 4% from the year before a 25.7 million cargo

containers through ports of entry of four-point i.% increase from the year before. we are working with canada and mexico on programs and initiatives to facilitate the lawful and secure movement of goods and people between our countries. in response to president obama's executive obama's executive order, dhs's lead of 47 agency effort to create a national electronic single window, trade processing system for importers and exporters to do business with the united state. we are working to modernize other areas to promote lawful trade and travel. we need to make strides in cybersecurity through our national cybersecurity and communications integration center for and cake, dhs is responsible for assisting in sharing it her mission with the private actor concerning cyberattacks and threats than securing the civilian.gov networks. i was pleased last year congress

provided bipartisan support for a first with the passage of budget nation, which codified dhs authority to assist the air codifies the authority to assist other federal agencies and legislation to enhance the ability to hire cybertalent. we need to go further. on january 14 president obama came to the young cake and announced his support for more cybersecurity letters haitian to ensure our prosperity, national security and individual civil liberties. we report to encourage the private sector to share and dictators at the end cake protect the private sector with limit on civil and criminal liability when they do require businesses to notify victims in the government when there is a data breach at that company and enhanced criminal penalties for cybercrime. the secret service is the finest protection service in the world.

no other regency than a government in the world can protect 135 world leaders all at once when they gather at the u.n. general assembly. the secret service does this each year with great professionalism and without. the secret service continues to enjoy the president's trust and confidence as to protect him and his families. it is filtered and his talent and capabilities to pursue cyberand financial crimes. however, recent events highlight the need for change. in october and appointed an independent panel to take a hard look at the secret service. in december the panel reported his finding back to me. those recommendations were astute, thorough and fair. a number of security enhancements a party been made and implemented a acting your but the secret service must also commit to longer-term and more systemic change. for my part i am committed to

sustained and committed oversight of the secret service to ensure that it has what it needs to get the job done. last year our federal blunt force and training center trained over 59000 officers and agents from federal, state, local and tribal and international law enforcement. the coast guard -- ensuring the coast guard has what it needs to get the job done. these are exciting times for the coast guard and is replacing its aging fleet with new vessels. for new national security counters are in service on the fifth will summer. 12 new fast response cutters have been serviced and are making a difference every day in south florida and we are more than halfway to completing the replacement of our fleet of patrol boats. meanwhile the coast guard is in the design phase of a new mid-sized offshore patrol cutter. i'm committed to ensuring the project is affordable before going over with the selection of

a general contract during production. fema has become the premier emergency management agent he and the country and has served the competency of federal comest even local leaders throughout. in the year i've been in office, i've personally had the opportunity to observe this at the disaster recovery site. finally, dhs cannot pursue all these important missions of loan. i cannot print money. i cannot appropriate money. we need a continued partnership with congress. we need a fiscal year 2015 appropriations though. at present dhs is operating on a continuing resolution, which expires on february 27th. as long as we are on a cr, are restricted to last year's end in novels and cannot engage in any news pending and that committees.

this means we cannot pay for the added border security that i talked about. this means we cannot invest in the things the independent panel recommended to improve the secret service. we cannot hire secret service agents for the coming presidential elections cycle. this means we cannot find new non-disaster grants first and local government or mayors, police chief, fire chief and governors that they depend on. our ability to find aviation security, maritime security, port security and homeland security is severely constrained as long as we are on acr. as originally introduced by the house appropriations committee fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill for the department was a good. annapurna created dirty 9.7 billion for the department and funded many things we need. on the house floor, the bill was amended to include politically charged language.

all of our executive actions of the immigration system. the president has vowed to veto any bill that includes such language. the clock of february 27 to 18 and in these times the homeland security budget of this government should not be a political football. i urge congress to pass an appropriations bill for dhs free and clear of politically charged amendment. i will end with the very last two words i ended last year's speech with. last year, i said that in the name of homeland security we should not sacrifice our values as a nation of people who cherish privacy freedom, celebrate diversity and are not afraid. fear is corrosive. in the final analysis, courage and raised in the face of challenge are the greatest

strengths of any nation. terrorism cannot advance if you refuse to be terrorized. whether in response to a terrorist threat natural disaster deadly virus or in the pursuit of a more perfect union. courage and resolve will always prevail. thank you for listening. [applause] >> well, let me applaud you for the second year in a row, jeh for that speech. it speaks for the values that the wilson center and the values of people in this room and listening over the airwaves and overflow rooms in the center and elsewhere. it really does not or that we keep our values as we keep our country safe. i don't if it's a choice. i think it is a positive sign

and are negative. but either do both are we have neither. let me ask you a few questions. i can't see the clock around a camera man, but i think we have about 25 minutes last and i want to leave time for audience questions. one more comment to this audience. i didn't see john pistole. where is john pistole? their ears. i don't know why i was within. i want to applaud you for your extraordinary survey says had when you find his replacement you pick someone just as tall and just as good. [laughter] the mac just under fire. >> back to you. last year you made news in your remarks as saying. it is the homeland security threat. you didn't mention syria today or yemen or some of these places in the middle east that are

sadly subject into failing governments. is it still homeland security threat? >> last year's era had become a matter of homeland security and i still believe that. what i was referring to is what i referred to here today. the ability of terrorist organizations to reach into the homeland by use of the internet, by use of social media, the foreign fighter phenomenon people traveling to syria and other places to take up the fight there linking up with the extremists and then returning back to their home countries with an extremist commission. that is what i was referring to then and that is what i was talking about now. >> well, that segues to a second question and that is about our program. ..