we know these are not popular decisions, mom already choices but would ask you -- popular choices but ask you to keep in mind if you don't like these choices, hold on to your hats because under sequestration it gets uglier and uglier. under sequestration our air force would not only have to retire the a10 and slow the growth in military compensation, but in addition we would be facing the following actions. divest the u2 and the global hawk block 40 and the kc10 fleet. we would have to reduce our combat air patrols our reapers and predators, up to ten orbits. we would defer 14 for 35s would drive up unit costs. we would cancel the adaptive engine program and then have to in some sort of -- not across the board -- equal percentage-wise but in some fashion we would also have to reduce our investments in space

and signer and nuclear and signs and technology and readiness and people. in other words, i think everything is threatened mr. chairman, under sequestration. and most of all i fear that american lives would be at risk. so i ask you again, please continue your leadership to get sequestration lifted permanently. please keep on pushing. thank you very much, and we all look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i'm going to ask the staff to put me on the clock because i have really one question directed to each of the service chiefs. at our retreat general dempsey said, and he said we could quote him -- the budget request was the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. if you were talking to my con state opportunities or our colleagues who don't deal in this area every day and had one minute to describe what the consequences to the country would be for not approving the amount that the president -- the

administration has asked for for department of defense or your service how would you do that? again, in one minute in plain language general? >> mr. chairman, i'd say unpreparedness, inability to react to the unknown contingencies and stress on the force would be increased significantly. >> admiral? >> thank you mr. secretary. i am more of a rookie than a secretary james. strategic deterrence remains our number one priority so we we focus on that. the impact on the rest of the conventional force, ships and submarines, would be tremendous. you're talking about impact on readiness, ability to train people and our ability to forward deploy and be where we need to. we all of that would shrink our ability to respond to the nation residents needs would be greatly

diminished. it is -- it would be devastating. >> general. >> mr. chairman, i think i would use an an neck ticket. you expect off to the marine corps we're forward deployed and ready to respond to crises and there's two models for that. there's the model we have seen over the past year where marines have responsibled to evacuation appraisals in south sudan in libya, and yemen and in those cases we have not heard much. it was in the news for a okay and then moved on. a case awe few years ago in benghazi when marines weren't ready to respond on a moment's notice and we heard about that particular incident now for years. i think that's the difference between funding the budget in support of means and having us being forward deployed and not being endamaged is two models of crisis response and i would jute line those for your con state opportunities. thank you. >> general. >> chairman, would aggrieve with what in the commandant said and i believe the turned of -- the

fundamental issue is the american people cannot expect their military to do what we've been asked the in the past at these funding levels. >> i was thinking to comments need a committee member today basically it means that lives are at greater risk and more lives are lost because that is what the bottom line to what we ask you and those who serve under you to do. miss sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman. i actually have two questions then first is for general odierno, and admiral howard. i have a letter here, both from general odierno and admiral green, sent to sect hagel last year indicating your concerns with how much we are investing in missile defense and the growing challenges both that you see in terms of our capacity to continue to invest in missile difference at the current rate considering the fiscal

environment that we're in. the letter states our present acquisition based strategy is unsustainable, in the current fiscal environment, and favors forward deployment of axis in lieu of deterrence based options. now is the opportunity to develop a long-term approach that addresses homeland missile defense and regional missile defense priorities, holistic approach that is more sustainable and cost effective, incorporating less launch and other nonkinetic means of defense. from your letter general odierno. can you expand on this letter? i believe it's very important as we look at how to get the best value for the taxpayers' money. i've always argued that missile defense is one approach to address thing various threats that face us and as indicated in your letter could you expand on that, please. >> the basis the letter was we cannot sustain a rate of deployment we have. we simply are overstressing the

force. we don't have enough. we're not meeting requirements. so in our mind we have to come up with a new concept that allows us to use an integrated air and missile defense capability that is shared among the services that allows to us deal with the growing threat the threat is going. what we want is a study that enables to us come up with new techniques, new procedures, new capabilities that are able for us to provide the proper defense for this nation, using a variety of capabilities to include current missile defense assets and other capables. cyber and other things that have to be integrated into this that enables us to deal with these problems. we're on a path we can't sustain. and the threat, missile defense threat is going, so we have to woman up with a more cost effective means dealing with the issue. that's the basis for the letter. >> general can we twice put that in the ndaa and go through

the funding process for a year or would you prefer we try to get a study on that as soon as possible? >> i think we need to do it as soon as possible, ma'am. >> okay. my second question, is in regards to where each service is in fully integrating women into the military. this has been a big deal from my standpoint for a long time. there's about 15% over the military compliesed of women over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve our country and have died while serving on the front lines. so it's woman's history month and equality of women extends to the military. by september of this year all gender neutral occupation standards are to be set and by next year awful positions should be open unless an exception to the policy is requested. are all the services on track to meeting those deadlines and if not, why? and for what i can see on the current schedule, many occupations in units won't be open by january 1st 2016 deadline. so what is osd doing to ensure

service and compliance with the original directive and why are women in open special advertise like communications and intelligence and logistics still barred from serving in marine corps infantry battalions in any capacity? even though, for example a male public affairs officer assigned to an infantry unit requires no infantry training beyond what all officers receive at the basic school and women in these open specialties are not allowed in any capacity in infan tribattalions. can you please address where we are, where we're going, are we going meet what we need to do? >> ma'am, if i could. we are on track. we have to make our recommendation to the secretary. this year we're continuing to finish up the testing through all -- for all the mos.

currently we have infantry engineer artillery and armor that are not yet open. we're rung tests with women in these positions now and have sent a note forward to congress recommending the opening of combat engineers already so we finished that. we expect artillery to be done within the next month or so and expect armor and infantry we'll be prepared to provide a represents in the september-october time frame. that's the timeline we're on. we're comfortable where we are in ceasing and we're also doing a test in ranger school where for the first time females will participate in ranger school. >> if y'all could just have -- in fairness to her i did not alert miss sanchez i was putting us on the club. if the other services have a brief answer and then we can expand. >> the navy and marine corps are

absolutely on track to immediate the deadlines. in the navy, we have opened every single occupation and billet to women including submarines, and the only one that remains closed today are the trying are pullers for the seals -- trigger pullers for the sales. all the support things like intel and communications for the seals are open. i'll let general dunford with you an update on the marines but we don't have enough women in our service, and one of the reasons that we're having problems is we do not have enough flexibility in how we manage our force, and more women leave than men and we have some legislative proposals in to address that. >> congresswoman, thank you. the secretary gasolined where we are but guy back to your example of public affairs officer. in fact due to the secretary of

defendant lifting the collocation policy there's no difference today in how we assign a mail and female public affairs office to include support inen inbranty. so a commander can do to the lifting of the policy assign women anywhere on the battlefield where he or she believed it's necessary. that's been in effect since sect pennetta signed the letter. >> and the vast majority of our positions in the air force are open. we have seven closed afscs as present. we are on track to meet the deadlines, and i permanently have received kind of an -- personally have received an interim update how it's going and i feel pretty good about it. as you pointed out miss sanchez, we need work closely with the special operations command, our 7afscs relate to the world of special operations and we're trying to work through that coordination now. >> mr. chairman, thank youor your indulgence. it's an incredibly important issue and i hope our personnel committee in particular will

continue to be on top of this. i think it's so important. >> they're on top of everything. they're good. mr. forbes. >> thank you mr. chairman. general dunford if i could bak to the chairman's line of questioning.the impact of these budgets, you stated about as articulately as i've heard it stated a few weeks ago. as i understood you to state you said this: that even if we were to get the full amount in the president's budget, that the best that could do for us would be to reset us so where the military was a decade ago. that it still would not enable us to begin to reconstitute to where we need to be to fight tomorrow's wars. and that if we did not get the amount of the president's budget we couldn't even reset to where we were a decade ago. fighting wars a decade ago. it that an accurate statement?

>> congressman it is in many functional areas. briefly, why i say that is because we have learn today we must plate a greatly distributive manner, that's both at sea and at sheer and that has implications for command and control systems, i can mix indications for fires and for organizational construct and our equipment strategy as a whole. and currently even at the president's budget we're not making the kind of changes to facilitate and optimize distribute testify operations in a manner that is necessary for the current fight and the future fight, and if yao's just look at the examples of our special purpose task forces today, the one in the central command is spread across six different countries. that's an organization now spread across six different countries and when was a lieutenant i was trained in a unit of that side with 600-meter frontage young. get a sense how time and -- and space has changed.

so fundamentally we are building more capabilities that are more applicable to yesterday rather than tomorrow. >> i won't ask you to comment on whan the cno would say but i can say for the record i heard him a due days after general dunford made that statement, he said he did agree with that. general, odierno i ask you the same question, and i think your comment was you agreed as well. i'd just like for your thoughts. >> i agree. i would say for the army we don't even get reset for five more years, and so it takes to us 2020, even to reset, as we're still trying to move to the future. and so for us the next four or five years we have some signaturent issues in terms of readiness. >> general welch i haven't had an opportunity to ask you that question. what would you feel about the statement that general dunford made. >> the problem we have is if we don't invest in reddiness today we risk losing the fight today. if we don't invest in reddiness and capability night we risk

losing the fight ten to 20 years from now. that's the balance we're trying walk. it will take the it's for eight to ten years to recover. haven't been the investing in the frustration of the last 10 to 15 years that gives is mission capability training range, case paunch capables, simulation truck, black and white world test infrastructure, the entire nuclear infrastructure issue you're familiar with. those things must be persist extent, consistent investment for us or we'll fail down the road. that's what we're looking right now. >> okay. and secretary james, you gave a very good statement of where the air force is, and you're comment. as you know the budget that the president sent eve however, even if we pass that budget would not become law unless we also have legislation doing away with sequestration. are you aware of the proposal the president has sent over here that would do away with sequestration for national defense and if not if we were to pass such a piece of legislation that would do away with sequestration, for national

defense do you have enough indication that's white house would sign that legislation? >> mr. chairman, has at least been my impression but i want to double-check what i'm about to say here -- is that the overall plan that the president set forth would involve the lifting of sequestration, not only for defense but for the whole of government. so my belief was that the president's plan did include the lifting of sequestration for all of us -- >> what i asked -- >> allow know ask that. >> aid ask for all three of the secretaries, if cue use give us any indication that president would sign a piece of legislation that would do away with sequestration, at least related to national defense because is a take your statement that we can't defend against an adversary in one part of the world and hold another one at bay and defend the homeland unless we do that. i hope the president wouldn't hold that hostage to money he might want for the epa irs or

something else. so with that, mr. chairman i yield back. fresh. >> appreciate it. miss davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here. of course for your service. secretary mabus you mentioned briefly -- you don't have to responsibility right now -- some authority you've need in order to do a better job hiring women into the navy particularly? and if you could dish look forward to seeing that so we can work on that in the upcoming ndaa. i wanted to ask you secretary mabus and general dunford we know that sequestration will decrease readiness and place our personnel at risk. i wonder if you could speak more directly though to the fact that for the marines, 60% are first enlistments and as we move forward, with the environment that we have, the uptempo environment, the changes to future benefits perhaps what are we doing to ensure the

quality and the high standards of the marine corps? do you see that could be affected by the way that we move forward today? >> congresswoman, thank you. today 60% of our forces is first timers inch terms of quality we're absolutely recruiting and retaping. high quality marines today and i'm confident of that. however, something we have spoken about is that i also believe that the demographics in the marine corps node to change to account for the increasingly complex security environment. so today we may have a 60% first term force but i don't believe it should be that case in the future and we're in the process of actually increasing the numbers of sergeant, staff sergeants, gunnery sergeants, and reducing the number of lance corporals and pfcs, the bottom three of the grades and that's in recognition of technological development with the f35, cyber capabilities infan tray squad leaders who have the

responsibility that were probable live more in line with what a lieutenant was doing 15 or 20 years ago is now on the shoulders shoulders of a sergeant and that requires change in the demographics and construction of the marine corps. >> so the skill sets are important in terms hough you do that. i think part of my question -- it's been raised in the last few questions -- is, it's maybe not in your area of responsibility to look at nondefense impacts of sequestration, but when we talk about the young people that we are recruiting today, certainly our domestic budget has an impact on that as well, and i know that in the past admiral mullen specifically comes to mind but others have the really spoken to the needs of -- whether it's an education, fitness in health all those areas, so do you feel comfortable saying that in fact it does matter what we do in terms of sequestration and the

nondefense budget as well. that immigrant pacts or military impacts the young people being recruited. >> collegewoman, i can give you a specific example how it has a tremendous impact on us 75% of young americans 18 to 24 years old do not qualify to join the american military. it's either for -- they lack the educational requirements we have, they have a health problem, usually obesity or they have a criminal record. so, if you want to help us continue to recruit the very best, that we believe we are recruiting today, but we're drawing from a very small pool of americans you have to pay attention to education, have to pay attention to health have to pay attention to the domestic side. >> thank you. anybody else want to comment briefly?

>> i'd be happy to miss davis. obviously the army, all the services, are laboring under the same one and four constraint that secretary mabus mentioned. i can tell you both in talking to new recruits and also those who served some time in the united states army that they're very mindle of the discussion on sequestration. they're also very aware of the cuts that we in the army have already had to take of the loss of training opportunities that they've had to endure in other programs and while they want to stick with us it becomes more and more challenging for them to do that. they want a secure future for their families and they're very worried about how this may turn out. as for recruiting similarly recruits and their influencers, particularly parents, are mindful of these discussions. and are questioning whether or not they want to send their

child, on the one, into a military service where there's obviously great danger involved but coupled with the fact of a totally uncertain fiscal future. so it's a very large challenge we're all dealing with right at the moment. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. chairman miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. i want to go further out than the budget wire discussing today and talk about the audit. one thing that absolutely shocked me was that when we started combat auditing dod a few years ago, we were told it would take years to get the agency into a posture that we in fact could audit them. so we have a couple of deadlined that are approaching think 2017 is the first one to get ready and then 2019 when the results have to be given to congress. but i want to talk about risk allocation or hear from you that me a come from the dod audit two quick questions.

one is i understand that the leadership is supporting the audit but i'm a little concerned about the ses level and commitment to making this happen. so i want to know your feeling on the commitment from the senior level and then any tweaks you may have done since the november report that congress received on the financial improvement and audit readiness plan. >> i can start, mr. miller. as to the larger question of our -- the army reside posture in achieving the milestones you described, i feel we're on track. we have gone through a series of both lock audits and outside examinations that have proven very very positive, unqualified findings in a number of areas but equally if more important,

they've shown us where we have weaknesses and need to do better. as to your specific question on sess i think we have buy-ins of what we're challenged with is helping people operate under the new paradigm, and getting away from business as usual. so what we have done in response to that, where we witness it through our mock audit and our other examinations is to go back in and re-emphasize training and to the extent we have been able to measure that to this point, we think we're on the right path, but this is an incredibly complex endeavor. particularly for the ute arm -- united states army but we feel we're moving forward as you want us to. >> if could i a add one comment. did the vice chief of staff of the mayory are doing vtcs with all sub oater nappeds in the army specifically on this issue

so they all understand the importance they play in moving forward with this and that's really helping us to move this along. >> as a former state audit for, i don't take anything more seriously. as you know marks recent corp -- marine corps got a clean audit for fy12. they're almost finish wed the fy13 audit. navy has its first statement of budgetary account audit under contract now and moving forward. i believe in particular isess understanding the importance of it and are moving forward. the concern i have very frankly is that there's at least one area that we don't control that could have an impact on whether we get the audit. the defense finance and accounting service that writes our checks, that we pay the navy and marine corps $300 million to last year to write the checks, nine out of their ten internal

controls have been found to be inadequate. the numbers that we receive from them that we are dependent on cannot be validated. and so the navy and marine corps are absolutely own track to do it. again, i'm concerned about that which is outside of our control. >> and congressman miller, want it to agree with my colleague on the last point about -- but on behalf of the air force we're fully committed to the audit itch mentioned that my opening statement. i come out of the business world, and so i personally am devoting time to this as well. i do monthly meetings, just to keep my finger on the pulse of how we're doing. we're underway with the schedule of budgetary activity, which of course is the precursor to doing the audit and we have a new accounting environment which we call deems in the air force which a year or two ago was

quite i quite messy and not going bell but it's doing better now and that going hope to us get from here. so, on balance, i am cautiously optimistic but with several cavots that you heard, we're on track to meet the goals of 2017 to roach the full financial statement audit. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our witness ford being here today, your tim and your enduring service to our nation. secretary mabus if i can start with you. i want to thank you. recently you were in rhode island for the ceremony for the uss colorado along with your daughter, the ship's sponsor and your family. you wanted our state as well as -- you honored our state as well as the state of colorado and the work force and men and women of electric boat and for

your prepares mr. and i thank you for that. on the virginia class program along with the virginia payload mod to all and the ohio replacement, as we face significant budget challenges, secretary, can you tell us how is your ability to keep those programs on track at the president's budget level or if we have to drop back to levels or even worse, how it's impacted if sequestration goes into effect to keep the programs on track. especially given the challenges we face as our submarine force is declining if we don't keep the programs on track just at the same time where our adversaries, particularly china, are increasing the size of their submarine fleet. >> the virginia class program is a model program we signed a ten-year -- a ten-boat, multiyear where we got ten sub marines for the price of nine

because of this committee's support in allowing us to do the multiyear. to break a multiyear because of lack of funds that is possible with sequestration means you would pay more money and get fewer ships, which is just a bizarre outcome. on the virginia payload, the first one of those is scheduled to go in to one boat in 2019. we're looking to see if we can move that up because of the need we have for that strike capability, that will go away when our ssg, our guided missile submarines retire in the mid-2020s. and finally, the ohio class replacement program -- the first boat will have to begin in 2021...

congress setting up a fund for the replacement and i think this debate has to continue as to halt the fund this because it is that national program that needs national support end there is

history behind it. the first time wheat did 41 for freedom in the 50s and 60s, significant amounts were added to shipbuilding to allow that the current to be met. >> i would like to point out a sentence that resonated with me. that was the dimension of the navy and marine corps being services that perform the most often far from home in addition to the army where the current will ratios and the reduced budget negatively affect the current ratios in a way that might threaten the morale and efficiency of the army navy and marine corps. >> the marine corps is a little less than 1 or 2 for deployment, we have 130,000 marines on deployment around the world and 1 to 2 is to use the chairman's

term the ragged edge of how much you can ask someone to deploy without their effectiveness suffering. on the knee beside our deployments are getting longer, less predictable, we are trying to get into all the optimize response plans which make deployments more predictable, which make maintenance more predictable, which make trading more predictable. all that would be seriously jeopardized and scuttled by sequestration. >> mr. wilson. >> i would like to thank each of you for being here today. i know firsthand your commitment, how military service members, veterans truly appreciate your service. our family's joint service, i cover each of you. thanks to my wife. i give her all the credit. we have three send in the army national guard, had a son in the navy we have a nephew in the

air force. my late brother in law and brother-in-law were proud marines. chris and, i know of your commitment and all military families are putting so much trust in you. also want to point out the context of where we are today. somebody we all respect eat it is universal, dr. henry kissinger testified recently, quote, the united states has a diverse array of crises since the end of the second world war. i appreciate him in particular you pointed out how the production of our air capability is putting the american people at risk but we want to work with you. additionally though we need to recognize, according to bob woodward in his book the price of politics that it was the president who came out with defense sequestration. i am grateful house republicans voted twice to replace defense

sequestration. said the neither one of our initiatives were taken up by a former senate. but hope springs eternal that this can be addressed. in regard to a question, we will be grateful for visiting you in baghdad, general odierno. i had two sons served in iraq so i know again of your insight. i would like your insight into what we are looking at in afghanistan before there's a drawdown. >> i would say the important thing in afghanistan is twofold. one is we have to make sure the afghan security forces continue to improve. they continue to do the institutional things that are necessary for long-term sustainment of their military and i think that is critical so in order for that to happen i believe we have to stay the course with them and continue to

help them as they continue to fight the challenges they face. they're doing an incredible job doing that but it is important we stay with them and we have the conditions based capability with the commander of rivera that allows him to make judgments in order to make sure we continue the support that is necessary for them to have sustained sustainable outcomes that will last a long time. >> i share the concern of the president. one of my sons served in afghanistan and the stability of afghanistan is very important for the stability of nuclear equipped pakistan so i appreciate the president recognizing that. every step should be made for stability so that they are not safe havens to attack the united states. an issue that has come before us cyberthreat to our country and in particular i am keenly interested, secretary mchugh in regards to cybercommand.

what is the latest in how we are facing and if other branches would like to address, this is such a key issue to the american people. >> it is. many are smarter than i have declared it is the critical challenge of the future and the threat to not just the military but homeland writ large. like all the services we are working through cybercommand, joint commander to ensure that we are coordinated across all the military departments in a way that provides most robust, most effective cyberteam in the army and the active component in the process of standing up 41 cyberprotection teams lose 24 of those are currently at initial operation capability and by the end of 16 we expect all 41 to be up and operating.

we are very mindful of the fact that particularly in the guard and reserve there's a wealth of experience, many of these individuals have employment outside their military jobs that have much to do with cybersystems as such the guard is setting up 11 cyberprotection teams. the reserve component will have 10. as i said, we are working very hard to coordinate that with large. we have instituted a series of benefits, programs and bonuses to try to compete for these highly technical individuals and through the army center of excellence in porche garden which we announced, we are making progress but any expert would readily admit there are challenges the remaining and a ways to go.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you to all our service secretaries in sheaves. i commend all of the for sharing with this committee the dangers of sequestration and the devastating impact it could have on nonmilitary readiness and i hope that congress will have the political will to eliminate sequestration entirely. i urge you to continue your efforts. general dunford, in 2012 the u.s. and japanese government agreed to delink the relocation of marines from okinawa to guam from progress on the replacement facility. last week during your testimony to the senate armed services committee you stated, quote, we have to have a replacement committee in order for us to leave our current air station and then back the redeployment of guam as well and properly support the marines in the area.

i am concerned that we may have given the impression that the guana relocations are linked. can you clarify this point? also quickly can you comment on the progress of implementing the distributed laid down in the asia-pacific region? >> thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. i.t. speaking in response to the question what are the issues congress should pay attention to with regard to the implementation so i did not link the replacement facility to the move to blanc. and the president's budget we have funds for training ranges and we are proceeding apace for the move to guana in 2021-22 so that is on track. overall our progress is on path one of the second order effects of sequestration would certainly have an impact, i find it hard

to imagine it could sustain the plan we have right now where we to go below the president's budget. >> thank you for clarifying that. admiral howard, i have a three point question here so if you could be brief in your answer, the pacific fleet has stated, quote, the restoration of dry docking capability in guam remains a strategic requirement and operational necessity. last year a submarine tender was sent from guam to the west coast for the overall which was costly. what are the costs of the impacts on the readiness by sending ships from the western pacific area of responsibilities back to the u.s. mainland for dry dockings, and further, two years ago and s c indicated in a letter to guam that it would pursue dry docking of a abilities to follow contracting action. i reluctantly agreed to this

strategy but expected the navy to follow through on its commitment. to date that has not occurred. can you get an update on this situation and when will request for information be released retiring a dry dock on guam. >> thank you for that question. obviously repair and maintenance of our ships is a strategic priority for us and the ability to be deployed particularly with the pacific fleet balanced. in regard to the pacific cost of sending ships over i would have to get to you the dollar costs. please sending ships back stateside has a responsiveness' cost for our forces. we are still looking at the economic feasibility of getting that tried dock into guam and we owe you an answer shortly on that.

>> thank you, admiral. >> thank you congress. we now proceed to the congressman from new jersey. >> thank you for your service to our country. general welsh two questions. what are the air force's plans to address the urgent operational need for radar upgrades for f-16 block 30 aircraft currently conducting aerospace controller missions? >> we need to develop a rate our plan for f-16s that are conducting homeland defense mission in particular. the entire fleet active guard reserve, none of them would agree with that radar. the money we have in the budget for this year hopefully we will move forward with this effort, it is $25 million on radar that

just is integrated with the air to air mission and we would prefer to spend $75 million and funding to do the r d t to build a fully integrated radar. the cost of one versus the other to procure for the airplanes is relatively close, $2.8 million for the ninth integrated radar and $3.2 million for aircraft with the integrated radar. we think that is the way to go. we are looking at how we can do that as we move forward. part of the problem is the f-16 upgrades, was part of the b.c. a cuts to modernization and week at 50% of the modernization program so we have got to solve this program for a lot of reasons operationally. >> do you have plans to revisit the capes program? >> not at this time. we don't have the money to fund cakes for the entire time. >> i am sure you know the arguments that are made out with

the tight budget constraints you are working under, the all of us are working under. what the air guard provides in terms of bang for the buck is incredible. the statistics are staggering in a positive way and not to have the f-16 air guard units be able to fully integrate would be a terrible tragedy and appreciate all you are doing to make that happen and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman lobiondo. >> now we move to congressman courtney. >> i think the witnesses for being here. a critical week in terms of the budget resolution being put together and frankly we are forewarned about you being here and that is important. i want to again acknowledge the fact that your testimony on page 16 points out that during your tenure the shipbuilding

trajectory is on an upward angle contrary to some of the noise out there and also want to make sure to note that you are doing this with every public forum, you have that opportunity in the wall street journal article which had a chance to read through again points out the fact that compared to 2009 we have turned the direction in terms of shipbuilding under your leadership and it is going to have a benefit for decades to come. the question of the date is sequestration and the budget control taps which is a better way to make sure people understand this. if you could briefly talk about if the department is left with the b.c. a caps, what does that mean in terms of trying to grow the size of the fleet? >> thank you, congressman.

if we go back to b.c. a, sequester, however you want to phrase it, i have said i am going to protect shipat building as much as humanly possible, the phrase i used which nobody outside mississippi understood, i will protect shipbuilding until the last dog dies. if we do that, something else is going to break. because our maintenance we are already behind because of sequestration 2013. it is going to take us until 2018 to catch up on our maintenance on our ships. will take until 2025 to catch up on maintenance on our aircraft. that is the president's budget level. we are already falling below the sustainment rates we believe we need our training last sequestration, we had air wings that went down to a hard object

which meant the minimum training. our marines training at home station, the ones that were deployed and the ones next to that all have suffered under the first sequestration and it would be a fair word is devastating in terms of the navy's ability to respond to crisis, to and serge to meet an adversary, do the things that america has come to expect and should expect from its navy and marine corps. >> thank you. we proceed to congressman mike turner of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mchugh, secretary james, thank you for your threat of sequestration, as you are aware today the house budget committee will unveil its budget and it will be funding the

department of defense at this week's -- sequestration number which i oppose and most people in this room oppose and i appreciate your articulation of what happens but i have had this conversation with most of you that the more we talk in this room about the effects of sequestration the less we win because we are all on the same page but we have got to get the message out side of this room. in this room when we talk about sequestration be used words like readiness, risk, capability mission. so odierno, give us words beyond capability, risk and mission. you testified last week that 33% of our brigades are ready. when our sustained readiness rate should be closer to 70%. this number is disturbing because it is significant to our military but the effects of it, when the brigade combat team the essential building block of

the army's combat power isn't ready and the army isn't ready to fight but they go to fight, general odierno, doesn't this mean more people get injured or killed? not just an issue of readiness, risk, capability or mission but more people get injured or killed. is that correct? >> that is absolutely right. it means it will take longer to do our mission. will cost us in lives. it will cost us in injuries. it potentially could cost us in achieving the goals we are attempting to achieve as well. >> the translation we need is we can lose, people will die and people will be injured. >> that is correct. >> if we go to the full sequestration for fiscal year 16, this is an issue beyond what the budget is your goal of taking our brigades to 70% of

readiness how do you accomplish that? >> we will not. what we do with 33% readiness is that will go down with sequestration, probably somewhere around 25% to 20%. we will focus resources on a small part of the force to meet everyday requirements we have in the army. the rest of the force will go and trained and that means if they are needed a won't be able to do the job we expect them to do and our sons and daughters will be asked to do things without the proper training or readiness. >> which again means more people will be injured or killed. >> that is correct. >> you also testified that the number of active duty soldiers in the army has fallen by 80,000 over the last three years and it will fall another 70,000 if full sequestration comes into effect with 420,000 troops remaining the army would be substantially smaller than it was on 9/11. we all know it was not a safer place today that it was then.

secretary mchugh, describe how that loss of manpower translates into risks to our troops of injury and people being killed. >> as the chief said, pardon me, fewer soldiers to do missions, we continue to run the risk as we say of sending and prepared soldiers into a very dangerous environment. we are doing everything we can to minimize that but at 420,000, our judgment is very clearly that we would not be able to meet the defense strategic guidance. that wouldn't leave us absolutely no room to respond to the kinds of unforeseen contingencies the we have seen in the last 18 months whether it is russia and ukraine or whether it is ebola in west africa or isil in syria and iraq. i don't think the american

people are really postured to accept the united states military that can answer the bell when the challenge may are arise but again it comes back to risk means people dying, risk means greater in juries, risk means people don't come home. >> secretary james, if sequestration level funding goes into effect what is the most difficult strategic decision you will have to make? >> i worry about the very things that you said. we will have air men who will needlessly die and become injured, i worried the we will be slower to respond. our hallmark is we are ready to fight tonight. sequestration could in danger that these you heard my colleagues say ultimately we could lose in trying to reach our objective. our national security strategy requires that we be able to do three important things, near simultaneous fashion. we cannot do them in that fashion under sequestration. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

sequestration assumes that the nation's debt is out of control and therefore we must cut spending. we cannot increase tax revenues. we must cut spending. and if that is true then i am glad both defense and nondefense spending are included in sequestration. i myself do not accept that premise but if i am wrong and if it is true then i am glad that defense and nondefense spending are covered by sequestration. that is one point i want to make. the other point i want to make is sequestration is the wrong way to cut spending both in the defense and the non-defense sectors of our budget.

why? because sequestration is just a blunt force instrument cutting across-the-board regardless of whether or not is sensible enough to do so. it is true that fraud, waste and abuse exists in both the defense and nondefense sectors. it is true. it is also true that there are some sectors that are doing some excellent cutting edge unnecessary spending that does not need to be cut. that is why sequestration needs to go away. it needs to go away for defense and nondefense. moreover i think we need to come up off of this attitude that we can never increase taxes because we know that some folks, some corp.s don't pay any taxes.

we know that the middle class, middle income working people pay taxes. we know that that tax code is riddled with tax loopholes that enable others who should be paying and can't afford to pay not to pay so they are getting a free ride talking about entitlement, talking about an entitlement mentality, we have so many folks that can afford to pay that are not paying and i think it is obscene that they would create the conditions under which we are here today which is hollowing out of our defense spending, providing and protecting and promoting the common defense of this country is something that we must do. and we have had a loss of

unforeseen incidents, unforeseen developments that have occurred and you all have related to them. isil, russian aggression if each one of you i will ask anyone who wants to respond. describe the key security environment challenges and threats that you are most concerned about and the ability of your service to address them. what challenges had emerged in the last year that the defense strategy of your service's budget request does not adequately address? similarly, in what areas have you recommended reduced, reduced funding level, and for the secretaries, i will ask that question. >> congressman johnson if i can start. as i mentioned just previously a weekend pick and choose the

things we worry about most. whether it is isil where we have army forces in iraq or whether it was in west africa with ebola, special operations army, special operations forces throughout africa responding to a variety of emerging terrorist threats, we have as i mentioned in my opening comments forces in estonia lithuanians, forces in poland, teaming with those nations and their very important part of our new posture in the european continent 20,000 soldiers which we view as a longstanding mission on the korean peninsula, certainly with the threat of nuclear weapons there.

that is a critical challenge and i could go on and on as the other services could as well. thank you, my time is expired. >> chairman kline. >> thank you for being here and for your service. we picked up the thread that all of you and witnesses would like to see spend more than the sequestration level of the president's budget, we are trying to find a way here in congress to make sure we get to a number like that. i share your concerns about readiness. general odierno, you are clear about it. i have personal concerns about the on the readiness with my family and we should all be concerned but sometimes we have issues that really aren't about money. by know that the discussion on the phone the other day, i am sorry i am going to go back to that issue. secretary mchugh you send we

send our young men and women into a dangerous environment is some couple of weeks ago we had apparently a very dangerous environment in yemen. we sent extra marines in there and that it was a dangerous the we evacuated all the americans, close the embassy, took the ambassador out, evacuate all the americans and in that process even though we had a new on standby not far off shore, somebody made a decision i will work to that on the record somebody made a decision to destroy all of those weapons that have the marines who were either to provide protection in this very dangerous environment turn over their weapons, their individual weapons. ..

they may try to force us out. the weapons we need, the ordinance that we need, the numbers that we need to do that they need technologies to do that. research goes down in science and technology goes down as much as we try to protect it we simply cannot do that. to use the language that other secretaries have used the risk we take is that we get there later than we should more americans will die and we take

a chance at losing. >> congressman i might add and i'm sure the marine corps feels the same way, the reason we've been sick. on the battlefield is because the young men and women go into dangerous situations and because of that young warrior we need to ensure that the weapon we provide them, the platforms we put them on need to have a superior edge over our competitor at the moment and he very accurately noted that all the services the r&d is so critical to develop a weapon system action program for the future has been cut since 2012 by a third. we feel that's the core of technology but overall our

ability to look into the future and ensure that for ten years that a generally takes to develop these next-generation technology that we have this funding level available. the army will not happen modernization platform until the next decade. >> we wrote the blueprint for how to build the world's greatest air force. others have seen it and are now pursuing the same blueprint. the capability lap is closing. it's how you manage that gap. if the car trailing you is behind for a lap but is consistently slowing they are going to get to point where you

can can not keep them from passing. that's what we worry about. we hear terms like high risk or significant risk and that should translate as not guaranteed to win because that's what it means to us. >> thank you. >> think all of you for being here and to our service for the country. i wanted ask you about sequestration and its impact for the military. members of this committee understand information and how adversely it's affecting us and to meet the challenges that we are facing in the military. i can talk about specific examples i've got army depose laying off hundred and 90 people

right now and specific examples from fort benny. that's just parochial. it's impacting our readiness and our capability. our colleagues don't understand. you have been here and you understand how difficult it is to convey that policy to others. we really count on y'all, that's a southern term by the way. we count on you to help us communicate that message. we have this need for members to understand. some in our leadership think things are okay. they're not hearing squealing or the sky falling.

i'm curious why do you think it's been difficult for those in the leadership to convey specific examples of how this is very detrimental to our ability to protect this country? >> part of the reason and wyatt took this opportunity is we tend to talk in code. other words that don't convey to the average citizen about what that really means. the other is one of opportunity. we all go out and give speeches talk to think tanks and engaged engage to get the word out about the reality of the challenges were facing but obviously we have to do a lot of work. the last point i would make before i turn it over to my colleagues is i have said we are

victims of our own success. we came to this con chris before sequestration passed and predicted this. against the odds all of the services manage the unmanageable. we've been moving money, and putting off unnecessary program. those cuts and delays won't do it next year. they've run out. the sequestration added to the cuts we were ready taken. >> we are mortgaging it to meet today's needs. were doing everything we can to keep our commitments which aren't overwhelming commitments to maintain normal security.

yes we have an operation in iraq, we have a small operation in afghanistan yes were doing small things in korea. those aren't big operation. those are just dated a commitments. we are struggling to meet those commitments. we are mortgaging our readiness to meet the commitments that we have now so if something bigger happens we will not be able to respond in a way that people are use to us responding. >> the thing that i'm after is to get you all to help us and give us some specific examples. there may be platforms you have to give up installations may have to close so we can help them understand because it's difficult. generally we have 30 to 45 seconds of the floor before they've moved on in our thinking about something different. that's the challenge. >> we do have a list of specific things in addition to the

presidents list. we would have to retire air patrol kc-10 fleet, gone. all of these things go away plus we would have to literally every part of our air force to come up with that differential. we would be willing to go anywhere and say anything to help get the help that we need. i hope and pray it doesn't take a catastrophe in this country to wake up. >> think of mr. chairman. i like to begin by thanking each of you for your service and through each of you think the men and women who serve under you.

i'd like to begin with general odierno and ask him the following questions. if i understand it the ground forces and iranian sponsored shiite to the degree that they exist, moderate opposition forces which we hope to train and equip will those ground forces be able to meet the presidents objective to defeat isis? >> it's yet to be understood. i would say depending on how well the iraqi security forces are performing they are still being trained, i have some

concern about their participation but were working to train the moderates in opposition. i think it's still time will tell. we've halted movement and had initial but we also have to see how well these ground forces do. >> has any other country in the world especially in the middle east pledged to help with this effort? >> there are special operations from other countries to support this. they are supporting and training the iraqi security forces. they are training sunni moderates. >> including those forces on the ground is your assessment that it's too soon to tell whether those -- >> that's correct.

>> i would assume it for going to achieve the presidents stated objective of defeating and destroying isis it's very possible that will need additional ground forces that we as a congress will have to make decisions about funding and supporting ground forces in that country and those two countries. i guess my question secretary mccue is of the budget you're proposing doesn't have sufficient resources to ensure that the readiness is that the little level necessary and we support them through the following budget year to the degree that we ensure they can prevail and we don't unnecessarily fail due to budget

constraints. >> we would need to increase it a little bit but if we get into something that will take years it will need more dollars to ensure the proper readiness to keep our show soldiers out of harm's way. >> i agree. i would note of course there's always an option to ask us to stop doing things we are doing right now. all of the services are rated against, i can imagine what that would be, but it's a very dramatic, unpalatable decision but we would not be able to meet that. >> let me ask a related question if we continue with the budget caps and sequester that extends

to political choices and choices that our allies made and you mess it mentioned through russian aggression we have put additional forces and when you look at those countries what they spend as a percentage of their gdp compared to what we spend is insufficient. what more do we need to do to force other countries to make difficult decisions to get their taxpayers to support these decision that are more in their national interest than they are in ours? >> that's a big challenge in a moving target and one that secretary of defense have tried to work on our european allies. there's 28 nato nations that do meet the requirement.

estonia is one of them. when it comes to russia all of us would like to more work more closely with our european allies >> thanks for being here today. i'm encouraged through my experience that when a question rises to the top level of committee we are gaining some traction. i want to follow-up with mr. miller's questions about auditing. that shouldn't shock anybody. i was touring the uss texas, a suburb mean. we were having an impromptu meeting in the galley and they asked me how's that audit thing coming with the department of defense. i don't know if that was a plant or really smart soldier.

taking off his model each of you respond that the presidents budget fully fund and properly fund the goal that all of us want to get to and that is to find the department of defense. we hope it will cut carry us forward and meet those milestones. >> we want to circle back around that there is some things that we don't control that worry me a lot about whether not were going to meet the audit. not in terms of funding but in terms of us assurance of numbers

>> yes for the air force. >> the marine corps has led the way on auditing. all of the services are now doing that and the marine corps led the way again. i think you're making reference to other agencies that are not audited. and whoever's in charge of those efforts, are they interested or do we need to rest some more? >> we are sharing our concerns in a robust way. particularly with the defense finance and accounting service that's the one that concerns us

the one that does not have the internal controls that we need to have assurance about the numbers. >> likewise, we have communicated our concerns to the top leaders of the department of defense. they're aware that were concerned about this. i think everybody is working collaboratively to try to get this done. >> as their largest customer the army has equally extended their concerns to the authorities. part of the problem is quite frankly that like the rest of us, their customer base is coming down, they're going to write fewer checks and their business flow is decreasing. you understand the realities of that more than anyone have else

perhaps in this room. i have not seen a commensurate amount of response what seems to be an inescapable reality. i don't want to describe motivation down to that. it will affect their ability to see a clean audit in the relationship amongst all this in the organization. >> thank you for your responsibilities and your commitment to getting this done. i appreciate each of your commitment to doing this in the face of budget cuts and all the things going on, i think you for your efforts.

thank you. >> were going to have the comptroller here with us tomorrow and they'll be another opportunity to discuss this issue. this is really important. it for going to make the case to increase spending there has to be accountability that goes with it. mr. gallego. >> this question is directed at secretary james i'm a beneficiary of the close air support from the a-10. i'm disappointed to hear that that will be cut. one, i just like to point out and comment that in an era where we seem to be more engaged in the type of con combat where and a-10 would be more useful is it really wise to put it on the chopping block? too if it is on the chopping block, what is the weapon that will replace that that will provide that type of

close air support for the infantrymen? >> i would tell you that the a-10 ended up on this list with the greatest of reluctance. it was a budgetary matter. literally after reviewing all the options of how we could come up with budgetary savings, this one has the single-purpose thing and we do have other aircraft that can do this. that's how we got to where we are today. in terms of what are the next aircraft that will bridge the gap, so to speak, we do have other aircraft including the f-15 e's, the f-16s so those will be with us for yearsto come until eventually what will come into play is the f35. that one is on the horizon it's not with us yet but will be online in the next few years.

>> before we move on you mentioned what type of gun do they have? are they just does capable as the a-10 in terms of support? >> none of them carry a 30-millimeter gun, they carry a 20-millimeter gun and a 15-millimeter gun. the issue is the budget control that had to make tough decisions. when we talk to the combat commanders and what they preferred weeper prioritize our funding they gave us clear answers in the a-10 was not one of them. we've done the analysis on this and can show you the outcomes. this is the front and of a lot of very ugly decisions that will have to be make due to funding. the workhorse has been the f-16s

not the a-10. there are scenarios where you prefer and a-10 to be there and there's some you prefer and nac 30. the scenarios that change in the issues is not any particular platform. we have got to look at how we transition for the future capability that will work on the battlefield and that's what were trying to do. were doing it with the marine corps, the navy and looking at weapons themselves. there is no question. we have about a hundred and 40000 data points.

>> thank you, i'd love to see the studies at least what i understand in the past back in the 80s and 90s they tried to do it without the a-10 and it didn't have the same kind of effectiveness. if you can spare any of those studies it would put me at ease. we would love to still have that assurance that that's support would be available. >> so with the pilots. unfortunately money doesn't allow it. >> ladies and gentlemen of the panel think you for your service. especially your commitment

during these challenging times. i want to follow up on comments made earlier about the devastating effects of sequestration. there are some that look at efficiencies within the pentagon. some of the questions are about the acquisition and procurement process. the chairman and others have looked at how we fix that and empower decision-making in the pentagon to make sure we are indeed as efficient as possible in spending those precious dollars that get to the pentagon. give us your perspective of what the current obstacles are in the procurement process. what can we do to fix the acquisition and procurement process to make sure it is indeed as efficient as possible and that we can demonstrate that every penny that goes to the pentagon is getting to the right place in the pentagon.

>> very briefly here's the chart of what we have to do to buy anything. particularly a major weapon system, it takes for every, it's costly. the thing you could do for us to cut out a lot of this all the services agree that the current system of this requirement after requirement many of what don't add value to the weapon. :

and i think there are many areas that we could do that. >> if i could add a little math to my good friend ray mchugh' chart. give me one example of the char bureaucracy. our new artillery system, the milestone decision was reached by the army in october 2013. that one milestone required 3185

pages of primary documentation and took 1742 calendar days just to develop the documents and to get through the process. 1800 days to approve it. not all of that is bad. all of that is in part necessary that there is overlap so chairman thornberry and i know chairman mccain in the other house and many of all of you are focused upon i think we could save a lot of time which an acquisition means money without giving up the kinds of assurances that all of us believe are really really important. >> i don't have a cool prop. that was pretty slick mr. secretary mchugh but i certainly agree with trying as best as you can to streamline some of the reporting processes. the tendency when things go wrong is to put more process and more oversight but actually again from a business

perspective the less in this case the better, trust people and hold them accountable when things go wrong. in terms of the service chief involvement i'm not exactly sure how everybody else handles it across-the-board that my service cheap and i do pretty much everything together so we are already heavily doing program reviews and watching over our programs as best as we can. >> general dunford. >> i don't have anything to add. i would associate myself the general odierno's comments about the service chiefs. today we are responsible for resources in the outcome and that is where i would zero in on the service chiefs responsibility for outcome as well. >> besides the simplification there is also a sense of agility to all of this though as time unfolds and programs change and requirements change in terms of cost and scheduling and what's appropriate to keep in what's appropriate to enhance i think

the service chiefs would appreciate an opportunity to have a voice in that process. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> admiral i think that agility point is a key one that we don't spend enough time talking about. in a volatile world we live in to be able to be agile in response is just essential. ms. graham. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thanks to each of you for your service to our country. first i would like to offer my condolences to the families of the seven marines and the four soldiers who lost their lives in training exercise in the gulf of mexico last week. anything that i can do in the second russian -- congressional district to help you out please don't hesitate to call for me or anyone on my team. my first question is for secretary mcsally, secretary

mchugh and secretary james. one of my priorities is knowing efficiently engage militarily in current or future complex our servicemembers go into the fight with confidence that this country will take care of them when they return home. in 2007 the dole-shalala commission recommended the establishment of recovery care coordinators at both dod and va to care for wounded warriors. if god for bid servicemember should become severely injured or ill while serving our country and want to make sure that they know we will do everything in our power to give them the care they need when they return home. so i would like to learn whether your service branch is doing to ensure the transition from active service to the va for her most wounded injured and ill servicemen and what more can we do to make sure that we identify every discharge servicemember

who qualifies for va's federal recovery care? and i have one more question following this and i would appreciate your answers. >> if i may start it's a critically important question in one that i try to at least alluded to in my opening comments. we have a think a legal responsibility but more importantly of moral responsibility to ensure that those who return home in the first instance get the medical care that they deserve and all of us have set up wounded warrior care facilities where we are configuring now were to respond to the realities of the diminishing budgets but also the phasing out of wartime activities that we have endured for the last 13 years. but also to ensure that we provide care and the most effective and efficient manner possible. the story of transitioning him from active service over to be a care has of challenges and

successes and thanks in no small measure to the congress and their focus on that. all of us have come a long way toward ensuring through what's known as the -itis process, the process by which the medically retired or moved over to the va has improved the army. a much different story today than it was in recent years where we are meeting all the current timeframes as to the development of the case following the scheduling of the physicals and such. i have provided a dashboard whereby all soldiers can go up and see exactly where they are in that process. a source of frustration in the past was they didn't know where they were and they didn't know what their next appointment was. we provided that visibility. we are meeting as a set all the standards that dod has had there are challenges between the va and the united states military dod and we are supporting the va

to help them with those objectives as well. it's been something of a moving target but i understand the va now thinks they will be in compliance with the processing hopefully i believe it's by the start of next year. >> what secretary mcsally said we have no greater responsibility than to care for those who board the battle. through the experience we have had secretary mcsally will describe some of these things. the marines and the wounded warrior battalions and eight the navy has a program called safe harbor and it is to aid in a medical care, their reintegration either back into the military or into civilian life of those who have been wounded and to give each of them an advocate to help them through

the process, to make appointments for them, to tell them what benefits are available and to do it for them and for their caregivers or their family members or friends who have assumed the burden of caring for them. we are also meeting and exceeding the requirements in terms of time but i would say even though we are doing that we can do better. >> if the other witnesses want to add if you could do so in writing. >> i'm sorry. i look forward to reading whatever you have to add. thank you. one more question? >> i'm sorry the gentlelady's time has expired although you are certainly welcome to submit additional questions in writing to the witnesses. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> thank you. dr. fleming. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank our panel of service chiefs in your thank you for your service and all the critical work you are doing. i particularly want to cite secretary james and chairman welsh as well because you have put a nuclear triad in enterprise of such a high priority level that so important and i'm very concerned about our bombers and their b-52s and the fact that you have the strike by them -- strike bomber in your site. i really appreciate that. it's so important. i want to ask a general question and i'm not sure who is best qualified to answer this but it may more be the chairman question for the budget

committee. but we are talking about oco used to supplement beyond those caps. the question many of us have is how much of that or in what way can that be used in useful ways beyond just the underlying purpose of oco? secretary? >> i don't claim any particular expertise but i can provide a response at lease from the army perspective. based on some of the articles i have read and the discussions i have been and i believe for the army the committees are looking at placing costs of our end strength above 450 into oco which by most standards would be allowable. oco utilization would provide the army air rough estimate about $4.2 billion in relief of the $6 billion that the president's budget would pervade

pervade -- provide for sequestration. that is a far better outcome than sequestration. there is no argument about that. i do think we have to be mindful mindful, in the army we have $5.5 billion in our current oco accounts they really should be in the basin that's a factor of many things have happened in recent years in theater. so we have got to move that money over at some point. that's a challenge. to add to that is important for everyone to understand will add to the challenge of getting into the base budget at some point in the future those unsupportable funds that are currently residing in oco. >> i appreciate your answer. you are saying in terms of end strength that it is useful for that purpose and i'm very concerned. for polkas in my district.

there have been huge amounts of investments. we have grown the training area about 40,000 acres. there has been huge investments in military construction and yet we can see the strength go from 10,000 down to as low as 2000 troops. that would be a huge waste of money going forward and you know just how key that base is for training for overseas operations. now for the air force how is that using oco money busting up with that? how does that affect what you do and are there limitations? >> i would say under the rules of what is allowable to go into oco we do have constraints similar to what you heard secretary mcsally talk about it and i don't pretend to be an absolute expert in all of this but the basic rule is that the overseas operations are what are funded through oco and i'm sure that we, couldn't quote it figures that we have that

presence certain things in oco that rightfully belong in the base budget. my plea would simply be i don't know exactly how to fix this but if the use of oco if it's allowable or you can find a way to make allowable and gets us over this i'm in favor of getting over this because we are very much in need. >> i would add the real issue for us because we are really in a dire place as far as needing to capitalize the air force, the problem with oco funding is you can't count on it at the time. a long-term investment in modernization, this is one of the problems we have so anything is better than nothing. >> i appreciate that fact in the problem as you well know is if we take those caps-off other caps come off and we begin a downward spiral in our budget. so this is being created by using oco funds to plus-up our military but considering all the

parties involved it seems the best approach to take so with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. veasey. >> thank you mr. chairman. one of the things that comes up in these challenging budget discussions when we have to make a trade off for some of the political obstacles that members of this committee or even the larger of the congress put in front of you and i would like to just take a minute to try to bring some of those to the surface. you have heard talk about cuts you want to make better painful like cutting a tenor making changes in the compensation system but if each of you could explicate for us if you come in greater detail a few of these challenges that you see from us when you are trying to make sure you do your jobs under the constraint that we put before you. >> so if you want specific

examples specific examples for us is end strength. we have taken 80,000 out of the component and even under the president's budget it will be a total of 120,000 out of the national guard and 10,000 out of the u.s. army reserve. so we have significantly reduced our size and ability to respond. in addition to that we have a four or five year readiness problem because we still won't have enough money even as we go down to those levels to sustain a level until 2020 so we have about a five-year significant risk. we have already canceled our entry fighting vehicle which we desperately need. >> i'm not asking for examples of cuts you don't want to make. i'm asking for examples of cuts you want to make but for political reasons in the congress who are not able to make them? >> thank you. what i would say first and foremost is bradke. we have a billion dollars, have a billion dollars a year up

excess infrastructure in the army. we have to address that issue. if we don't we are going to have to pay them compensation and an army aviation restructuring issue both of those combined can be $6 million so if we don't get those reforms we are going to have to find $6 billion we are going to have to find another half a billion for barak because that's that's what it costs every year for excess infrastructure. they don't get those things we are going to have to find that money somewhere. >> thank you. secretary. >> for navy and marine corps is slowing down the growth of pay and compensation. we simply have to do that. we are at the point where we are choosing between keeping people or giving them the tools that they need to do their job and i

think the proposals that have been put forward are reasonable. they are sound and from talking to sailors and marines around the world the thing that concerns them the most is certainty and the concern about sequestering, whether they will have the tools to do the job that they join the navy and marine corps to do. >> congressman in addition you heard me with a 10 and the compensation reforms i certainly agree with brac. i would add a couple of other examples over the last year or two. we have a series of aging platforms where we have proposed retiring some of them in order to free up money to modernize the rest of them and to go to the next generation. those sorts of actions have tended to be blocked so i'm thinking of the jstars last year and there are a series of them in that regard. one other that i will give you

which is difficult to work there and i'm an alumni of the committees understand this but nonetheless these are tough choices. we have too many overall c-130s in this league. for all the shortage and we have that for one platform that comes to mind that we have too many off. we are trying to modernize and upgrade some of the older ones we are going to keep so we have all of this going on at once and we are trying to shift them around the country to get better efficiencies and to provide certain coverage of certain areas because we don't have the authority to do a brac. well that whole movement that entire plan has been put on hold so we can't do it until we provide additional information more reports and the like so those are some official examples i would offer. >> congressman if i may we appreciate the work with the congress on cruiser modernization program. the original sustainment modernization and operational fund if we could get back to the

original intent of them funded and remove those restraints that would be helpful. >> thank you very much. i think the key point here is sometimes we are protecting jobs back here at home and putting lives at risk overseas and it's your decision to make those trade-offs. if you have anything to add in writing i would appreciate it. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. gibbs. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate the palace and i for one have been listening carefully these many months and the tears and i think the services have provided great detail about the impact, negative impacts of sequestered. in 2012 i voted for a bipartisan budget that would have completely replace the sequestered. unfortunately i only got 38 votes that day and then i voted for ryan murray that gave us a reprieve for two years so i hope in the congress we have the wisdom and the will to replace hopefully in total the sequestered but at lease for period of time to give some

stability to the services going forward. mr. chairman you mentioned agility a few moments ago. that's where i want to go with this. two different types of threats. we deal of nationstates and transnational actors, focus on the former in this question. with nationstates so much of the world actions can be explained by this concept of deterrence and deterrence roughly assembled through capability and will and particularly i'm interested in delving into strategic maneuver and our their ability to strengthen the hands of diplomats by restoring the global response force capability. i'm interested from each of the services starting with the air force your commitment to the global response force with budgetary detail and you can also include modeling and simulation exercises towards that end. to the air force first. >> congressman we are committed to a global response force.

the problem masses filling the global response force when our assets are being used. we have a limited capacity now in certain key areas. we have isr mobility air refueling command and control him all parts of the globe. as a result we cannot meet the combatant commanders requirement today. we just don't have enough of it anymore. as you have heard this discussed already today levels of funding will decrease more capacities out of the areas. while we are committed to global response force the problem is those necessary to fill at already doing something. >> mr. chairman i would say one of the things i think her are committee should be doing is documenting this risk and just how critical i think it is in terms of to what degree we talk about every day about russia and iran. we talk about north korea but we haven't really talked about our

role in restoring the capability. let me go to the other services. >> congressman thanks and our situation is much like general welsh. we are meeting our requirements in response force right now which is a fairly small commitment but more broadly pits the forces that are back at home station currently about 50% of the minute training personnel and equipment shortfalls that are the concern. it's her ability to do with the unexpected that is the issue more broadly than global response force. >> thank you congressman. in fact i was at forces command when we sequestered in 2013 in the first thing that happened is we ended up eliminating some deployments and we ended up producing hours and getting that next set of deployers ready to go we ended up delaying the deployment of carrier. when you talk about the global response force our ability to train our folks and their

ability to have that next set ready is very much tied to the budgetary topline. right now we have two carriers ready to go. we always have two to go. we are building up to a larger surge capacity but clearly with sequestration our ability to maintain that projection force generation is significantly challenged. >> sir we have a designated global response force out of the 82nd airborne division that is ready to go and prepare to go. what i would say though is because of the fact that we have less forward station capability out of the army now the importance of global response force has increased significantly. unfortunately i think it goes beyond damages the ability for the second airborne to force entry operations anywhere in the world. i go back to general dunford it's about the total force responding quickly in a variety

of different directions both medium and heavy. i worry about the readiness levels as we stated earlier of those units having the capability to do that at the level we expect them to be able to do that. >> appreciate those responses and putting the joint dod piece on this is modeling and how we work together sateen. i think we have a long way to go. chairman thank you very much. >> mr. ashford. >> thank you mr. chairman and from a parochial perspective my district is omaha nebraska stratcom in the 55th air wing and is a historic two-week my father flew b-26 bombers in world war ii. the plane was actually built at the martin bomber plant which is i guess now scheduled to be now demolished after all these years. 1943 was built. obviously we are very proud of moffitt and its history and

stratcom and thank you for all your support there. congressman o'rourke there have been a number of questions asked regarding this question but i really still don't have an answer. it's not because of you just seems so dynamic. congressman o'rourke asked a question about the situation in the mideast and where we were. obviously we talked about that is dynamic and it seems to me if we don't do something about sequestration those problems are going to continue to exist and they are in some sense -- and we don't know what's coming next. i hate to be redundant but i would just ask one more time what do you see in the next year to two years may be through 2016 possibly with the possibility of the situation in the middle east becoming more difficult or even the level it's at now? >> i think we understand for

sure as a minimum we know we will have to continue to train iraqi security security forces that advised them as well as the syrian modern resistance. we know we have to have their support necessary to support us as we do that. that's the minimum. we also require resource -- response courses in case the troops get in trouble so inept at forces rarely available in kuwait and other places. if we decide it's not working the president make made the decision we have to do reassessment and we decide to use more forces we will have to be prepared to do that. and that's the concern re-prepared to do that and do we have the readiness to accomplish that mission if necessary? >> if you would from your perspective,. >> congressman the own thing i would add is there to trends that really when you talk about dynamic is this sunni-shia and violent extremism in the area.

this is a dynamic area and we know we are trying to do in iraq and syria specifically but what we don't know if is what's going to happen in 2016 which makes her readiness to deal with the unexpected all that much more important. >> as you mentioned the problems are dynamic and that is what we can expect. more instability, morant certainty. new groups arising like basis surprised most americans as it appeared that i think i i think that will lead to frustration in the u.s. and on the ground and folks doing the air campaign. i think it would be the best approach to take as the situation changes again. so i think this will be an ongoing discussion. i think ray was exactly right in saying we have to continue the operations we are executing now. we have to continue to execute them well and they have to be done in a manner that allows us options as this dynamic situation evolves. >> just to see and observe what's going on and the exceptionalism of the team over

there is beyond anything so thank you very much. >> mr. brooks. >> thank you mr. chairman. 30 minutes before this hearing began the embargo on congressman prices proposed house budget was lifted. it was embargoed until 9:30 a.m. this morning and i've got some parliamentary questions in secretary mchugh i hope you can assist me with those. what does the president request has the space budget for national defense? >> how about i give you the army number? >> to someone here have a total number for national defense from the president and his budget? >> 561. >> 561 as the base. how much for overseas contingency operations? >> for the army its 20 billion. >> i think it's very close to

50 billion 48 a plebus number. >> how about 51 billion does that sound about right? that would give us a total ban of 612 billion. does that sound about right for oco and the president space budget request? now the budget control act has a limitation base of 523 billion so the president is proposing a budget that is if my math in my head is correct $30 billion more than what the budget control excess is permissible. does anyone have an explanation for how he can just disregard the budget control act of 20 lebanon throughout a budget that's $38 million more in its limitation? >> i won't speak to the law but you asked if i could perhaps help on this. i can tell you in discussions that the osd level the president we have sequestration level is

responsible. >> secretary mchugh if i could interject i'm looking for legal explanation, not the policy explanation. i didn't hear anyone come up with a legal explanation. >> under title x authority i don't have legal responsibility from the department of defense. >> let me move on then to congressman price's proposed house budget. he starts according to page 40 of his news release draft s. 5 and i don't know people a chance to review what he has the base of 523 million but then he has 94 billion for oco in order to go beyond what the president has requested for national defense and oco is defined as global war on terrorism. of that 94 billion for oco 20.5 billion is something called a reserve which we may or may not ever see so it might be 77 odd