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 billion to send oco opposed

to the 94 bits in these graphs were rough total of 617 billion. my question is kind of a can to a congressman fleming was acting. does it make any difference to the department of defense if the money comes to the department of defense via the base versus overseas contingency operations? how does that affect your ability to do it need to be done? >> i think i addressed that earlier when i said for the army receiving relief there are end strength provisions above 450 provides $4.2 billion in one year relief. i'm trying to explain. >> i've only got a minute and 10 seconds left to so let me move onto something more specific. look tauro combat ships that are being built in the state of alabama, secretary mabus cannot

be built out of oco funds? >> i don't believe that under the current fund we can do new construction. >> it's not as good as base money in that instance. is that a fair statement? can you do missile defense out of oco money general odierno do you now? >> as far as i know we are not able to do that. depends for right now we don't have the flexibility periods about flexibility and the oco budget. we don't know how it's defined so it's difficult to answer. >> is it fair to conclude as i'm looking at the proposed house budget that's a whole lot better for the money to be in base as opposed to oco and to the extended send oco does have some adverse affect on our our national security capabilities. would you agree with that secretary mchugh? >> yes sir, i did early. it presents challenges. >> secretary mabus? >> s. i would.

>> secretary james? >> s.. >> does anyone have any idea how much our national security would be if it's in oco supposed to base? >> the worst of all is that we don't get this fixed or some mechanism. c thank you maam, thank you mr. chairman. >> ms. duckworth. >> think you should chairman. secretary mabus i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and energy issues in your written testimony. your comment about fuel -- energy used as a fuel struck out to me. in 2003 and 2007 dod put up numbers that said 80% of all supply trucks on the road in iraq and afghanistan work conveying fuel. over 3000 americans and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. every time we talk about energy initiatives within dod somehow

what gets lost in the conversation or the national security implications of what you and other services are trying to do. it's not just about going green for trying to achieve some larger environment to go. it's about developing technologies that will lighten the loads of our soldiers and marines and allow a platoon of soldiers and marines to push further to bring the fight to enemy territory because they are not dependent on huge logistical logistical. also range endurance in time on station for vehicles and airplanes. it's about being able to protect greater and more lethal power. anything that enables us to do that i'm all for and i think it should be embraced. mr. secretary can you outline some of the initiatives the navy is undertaking specifically touching on what they are helping the navy to do an in tactical and strategic terms? >> thank you so much and i couldn't be more articulate than you just were on that but some of the specific things that we are doing and energy efficiency

we are doing a everything from hull coatings to changing lightbulbs to doing voids planning to putting electric drives on some of our larger ships or slower speeds to building an all electric ship. the marines as always are leading the way here and your statistics about we were losing a marine killed or wounded in afghanistan for every 15 fuel trucks that were brought in, that's just too high a price to pay. we have seal teams now in the field that are pretty much netzero in terms of energy. they make their energy where they are and they make their water where they are. for a marine company by using solar power to power radios, gps gps' they save 700 pounds of batteries per company and they don't have to be resupplied with that.

and i larger more strategic scale the ability to use fuel as a weapon and the volatility of fuel prices that go up dramatically and down dramatically create immense problems for us in terms of being able to pay for that fuel and being able to plan for how much that fuel is and we are moving to non-fossil fuel sources to provide some competition in the fuel market but also to smooth out that volatility and to create american jobs and have a homegrown source of fuel. >> thank you. senator mchugh can you talk about the initiatives? if you have an lsa that could produce its own fuel and pacing keep a convoy or two of soldiers out there running fuel for the generators that run air conditioners that would be a good thing. can you talk about the army initiatives? >> thank you very much congresswoman and as is being

discussed before this committee but in the past it is as you accurately put a matter of soldiers lives and particularly true with respect to our operational energy programs. we conduct constricted our energy utilization by 17% in recent years. the frustrating thing is the cost of that energy nonetheless continues to rise. but having said that we think we have a responsibility to our soldiers as lightening your load. like her our friends in the marine corps we have reduced weight and the necessary equipment for battery usage. we have solar blankets that can be used in just about any climate to charge various radios, to charge our battery supplies. significantly lessening the load and we have also through the use

of more efficient engines caused the need to resupply for fuel brought forward much less demanding, much fewer occasions. again to the strategic aspects of this as secretary mavis said this is a matter of esb environment but it's also saving dollars and i would be happy to provide you additional information on how we have done that back home. >> i would appreciate that. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. nguyan. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate this panel being here today. it's always good to see all of you. appreciate your service but this question is directed to secretary james. it's in reference to the champ system. come restricted air force to develop the champ system on a cruise missile on the fy14 and added $10 million to the fy16 on the misappropriations to build

the system. the capability of cocom has asked for, as this committee for and right now it is a cost-effective way and you talk about affordability obviously and we are looking to save money in areas where we can but it's very cost-effective for us than then very expensive for adversaries to try to defeat. america is leading the world in technology at the moment but nations are catching up at a time when we really don't need that and we certainly shouldn't delay deployment of this particular weapon system. despite the obvious benefits and the low-cost timeliness of the closing of the technology gap and authorization appropriation outright encouragement by this congress and i was briefed earlier this year that the air force is not fully committed to building champ by 2016. this is not a limitation on technology, authority or funding

so please tell this committee and myself if there is any reason to air force can't deliver champ in 2016? >> mr. nugent i'm going to yield to the cheap because i've met i don't know great deal about this program but it's one i'm going to look into more based on your bringing this to her attention but i will yield to the chief on this. [inaudible] to look at a new way of moving this. thank you. if using this weapon on a platform that is actually going to be operational. the second thing not to do is maturation of the technology. he wanted to be more efficient. we wanted to be more effective

and more survivable so that's the near-term focus. we want to produce a family of electromagnetic weapons of the idea of walking away from the concept is simply not true. one of the problems we have had that is made is inefficient in getting started on this program and this is me offering opinion to you sir we have built were for capabilities and to separate portfolios so what are e-5 data on air staff is in recognizing this problem several months ago he directed across functional study to bring our electronic warfare folks in our weapons boosters together which is where champs has to work and asked to give him a study on the future of the weapons approach. it's due this summer so we will be informed of summer on this but to your specific question do we plan to produce this weapon by fy16 no sir. >> was amazing to me general with all due respect is that the system has been tested and works

on the current system that we have, the cruise missile and we have some inventory because we had because of the imf treaty and it works. there are also increased capability of the system. obviously they are not in a classified setting to talk about that increase to it but the cocom's have indicated to get it out in the field today is better than while yes it would be great to have a usable platform the future and i think the air force should continue on that venture but to get it out into the field in a relatively short period of time at a relatively low cost by using an existing platform, it's a stopgap. it's something you fit in knowing full well that the long-term goal is you need to have long-term approach but today it would give the warfighters, the navy and the army and those that will need that capability right now and

right now i mean in terms of within a year or two versus 10 years out in development. >> congressman munitions in general are a major issue for us right now. the funding are prioritizing precision weapons we have used in the past 15 years and our stocks ever pleaded markedly. i would love to have the folks on my staff come and sit and talk to you and get your view of this problem and how you see the future for it and then sit and tell you exactly where we are in this study effort. would that be fair? >> that would be fair. thank you. >> mr. brown. >> thank you mr. chairman. my questions they are directed to secretary mabus and admiral howard. i have appreciated the time you spend in my district. your remarks on the christening

of the montgomery were just fabulous. thank you. secretary mabus what are the likely impacts to the full combat ship program of slowing or breaking production for fiscal year 16, 17 and 18 as we develop upgrades for fy19? >> there are and full cereal production now. we have driven the cost down because of that from a beginning cost for a hole of about $800 million and now the ones coming off the line are about $350 million. if you break that serial production if you break that block by you number one blues some very skilled craftsmen. it's very hard to get that back. the industrial base impacts are enormous. number two you and the

economies of scale that we have now. and the ability to do these ships one after the other. number three, after the small surface combatant task force looked at how to make the ships more lethal, more survivable, we came up with a package after an exhaustive look at every possible type of ship, every possible type of upgrade that for about $75 million per ship is going to be far more lethal and far more survivable and you can fit it onto this whole. but to keep those dollars go through the costs and upgrade costs in those bounds at all you have to keep the serial production going. you have a production break, you are going to be looking in the first of the ship class far more expensive. you're going to be looking at job training that you will have

to do because you will have lost so many these tradesmen. it would be not only for the lcs and the frigate that will be the same ship just upgraded, i cannot overemphasize how devastating it would be too great production for economic reasons because you are going to end up getting fewer ships at a much higher cost. so any economies that might think you were getting would just disappear. i think i use the term it's a bizarre way to approach shipbuilding. >> there's also warfighting and operations but when you slow down the billing of the ships we are building the ships to replace our countermeasure capability. they will replace the frigates and the last of our frigates are being decommissioned this year. that the ship right now coupled

with the fire scout tremendous isr capability potential she is going to bring flexibility and agility to our mission sets in the longer we set up that gap is the frigates go away the less we can offer to the cocom's needs. cnet finally congresswoman we have a need demonstrated need for 52 of these small surface combatants. we will not get there under the current budget under the current build plan until 2028. we will be low in terms of these for the next more than a decade. >> and some comment about the fact that we have this redesign coming from the task force and looked at it. is that par for the course that we change ships as when to stand the circumstances that brought back for example both are ddg's and virginia class ever and we have had to make redesign

changes learning things in the new circumstances out there so is it any different with regard to the redesign of the lcs to become a frigate or is it just are responding to them their second -- new circumstances we discovered? >> you are quite right that is the essence of modernization for our services and for capital ships that certainly takes an amount of time. the genius of lcs was to create the mission packages, the weapon system separate from the platform so we could more quickly adjust to emerging threats. >> i just want to thank you both because i know how hard you have worked for the fleet in general but my particular concern has been the lcs and i appreciate your leadership on that. you will have the continued support of this congressman and i yield back. >> ms. stefanik. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you to all the witnesses here today. i want to direct my question to secretary mchugh.

and recently a senate hearing you said because sequestration army will reduce its end strength to unconscionable levels by 2019 likely losing another six brigade combat teams and potentially at division headquarters along with associated effects to support infrastructure. as you know very well for drum is home to the tenth mountain division which i'm provision represented near for so many years represent with great honor and an exceptional record. it's extremely unique in terms of its training capabilities power projection and regional location in order to support our armed forces. this installation has already experienced these devastating cuts first-hand. with the deactivation of one of its brigades dilapidated world war ii era buildings still being used in the potential loss of 16,000 soldier and civilian jobs due to another round of sequestration in the bca? these cuts as you know would have a huge economic impact on new york and the northeast as a

whole. for drum is a training hub for all service branches and houses the army's most deployed division since 1990. because of the potential cuts to training facilities and troop count due to sequestration would he be able to give us your thoughts on how these cuts to fort drum and other installations like it would impact the army's current and future missions overseas? >> thank you congresswoman and best wishes. representing a place i obviously think is very special. as i said in my opening comments to reality of sequestration is simply this. virtually every post, every camp, every station every program that the army conducts will see significant reductions. mathematically it's inescapable. and that includes fort drum. we are blessed as an army to have a great plethora if you

will of amazing bases in places like the north country in your district support and provide a credibly effective training ground and a very welcoming home. but what we are faced with as all of us have said here today are the realities of the numbers that the budget would provide and 420,000 as you know we are currently looking at possible reductions for our major military installations of up to 16,000. so that is in play. i think there is an irony here. i went through three base closure rounds and i understand how painful they are. i lost a base in plattsburgh new york thanks to the great efforts of that community. that part of the world came back but it wasn't easy and it took a

lot of hard work so i recognized and fully understand the hesitancy of many members. but here's the reality. without support supportive base closure round wherefores rather than to take excess infrastructure where we believe it exists and spread these cuts almost innate peanut butter kind of fashion across all bases cross all installations and it's not just a matter of end strength. it's to the point that you made our ability or inability really to keep up the facilities that our are soldiers and families rely upon and call home. this is a very dangerous spiral which we find ourselves. while ultimately as a military we are most concerned with leading the nation's defense needs. sequestration is a cheap and i both testified we feel we can't meet the defense strategic

guidance but it's also a question of the inability of seaquest -- sequestration levels of providing a good home and adequate training facilities like we currently enjoy in places such as for drum. >> i agree with your concerns about sequestration. i have been a strong voice against the seaquest are in terms of the long-term impact on our readiness and it puts our troops lives at risk. so thank you very much for your service. both to the north country but to this country. thanks. >> thank you for yours. >> ms. mcsally. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your testimony. spent a long day but appreciate your patience. general odierno i would like to ask you you have set said in the past quote our soldiers are confident in the a-10. is that still true, just yes or no. i have a lot of questions here.

>> very competent. >> you. >> you have also said quote your soldiers per for the a-10. is that still true yes or no? >> it depends on environment. >> you also said the a-10 is the best close air support we have today. you still believe that to be true? >> in iran and afghanistan. that don't give a shout-out to the a-10 units that are played fighting against vices and the 34th squadron that i commanded to assure and train our allies with the russians increased aggressions. secretary danes given general odierno statements he reaffirmed his decision to mop of the a-10 a budget based decision only? >> it's driven by the budget. >> just by the budget so if you have more money you would keep the a-10 in the amatory? >> i would, yes. >> i think your budget request is about $10 billion over the sequester number? >> 10 billion i would have to add that we would need dollars

above the president's budget. >> so how much more money would you need above the president's budget request in order to not mothball any a-10's? >> i think the one your cost would be on the order of between four and 500 million but please love me check that to be sure. if you look over the five-year period of time it's closer to $4 billion. >> i have heard you say 4.2 billion but for next year would you guys get back to me on what the cost would be. i'm assuming there maybe other unfunded requests above that or if we are able to get to four or 500 million would you you keep a-10 and the amatory? how much more money do you need to keep the a-10? >> we would have to look at it because it's beyond the a-10. it's manpower for new airplanes so it's not just the cost of the a-10 but the a-10 cause 4.25244 million -- >> announce an discussion last year and this is a very

important one because we are talking men and women on the ground under fire in harm's way and making sure they have the based -- best capability especially in close proximity with enemies where they need long survivability and that is where they a-10 brings the best capability. this is really important. i known the past there has been a discussion that you said the a-10 is old, the a-10 is aging and meet new capabilities but i know senate testimony highlighted their youngest b-52 is 53 years old and you would like to keep the amatory until 2040 which by my math their youngest b-52 would be 78 years old in 2040 so you are keeping an aging airplane that certainly can't survive in the high air defense environment. we have heard the argument in the past of the a-10 is old. we have invested over a billion dollars in a two rebuild its wings and its avionics and capabilities. so those two things seem to be contradictory. so i just wanted to comment on that.

>> we don't have the b-52 in amatory by choice. the b-2 was supposed to replace a large part of athlete that it stopped. we need 80 to 100 bombers in the same thing as same thing is to be a tempe would want the a-10 to be flying its mission when it's 50 60 or 70 or so. it's not fair to the sons and daughters of america. >> the b-52 so fine because you don't have the capability to replace it but the a-10 is being asked to be mothball but we don't have the capability to replace it even though it can fly until 2028 or 2030? >> the a-10 is then retired because of budget control. >> you have the other aircraft that can cover the mission. say i'm not under the circumstances but i mention. their unique circumstances which only the a-10 can save lives. would you not agree with that? >> i do not agree with that but i think your circumstances where you prefer to have an a-10. we have placed ourselves in that

with every option available. >> if we had the funds with the current wings rebuilding of the a1-c is a 2028 until a need to be retired? right now the plan is to replace the a-10 eventually with the f-35, is that true? >> true? >> f-35 will be the high threat cast for the future. >> so the a-10 will be replaced by the f-35? >> f-35 will replace the f-16 eventually. it will augment that with the b1 scenario and allows us to the b-52 in a c-130 and we will eventually have the f-35 is the high-end. >> my time has expired. i don't believe the f-35 replaces the a-10 and the capabilities of brings to the fight for general odierno strips to make sure they would defend another tank at home to their

troops. i love the f-35 but it doesn't have the same capabilities. >> the a-10 cannot go into high threat environment and beneath that. cnet absolutely we need all of those capabilities. >> i appreciate the discussion. >> we are going to do this outside. >> thank you all for your patience. i think we will have a couple more. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and really appreciate your service, your leadership and the appointees by the administration as well as the service chiefs here today. i think of nothing else comes from your financial stress, the stress to our military is the fact that we are going to have to start having different debates on the foreign-policy that you have nothing directly to do with. i looked at this week and i heard mr. rogers and i want to bring up something very quickly. and i would ask a very simple question that you might or might not be able to answer.

these are articles this past week between casualties and desertion of afghan military shrinking fast. ..

hello you cannot sell the heard gen. walsh: i agree with you. we haven't we haven't done much to help with the infrastructure. we can build the infrastructure of america. yet we spend billions of dollars in afghanistan to build its infrastructure. that that is the contradiction that is present in the problem with this debate about whether we have sequestration are we don't have sequestration. i asked general campbell last week were very impressive army general who oversees the military action in afghanistan. i was a little bit taken aback by his answer when i asked him to fund nine more

years in afghanistan spending roughly 25 to $50 billion year is worthwhile. you get a chance to say, well, i think i think in three years we give them benchmarks. if if they can't reach as benchmarks when we say were out. his answer was fine. in fact i have copies of it he said that his hope is and he believes that this would be this start of central asia. well every history book i've ever read as you not going to change it in a matter what you do. i want to know in informal settings, do you in the military year today in uniform get that chance once a month or once a week to sit down with general dempsey, take up your ties relax and have a beer or

glass of wine always keep and talk about where we're going in this country and how it is impacting our military? to the service chiefs and i have one minute, service chiefs, do you get the same thing with now secretary carter way you get together in a relaxed session and talk about the foreign-policy of america and how our military is falling apart because they are overworked, tired, and the equipment is overworked and tired? do you ever get that opportunity? the military 1st and then one of the service chiefs please. >> maybe with the chairman twice a week monday or friday me usually at least once every week. we have we have formal briefings, but at the end we have executive session. we discuss all these issues in detail. >> thank you. one of the service chiefs.

>> secretary carter is bring together all bringing together all the service chiefs, combatant commanders and service secretaries this friday that have executive discussion your talking about how we best inform the debate on what is best for national security. >> mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service to our country's because will be finishing up her hoping to finish up. now, the navy is operationally deployed the law system. he directed energy weapon to be used against a variety of the the energy has turned the corner and is one of the keys to asymmetrical advantage using a technology for future security. and sure the other branches

are as up to date on this is the navy is. is anyone other is anyone other than the navy leaning forward and directed energy? >> we put $5 million out on leisure technology in order to have a competition that will allow us to downsize in such a way that we can easily used uavs, mortars rockets. there is a great application command. to that. it is about getting a small enough and enough directed energy in order to meet our needs and it is essential to our future. we just recently invested in that. >> air force. >> we, too, have a program. for example i was just out in new mexico air force research laboratory with lasers and directed energy. furthermore energy. furthermore we are testing an aircraft defense system

which would have lasers involved in the laser communication system. we have quite an active program as well. >> that is good to here. they are doing wonderful work. on missile defense on missile defense and concerned that some of the services may not be taking missile defense capability as seriously as i think we have to. for example the navy is cutting -- he thought i would let you off the hook. cutting missile-defense capable ships with budget. each of used committed to missile defense? >> absolutely. we cut the modernization to hear you -- ballistic missiles defense capable. we get a purely as a budgetary thing. one of the arduous is yet to make. we need a certain number of ballistic missile defense capable ships. we can meet most of the

requirements today. we we have for that will be permanently home ported to take the place of about 16 16 make your because they are permanently home ported. we are continuing to modernize the system on our cruisers and destroyers but not as fast as we would like to collect it is all because of the budget situation. >> would anyone else like to? >> i can add obviously the only was all in with respect to missile-defense. it is one of if not the most high demand low density assets that we have. she she spoke earlier today about the incredible amount of the climates.

it will be less than honest if we said that we know already had challenges today a patriot modernization program although continuous progress white received 92 missiles as an idea we've seen that command only increasing. >> and air force. >> the air force is heavily involved in commanding control.

we have an awful lot of people who are involved in the collection analysis, and distribution against indications in the morning. missile-defense missile-defense and one of the four pillars missile-defense is offense of operations. precision global strike capability is fundamental to that. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you all for today for your responsiveness everyday good for your service to the country. the hearing stands adjourned.

>> ahead of a two-week recess the u.s. senate and house of representatives of focus on the 2016 federal budget next week. both measures would increase defense spending. spending. chambers plan to complete work on the budget before the break. still unresolved that the human trafficking bill and the nomination of an alleged to be attorney general. the house the house is back monday and in eastern for general speeches play in the senate his life monday at 2:00 o'clock.

>> now isis rears its ugly head. we should not be surprised by that. you can't undo decades of soviet era and saddam has to was eight years. especially when you have taught them on a model where they were have us advisors and partners. afghanistan according to the president's announcements currently at about 10,000 troops. will draw down to 5,000 next year. you will probably see a similar results what we saw when isis attacked. a very shaky. >> this sunday retired army lieut. gen. daniel bolger on the failed us strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on "chasing" q&a

>> washington journal" continues. host: after two days of scrutiny of secret service by lawmakers on capitol hill, we welcome to our desk and expert, author, and former investigative reporter, ron kessr. back this morning. these allegations of aged misconduct stemming from the secret service alleged drinking and driving incident. this as director joseph clancy's first big test. how do think he did in those hearings this week? guest: you know, he came across as pathetic. he had all the wrong responses. he started claiming that there was a culture of drinking in the secret service. there isn't. in this case, they went to a party.

they should not have gotten into a government car. they should not have gotten into the compound. that is not common among the agent. the agent overall are brave and dedicated. the problem is the culture within the management. the management has this attitude of covering up, of laxness, of corner cutting. and agents who report problems or threats are punished. our retaliated against. and in turn, those who pretend that everything is fine are promoted into management. as one example of the culture of fear, when gunshots were fired at the white house in 2011, a uniformed officer reported that. but then her supervisor said no, it is just a construction site noise. she said later she was afraid to pursue that because she feared that should be criticized by management. that is the culture. clancy represents that culture. he is from within management. you saw that when he testified a

few months ago on the hill. on the house side about the fact that the secret service issued a statement when groans i'll is, the intruder got into the white house. host: the fence number. guest: the fence jumper. the secret service said at the time that he was apprehended at the door and he was not armed. that was a total lie. they knew very well that he penetrated the white house and that he was armed. plenty was asked, is anybody going to be held accountable issuing those lies? and he said, no, those were not lies. that he was asked, how do in error? he admitted that he didn't even know how this arose. so that is the culture that is leading to all these coverups. host: clancy saying, not that nobody is going to held accountable for this latest incident, but that the investigation is ongoing to what exactly happened there. some pushback from him

especially yesterday in that senate hearing, about the reporting of a gatecrashing was exaggerated. that it was a cone. what we know about the facts of that incident from march 4? and when will this investigation that he is having conducted be completed. guest: the "washington post" has had it exactly accurate. host: an organization used to work at. guest: that is right. not always right, but in this case, they are. these two high-ranking supervisors went to a retirement party, presumably jake. when a to this compound -- the white house compound in the middle of a crime investigation did there was a suspicious package that had been thrown in. they thought it was a bomb. they drove their car into this area. and hit a barricade.

you know, clancy is making a big deal out of, well, some media organizations -- not the "washington post" but others -- said it crashed into the barricade. so what? it is a minor discrepancy. he should be focused on fixing the agency, not whether the media got something a little bit wrong. host: the agents taking and cut hena -- in cartagena was a story you broke before you were a full-time author writing about these issues. that was april 20 sell -- april 2012. we are all most three years later, intriguing among agents continue to happen. -- and drinking among agents continue to happen. why hasn't that changed? guest: and going back five years, you have the party crashers at the state and her. that was also part of the systemic problems because agents and officers feel that they will not be backed by management if they turned someone away.

it turned out that these glamorous people shouldn't have been on the guest list. they turned them away. and they feel that they will not be backed by management. the answer to your question is one person is responsible for all of this. and that is barack obama because every time one of these things happened -- happens, he says he has for confidence in the secret service. he should have replaced the director at the time when they did their intrusion, along with the third intruder. another story i broke. and brought someone in from the outside. that is what this panel of four really highly respected individuals recommended. it was his own panel recommending they bring in some of from the outside will not be part of this culture. who will shake things up. who will not be beholden to interest with him. for example, one of these supervisors who was involved in this incident is a longtime colleague of clancy that had

been on the presidential detail together. and clancy, you know, really has no idea, as far as i can tell, of what needs to be done. host: just one of the statements from the white house this week, backing up agency management and showing their competence in -- confident in planted. here is white house spokesman john ernest. [video clip] >> he is someone who has a sterling reputation inside the secret service, but also outside. he has had a very high -- for himself. that positions him well to serve as a leader for that organization and to the boom in some of those changes that he has a knowledge are badly needed. host: can you talk a little bit about director clancy's background, for those who are less familiar with him and his history? guest: well, he had been an

agent for a most 30 years. and he became head of barack obama's protection detail. that is when barack obama, you know developed trust in him and understand, of course, that he felt -- that obama felt positive towards him because he protected him. that doesn't mean that he knows how to manage the agency. clancy has put out the word that he removed some top managers who are part of this whole culture. host: a very high profile time right around the end of last year when it happened. guest: in fact, the real story is that he replaced them with -- with managers who have the same culture. one of those i have interviewed for one of my two secret service books. and he made her system -- assistant director. i have never, never come across anybody more pathetic in a position of responsibility. literally.

she shouldn't have been in charge of a drugstore. i have done books on the fbi the cia, and the secret service. and i was just appalled. she was so afraid to say anything to me. -- had to answer most of the questions. what can of the manager is that's? -- is that? you cannot imagine how screwed up this agency is. all of these incidents are not accidents. when clancy was appointed by obama, i did an op-ed saying obama guarantees more secret service problems. and that is what has happened. host: the two books you have done on this the first family detail in the resident secret service. to some of the 20 nonfiction books about the secret service. that you have written. ron kessler is with us to talk about the committee hearings this week, and the latest incident at the secret service.

the phone lines are open. joe is up first. new york. joe is an independent. joe, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am very confused. i have been aggravated about the story that happened, i don't know, a year or so ago. a woman was -- and she got confused and bumped into a gate near the white house. and she made a u-turn and went the wrong way. she was chased down the c -- street. it was live on television. we see the secret service and the washington police shooting at her car. she was shot dead. the time i turn on the 6:00 news, the story had vanished. i am indicting that only the secret service, but the news media for not following up on the story. how closely they come to killing her child? if it is a cup to run into a gate of the white house, how come these two secret service agents were not shot? guest: this woman, you know, had

mental problems. she would failing into the barricades at the white house. at a high rate of speed. and then continued towards the capital and 80 miles per hour. agents feared that she would be -- she had possible explosives and the simple he couldn't take a chance. she was using lethal force mainly -- namely her vehicle to cause a threat to the white house and to the capital. that was followed up on, but you know, it is unfortunate when people resist arrest or threaten something as sensitive as the white house. you know, we don't want another assassination. and that is what is involved here. they tell me because of the quarter cutting -- quarter cutting, it is a miracle that there has not already been an assassination. that is a real danger. host: you talk to these agents a

lot. how would you respond to admire -- anne myer on twitter who says i think it is a lack -- it is a moral issue due to lack of respect for the documents of the white house. guest: these agents are brave and dedicated. they would take a bullet for the present. even for the repentant. let me tell you, in the book, i go into detail on what these people are like behind the scenes. hillary is so abusive to agents. being assigned to her detail is being considered a form of punishment. host: what are some examples from your book? guest: she would just fly into a rage over nothing. criticize agent, even if the limo goes over a bump. it is just a nightmare working with her. and yet, yes, they will take a bullet for her. on the other hand, barack obama and michelle are very considerate of agents. this is a nonpartisan book. so that tells you something about character.

character is reported when it comes to -- you know -- hiring someone, choosing a friend. you never hire someone who treats people so badly. and, of course, when choosing the president. instead, voters focus on how they smile on tv, how they promise, as opposed to what they should be looking at which is victor and track record. host: phoenix, arizona. the light for republicans. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the incident with a guy jumped the fence and ran into the white house. he got inside, came in contact with the first secret service agent. and from what i understand from the reporting, that agent was basically tossed aside. party may? host: that he was tossed what? tossed aside? caller: tossed aside. and they continued on into the white house.

when they came in contact with the second agent, that is when they were subdued to i am curious -- subdued. were they fired or were they promoted? guest: no action has been taken so far as i know at this point. and that is a problem. in the case of the intrusion there was just a series of screwup's, which to illustrate the laxness and corner cutting beginning with the feds which is only seven and a half feet high. it doesn't have a curvature at the top, which would make it difficult to jump. it has a horizontal bar at the bottom, which makes it easier to scale. that is an example of secret service laxness. and then what's this individual got in, the walkie-talkies -- no one could hear anything. they were talking over each other. the acoustics were terrible.

and then you have a uniformed officer with a k-9 unit -- one of whom i interviewed for one of my books -- and he was on a cell phone talking on a personal call. obviously, he should have been probably fired. but at the same time, i think that is reflective of the fact that management cuts corners. so he figured, i can do whatever i want. the same as the agent to hire prostitute. host: amid all this, the secret service requesting a $1.9 billion budget. that is an 18% increase. do you think they needed to go and that they can spend that -- need it? and they can spend the money wisely? guest: they definitely need it. that includes money for the new campaign which means protecting all these different candidates but also $80 million for upgrades to the white house security, for example, and training. the secret service has this

attitude, as part of this terrible culture of we make do with less. so they haven't been spending money where they should to keep things at the right level. as opposed to the fbi, which has increased its budget immensely. hey, the result is we have not had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 because the fbi does have a good culture would never tolerate this kind of cover-up. i have proposed in my op ads appointing a former high-ranking fbi official to run the secret service. but, of course, obama went with an insider. host: i want to get your specific thoughts on the $8 million that is in their to create a replica of the white house for agents to turn on. is that needed? guest: oh, yeah. that is long overdue. the fbi and the military do it all the time. they have these fake towns where armrests -- arrests are made. if they don't have the white house itself, they are really

spinning their wheels. host: oceanside, california. the line for independents. kelly, good morning. caller: good morning. i do think that the blue line is going to always protect the blue line regardless of who is in office and what is going on. that is pretty much my statement. as far as protecting the border of the white house to prevent people from jumping the fence, i have been at junkyards or whatever, and they have electric fences at the top of those places. so if they can protect a junkyard with an electric fence they should be able to protect the white house. host: before we let you go, you said that bringing in somebody from the fbi to -- isn't going to make much of a difference here in your opinion? caller: i think it needs to be an appointed position.

something that is appointed from outside of law enforcement. host: ron kessler. guest: to say that the blue -- what is it, the blueline? that is just prejudice. that is like saying all blacks are criminals. or all jews are whatever. you know, to just have a blanket statement like that about people who risk their lives to protect is really reprehensible, in my opinion. host: stephen is up next. texas. life for republicans. stephen, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i am just trying to figure out -- i did not book for him, but nobody should be put in the position they are put in. but he did choose the secret service man to cover him, protect him. however the way it works.

[indiscernible] outside sourcing, as far as navy seals if secret service can't do it. why can't they all work together? i have a lot of respect for the secret service but i cannot understand why they throw secret service under the bus. i mean, everybody is stressed. the secret service is on 24/7. host: ron kessler. guest: as i said, there has never been an assassination. and that is how important it is to fix the secret service. really, in assassination nullifies democracy. i lived through the jfk assassination. and i cried for days. it was a terrible blow for the country. that is what is involved here. when it comes to who should run -- and outsider, such as a

former fbi person, i think is better than a military person because former fbi alreadyare a lot spent. a military prison would be an improvement over clancy, but you know, there will be a very steep learning curve. host: the caller brings up the call -- alcohol issue. your thoughts on director clancy talking about agent using this as a coping mechanism and how they need to be helped? guest: i think those part of clancy's cover up. trying to blame everything on stress and having thinking problems. you know, every organization has some people who engage in excessive drinking it these agents, you know, when to a retirement party. they drink the way all of us do. but then the problem is they got into a government vehicle, when into the compound, they were belligerent.

essentially disrupting a crime scene. so it goes far beyond drinking. and by claiming that there is a cultural problem involving drinking, clancy is diverging attention from what he should be focusing on, which is this corner cutting culture. and the fact that it took five days before he even learned of this incident did to an anonymous -- incident through an analysis -- and anonymous incident. that shows the cover-up mentality continues. that agents are afraid to report problems. and, you know, this hearing seems to be predicated on the idea that clancy has just taken over. that is not true. he has been acting director since october. on day one, he should have taken action to make sure it is very clear that anybody who does not report problems or bad news or threats is going to be removed. it doesn't mean they have to be fired necessarily, but certainly removed. but he didn't do that.

what he did was he imported these -- he imported -- appointed host: these new people at the top. the house appropriations hearing on this, congressman chris do it was on the open -- "washington journal" earlier this week. here is a bit of their exchange. [video clip] >> when you say i had to set the example, dude, you don't have to in their trust. you are their boss. they are supposed to earn your trust. and heaven and your trust. and the way to earn your trust as you hold it -- them accountable. and then the others who aren't of their drying -- driving through barricades and link drunk in hotel corridors and overseas locations, those guys know that they are going to be held accountable. so, i made, i have gone on for a while and i am not reading you i'm parading this culture that has been fostered there. if you like to respond, please do.

>> thank you, sir. we have had incidents, obviously, in the past. and previous directors have -- after due process -- have moved these people off jobs. they are gone. cartagen isa an example, where i believe we lost 10 people. they were terminated to there is an indication that -- or there is a history where we will discipline people. but again, i cannot do this on day one. i am frustrated that the agency is taking this, and rightfully so, but i have to allow this due process to take place. and then that will be our first test. our first indication of are we serious about owning people accountable. maybe this -- it is as bad as it is to say this, maybe it is good

that it happened early in my tenure so we can tell the tone as we move forward. host: we want to get asked -- back to chris's for his it's there that the agents themselves do not trust director clancy. do you think that is true? guest: yeah, and the fact that it took him five days to tell them what happened shows the culture of retaliation against anybody who reports a problem. you know clarity -- clancy's response is because. he mentioned cartagena. in the case of that, with hiring prostitutes, the secret service put those agents who were not high-ranking, the way these were, on administrative leave. that meant there guns were taken way, the badges, their credentials. they were not allowed access to secret service buildings. their vehicles were taken away. where in this case, you have high-ranking -- host: was that

at the direction of the former director? guest: mark sullivan, yeah. whereas in this case, what if clancy do with these high-ranking people? one of them he was on detail with for years. he did not put them on administrative leave. rather, he puts them in other positions -- he put them and other positions where there are not involved in operations, but they still have their gun scum of their weapons, their credentials, their vehicles. so that is the double standard that he -- he says this is his first test. i say he fails -- failed his first test. host: carolyn on the life of demos. >> >> caller: and i would like to know is there was an incident 72 hours later when

they erased the tape. but what is more than driving in their driveway to say it is a bomb? and we are investigating the secret service instead of a woman and they had her license number and did not explain her background? >> to be fair that turned out to be booked to that effect. >> gone once -- on the one hand this shows the ridiculous corner cutting with the surveillance camera of the rest of the world uses but on the other hand. >> is a digital or historic?

>> i am not surprised because going back to the intrusion by a gun solace to indicate somebody trying to get into the white house. and kept going off repeated the. so they asked if they would turn it off the and they did. imagine a bank manager turning off the alarms in the bank. it is just a mess however you look at it. unbelievable. >> moderator: aligned for independence go-ahead. >> caller: my question is

the secret service men that were accused of a understand that. why didn't the drivers of the car with six months or more? finigan brings up the question if this sobriety test was administered at the time in question with a high-ranking officer not to do that? bennett the officers wanted to rest the two agents to give them sobriety test but a high-ranking supervisor overruled them to say just let them go home that is another example to cover-up

and it is egregious. but that incident that involved agents going in on top of all of that with the woman who had the auspices -- suspicious package was that because the officers were so preoccupied? there are so many questions in suspicious activity they think there should be the fbi investigation given the fact there could have been the obstruction of justice that there is the erased tape with an fbi investigation.

>> who witnessed following up? is there a another hearing? >> but also giving this to the inspector general said to have the same powers as the fbi. >> the democratic line is up next. >> caller: good morning reorganization that has been around awhile in your opinion they precede the obama administration? >> lynn then department of

homeland security and the treasury that it is hard to explain how it happened but the leader was not the right leader. and then the turnover is bad but with the soldiers we send to iraq. have to prepare a secret service agent who makes tremendous amounts in the army? that is the cultural attitude and mark sullivan from protecting the president from southern maryland and the president

was unprotected including when he lifted off in marine one. because he was supposed to look for snipers. and what did he say when he was asked? to say that did not detract from the security of the president. how could anybody say that? so as we have been discussing no one cares. >> i think people do care there certainly fascinated

but in addition people understand this is one of the most important agencies to protect the vice president and the engaged in items that have not had the press yet that under pressure from white house staff under bush and obama gore campaign staff would let people in into events without screening just like passengers onto an airplane without a metal detection screening. they said there wasn't enough money and there was a line was about to start the didn't want to offend all these possible voters and sure enough the ordered the agents to let them in.

set to take up the president or the vice president that alone is a scandal now obamacare san and it continues to defend the directors. >> the line for republicans. good morning. >> i am calling a guess the members of the secret service to deal with the personalities and politics that they have to stay perfectly neutral. that we never qualified to be a secret service representative with a member of congress or the white house staff. you made it comment awhile

ago that some secret service agents may consider hillary to be a punishment assignment and i am just wondering my concern is the attitudes of politics in some cases could be arrogant or unforgiving and possibly to take those that are their lives for granted. >> exactly. we will suffer before they are a engaged in this ethics controversy but with the

rest of our lives we don't deal with people like that. into show arrogance in the same way she decided to cut government e-mail -- emails under own private server. and then someone gets into the white house then they amass all this power? >> but she said in a press conference that the server was protected by the secret service is that qualified? >> no. they're not very good at investigating but she was referring to the fact that

they protect their house but that is not the issue nobody thinks it will break into their house to steal the server. it is cyberattacks since she is diverting attention from the real issue. sova to talk about the pressures and difficulties that win did chaney's daughter tried to get her agents to take her to the restaurant when the taxi driver tried to protect certain people did to get the detail removed over this. with them when they follow those rules they removed the person.

when they came prancing in the and the guest list because they will not back the. >> would you expect barack obama to do to trash the secret service that protect him and his family? >> is the simple problem whether it is a company or an agency bring in the outsider to change the culture and someone who was not beholden. it should be a matter of course, but either to be in denial about the danger or mismanagement, obama has an attitude that he doesn't understand management but either way it is egregious. into have more problems now he appointed clancy to

assume the directorship. >> reform the secret service's the headline from march 15. good to boardinghouse -- good morning. >> caller: i hope the secret service can get their problems worked out that they already have that will not cost money with several lines of security until they get this figure out. >> that would be an improvement would get the former fbi director in their previous director would

punish agents that disagreed with him so that is why we have one after another under him. but then to implement to the polygraph foresaid then years earlier but almost immediately with the head of counterintelligence that he moved here right away and you better tell the truth not putting up with cover-ups. >> is the department the homeland's security the problem? to be run by the treasury department can we switch

back? >> i think that causes more chaos. as a strong leader who understands these issues to stand up to anybody to protect the president meaning obama an end members of congress that the new budget is 1.9% billion dollars per year roughly the price of one stealth bomber for yet what could be more gore there protecting our president? >> caller: good morning.

we could care less of what the gentleman on your set is talking about this morning. did he covered the hearing yesterday. >> you want to talk about your experience in this field? >> with those agents and went to the training center so we saw the operations center in with a guy that discovered dynamite in the washer there were rags so i

have been on this for some time. so this is par for the course. >> and talk about the car to a news story. about the secret service and the fbi and cia. we have about 10 minutes of the "washington journal". concorde new hampshire. good morning. i am a history buff. but as this conversation has gone on i have become to realize the easy way to break every is complicated.

but the secret service had a wonderful reputation in that was a big problem but i have a relative who is the etf agent highly trained and sophisticated plan also have a brother who taught israelis. i am familiar with this. but they do use tapes. because the one thing you field nobody ever brings up is the white house is a museum like the smithsonian is historical there is a reason for that. there is the antiquities act that protects a. we can relate to the smithsonian but remember it is the museum. >> how do you protect a

working museum? >> somehow improving the security with artwork of course, they don't have access to the president unless they have an opponent it is more important we protect the value of the white house it could be done in an the intrusive way and with that horizontal bar there are many things that could buy them for person panel to say he should get an outsider for the secret service. >> if people serve on the panel are they outsiders?

>> they served under bush or obama or one was the associate attorney general under obama and one was bush's deputy chief of staff for operations. i have rarely seen such good public service. >> self carolina is next on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. my theory is moving obama is people out of position that is solid is -- that is all it is. >> conspiracy theories?

>> my book is non-partisan. in how very cheney would get her agents to go to restaurants. but back when reagan was president the secret service did not want anyone near him so his own staff overruled them they don't have that authority and they said no. so sure enough they could get within 15 feet with weapons and that is why reagan almost lost his life because of the white house staff. . .go ahead. caller: the man just asked a

question and you turned around and said, is this another conspiracy theory. i would like to ask you real quick, what is the definition of a conspiracy? guest: to say that i am trying to get rid of obama people just has nothing to do with any evidence or the subject. i don't know what that means. we are talking about the security of the president. we are talking about some sort of political issue, whatsoever. host: let's go to another kevin staten island, new york. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i really appreciate the program. mr. kessler, i'm sure you're very familiar with the event in cartagena. guest: i actually broke that story in "the washington post." caller: i have a solution to the

problems. why won't they put paul or read in charge -- paula reed and charged? i think you know that when you are part of the old boys network, it is difficult to enforce the rules. she, as a female and an officer that holds people to high standards, help those officers in cartagena to the standards that they need to be held two, and the marines. i think one of the solutions would to put her in a position in charge. guest: clancy did that. she named her assistant director . at the same time, even though she did an exemplary job on cartagena, she is part of this culture, i have interviewed her

she is not someone who actually make the major changes that really are needed in this agency. host: you go through, in your newest book, about potential replacements. you actually name people that you would like to see as the head of the secret service? one of these outside people? guest: i think if i started naming people, that would be the kiss of death. a lot of people in the secret service management just hate the revelations that i have brought out. part of the same culture, they think anybody who criticizes them is to be ignored. i've got a lot of e-mails with swearwords from some of these people. i do have a particular person or mine, a former fbi high-ranking agent who helped to turn around

the culture of the fbi, to make it more prevention oriented. we have a track record of actually changing the culture. he knows how to do that. i mention that, when the four-person panel interview to ed me. they were interested. i know they did consider fbi people. in the end, that was not their role. the role was to give guidelines. their chief recommendation was bring in an outsider. again, obama ignored that. it is his own life at stake. it is the lives of his own family members. i wonder if he recognizes danger. host: just one piece from ron kessler's column in "the washington post" -- obama

ignored the chief recommendation of his own four-person panel. in turn, he turned to clancy, a career agent who are her earned his trust. tough words from ron kessler march 15 if you want to read it. let's get in making. -- mickey. caller: i think is very great that mr. kessler is on there this morning. a lot of people don't know these situations, alcohol, hitting the bars in front of the white house. it should be something that should be out there. i personally did not know that. if it was anybody else, and any other town in the united states, if somebody had been drawn, and ran into anything, they would be

-- guest: absolutely. caller: that is not a fair assumption of what we pay our secret service for. guest: in my book, i reveal the dishonesty that the secret service and in. that of course is relevant to this cover-up mentality. for example, in the secret service, when members of congress come out to visit their training center, the secret service puts on the senate is to show how great the agents are. they find the explosives, and they are presented as spontaneous. in fact, they are rehearsed secretly beforehand. of course, the secret service claims credit for a rest -- arrests that the police make. additionally, the secret service will ask agents to throw out there scores on physical

fitness, of course they all cost themselves. this is dishonest. to have an agency, engage in dishonesty means that you will have dishonesty all across the board. host: one must question for you. mark sullivan left, julie peterson that, now clancy will leave. wild and wonderful wants to know, how long would it take an outsider to get up this be before start fixing the problem? guest: overnight. they understand how to change the culture, how the attitudes develop, and how to change them. that means removing people who are part of the culture. the fbi would never put up with this kind of full business, --

foolishness, believe me. they have an exemplary record, a record of success. why not take advantage of that. ? host:

>> this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with media come. >> right here inside the museum's remains of a confederate ironclad. this is an iron brand that was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes are actually the gun ports of the jackson. armed with six broke rifles. the particular rifle is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson cast at the salmon naval works in summer, alabama and completed in january of 1865 the real claim to fame is darkly connected to the fact that there are only for ironclad's from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is your. it is 1st and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to

show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads. there were many

i am pleased to welcome each of the service secretaries and most of the service chiefs today. on behalf of the committee and the people we represent i i want to thank each of you for your service to the nation. since january this committee is focused on understanding the strategic environment and many of the complex security challenges facing the united states.

in order to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution to raise and support provided maintain a tray a tray forces that meet the person's needs it has been important for us to spend time understanding the specific challenges staring us in the face today as well as the longer-term trend where they are's. over the last two months the committee has had a variety of closed and open classified and unclassified sessions with government and nongovernment witnesses as well as foreign leaders. we held the 1st ever committee retreat with a number of distinguished speakers and examined the past present and future. we have had have had sessions on the worldwide threats facing us the status and trends of islamic extremism the state-based security challenges, threats and various geographic regions the strap -- the status of conflicts and technological superiority in the pace of

change. we received the recommendations of the compensation and retirement commission heard from outside experts on the on the budget understudied way to the department's acquisition of goods and services. all of that work puts us in a better position to consider the administration's proposed budget. i am i am sure that members will have questions on specific programs that were included are left out of the administration's budget. i strongly believe that the job of the congress under the constitution and this committee is to exercise and judgment on how best to meet the nation security needs. great deal of weight to the judgment of our military leaders but not being a rubberstamp for any administration

now about 15 percent of the federal budget and we also have to consider the consequences if congress approves significantly less defense spending and the president has asked what. and i would say to our distinguished witnesses especially those in uniform that this is the time to speak plainly. even the dangers we face around the world the damage that has already been done by defense budget cut by one 5th in real terms since 2010 ending of the difficult choices ahead of us even under the president's budget request. finally, as i have thanked each of our witnesses for their service want to express appreciation to all members of the community on both sides of the aisle for your work so far this year. on both sides members have done -- have worked hard to

ask the question of trying trying to find the best answers for security of the country, and i and i'm to work with each of you. as most of you know ranking member smith is dealing with health issues and is not able to be with us this week and ably sitting in his chair as the distinguished lady in california where recognize ranking opening statement. >> thank you, mr. quick return of management. to chairman thank you for acknowledging that this has been a tough year already we have some very severe budget constraints that may be coming out of the budget community with respect to our resources you and how we allocate the. you are right. it is in the purview of the congress to make decisions about where we placed the money. this committee has a very difficult task ahead of.

i want to also thank her witnesses today. it is rare that we have service chiefs were secretaries all in one room. thank you so much. today is a a hearing for some very constructive discussion about how. i also just want to acknowledge that it is nice to see women on the panel. thank you for that. bathroom. sequestration, i think that has become such a distraction for congress. certainly believe that we have to look at smarter and more efficient ways in which we can invest also say. we do not have the capacity

as a country to hand anybody, even our military and check. so i hope that the department along the congress can work together to invest in resources that will give us the best value for money. we have to invest in r&d make sure that we don't have a hollow force and ensure that we can be an effective piece what it takes to protect america and americans. i hope today's hearing will not only focus on the threat of sequestration but that will have a discussion about our economic state what we can invest and where we must say. again, i. again, i think all of you for us and look forward to having a good a good discussion and that so many members have shown to this hearing. i also request unanimous consent to place mr. smith opening comments into the record. >> without objection so

ordered. the bulk of the bulk of our distinguished panel of witnesses today. secretary of the army chief of staff of the army secretary of the navy enlisted in his mom michelle howard vice chief of naval operations. gen. joseph dunford command, not marine the marine corps, debra the james. the only other come i would make his we get to questions with this many members and witnesses have going going to have to be careful the clock.

if you want to spend three minutes asking your question, your going to get a very abbreviated answer. i appreciate our witnesses as well as our members respecting the gavel as we try to give as many as possible the members as possible the chest as questions. thank you all for being here. >> thank you very much. good to be with all of you. please pass on best wishes on to mr. smith is speedy recovery. all of you distinguished members of the committee is a how much we appreciate the opportunity to being here today and to talk very frankly about the danger that was should this budget not been enacted and sequestration allowed to return. in short it is amazing how much can change your. over the last 12 months we've seen the geopolitical landscape more astonishing pace from renewed aggression partnership and increased

threats from north korea to gains by radical terrorists in iraq and syria, and women have to much fight against able. your army your army has been managing to tackle contingencies around the world. far from being foreseeable requirements have been more unexpected enemies unpredictable and our ability to handle multiple simultaneous operations more uncertain. and yet with such volatility and instability around the world america's army is based yet again an enemy here at home the return of sequestration. sequestration unprepared units, and maintained equipment untrained soldiers. ladies and gentlemen our army, your army this is a dark and dangerous future unless the congress acts now to end these ill-conceived and inflexible budget cuts. moreover i want to be very

clear every installation every component and nearly every program will feel the brunt of these cuts. under sequestration by 2019 2019 we will reduce our in strength to unconscionable levels will likely likely losing another six bcps and potentially a division headquarters, not to mention the impact of associated enablers, contracts, facilities, and civilian personnel. but let me share with you some of the accomplishments of america's army this past year. as russian backed forces rolled into ukraine, and next crimea and threatened regional stability our soldiers rapidly deployed to eastern europe in a demonstration of us commitment and resolve. from latvia and lithuania to poland and estonia, soldiers from the 173rd airborne and the 1st cavalry show the world that america will stand with our nato allies and respond to unbridled aggression. in west africa as thousands

suffered from the scourge of the bowl of your army acted. elements of several units led by the 101st airborne provided command and control equipment and expertise to support efforts to stop this deadly and destabilized disease. in response to rapid gains your soldiers quickly returned to go back to advise and assist security forces in turn the tide on this barbaric group of radical terrorists to read in the pacific thousands of soldiers and civilians supporting operations to strengthen partnerships and increase our substantial presence. today the today the headquarters of nine active army and to guard divisions are committed to combatant combat command. in some 143,000 soldiers are deployed forward stationed overcommitted including over 19,000 mobilized reservists. moreover, we have done all of this more continuing to transform our formations to

make them leaner, more agile, and far more lethal. the sergeants training and mentoring soldiers soldiers, the invaluable civilian workforce laboring countless hours to support the does change the face of indiscriminate funding cuts. you have and will remain committed to supporting the needs of our warriors from programs to increase resilience the return of sequestration will directly impact critical installation and family programs at one

$46.5 billion $46.5 billion request is some $6 billion over the potential sequester this request seeks for reform to seek compensation that will ensure the funding needed to support near-term readiness. our reforms are necessary and. sufficiently trained and ready soldiers to protect the nation. this is this is an historic moment. we need to stop talking and start acting. we we need wisdom not words, results, not rhetoric

we must have certain for certain difficult. we must have an in the sequestration this year and we must have this budget. thank you for all the amazing support that i no personally each and every one of you provides. thank you for the discrete committee has done time and time again on behalf of the nearly 1.3 million men america's country. >> my understanding is opening statements will be provided by the service secretaries.

the chief of naval operations in the conduct of the marine corps the privilege of representing the sellers and early to serve our nation. we have all could not be at the family. but that vice chief 1st line of defense. respond faster, remain on station will carry everything we need with us and do whatever missions are assigned by our nation's leaders without needing anyone else. we have always known america's success depends on the exceptional navy and marine corps.

trying to this committee directed to provide and maintain. for for the 1st six frigates to our growing today sailors and marines. the founders was. american leaders across the political spectrum understood the vital significance. we deploy in pieces much as a more. our national defense strategy is focused on maritime domain and why investing in maritime assets provide the best best for piece and prosperity and security. if shown share the view of

strong defense and navy and marine corps thank you for your support. so uniquely delivered built for foundations. people platforms, power and partnerships. sailors and marines are well known for their ability to exercise independent judgment in the flexibility to face changing circumstances. we remain committed to providing our sailors marines, and civilians with the training and support to maintain. they cannot do the job that platforms.

our focus on to ground wars only partly explains the. in in the five years before became secretary and 27 ships. with contracted for 70 shifts. if you use the department of the movie has attempted to minimize the impact of an uncertain budgetary is damaging in this 1st course of action.

feeling that platforms our navy and marine corps is a final version of concern. that's why the navy has a long history of energy. decreased our adversaries and. our ability to maintain presence will also be. overall currents readiness needed to execute the assigned missions of the

biggest fiscal plan to move the most rigorous examination we are we're at the.where we can no longer do quite the same with less. in order to ensure continued to provide an issue as an american people in the forecast questions. >> thank you. now to a former staff member of this committee.

>> it's a pleasure before you today. a pleasure to be. i'm still the the service secretaries. like to begin the telling you all some of my key takeaways. today's united states air force is the smallest air force of you in 1947 the building an air force for the better part of two decades. today decades. today we are the small strip of them. second