. >> 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 __the oldest they

have been with an average age of 25th. averages average. that means quite a few of the fleet are substantially older. the shocking statistic, more than half of our our forces are not sufficiently ready today for our high-end play. interfere with you. you did your defenses and the like. more than half of our forces are not sufficiently. i think we also realize that demand we do that and all-time high all around the certainly it's dangerous complex and constantly changing the that i can ever remember in the 34 years that i have been.

have to join my colleagues and say that a budgetary trajectory that resulted in sequestration is not going to allow us to sustain the space. let me now do my plays became. i believe sequestration is going to place american lives at greater risk at home and abroad. sequestration remains the law of the land in the united states air force simultaneously be able to defeat in adversary and one for can't deny a 2nd adversary the objective a seat as well is the from the that is a national strategy. we will be able to do it the problems were have the capability to do mission is the time spent.

it's also the three stages of it comes to people think your absolutely. the question i guarantee you will make the nations demand enough people will definitely be in more danger something's got to give. we thank we thank you and the other members of the community. as you know we're asking for budget figure images essentially closer to what we need additional monies equate to about 10 billion more sequestration level funding will provide. this thing that more about the forces that we need to do the most pressing

combatant commander requirements will allow us to invest better more appropriately at priorities determined taking care of him as. his budget and we have to stop this downsizing leaving gone too far. we propose propose a modest uptick for active duty national guard and reserve can win including nuclear enterprise in the world of maintenance particularly across the combat air force. during the 2nd priority getting the right balance

the only folks at this table with the combatant commanders. as. as a result our budget is going to ramp up support to the most urgent needs of the combat commanders identified to which basically. >> one thing more air force's top rail. we have 60 isr patrols in the budget. picture combat exercises. all of that is readiness of the day.

it and our 3rd priority, what we call make every dollar count. you precisely understand that the taxpayer dollars precious and we can't afford to waste any of it we took an aggressive 20%

reduction in 20 percent reduction in our headquarter funding which includes civilians and contractors and redirecting military personnel. we thought it was the right thing to do and be able to free up resources quickly to flow back into important things. not only that but over the last three years we reduced our service contract workforce 7 billion. we reduced contractors we reduced contractors substantially and will continue to scrap this as time goes by. we're also struck an acquisition assistance the college been the cost curve. building affordability in the knew systems. we. driving toward the ability of of bucks there are plenty

of tough choices. we are proposing once again to retire the eight we gradually over time. would ask you to keep in mind that if you don't like these choices hold onto your hats. under under sequestration gives out there and not clear. in addition we would be facing up our next. at best a you tube and the global part 40 in the kc ten fleet. we would have to reduce our combat air patrols, repairs and predators up to ten orbits deferred 14 14 as 35

which would drive up unit cost. in some fashion we would also have to reduce our investments space inside the science and technology and readiness and people. in other words, i think everything is threatened. >> thank you. i we will ask the staff to put me on the clock. retrieved general dempsey said the budget request was

the work that you have what it takes to defend the country. if you were talking to my constituents and have one minute to describe what the consequences for the country would be for not approving the department of defense for your service outages? >> chairman i would say unprepared's inability to react to the unknown contingencies and stress on the force would be increased significantly. >> apple. >> strategic deterrent remains a number one priority.

the impact of the rest of conventional forces would be tremendous. you're talking about the impact of liability train people. all that would shrink it would be devastated. >> i i think a significant. model we've seen over the past year there was a is a case a few years ago and has been married forward's respond.

not been engaged. >> @you believe the fundamental issue will be the american people could not expect did not expect the military to do with it has to do. >> thank you. i was thinking to some comments. more lives lost. >> i have two questions.

november last year indicating their concerns with how much we are investing in missile defense of the growing challenges the current rate considering the fiscal plan. present acquisition been strategy is a sustainable in a sustainable in the current fiscal environment favors forward deployment of assets and deterrence -based options to meet contingency demands. sustainable and cost effective. this new line. could you expand on this.

>> we cannot sustain the rate of deployment of the current missile-defense capability. we we simply are overstretched the force. we don't have enough for not meeting the requirements. we have to come up with a new concept. what we want is a study that enables us to cooperative techniques and procedures that enables us to provide the proper events for this nation using a variety of different to include current missile-defense assets but the capabilities. cyber and things the have to be integrated into this the

threat missile-defense threat is growing. we have to come up with a cost-effective means. >> coming week to put that in would you prefer that we tried to get a study up on the as soon as possible? >> we need to do it as soon as possible. >> my 2nd question is in regard to where it services. this is been a big deal. 50% 15 percent of the military comprised of women. 200,000 have died while serving in the frontlines.

all gender-neutral occupation standards act to be are to be sent in by next year i'll positions should be open. all of the services on track to meeting those deadlines? if not why get from what i can see on the current schedule many occupations will be open for example, a example, a male public affairs officer assigned to an infantry unit acquires no infantry training beyond what all officers received at the basic school. can you we please address where we are where we are

going we going to be able to do? there continuing to finish up the testing infantry engineers, food artillery and, currently not get help. running tests. we have sent a note recommending the opening of combat engineers. we have prepared to provide a recommendation. they are also doing a test right now.

>> if you could just have -- i did not alert the sanchez. i'm sure we can expect. >> may be in the marine corps. in the navy have opened every occupation to women. only one that remains closed today at the trigger polish for the fields of the support the things i can tell a little children for give you an update on exactly what lines are but the one thing i would ask this committee we don't have enough women in the service. one of the reasons.

>> transition will go back to your example. who different today that difference today that would assign a male and female public affairs officer. today there is no restriction has been in effect since the secretary sign is not. >> the vast majority of our positions in the air force. seven closed afs the present we're on track to meet the deadlines. personally have received an interim update work closely

with the special operations command related to the world with special operations. are trying to work you. >> it is incredibly important. i hope of personnel community will continue to be at this. >> they are on top of everything. he stated about as particularly as i have heard stated few weeks in the if we were to get the full amount and the president's budget the best that could do for us would be reset us to where the military was a decade ago it still would

not enable us to begin to reconstitute where we need to be the fight was. we did not get the amount pres.'s budget we cannot reset the word decade ago. we have learned that today we must operate integrated distributed. that has implications for command-and-control systems, applications for fires organizational construct without making a chance for the kind of changes to facilitate and that i think is necessary. if you just if you just look at the examples where special-purpose the one that is in central command is wet across six different

countries. how is it was trained for you that size defend and attack. you can get a sense of how time and space has changed over time and the implications. "making the change of the kind of changes to facilitate as quickly as necessary. >> i we will ask you to comment but for the record i heard him a few days after part of the state. i ask you the same question. still trying to move to the future. for future. for us the next four or five

years we have some significant issues. >> the problem we have is if we don't invest in readiness today is closing the fight today. that the balance were trying to work. with the the air force eight to ten years. black and white infrastructure, those kinds of things. those things must be persistent, consistent investment will fail number. that's what. >> you very good statement worthy of forces as you know, the budget president said to even if it passed

the budget would not become law if we were to pass national defense, do you defense, do you have any indication that the white house would sign up to make. >> it is at least my impression. i want to go back and double check the overall plan that the present set forth would involve the lifting of sequestration not only for defense but for the whole of government. >> if you could give us any indication president decide piece of legislation that

would do away with sequestration at least related to national defense. for the another web. we would hope the president would hold that hostage with that i yield. >> mr. davis you mentioned briefly there are some authorities you need in order to do a better job hiring women into the navy particular. more come in the. i wanted to ask you increase readiness.

i wonder if you can speak more directly with that we have the changes to future benefit what are we doing to ensure the quality and the high standards affected by the way forward today 60 percent is for service. we're absolutely recruiting and retaining. the demographic need to change to account for the increasingly complex security environment. we may have a 60 percent 1st term force but don't believe it should be the case in the future.

cyber is as well as responding to the bill also requires changes. >> the skill sets are obviously important. i think part of my question and it has been raised it's not in your area of responsibility to look at nondefense impacts of sequestration will we talk about the young people that we are recruiting today certainly are domestic budget act on that as well. i know in the past adm.

mullen specifically comes to mind. others are spoken to the needs of age and education fitness, health, although serious. you feel comfortable saying that it does matter is that impact our military? >> will give you a specific is about as a tremendous impact. 75 percent of young americans eight to 24 years old to not qualify to join the american military. they like the educational requirements for health problem usually obesity:. if you want to help us continue to recruit the very best we believe we are

recruiting today a very small americans have to pay attention. >> i be happy to obviously the services delivered under the same one in four constraint. to new recruits but also to resolution time they are mindful of the discussion sequestration. they also area where the cuts that we in the army already had while they want to stick with us it becomes more and more challenging

for them to do that. what a secure future for the families. very worried about this may turn out. as for recruiting, similarly recruits and their influencers mindful of this discussion. they want to they want to send a child into military service. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you ..

>> >> and commitment level to making this happen. i want to know your feelings of the commitment level and any tweets you may have done since the november report from the financial improvement at this point. >> i could start as to the

larger question of the army's postured to achieve those milestones i feel we are on track. we have gone through an outside examination that have proven very positive but equally showing us where we have weaknesses and where we need to do better for your specific question i think we have by ian but where we are challenged is helping people operate under the new paradigm to get away from business as usual so in response to that we witness that through the moscow and expand examinations to reemphasize training to the extent we could measure that to use this point we think

we're on the right path. it is the incredibly complex endeavor especially for the united states army but we make progress as you would want us to. >> the a undersecretary of the army is quarterly doing subordinated audits on this issues eliot understand the importance moving forward and that is helping to move this along. >> is a former state auditor as you know, the marine corps gotta clean audit in fyi 12 there almost finished with the budgetary account that is under contract to now and moving forward. in particular into a understand the importance of

it but the concern that i have frankly is there is the least one area we don't control that has the account finance service the rights ever checks that we paid $300 million to write those checks last year knight added 10 internal controls say it is inadequate. those numbers that we received that we are dependent on cannot be validated. so the navy marine corps are absolutely on track but i.m. concern but is outside of our control. >> first call i want to agree with my a colleague on that last point but on behalf of the airforce we are fully committed to the

audit and i mentioned in my opening statement i am from the business world so i am tied to this as well i tried to keep my finger on the pulse of how we're doing. we are under way with the budgetary activity that is a precursor to during the audit with a new accounting environment the couple years ago it was messy but it is doing much better now. on balance i am cautiously optimistic with those several caveat so we're on track to meet from september september 2017 to reach the full financial statement of it -- audit. >> thank you to the witnesses for being here today and giving your service to our nation. secretary first of all,

thank you you were at the ceremony for the with says colorado. you honored our state as well as the state of colorado and the work force in with your presence there thank you for that. with the virginia class program as the face significant budget challenges, can you tell us how we can keep those programs on track at the present budget level or if we have to drop back or how does sequestration and go into effect to keep them on track especially those challenges with the

reenforce declining if we don't keep them on track at the same time with their adversaries in china. >> thank you. we have a model program where we have 10 submarines for the price of nine allowing us to do the multi-year. to break that because of a lack of funds it is possible with sequestration to mean you will pay more money for viewerships which is a bizarre outcome. with the virginia payload the first is scheduled in 2019 we're looking to see if we can move that up because

the need of the strike capability will go away when the guided missile submarines are retired in the 2020 is. finally the ohio class replacement program the first will have to begin in 2021. ed is the most survivable leg of the triad. we cannot extend the life of the ohio class in the locker. it is a program that if the the shipbuilding has to bear the entire burden would take more than half of our budget over 12 years which would have serious implications to this submarine fleet to handle the rest into the entire navy. so i appreciate congress

setting of the fund for the ohio class replacements. and this debate has to continue how we fund this because it is a national program and it needs a national support. and there is history behind it the first time we did 41 for freedom with the ohio class post times with significant amounts were added to allow that deterrent to be met. >> thank you. >> and a statement that resonated with me the mention of the navy and marine corps to be so far from home in addition with those to will ratios in the budget with that effect in a way to spread end deficiency

of army navy and marine corps? >> great now it is l little bit less from the appointment. today we have more than 30,000 marines between one and two is the ragged edge you can ask someone to deploy without suffering. on the knee beside deployments are getting longer and less predictable and we're trying to get into the optimized fleet response to make reagan's more predictable and treating more predictable and then choose seriously jeopardized by sequestration. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks for being here today i know firsthand your

commitment to of military families and veterans appreciate your service. our family is joint service and things to my wife i give her all the credit of three sons are are we national guard and one in the navy and a nephew in the air force. when the age brothers was a proud marine. so first team and military families put so much trust in you. somebody we all respect dr. henry kissinger recently testified united states has not faced a more diverse array of crisis since the end of the second world war and i appreciate you pointing out how the reduction in the air capability puts the american

people at risk and we do want to work with you but additionally we need to recognize according to bob woodward and his book -- his book the president came up with the sequestration. i am thankful the republicans voted twice to replace sequestration but sadly neither was taken up by the former senate but hope springs eternal this can be addressed. in regard to a question you'll always be grateful visiting you in baghdad. i had two sons served so i know of your insight into what milestones you are looking man in afghanistan before the drawdown. >> i would say the important thing is to fold but to make

sure the afghan security forces continue to improve through the institutional things that our necessary for long-term sustainment but that is critical but i believe we have to stay the course and help them as they continue to fight the challenges that they face. they're doing an incredible job it is important we stay with them with the conditions based capability that allows them to make judgments to continue the support of sustained outcomes that will last. >> i share the concern one of my sons is also in afghanistan with the stability is very important for nuclear equipped pakistan so i appreciate the

president recognizing that and every step should have been made for stability so they are not a safe haven to attack in the united states. the issue that has come before us is a cyberthreat. and in particular in regard to sever command and if other branches would like to address it is key to the american people. >> tasman the smarter than i have declared a critical challenge not just the military but the homeland at large. buy call services we're working through cybercommand to ensure we are coordinated across all military departments in a way with

the most robust routine and in the army the active component with the process of standing up 71 protection teams, 24 of those are currently at initial operation in capability and we expect of 41. we're windfall that there is a wealth of experience and many individuals have the employment outside of their military jobs that have to do with the cybersystems. the thought -- the guard sets up the reserve component and as i have said we're working hard to we have instituted a series of benefits to compete for the

highly technical individuals but the sabres center -- cybercenter we are now making progress that we would readily it but there are challenges that remain and we have a ways to go. >> thank you mr. chairman and paul tuz a serviceman in the chief of want to commend you for sharing with this committee the dangers of sequestration in the devastating impact on military rates -- readiness and i hope congress has the political will to eliminate sequestration entirely. urge you to continue your efforts. general, in 2012 the u.s. and japanese government agreed to the relocation from okinawa to glom with progress on the replacement

facility. last week during your testimony general, you stated '' we have to have the facility in order for us to meet our current aerostation. bloodfin then to support the marines in the area. i am concerned we may have given the impression that the bomber relocation is linked -- relocation is linked can you clarify or comment on the progress to implement in the asia pacific region? to make thank you for giving me a chance to clarify our was speaking in response that with the issues congress should pay attention to? so but to go in the president's budget in 2016 we have funds for training

ranges and we're proceeding with the pace that glom so that is absolutely on track so overall the progress is on path have never one of the second order of the facts of sequestration would have an impact and i thought it would be hard to be imagined to go below the president's budget. >> thank you very much. admirable -- ad row howard? please me brief with dancers this -- the pacific fleet has stated the dry docking capability in bonn is a strategic requirements and operational necessity. last year a submarine was sent from bombed back to the west coast with the overhaul which was costly with is the cost of the impact on fleet readiness to impose to send

ships from western pacific area back to the u.s. mainland for dry docking? and two years ago indicated in a letter to blond it would pursue you try talking as a fellow on contract the action. and though expected to follow through with it has not can you give an update on the situation and when will a request for information be released for dry dock audubon? >> the key for the question. obviously the repair and maintenance of our ships are a strategic priority for us with that ability to be deployed specifically in the pacific but to send ships backed i would have to get

to the dollar cost clearly sending them stateside does have a cost. we're still looking the economic feasibility to get the dry dock into glom. >> figure congresswoman. we now proceed to the congressmen from new jersey. >> thanks for being here with your service to our country. general what is the air force plans to address the urgent operational need for the f-16 blocks 30 aircraft currently conducting the aerospace alerted mission? >> we need to develop a

radar plan for those sixteens our entire fleet active card reserve cannot move without their radar. the money that we have in the budget this year we will move forward with the effort it is 25 million pledges is integrated and to spend $75 million to build the fully integrated radar it is relatively close to .8 million with the non integrated so we think that is the way to go now we look how we can do that and move forward part of the problem is part of the cuts to the modernization programs. we have to solve the of

problems for a lot of reasons it is operational. >> to have plans to revisit the tapes program? directed this time we don't have the money. >> i am sure you know, the arguments laid out with a tight budget constraints were working under at all was with your card provides with paying for the book. it is incredible and the statistics are staggering in a positive way not to have the f-16 units fully integrate what i think would be a terrible tragedy and we appreciate you making that happen in. i yield back. >> now we proceed to the congressman from connecticut stemming thank you to the witnesses to be here and with the budget resolution to be put together you are

forewarned being here and it is important. secretary davis a one-two in knowledge of fact your testimony on page 16 points out the shipbuilding trajectory is of birds but also a to make sure you do this and every public forum you had that from a "wall street journal" and again points out the fact you have turned the direction and has a benefit for decades to come but the question is sequestration in those budget control caps to reassure people understand

if you could briefly talk about if the department is left with the caps, what does that mean in terms of the size of the fleet? to make thank you congressman and. if we go back to the sequester i said i will protect shipbuilding as much as humanly possible. even when no one understood by choice but we will fight until last dog dies but if we do that, something else will break because our main ince we're already behind because of this sequestration in 2013 it will take between 18 months to catch up maintenance on the ships and all take us

through 2020 on the aircraft we're already below the sustainable rate of what we need for training the last sequestration we had their wings ready to go down with the very minimum training and training at the home station works and those after that. with those who have suffered under the first sequestration it would be different - - a fair word but to respond or surge with a peter adversary and that is what they should expect.

>> we now proceed to the congressman from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman for your articulation of the issue of the threat of sequestration. as you are all aware the house budget committee will unveil its budget funding the department of defense that this number and which i oppose and i appreciate your articulation of what happened but i have had this conversation with most of you the more we talk in this room about the effects the less we win because we're all on the same page unfortunately we use words like readiness, risk, the capability so last to you

testified last week only 33 percent are ready. but then to be closer a 70%. it is because it is significant the army is the ready to fight but doesn't this mean more people are injured or killed? period but if that means we do our mission.

>> if we go to full fiscal sequestration that is beyond the budget, there budget of taking the brigades at 70 percent hard to accomplish that? >> we will not. if you mention that now will go down with sequestration to turn off 25% and our sons and daughters are asked to do things out proper trading with the readiness of their equipment. >> to be injured or killed? you also testified the number of active duty

soldiers has fallen by 80,000 in the past three years if there will fall another 70,000 with full sequestration into effect. with 420,000 remaining ewery substantially smaller than an 11 per gore does not a safer place but secretary how can you explain that austin and power translates into risk of injury in people being killed? >> convenes fewer soldiers who love to do missions and we continue to run the risk of sending the nine prepared soldier into this environment. we're trying to minimize this at 420,000 the judgment is clearly we would not meet the defense strategic guidance there is absolutely

no room from what we have seen in the past 18 months whether russia and the ukraine and with that united states military it comes back that risk means people dying and greater injuries in people don't come home. >> with the sequestration level funding what is the most difficult decision you will have to make? director very things that you said with arab and that will needlessly die in become injured or we will be slower to respond right now we're ready to fight the night it could be dangerous

and ultimately we could lose of trying to reach our objectives and requires the three very important things simultaneously. we connected to that under sequestration. >> sequestration assumes the nation's debt is out of control so therefore we must cut spending that we cannot increase tax revenues we must cut spending and if that is true then i you glad that i do not accept the premise but if i am wrong and it is true that i am glad defense and nondefense

spending are covered by sequestration. the other point is sequestration is the wrong way to cut with both in the defense and nondefense. why? because sequestration is a blunt force instrument cutting across the board of whether or not it 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 but also we're doing some excellent cutting edge necessary spending that does not need to be cut and is why sequestration needs

to go away for defense and nondefense. but more over to come upon the attitude we can never increased taxes because we know some folks to there are loopholes that enable others that should be paying and can afford to not to. talk about entitlements with entitlement mentality.

but we have a hollowing out of the defense spending promoting and protecting the common defense of this country which is something we must do. with those unforeseen developments the with russian aggression and if each of you or anyone who wants to respond describe the key security environment challenges in the ability of course, service at the defense strategy budget request has been adequately addressed and assembly and what areas do they have a

reduced funding levels? >> i guess i can start. as i mentioned previously. week we must be equally prepared to respond to our authorities as the commanders believe there is a need whether we have army forces and iraq from isil or when army special operation forces fear are africa responding to emerging terrorist threats there and as mentioned the combat forces in poland to have

those missions on the crimean peninsula with the threat of nuclear weapons there it is a critical challenge and i could go on and on as well as other services could as well. >> thank you ladies and gentleman to be here for your service i think we picked up the thread that all of you and the witnesses would like to see us spend more than the sequestration level i believe if the budget was greater we could find a way sharon congress to make sure you to get to a number like and we have some

personal concerns. >> sometimes we have issues that are not about money. and of the common don and i had the discussion and i will go back to the issue. secretary, you talked about sending young men and women into very dangerous environment. a couple of weeks ago we had a very dangerous environment at the game and so dangerous we sent to the marines that it was so dangerous we evacuated all the americans to adopt the ambassador and evacuated all americans and in the process even though they were on standby or offshore somebody made a decision on the record to destroy all the weapons to have the marines provide protection turned over their

weapons individually. it is my opinion that is the intolerable position for americans or the marines or soldiers to be in a dangerous situation to depend on trusting the very people who put us in that situation to not do us any harm that is roughly what happened as the gun and the civilian aircraft to be totally on arms. >> for the record who gave his senior marine the order to do that? vicki was under the united states jean of command speesix of the commander of

centcom gave them to the ground? >> the officer on the ground gave the order. >> and that decision and a think the ambassador and in this it is up the policy level. >> for the record it is unclassified but if there were more marine corps assets not that far off shore. >> there were. >> said general borodino's our field but that is intolerable that could happen to marines it happened to soldiers or anybody and then be ordered to turn in their weapons and

a dangerous place? i would hope senior leaders will do everything in their power to make sure that does not happen again. is an outrageous situation. it is one that on the record will on the ground with assets in training with they were disarmed and sent home. i yield back. >> and i just wanna do get clarification that it plays of us to sustain our superiority with combat gear verses other powers that are

trying to do stay ahead when it comes to the cutting edge of the serious royal dash areas. >> speaking to the marine corps in terms of weapons in surveillance any number of things the dangers that opposes is the will launch theobald touche -- search because we would not have done in the trading ready to go. we will have them forward. looking further out

maintaining them money for research and development was for science and technology. so many of those scientific advances to security any access that we could be pushed further out. the weapons that we need the numbers that we need to do that with the new technology to meet the threads that we're facing now in the not too distant future that the research goes down as much as we try to protect it.

so she used that language we will get their leaders and richet in war the marine corps feels the same way but the reason reverse appear on the battlefield for those that picks up the rifle to go into a dangerous situation but it is what we need to do everything we can to insure the weapon we provide, the platforms have a superiority edge the r&d

that is so critical and have been kept because we feel this is the core of tomorrow's technology but we need to ensure over share years but to develop some mismanaged and shouldn't platforms the army will not have a major mine and he -- modernization program to the next decade and sequestration makes that workers. >> we wrote the blueprint. we have other countries have seen it now they pursues the same.

so why would talk to the european defense wrote -- we cannot keep him from passing a and. >> thank you. >> mr. rogers said timothy keefe for your service to do hour but i want to ask you

does anybody know? i have 190 workers right now. they could talk about specific events because i have specific examples. we here regularly about the capabilities but colleagues don't understand and you understand how difficult it is to convey to the tax policy or medicare or telecommunications what we are concerned about. meet count on you to help us

communicate that message. i am researcher redundancy for the members to understand the leadership think his is working a pretty well because they're not squealing or the sky is falling. party think it has been difficult for you to convey a specific examples of how this is. >> is important because we can to talking in code. >> give speeches and talk to

the think tank and engaged in a way that gets the word out to for the reality of the changes we're facing but obviously we have to do a lot more. the last point is i have said before that we are victims' several success. we came to the congress before sequestration to predict the fax. en there after they read unseen were felt because it is against the odds it to manage the unmanageable putting of the necessary programs but those cuts and delays to do with next year have gone out and with the return to sequestration already added to those cuts is the back breaker.

>> i think we are mortgaging the future to barely meet the needs of today. we're doing everything we can't just to meet the commitments that are not even overwhelming the basic u.s. we have presence but those are not big operations but just the day-to-day commitments and we're struggling to meet those and mortgaging our more -- modernization and readiness to meet the commitments we have now. is something bigger happens we will not be able to respond in the way people are used to was responding. >> what i've after is to give specific examples that is a very good example but sometimes parochial or the

strength to reduce or installations to close to understand because it is difficult. generally we have 45 seconds attention before they think about something different is the challenge. quickly before my time runs out. >> we do have a list of specific things to include in addition to the president's budget we have to retire the global talks talks, said the combat air patrols, the k.c. tan fleet is gone. all of these would go way plus touch every part of the air force 2 come up with the differential and money and would be enormous. we would be willing to go anywhere review the help us set something up to give these briefings perhaps we know as well but i hope and pray it doesn't take a catastrophe in this country

to wake up. >> so do we all. >> i will begin by thinking each of you for your service and those who served under you for service to our country. beginning with general with the ground forces against isis are the iraqi national army and the iranian sponsored shiite militias to the degree that they says the moderate opposition forces which we are helping to train and equip. will that meet the objective

to destroy isis? >> i would say depend how well they do things things, incredibly well. we're not playing but they will. i am unsure who they are or i have concerns sufficing we have paul said the movement but i think we have to wait and see how well as those forces that we don't know yet. >> has any other country anywhere in the world especially in the middle east pledged ground forces? >> there are special operations forces from other countries that are

participating to support and trained the iraqi security forces as we begin to trade those moderates. >> with that for the future does your assessment still stand too soon to tell? >> that is correct. >> i assume if we're going to achieve the objective of feeding and destroying basis is very possible to need additional ground forces that we will have to make the decision about funding to support our ground forces in that country. and my question for you is does the budget you propose have sufficient resources to ensure that we are training

and we can support them through the following budget year to make sure we don't unnecessarily put them in harm's way with the lack of training or readiness for equipment. >> the president's budget allows us to sustainer maybe increase a little bit. with the sustained conflict we would need more dollars for the proper readiness to deploy the soldiers into harm's way we do not have that in this budget. >> i fully agree. of course, there is always an option to ask us to stop doing the things we're doing right now getting permissions i cannot imagine what that would be a bit

short of a very dramatic decision point we could not be thought -- meet that. >> talk about even more difficult choices talking about the budget caps and sequester it should be diplomatic choices and choices the allies make. in response to russian aggression we put additional forces but if you look at the defense budget compared to what we spend it is inefficient. what more do we need to do to get their taxpayers to support these wishes consider more in their interest and ours?

>> a big challenge to a moving target that the secretaries going back to secretary gates have tried to press upon. only four out of the 28 nations currently meet the 2 percent requirement and i added dystonia as one of them. when it comes to russia and iraq driving out you crave we would like to work closely with european allies >> thanks for being here today. i am encouraged when a question and rises to the top-level that we're gaining tractions while will follow-up about the audit. i share this the other day

with the submarine and impromptu town hall meeting one of the kids asked how is that audit thing coming? i don't know that was a plant. [laughter] or is it just sucking up the. [laughter] but for each of you to respond is the president's budget help the continued efforts to reach the goal of the audit? >> so within the president's budget should carry us forward to meet the milestones. >> the president's budget is sufficient to meet those milestones but i was like to

circle back around there are things we don't control that worry me if we will meet the audit. not in terms of funding but assurance. >> yes for the air force with the definite caveat. >> to lead the way of auditing with the marine corps now it is the better of their experience so i think you're making reference to other agencies that are not audited die get the sense that there rivals your own?

>> this sense is we're sharing our concerns in a robust way particularly with the account services that is the one that concerns us to have those internal controls with the numbers that they give us. >> likewise the leaders of the department of defense they are aware of the comptroller so i think everybody is working collaborative flee to get there from here. >> i believe this is the fastest largest customer for

the department told authorities the part of that problem quite frankly like the rest of us the customer base is coming down to write fewer checks in the business flow will decrease in you can understand that reality with that trend line but i have not seen a commensurate to accommodate that seems to be an inescapable reality but asthma colleagues headset it will affect the ability to receive a clean audit with the relationship amongst all of us. . . 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 happene