typical message. i would associate myself in the state department's view is five years ago when they represented we are concerned that some of the atrocities he be used as a justification for blocking the access for the purpose of preventing the political social or cultural information from being disseminated to the citizens and this is a bipartisan issue which the u.s. has starkly stood together and i hope notwithstanding the order that would continue in the future. ..

for over 30 years long before there was any such thing as the internet as we know it today and i submit the reason we have these things is we have been unwritten -- unregulated by the federal government information services that have allowed the innovators

to blossom. so i agree. chairman wheeler this committee has requested a number of documents that have been denied under the claim of deliberative process privilege. for the deliberative process privilege to apply an agency must show a communication was, a communication was, a direct part of the deliberative process and that it makes expression on legal or policy matters, and matters, and on proceedings like the open internet proceedings ex parte filings are required to disclose committee cases between the fcc and executive branch for its staff, if those discussions are, i quote, over substantial significance and clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision. now, i am trying to figure out how these two different concepts apply here.

and withholding certain communications between the white house and the fcc you have asserted the deliberative process privilege. if those communications were relevant to the communications several questions emerge. subject to the commissions export tables. the context of those meetings immortalized in any docket at the commission. how could this conversation with with the white house and both a direct a direct part of the deliberative process but not have been over substantial significance in that proceeding? those are questions rolling around in my mind. i we will get to a question. you have indicated in your written testimony that you received no secret instructions from the white house but of course,

secret instructions is not the standard for determining when ex parte days are available. in the ten in the ten meetings you had with the white house -- here is my question : in the ten meetings you had with the white house in advance of the fcc action on the open internet, is it your opinion that that was the only meeting that addressed the merits of the commissions open internet proceeding that occurred last november? >> yes, sir. >> did you say yes? >> yes. >> _-dash the ten meetings just to be clear they were not meetings necessarily on open internet. we had trade trade issues, national security issues, auction issues. >> but in the ten meetings that came in advance of the fcc action on the open internet you are saying that there was no information or discussions of substantial significance and clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision

which would require the disclosure of that information? is he your opinion that -- >> there are two parts. >> that is a yes or no answer. >> you have correctly identified -- >> is it a yes or no? do they qualify under ex parte? i am asking you a question. [inaudible conversations] my time. how do they, how do they qualify under both? if they are discussions with the white house, house, my goodness, that is the highest office in the land. i find i find that the american taxpayer does not see that as significant and substantial. how substantial. how can they not be significant and substantial clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision and you deny them under a deliberative process claim? >> are multiple parts to it. you ask how.

one, there were not instructions given on the record. 2nd is -- >> that is not a determination. >> the determination is that specifically interactions with congress and the white house are excluded from ex parte and have been since 1991. beyond that that is a non- ex parte conversation if there was a conversation that was taking place in that kind of construct and -- >> under what basis? under what basis? you cannot just make that up. the law says what is to be revealed and what is not to be. the deliberative the deliberative process applies when you can show a direct part or express opinion on legal policy matters rather

than substantial significance clearly intended to affect the ultimate outcome decision. i am disagreeing with you, mr. chairman, and i think it is irresponsible that you are withholding information that rightfully should be openly disclosed to this committee and the american people. and mr. chairman, i have exhausted my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. my questions for commissioners of o'reilly and tie one follow-up. there were ten meetings and we understand there was on the ex parte side disclosure on one of the ten. it is my understanding and the other nine meetings there was nothing significant discussed regarding the fcc. was it true there was

nothing disclose and nine of the ten meetings? >> the test -- >> i am i am not asking for the test. >> sir, i am asking the questions. was there anything was there anything disclosed on the other nine meetings, yes or no? >> no, i had no instructions >> i am just befuddled that in nine of the ten meetings in the white house there was nothing of any consequence discussed relative to the fcc that would require disclosure. i take you at your word and say i am fuddled by that. one thing we were clear about today is the importance of certainty. chairman wheeler more than anyone stressed the importance to the providers in the internet space of certainty certainty, certainty. i cannot agree more. certainty drives investment and returns, and with certainty you invest in innovation. it is obvious today the way things have worked have been

pretty good. the investments have been in the billions. we lead the world today. we have heard unanimous agreement by the commissioners. litigation is coming and likely to take three years guaranteed, guarantee litigation for three years. that years. that is not the definition of uncertainty i don't know what is. for the next three years the folks looking to invest and animate in this world have to live under the ultimate uncertainty of which court will rule how. to to me there is an issue genuine issue of inconsistency with the chairman stressing the importance of certainty. i would like to say again

lack of certainty is a wet blanket on investment. a wet blanket on innovation. my worry is less innovation and less investment we will someday wake up and not be the leaders in the world relative to what we think and know is probably one of the most important aspects. could could you briefly comment on that and perhaps take a minute? >> thank you for the question, congressman. uncertainty is the bay not only of the private sector but the private sector risk. 1st with respect to the so-called internet conduct standard under which the fcc will determine what is allowed and what is not allowed, we don't know where things go next. they will sit there as a referee. the frontier foundation targeted this particular rule and said the problem

with the rule this vague is they can know in advance. second example bureau advisory opinion process. no one knows how it will work. when you pair the enforcement of the advisory process and internet conduct standard the entrepreneurial spirit will be funneled through regulatory bottleneck and no one we will know what is and is not allowed. >> i could not agree more that the only thing certain is uncertainty. commissioner. >> i cannot agree with my colleague anymore. a couple months ago we need 800 the most rural parts of

america under unlicensed bands. what does this what does this mean for me? more paperwork, compliance. they were frustrated. >> i share your concerns and think america will, too. my time is up. small internet providers in my district. a meeting with some of them as well. on his way here so we will try to accommodate the question. >> mr. chairman, i have to leave. i have to catch a flight. if i leave can you keep the hearing open? >> we can seek counsel on that but obviously we

should try to accommodate the 3rd ranking member. >> but we started at 11:00 o'clock. he has had some time to get here. i am a patient person, but i do not want to miss my flight. >> what time is your flight? >> i have to go out to dollars it does not leave from the. [inaudible] unfortunately. [laughter] >> a while he comes in the door here we're not going to let him get settled. as he is 1st of all if i could ask all the witnesses some follow-up questions. we would like to help out responses to the questions the extent to which you can respond probably will be helpful message police.

>> i appreciate the commissioners being here testifying about their commission net neutrality proposal. i have strong concerns about i guess when you get back to the basic question of what has worked so well with the internet somebody who graduated in computer science i have always felt

the federal government had not figured out a way to regulate. yet here you come with an answer to a a problem that does not exist. heavy-handed role of government. the traditional role has not been the heavy hand. when you look at the proposal 300 pages of regulation. this is the 1st round before it was put into effect. i'm sure they look to the over 300 pages of regulations. why is the federal government here to fix something that has been working incredibly well. what they have done to harm our economy. the potential taxes and fees that can come with this process.

to get involved, for the involved, for the fcc to get involved in regulating costs for the internet. if if you could share what kind of impact this would have on these being implemented the higher price the consumer will ultimately play -- ultimately pay. >> thank you for the question. to give you an example now that broadband has been reclassified that order explicitly opens the door to billions of taxes and fees being assessed. in addition to the line item on your phone bill which only applies to your voip now it will apply to broadband. secondly, there are all sorts of other fees that will be assessed.

currently a lot currently a lot of broadband providers that had not been classified as telecommunications providers paid a lower rate. now they will have to pay a much higher rate. the taxes these companies will have to pay all of these costs have to come from somewhere, and will be -- and it will be the consumer. >> time and time again these kind of regulations and these new fees and taxes that will be paid will ultimately be paid by consumers this is private investment to the tune of billions of dollars. i we will review this quote.

there is nothing worse. all things that flow from investment. comment on that? >> as i pointed out many time the bane of the private sector and consumer. it is exactly raise the capital, build the infrastructure that will connect americans with digital opportunities. i believe as you.out eloquently the reason why we enjoy the best is because we had the historic and bipartisan commitment. you commented on this order edge providers. of course many have been proponents of these net

neutrality regulations. you have raised concerns about how they would be native we impact. the lines between a net provider and telecommunications provider are blurring overtime. maybe a net provider today something else tomorrow. more importantly, i believe and -- and i believe we will have a debate on the structure to deal with interconnection. >> essay i am out of time.

we can go five or six more rounds. >> i want to thank her witnesses. thank you for testifying. again, if you could probably respond to questions, that would be appreciated. we look forward to your return distant in the not to have your return visit in the not-too-distant future. with that, the committee stands adjourned. >> the supreme court heard oral argument. the court is considering if the state can veto messages on specialty license plates.

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. today the full community will examine the budgets to have the president's budget

request for the armed services of the united states. i am proud to welcome secretaries and service chiefs. on behalf of the committee and the people we represent i want to thank each of you for your service to the nation. since january this committee has focused on understanding the strategic environment and challenges facing the united states. i believe in order to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution to raise and support, provide and maintain military forces that meet the president's needs it is important for us to spend time understanding the specific challenges staring us in the face today as well as the longer-term trends and where they are taking us. over the last two months the committee has had a variety of closed and open, classified and unclassified sessions were government and nongovernment witnesses, as well as foreign leaders.

state -based security challenges, threats in various geographic regions the status of conflicts and technological superiority and the pace of change. we foresee the recommendations heard from outside experts on the budget and have studied ways to improve the department's acquisition of goods and services. all of that work i think puts us in a better position to consider the administration's proposed budgets. i am sure am sure administrators will have questions on proposed budgets. i strongly believe that job of the congress under the constitution and of this committee is to exercise

independent judgment on how best to meet the nation's security needs, giving a great deal of weight to the judgment of military leaders but not being a rubberstamp. history has proven the wisdom of having a separate branch make independent decisions. whatever the details i also believe we need to look at the total resources devoted to the fence which is now about 15 percent of the federal budget and must consider the consequences if congress approves significantly less defense spending and the president has asked for. i would say to our distinguished witnesses that this is the time to speak plainly. you know 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 and the difficult choices ahead of us even

under the president's budget request. finally, as i have thanked each of our witnesses i want to express appreciation for all members of the community on both sides of the aisle for all of your work. on both work. on both sides members have worked hard, asked probing questions trying to find the best dancers for the security of the country and i am proud 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 here this week. ably sitting in his chair is the distinguished lady from california ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman thank you for acknowledging that this has been a tough year already and we have some very severe budget constraints with

respect to our resources here and how we allocate them for our military. you are right, it is in the purview of the congress to make decisions about where we place money. this committee has a difficult task ahead of it. i want to also thank our witnesses today. service chiefs and our secretaries in one room. thank you. today is i hope a hearing for constructive discussion about how to move forward, but i wish to acknowledge that it is nice to see where it on the panel so thank you for that. we're thrilled to have you. sequestration, i think it has become such a distraction for the

congress. i believe we have to look at smarter and more efficient ways that we can adapt and save. we do not have the capacity as a country to hand anyone, even our military a blank check. i hope that apartment along with the congress works together to invest in resources that will give us the best value for money. we have to invest in r&d make sure we do not have a hollow force and ensure that we can be an effective piece of what it takes to protect america and americans. i hope today's hearing will not only focus on the threat of sequestration but will have discussion about our economic state where we can invest and where we must

save. again i think all of you for being before us and look forward to a good discussion and i am glad so many members have shown to this hearing and request unanimous consent to place mr. smith's opening comments into the record, record mr. chairman. i yield back. >> without objection, so ordered. let me welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses today we have the secretary of the army chief of staff of the army secretary of the navy admiral greener had a family issue at the last minute, so the vice chief of naval operations is standing in. commandant of the marine corps secretary of the air force, and chief of staff of

the air force. thank you for being here. without objection your full written statement will be made a part of the record. the only other comment, when we get to questions with this many members and witnesses i we will have to be careful about the clock. if you want to spend three minutes asking your question, you will get a very abbreviated answer. i appreciate i appreciate the witnesses as well as members respecting the gavel as we try to get as many members as possible the opportunity to ask questions. the floor is yours. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. good to be with all of you. please pass our best wishes on to mr. smith and his be recovery and to all of you distinguished members of the committee, i would say how much we appreciate the opportunity to be here today

and to talk frankly about the danger that lies ahead should this not be enacted and sequestration return. .. >>

>> unless the congress acts now for that ill-conceived budget cuts. moreover want to be very clear every installation and component in every program has them under sequestration by 2019 we will be at unconscionable levels with potentially division headquarters not to mention the impact associated with contract facilities and civilian personnel. let me share with you some of the accomplishments of america's army this past year. as forces molded to cry bien

they've rapidly deployed a demonstration of u.s. commitment from lithuania to poland with the first cavalry to show the world and that is west africa led by the 101st airborne to provide aid command-and-control and in response to rapid gains they church to iraq for the security forces to turn the tide in the pacific thousands of soldiers civilians operated - - strength in the operations for the for substantial

presence. to date the headquarters and to guard divisions in this 143,000 are committed including over 90,000 reservists. moreover we have done all this while transforming with far more lethal. and then leading his/her platoon sergeants trading and three soldiers. with countless hours och to support the the family we get hold is human. with the unpredictable requirements does not change with discriminatory cuts.

from programs to improve behavioral health protecting for retaliation the rest assured the return of sequestration and will impact the installation and programs argue why. with a $126.5 billion request as part of the sequester level is specifically designed to have ready this over the last year. to insure the funding needed to support readiness to put the army on a predictable path. with aviation restructuring initiative to stay in the

readiness of our forces i cannot emphasize enough how critical the funds in reforms are to reassure the army has a fist to the trained and soldiers to protect the nation. this is a historic moment we need to stop talking and start acting with wisdom and results and as we face extreme instability around the world you must have certainty at home. and families deserve no less. to have an end to sequestration we must have the budget. thank you for the amazing support to love the uniform

and time -- time and time again. with active guard reserve. an accord to the committee's questions the. >> opening statements are to provided by the service secretary of the. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to discuss the part of the navy with the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the very core of a privileged to represent to those who support them and their families. although he could not be your due to a death in his family i am joined by the vice chief. uniquely said navy record

the first line of defense. to respond faster to remain longer and carry everything we need with us without the anyone else's permission. we always do america's success from the navy and marine corps. to be enshrined in this committee room to raise an army when needed to maintain a navy. with a growing fleet of today sailors and marines have proven american leaders across the spectrum see that violent significance of seapower.

as to boosting the world's economy. while investing in maritime assets for prosperity and security. i would to join secretary because tractions show a strong defense with 84 support for the sailors and the marines and then built on four foundations partners plot might be -- platforms and partnerships. but to exercise independent judgment with the flexibility to change circumstances.

with our civilians with the support they needed to maintain but our people as good as they are cannot do their job without platforms to be where we irritated when we are needed requires us. september 11, 2001 with 316 ships it declined at two of its 78. our focus onto ground war's only partly helps the decline our navy contract for only 27 ships not enough to stop the slide inside the fleet. if first five years we have contracted but by the end of the decade the fleet will once again be above 300 ships.

for the past few years the department of the navy has tried to minimize the impact on the uncertain budgetary environments marked by numerous continuing resolutions. with a sequester level funding and threats of the return of sequestration. in this environment cutting ships is the most damaging and least irreversible course of action but i'm committed to the shipbuilding with the words don't give up the ship. feeling those platforms is of vital operational concern to enable the global presence why it has a long history of innovation by a plant employing to be more efficient were working to bring competition and volatility in fuel prices to increase the ability.

with an advanced global security partnerships cooperation makes us more effective. overall. the fy16 budget balances the current rate to execute the assigned missions of today while rebuilding a highly capable fleet. but it is the minimum that we must have to do that. the climate demands the most rigorous dollar of we spend in we will continue to do just that. but we can no longer do more or even the same with less we would be forced to do less. the navy and marine corps have always answered when called. to make sure we continue to

provide what the american people expect will afford to answering your questions and working together with this committee and congress to maintain our great navy and marine corps. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. in now to a former staff member of this committee we will take credit for you secretary james. [laughter] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to come before all of you to day to come home where i began. also with my colleagues from sister services it is always a pleasure. mr. chairman i am still the rookie among the service secretaries i have been on the beat 15 months of a bite to begin by telling you my take away of the top things i have learned in my 50 months of being secretary of the air force. first which was the shock to

me is that united states air force is the smallest airforce we have never had since our inception as a separate service in the year of 1947 for calligraphy we have been building down the airforce for the better part of two decades into day the smallest we have never been with people. second, our aircraft are the oldest they have ever been with the average age of 27 years but that is average so that means quite a few are older than that. more than half of the combat air forces are not sufficiently ready to day for a high end fight leading a fight with the capacity to shoot back or to interfere through integrated air defense is. more than half of the forces are not sufficiently ready for such a fight.

budgets are tight but we also realize to me and for what we do in the united states air force is that the all-time high all around the world this is certainly the most dangerous and constantly changing world that i could ever remember certainly in the 34 years i have been an observer of the sea the defense. here forces working very hard to beat the most urgent needs but a budgetary trajectory resulting in sequestration is not going to allow us to sustain this pace. i believe sequestration will place american lives at greater risk at home and abroad if we're forced to live with it. in fact, it remains though lot of the land we will not simultaneously be able to

defeat an adversary in one part of the world or deny us second objective as well as defend the homeland and we will not be able to do it. mr. chairman you recently said the problem with sequestration is if we have the capability to do with the nation needs the and time demands. it is also about the increased danger that comes to our people and i could not agree more per your absolutely correct and under sequestration the air force cannot guarantee to meet the nation demands and the people are more danger. this is not acceptable. something has to give and we thank you and other members because we're pushing hard to get sequestration lifted permanently. please keep it up.

we're asking for of budget figure in fy16 which is closer to what we need in the united states airforce. for us the additional moneys equate at 10 million more in fy16 van was sequestration muffled funding would provide. this $10 billion more would provide the forces may need to do the most pressing requirements and also to invest more appropriately in our top priorities which are number one, taking care of people. there is a lot in this budget related to people but of when to call your attention to is the number one priority is we have got to stop the downsizing. we're the smallest we have never been in the think we have even gone too far. how that is why i propose is an uptick for the reserve relevance and if we are

allowed to do so this will alleviate operational strains we're feeling in the number of various with our nuclear enterprise the world of cybera and weakness far off across combat air forces. number two, getting the right balance to build a modern air force of tomorrow. so a general welch and i consulted not only with the folks at this table but with combat commanders and as a result of our budget will ramp up support to the most urgent needs identified to us to equate to i sr. isr. isr. so we are extending the

lives in the budget may need to support to strengthen the nuclear enterprises with the maximum executable level to invest insisted mitt and insurer combat exercises all that is the readiness of today but we have to modernize for tomorrow. when it comes to modernization rehab decent funding i want to share. nuclear enterprises the number one mission since every directive resources to that element we also have the top three programs that are on track the tanker the f35 and the long-range strike bovver also making important investments for science and technology budget as well as other areas. the third priority is what

we called make every dollar counts. we get it it is precious and we cannot afford to waste any of its severe constantly looking for e efficiencies to do things differently to give back to people the precious time. we tucket aggressive 20% reduction in headquarters funding which include civilians and contractors to redirect military personnel. we didn't have to but we did to free at their resources more quickly not only that we have the service contract work force and we will continue with a contractor work force over the next several years. we're also striving to do is

to choose service by deficiencies with the bed to the cost curve to keep weapons on track to build the for the ability to drive to maximize energy savings. this is in line with your acquisition reform and wants you to know we're on it. there is plenty of tough choices as well. we had hard choices to make because we cannot do everything. we're proposing once again to retire the 810 feet gradually over time to slow the growth of military compensation rigo these are not popular decisions or choices but if you don't like these choices hold on because under sequestration it gets uglier and uglier.

under sequestration our air force would not only have to retire the a than as well as slow the growth but edition beer facing the following actions. divest the global clock 40 and the fleets to reduce combat air patrol and our predators' up that 10 her kobe would differ 40 and s35 to drive that you did costs and cancel be adapted into a program and not across the board equal percentage but in some fashion reduce investments bin space and cybera nuclear and readiness a and people. i think everything is threatened under sequestration mr. chairman and i feel american lives are at risk so please continue your leadership to

get sequestration lifted permanently. was all look forward to your questions. >> el ask the staff to put me on the clock because i have one question in general dempsey said budget request was the of low were ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. if you were talking into my constituents or their colleagues you don't deal with this effort -- area every day and have one minute to describe the consequences to the country to not approve the amount the administration has asked for how would you do that? in one minute plain language? >> i would say unpreparedness and inability

to react to the unknown and contingencies and stress with the increase significantly. >> strategic deterrence is our number one priority but the impact would be tremendous on ships and submarines to the ability to train people and the ability to deploy wary we need to be. all that would shrink our ability to respond it would be greatly diminished it would be devastating setback i think w.c. anecdote with the rate to respond to

crisis at a moment's notice and there are two models the one we have seen over the past year were the marines immediately responded to evacuation and operations is today and we have not heard much for about one day then moved on. a few years ago when every is ready to respond and benghazi and we have heard about that for years. that is the difference between funding the budget and not being engaged there to models of crisis response thank you. >> i agree with what the commandant said and i believe the fundamental issue is the american people cannot expect the military to do what we have done in the past if we stay at these funding levels. >> was thinking of comments made by our member earlier today that basically lives

are at greater risk and more lives are lost because that is the bottom line to what we ask you and those who served under you to do. >> i actually have two questions the first is for general a year ago. please feel free to into the best that you can't. i have all letter here from the admiral and the general from secretary hagel saying your concerns how we're investing in missile defense and a growing challenges you see in terms of capacity to invest at the current rate with the fiscal of fire between are in. so that present acquisition base strategy is sustainable in the current environment for the deployment of assets to meet the contingency to millions.

now with the opportunity to develop the approach with regional defense priorities that is a more sustainable and cost-effective with other non kinetic means of defense. that is your letter general so how we can get the best value for the taxpayers i've always argued it is all they want approach and as has indicated can-do expand? to make the basis is we cannot to save the rate of the planet at that missile defense capability. we're overstressing the force and we're not meeting the requirements so in our mind we have to come up with a new concept to use the integrated defense capability that allows us to deal with the growing

threat. the threat is growing. we want to study to come up with new capabilities that our able for us to provide proper defense for this nation is using a variety of capabilities. sova include defense assets but other capabilities like cider that has to be integrated that enables us to deal with the problems. we're on the path we cannot sustain and the threat is growing to come up with a more cost-effective means and that was the basis of the letter. >> can we wait to go through the funding process george you prefer we get up of that as soon as possible? >> as soon as possible. >> the second question is with fully integrated and winded into the military.

this has been a big deal from my standpoint for a long time there is 50 percent of the military comprised those the had dedicated their lives and have died of a frontlines. it is women's history month but by september of this year all gender neutral occupation standards are to be set in all positions should be open to a list of policy is requested are all services contract to meet those deadlines and if not like? from when i can see betty will not be opened by 21st bond dash trading refers deadline so were you doing to ensure compliance with the original directive and why are women in opus specialties like logistics' in intelligence in communication still barred from serving in the region

corer battalion in any capacity even though of male public affairs officer assigned to the infantry unit requires no trading beyond what all officers received at the basic school and women are not allowed in any capacity in the infantry battalions so please address where we are and what we teetoo do -- need to do. >> we are on track. to make the recommendation to the secretary this year we're continuing to finish the testing. . .

>> for the first time females are going to participate. >> if you could all just in fairness to her, i did not alert her. but if the other services have a brief answer i'm sure that we can expand. >> the marine corps is actually on track to meet the deadlines in the navy. we have opened every single occupation to women, including submarines. the only one that remains closed today are the pullers for the

fields in the support and things like intel and communications. and i will give an update on where the marines are, one thing i would ask this committee is that we do not have enough women in our service and one of the reasons that we are having problems is that we do not have enough flexibility with how we manage our forests. and we have some legislative proposals to address that. >> we thank you. i would just like to go back to the example of public affairs. we are listing this and there's no difference in how we would a sinus to include this support. so today there is no restriction that the commander ken and assigned women in the battlefield where he or she believes it is necessary.

that has been in effect [inaudible] >> the vast majority of our positions in the air force are open, we have some enclosed at present and we are on track to meet the deadlines and i have received an interim update and i feel pretty good about it. as you pointed out we do need to work closely with these special operations command with the world of special operations and we we're trying to work with backward mission now. >> thank you for your endorsement indulgence mr. chairman, i think it's an important issue and i think that the personnel will continue to be on top of this. i do think it's so important. >> they are on top of everything. they are good. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i could go back to the chairman's line of questioning about the impact of the budgets, you stated it about as

articularly as i have heard it stated that i understood you you said that even if we were to get the full amount of the president's budget, that the best that i could do for us would be to put us where the military was a decade ago and it still would not enable us to begin to reconstitute to where we need to be to fight tomorrow's warriors and that we do not get the amount of the budget, we could not even reset to where we were a decade ago. fighting war is a decade ago. is that an accurate statement? >> congressman, is in many areas. i say that because we have learned that today we must operate in an important manner. that has implications for our

equipment strategy as a whole. and currently even of the president's budget we are not making the kind of changes to facilitate an optimized this in a matter that is necessary as well as the current and future fights. if you would just look at the examples of our special task force. this is spread across six different countries knutsen organization spread across different countries. when i was lieutenant i was defending a 3000-meter frontage an attack on a 6000-meter frontage. you can get an idea of how time and space has changed over time the implications for both organizations and i don't think we're making the kind of changes to facilitate that as quickly as necessary. fundamentally we really are building capabilities that are more applicable as a result of budgetary constraints. >> admiral, i will ask you to comment. but i will say two days after the general made that statement, he quoted that statement and said that he did agree with that

as well. i ask you the same question. i think that your comment is that you agree as well and i just want to talk to you about your thoughts on that. >> we don't even get reset for five more years. so it takes us a reset as we move to the future. we have some significant issues. >> i haven't had an opportunity to ask that you that question, but what would you feel about this date in that the general would make? >> a problem that we have is that if we do not invest in readiness today, we risk losing the fight today. we risk losing this fight 10 to 20 years from now and that is the bonds that we are trying to have. it can take us 10 years to recover. we have not been investing over the last 10 to 15 years and we have space launch capabilities and simulation and testing

infrastructure, those types of things that we are familiar with those must be consistent or we will fail. that is what we are lacking right now. >> secretary you gave a good idea of where we are. even if we pass the budget it would not become law unless the legislation is doing away with sequestration. are you aware of any proposal that the president has sent over here that would do away with national defense? and if not, if we were to pass this piece of legislation for national defense, do you have any indication that the white house would sign that legislation? >> mr. chairman, i want to go back and doublecheck what i am about to say here is that the overall plan that the president set forth would involve the

lifting of sequestration not only for defense but for the whole of government. my belief is that the president's plan did include the lifting of sequestration for all of us. >> i would ask for all of us come if you could give us any indication that the president would be willing to sign this legislation that would do away with the sequestration related to national defense because we cannot defend against an adversary in one part of the world and hold another one a day and defend the homeland unless we do that and i would hope that the president would not hold that hostage with this. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and also for your service. secretary you mentioned briefly and you don't have to respond right now, but there are some authorities say you need to do

to do a better job hiring women and if you could look forward to this so that we could work on that. i wanted to ask you. we know that sequestration will would increase readiness and place the personnel at risk, i wonder if you could speak more directly to the fact that it's a percent our first enlistments and as we move forward with the environment that we have, the changes, the future benefits, what are we doing to ensure that quality and high standards of the marine corps exists. can that be affected by the way that we move forward today? >> we thank you. today, 60% as you pointed out is in terms of quality and we are

absolutely recruiting and retaining high-quality marine survey and i'm confident in that. but something that was spoken about is that i also believe that the demographics will need to change to account for the increasingly complex security environment and today we might have a 60% first-term force, but i don't believe it should be that in the future and we are in the process of increasing the numbers of staff sergeants and those in the enlisted ranks reducing the numbers of private and those in the bottom three in this. this is again technological developments with the cybercapabilities as well as the responsibilities frankly that are probably more in line with what a lieutenant was doing 15 or 20 years ago now on the shoulders and i think that that requires some changes again and the demographics of the marine corps. >> the skill sets are important in terms of how you do that and i think that part of my question being raised with the last two

questions is it is maybe not in your area of responsibility to look at non-defense impacts of sequestration heard that when we talk about the young people that we are recruiting today the domestic budget has an impact on that as well and i know that in the past the admiral specifically comes to mind that others have really spoken to the needs of whether it's education, fitness, health, all of those areas. so you feel comfortable saying that it does in fact matter what we do in terms of sequestration in the nondefense budget as well. >> i will give you a very specific example of how we have a tremendous impact. 75% of young americans ages 18 to 24 years old do not qualify

to join the american military and they lack the educational requirements, they may have a health problem, usually obesity, or they have a criminal record. and so if you would like to help us continue to recruit the very best that we believe that we are recruiting today we are drawing from a small pool of americans and you have to pay attention to education and health and pay attention to the domestic side. >> i would be happy to ms. davis. obviously all of the services are laboring under the same woman for constraints we made mention. i can tell you in talking to new recruits and also those that serve some time that they are

very mindful of the sequestration and they are very aware of the cuts that we have already had to take and a lot of training opportunities that they had to endure in other programs as well. while they may stick with us, it becomes more and more challenging for them to do that and they would like to secure a future for their families and they're very worried about how this may turn out. as for recruiting recruits and their influences particularly parents are mindful of the discussion and are questioning whether or not they want to send their child into a military service where there is always a great danger involved coupled with the fact that there is a totally uncertain fiscal future. we are dealing with us at the moment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for being here

today, i would like to go a little bit further out than the budget we are discussing today to talk about the audit and one of the things that absolutely shocked me when we talked about that a few years ago we were told it would take years to get the agency into a posture that we could audit. we have a couple of deadlines that are approaching and i think 2017 is the first one to get ready and then 2019 when the results have to be given to congress. talking about risk allocation there are two quick questions one is i understand that the leadership is supporting the audit but i am concerned about to making this happen and i would like to know your feeling that i am talking about on a

senior-level and then any tweaks that you have done since the november report that congress has received on the financial improvement and audit readiness plan. >> i can start mr. miller. as for the larger question of achieving the milestone that you described, i feel that we are on track. we have gone through a series of outside examinations that have proven very positive with qualified signings and a number of areas we have weaknesses and need to do better and i think that we have what we are challenged with is helping people operate under the new pair dime and we need to

reemphasize training and we need to measure that to this point and we think that we are on the right path. but this is an incredibly complex. the we are feeling that we are moving forward as he wants to. >> the vice chief of staff committee under secretary of the army quarterly is doing this with those specifically on this issue, so they all understand the importance of a play in moving forward with this. that is really helping us to move this along. >> is a former state auditor, as you know the fiscal year 2012

they almost finished the audit and they have their first audit under contract and moving forward. we understand the importance of it and moving forward. the concern that i have frankly is that there is at least one area that we do not control that could have an impact on whether or not we get the audit. and we pay them $300 million to write those checks nine out of 10 internal controls and the numbers that we and i am

concerned about that outside our control. >> first of all i want to agree with my colleagues on that last point about that. i would like to say that as i mention that and i would personally devote time to this as well. doing monthly meetings to keep this going. we are under way with the schedule of budgetary activity and we have a new accounting environment that we have that is not going well what it's doing much better now and that is going to help us get there from here. so i am cautiously optimistic with several of these codes we are on track to meet the goal of september 2017 to reach its full financial statement audit.

>> i think the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today and for enjoying the service to the nation today. i would like to start with you. i want to thank you as you were recently in rhode island along with your daughter and your family in the workforce men and women and i would like to thank you for your presence there and i think you for that. as we see significant budget challenges, secretary, can you tell us how is your ability to

keep those programs on track at the president's budget level or do we have to drop back with how this goes into effect to keep those programs especially given the challenges that we face if we don't keep those on track [inaudible] >> thank you congressman. this is a model program, as you know where we have this for the price of nine in the allowance of allowing us to do that. because of the lack of funds it is possible with sequestration meaning that you would pay more

money which is a bizarre outcome. the first one is scheduled to go in in 2019 and we are looking to see if we can loosen that i've because of the need that we have for the strike capability that will go away in 2020. finally the ohio class replacement program, the first will have to begin in 2021. this is the most survivable one and we cannot extend the life of this class in a longer and this is a program bears the entire burden of it would take more

than a half budget and we have serious implications to the submarine fleet and all the rest of the fleet and to the entire navy. so i appreciate congress setting up the fund for the ohio class replacement and i think this debate has to continue as to how we fund that's because it is a national program and needs national support for it. when there is a first time that we did this and in the ohio class both times with significant amounts that were added to navy shipbuilding to allow us to be met. >> i would like to point out this statement that that was the

mention of the navy to perform far from home in addition to this ratio and a reduced budget negatively affecting the current ratios in way that could threaten the morale and efficiency of the marine corps. >> it is a little bit less than one to two for deployment. and we have more than 30,000 brains around the world and wanted to is to use this as to how much you can ask someone to deploy without this. they are getting less predictable than we are trying to get into the optimized fleet response which will make

maintenance more predictable and will make training more predictable with sequestration. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank each of you for being here today and i know firsthand the commitment and how military families service members and veterans truly appreciate your service and their families joined service thank you to my wife and i give her all the credit and we have three sons in an army national guard, it we have a nephew in the air force and my late mother-in-law and father-in-law were proud marines. i know how military families bring so much trust in you. i want to point this out today, someone that we all respect and i believe it is the universal bipartisan doctor henry

kissinger said that the united states has not faced this is the end of the second world war and i appreciate the reduction of the capability putting the american people at risk and we want to work with you. additionally though we need to recognize according to bob in his book the price of politics that was the president that came out with this and i'm grateful that the house republicans have voted twice to vote for it defensed sequestration. neither one of our initiatives were taken up by the former senate. but hope springs eternal that this can be addressed. in regard to a question we will always be very grateful and i have had two sons serve and i know again about this insight

and i would like this into what milestones we will be looking at before there is a program. >> i would say that the important thing is twofold. we have to make sure that the afghan security forces continued to improve and they continue to be able to do the institutional things that are necessary for long-term sustainment. and we have to continue to help them with the challenges that we face and we are doing an incredible job doing now. it's important that we stay with them and that we have a condition space capability with the commander over there that allows them to make judgments in order to make sure to have sustained sustainable outcomes that will last a long time.

>> i share the concern of the president and it's very important for the stability of nuclear equipped pakistan. and every step should be made for stability so that they are not safe havens in the united states and this is really come before us to our country. and this is such a key issue to the american people. >> yes it is. it is clearly a critical challenge of the future and a threat not just to the military

but through the homeland at large, like all of the services we are working through cybercommand to ensure that we are coordinating across all of the military departments in a way that provides the most robust cyberteam and in the army and the active component we are in the process of standing up 41 and we are with these we expect to be up and operating and we expect to be we have a wealth of experience that have a lot to do with these systems. we are setting up 11 cyberprotection teams in the

reserve component will have 10. as i said we are working very hard to coordinate that at large. we have instituted a series of benefits and programs and bonuses to try to compete for these highly technical individuals and that includes what we have now announced as we make progress. i think any expert would readily admit that there are challenges that remain a ways to go. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to all of our service secretaries and chiefs. i want to share the dangers of sequestration and the devastating impact that we have on our military readiness. i hope that congress will have

the will to eliminate sequestration entirely. i urge you to continue your efforts. in 2012 the u.s. and japanese governor and agreed to d-link from progress on the replacement facility. and i quote that we have to have this facility and order for us to leave this air station and then back to redeployment as well and properly support the marines that are in the area. >> i'm concerned that we may have given the impression that this is again linked. can you clarify this point? and also quickly can you comment on the progress that implements a distributed lay down on the asia pacific region. >> thank you for giving me the chance to clarify.

i was speaking in response to a question in regards to the implementation of this. so i did not link this to the move and in the budget we have funds for training and we're proceeding at a pace. so that is absolutely on track and we are on path and one of the second order effects of sequestration will have an impact on that and i find it hard to imagine that it would be able to sustain the planet we have right now below the president's budget. >> thank you so much for clarifying that. ..

that it would pursue dry docking availabilities as a follow-on contract inaction. i reluctantly agreed to this strategy but expected the navy to follow through on its commitment to a date that has not occurred. so can you get an update on this situation and when will a request for information be released regarding a dry dock on guam? >> congresswoman, thank you for that question.

obviously, the repair and maintenance in the bottom is a strategic rarity for us and the ability to be deployed particularly with a specific rebalance. in regard to the specific cost i would have to get to you that dollar cost. clearly sending ships back stateside has a responsiveness caused for our forces. we are still looking at the economic feasibility of gaining a dry dock into bob and we owe you an answer shortly on that. >> thank you, admiral. >> thank you congresswoman bordello of guam. >> thank you for your service to our country. general welsh, what are the air

force is lands to address the urgent need for radar upgrades for f-16 block 30 aircraft currently conduct team aerospace control other mission? >> congressmen, we need to develop a use for radar system for f-16s on the homeland defense in particular. i entire fleet active guard reserve, none of them in the raider. the rdp money in the budget for this year hopefully we can move forward with the sufferer. it is about 25,000,002 dollars to do rdp with those f-16s. we prefer to spend $75 million if it can find offending to build a fully integrated use of radar. the cost of one versus the other to procure the airplanes is relatively close. about 2.8 million for the nonintegrated radar in 3.2 million so we think that is

the way to go. we look now at how we can do that as we move forward. part of the problem is the program to develop f-16 upgrades as part of the bca modernization of rear air force when they cut about 50% of modernization. >> do you have any plans to revisit the pro-program? >> we simply don't have the money to fund our fleet. >> i am sure you know the argument with the budget constraints you work under that all of us worked under with the air guard provides in terms of day for the buck is incredibly successful. they are staggering and not to have the air guard units to fully integrate would be a

terrible tragedy and appreciate all you do tunic that happen and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman lobiondo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is a critical week in terms of the budget resolution put together and frankly we are forewarned by you of being here and that is really important. secretary, i want to again acknowledge the fact that your testimony on page 16 points out during your tenure shipbuilding trajectory is on an upward angle contrary to some of the noise that is out there. i also want to make sure to note you do this with every public forum with the wall street journal which is not a chance to read through again points out the fact that compared to 2009

we have actually turned a direction in terms of ship loading, military shipbuilding under your leadership and i will have a benefit for decades to com. the question of the day is sequestration and the budget controlled caps, which is a better way to make sure people understand this. if you could briefly talk about -- if the department is sort of left with the bca caps what does that mean in terms of trying to again grow the size of the fleet. >> thank you congressman. if we go back to bca sequester however you want to phrase it i have said i'm going to protect shipbuilding as much as humanly possible i believe is the phrase i use which nobody outside since it be understood until the last dog dies. if we do that something else is

going to break because the maintenance we are already behind because the sequestration in 2013. it is going to take us until 13 to catch up on our maintenance and ships. it will take us until 2022 catch up on our aircraft. that is at the president's budget level. we are already falling below the sustainment rate that we know we need. our training. the last sequestration we had air wings that need to go down to the hard deck, which means the minimum training. our marine training at home station, the ones next to deploy and the ones next to that all have suffered under the first sequestration and it would be i

think a fair word is devastating in terms of the navy's ability to respond to crisis to surge, to meet in your peer adversary to do the things america has come to expect and should expect from its navy and marine corps. >> thank you mr. courtney. we now turn. secretary michio, secretary james, thank you for the articulation of the threaded sequestration as you are all aware today. the house budget committee will unveil its budget and it will be funding the department of defense that the sequestration number, which i oppose and i appreciate your articulation of what happens. i have had the conversation with most of you that the more we talk in this room about the effects of sequestration the leslie wayne.

we've got to get the message outside of this room. we use words like readiness risk, capability, michigan. general odierno, i will ask for worse beyond readiness, risk capability. he testified her to% of our brigades are ready. when our sustained readiness rate should be closer to 70%. this number is disturbing because it is significant to our military but the effects of it when a brigade combat team were bct which is the building block of the power isn't ready in the army isn't ready to fight, could you describe to us? doesn't this mean more get killed here it is not readiness, but that more people will get injured or killed. is that correct? >> that is absolutely right.

it means he'll take us longer to do our mission. it will cost us lives. it will cost us in injuries and potentialpotential ly cost us in achieving the goals we attempt to achieve as well. >> the translation we need is we can lose, people will die and be injured. >> that is correct, sir. >> general, if we go to the full sequestration for fiscal year 16 and that is beyond what the budget is you are taking the brigades to 70% of readiness. how do you accomplish that? >> we will not. as he mentioned with 33% ready now that will go down the sequestration to somewhere around 25% to 25%. we have to focus resources on a small part of the force to meet everyday requirements we have in the army. the rest of the force will go one trained and if they are

needed and our sons and daughters without the proper training of readiness of their equipment. >> which again means more people will be injured or killed. >> you testified the number of active-duty soldiers in the army has fallen by 80,000 over the past three years and it will fall another 70,000 in full sequestration comes into effect. with 420,000 troops remaining d'argo be substantially smaller that it was on 9/11. we all know it was not a safer place today than it was then. could you please describe how that loss of manpower translates into risk to our troops of injury and people being killed? >> well, it means as the chief said, fewer soldiers to do missions. we continue to run the risk as

we say sending an unprepared soldier into a very dangerous environment. we are doing everything we can to minimize that. at 420000, our judgment is very clearly that we would not be able to meet the defense strategic guidance. that will leave us absolutely no room to respond to the kinds of unforeseen contingencies that we have seen in the past 18 months whether it is russia and the ukraine or whether it is ebola in west africa or isil in syria and iraq. i don't think the american people are posher to accept the united states military that it can't answer the bell work may rise. it comes back to risk meets people dying. risk means greater injuries. risk means people don't come home. >> secretary james, is sequestration funding goes into effect on the what is the most

difficult decision you have to make? >> i worry about the airmen that will needlessly die yet i worry that we will be slower to respond right now. our hallmark is ready to fight tonight. the sequestration could endanger that. ultimately we could lose in trying to reach her object is. our national security strategy requires fabio to do three very important things in simultaneous fashion. we cannot do them under sequestration. that is military advice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sequestration assumes that the nation's dad is out of control and therefore we must cut spending. we cannot increase tax revenues. and if that is true then i am

glad both defense and nondefense spending are included in sequestration. i myself do not accept that process. if i am wrong and if it is true i am glad the defense and nondefense spending are covered by sequestration. that is one point i want to make. the other point is sequestration is the wrong way to cut spending, both in the defense and in the nondefense sectors of our budget. the sequestration is a blunt force instrument cutting across the board regardless 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. that it is also true that there are some sectors that we are doing some excellent cutting-edge necessary spending that does not need to be caught and that is why sequestration needs to go away. it needs to go away for both defense and nondefense. moreover i think we need to calm up off of this attitude that we can never increase taxes because we know that some folks, some corporations don't pay any taxes. we know that the middle-class middle income and working pay taxes. we know that the tax code is riddled with tax loopholes that enable others to should be paid and can afford to pay not to pay. so they are getting a free ride

talking about entitlement talking about an entitlement mentality. we have so many folks that can afford to pay it that are not paying it and i think it is obscene that they would create the conditions under which we are here today, which is a following out of our defense spending providing and protecting and promoting the common defense of this country as something that we must do. we have had a lot of unforeseen incidents are unforeseen development that have occurred and you will have related to them. isil, russian aggression. if each one of you -- well i will ask anyone who wants to respond. describe the key security environment challenges and threats that you are most

concerned about and the ability of your service to address them. what challenges have emerged in the last year from the defense strategy of your services budget request does not adequately address and similarly in what areas have you recommended reduced funding level and for the secretaries at last that question. >> congressman johnson, i guess if i can start as i mentioned just previously we can't pick and choose the things we worry about most. we have to be equally prepared to respond to wherever the national command authority send us wherever the commanders believe there is a need. whether it is isil where we have army forces in iraq or whether it was in west africa with ebola

special operations army special operations forces throughout africa responding to a variety of emerging terrorist threats they are. we have again as i mentioned in my opening comment forces in estonia, lithuania forces in poland, teaming with those nations and they are very important part of a new posture. we have some 20,000 soldiers which review is a long-standing mission on the korean peninsula. certainly with the threat of nuclear weapons they are that is a critical challenge and i could go on and on as i'm sure the other services could as well. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ladies and gentlemen for being here and for your service. i think we picked up the thread here that all of you and the witnesses would like to see

spent more than a sequestration level of the presidents budget or greater and i think all of us know we are trying to find a way here in congress to make sure we get to a number like that. i share your concerns about readiness, general odierno, you are very clear about it. i have some personal concerns about army readiness with my family and we should all be concerned. sometimes we have issues that really aren't about money. i know that the commandant and i had a discussion on the phone the other day and general i am sorry i going to back their to the issue. secretary mchugh, you talk about we send our young men and women into quote ,-com,-com ma a very dangerous environment. some couple of weeks ago we had a dangerous environment in yemen. it was so dangerous that we sent extra marines in there. and that it was so dangerous we evacuated all the americans. close the embassy, back to it at all the americans and in the process even though we had seen

you on standby and not far and not far off shore, somebody made a decision and i want to work to that hero the record. somebody made a decision to have the marines who were there to provide protection in this very dangerous environment turn over their weapons by their individual weapons. it is my opinion and that is an intolerable position for our americans for the marines or soldiers or sailors or airmen to be in a very dangerous situation and depend upon trusting the very people who have put us in that very dangerous situation to not do us any harm while we turn over all the weapons. general dunford. we just need to get for the record you dear what have been. when they got on the civilian aircraft, they were totally an

orange beard is that correct? >> that is correct congressman. >> let me for the record -- who gave the senior vertebrae and the order to do that? >> to senior marine was under the united states central chain of command congressman. >> said the commander centcom gave the order on the ground in yemen to disarm. >> the senior officer on the ground gave that order, congressman. >> okay. the decision, as well as you can relay here for the record i'm in the decision to do that was made whereby whom? >> the ambassador and the commander of centcom approved the plan and my understanding is the way back to washington d.c. at the policy level. >> okay. also for the record it is not classified. they were navy and marine corps assets not far-off sure. is that correct? >> there were, congressman.

>> well, general dunford already knows how i feel about this. that is intolerable. if that can happen to marines come it can it can happen to soldiers, anybody to be in a dangerous place and the order to turn in weapons won a dangerous place. when they are there to be part of the armed forces. the senior leaders at this table would do everything in their power to see that does not happen again. this is an outrageous situation. thank you very much general. wanted to get that on the record. we have the assets. the trained people. we are on the ground in a dangerous place and they were disarmed, put on civilian airplanes and sent home. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to get more clarification

on the type of roe sequestration is playing in terms of us wanting to icann sustainer superiority that we have when it comes to areas like readiness, technology combat here versus other powers that are also trying to stay aside when it comes to the cutting-edge in these areas. or the we have to stay ahead in terms of platforms, in terms of weapons, in terms of weapons, in terms of surveillance in terms of any number of things. the danger that sequestration poses is that we will not be able to surge navy ships because they won't be maintained and we won't have -- we will not have

done the training to get them ready to go. same thing with the marines. we will have navy ships. we will have marines forward. it is the next ago. it is the ability to surge. looking further out to the future, our technological edge is one of the crucial things that we have maintaining the money for research and development for science and technology. bringing those scientific and dances to the war fighter in the field those things are at risk particularly any access area denial that adversaries may try to force us out to push us further and further afield. the weapons we need, the ordinance we need, the numbers we need to do that will be at risk. the new technology to meet some of the threats that we are

facing now and that we are going to be facing in the not-too-distant future, that research goes down. the science and technology goes down. as much as we try to protect it we simply cannot do that. to use the language that other service secretaries and the service i've used, the risk that we take is that we will get there later than we should. more americans will die or be wounded and we take a chance of losing. >> congressman, if i might add, for the army and i'm sure the marine corps feels the very same way the reason we have been so superior on the battlefield is the young man or woman who picks up a rifle and goes into very dangerous situations. but it is because of that young

warrior that we need to do everything we can to ensure the weaponry we provide them, the platforms that support them have a superiority edge over whomever is their competitor at the moment. as secretary neves just very accurately noted, for all the services, certainly for the army, research development the hour and he that is so critical to develop the weapons assistance, protection programs of the future has been cut since 2012 by a third. we are fencing off smt because that is the core of tomorrow's technology. but overall, our ability to look into the future and ensure that over 10 years that generally takes to develop some of these next-generation platforms, we have it available in with the funding model, we will not. the army will not have a major

developmental modernization program until the next decade. sequestration moment make that worse. >> congressman, we wrote the blueprint for how you build the world's greatest air force. we have other countries who have seen it and they are now pursuing the same blueprint. the capability gap is clearly closing. there is no question about that. the trick overtime as budgets are more constrained as to how you manage the gap. i use the nascar analogy a lot when i talked to aaron in. if the car trailing it has been behind a couple laps but it's consistently slowing, eventually they get to a point where although they are behind you do cannot keep them from passing. that is what we worry about in trying to manage the balance. when you hear terms like high risk for significant risk from a military leader, you should translate that is not guaranteed success. that is what it means to s. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. secretary mchugh, good to have you back on the old stomping grounds. again i will stay on sequestration and its impact to our military. the members of this committee understand its implications and how adversely it is affecting our readiness and our ability to meet our challenges the secretary james made reference to in our three object is that the military. in fact i can talk about specific verrocchio examples of its impact on the district is any number of peer can. i've laid off 190 workers right now. i've got part of maxwell air force base. they can talk about specific examples. that is just parochial. we hear from you all regularly about the impact on readiness and capabilities. our colleagues don't understand and you uniquely have been here

and you understand how difficult it is to convey to members focused on tax policy or medicare or a telecommunications wealthy are concerned about. so we really count on y'all. that is a southern term by the way. we count on you to help us communicate the message. i have shared with chairman dempsey that we have this need for members to understand. in fact, some in our leadership think it is working out pretty well for the military because they are not hearing squealing for they are not hearing the sky falling. i'm curious, why do you think it has been difficult for those of you in the leadership in the military to convey specific examples of how this is very detrimental to our ability to take this country? ..

>> >> predicted the effects. because against the odds all services managed of un