>> >> predicted the effects. because against the odds all services managed of unmanageable we have been

moving money and putting off unnecessary programs and delaying modernization but those cuts and delays we will do with next year with the return now of sequestration and added to the cuts already would be a back breaker for the united states army and i would argue the military at large. >> we're doing everything we can. just basic commitments to save normal security. yes we have a presence in afghanistan but those are not big operations. that is dated day commitments. we are mortgage eight our readiness just to meet these

commitments is something bigger happens we will not be able to respond to it awaited people are used to was responding. >> divemaster to get you to help us by giving specific examples. that is a very good example. white the platforms you have to give up wort strength you have to reduce our installations to have to close a week to help them understand. it is difficult we have 30 or 45 seconds before they are thinking about something different and that is a challenge. >> we do have a list of specific things in addition to the of global clock for a. so all of these things would go away plus it would have

to touch a literally every part of the air force 2 come up with the differential and it would be enormous. but then the things that you now or we know and i just hope they and pray it does not take a catastrophe to wake up. >> so do we all. >> mr. chairman. they keep them men and women whose served under you. of light to begin with general teeeighteen to ask the following series of questions. the ground forces arrayed against st. -- isis the kurdish in the arabian

sponsored shiite militiamen to the degree that they assist the syrian opposition forces which we hope to trade in equip will those ground forces be sufficient to have the objective to defeat and destroy a isis? >> i would say depending on how well the kurdish are performing very well the iraqi security force not sure the great concern other than she of militia i am not sure who they are loyal to are what they're trying to accomplish but we are working to trade the moderates syrian opposition. we have halted the movement of isil with the great works

of the very core a unit we have to see how well these ground forces to. we don't know yet. >> has anywhere in the world pledged ground forces to this effort? >> those of our supporting to the iraqi security forces as well as we will trade those sued the moderates. >> as well as those that pledge for the future does your assessment still stay hands too soon to tell? >> correct. >> i assume if we're going to achieve the presence of your objective defeating and destroying isis we will the ground forces and it is possible we will have to make the decision about funding and supporting in

those two countries does the budget you are proposing today have sufficient resources to insure that we are trading our soldiers and recuse support them through the following budget year to the degree that we need to and we don't of unnecessarily put seven harm's way with trading or readiness so our equipment? >> the president's budget allows us to sustain where we are maybe increase a little bit. if we get into is the stage conflict we would need more dollars for proper readiness to repeated the be deployed our soldiers.

>> i would agree and there is always an option to ask us to stop doing the things we're doing right now but i cannot imagine when that would be but short of the dramatic decision point we could not meet that. >> asking a related question about even more difficult choices if we continue with the sequester, that should extend to joyce's allies make it responds the we have deployed additional forces to listen arabia and poland and latvia the at what they

spend as the percentage of the gdp is insufficient what more do we the to do to force countries to get those taxpayers to support these missions that our more in their interest than ours? tueber if that is the big challenges a moving target that the secretary of defense has tried to roux press upon but zero days four of those agents -- the nation's meet those requirements and estonia is one of them but when it comes to russian news of the concerns coming out of ukraine we would all like to work more closely with european allies.

>> i am encouraged it has been my experience as the question arises to the top level we are gaining traction. so with those questions about auditing one quick anecdote we're grabbing an impromptu town hall meeting in the galley of the submarine and one of the kids asked me how is that audit thing coming? i know if it was suppliant? have you just suck it up to the house armed services committee. with each of you to respond to as the president's budget properly find the continued efforts with the goal that

we would to get to? >> reassess that funding available to the army initiative to be sufficient to carry us forward. >> the president's budget is sufficient to meet the milestones but to circle back around the things that we don't control that worry me if we will beat the audit in the not in terms of funding but the assurance of numbers. >> yes the with the same caveat spinach you lead the way from getting ready to audit it is the better asserting experience general

will look forward to your time the receipt you are making a reference to other agencies that they themselves are not audited but the commitment of whoever is in charge of those efforts rivals your own? >> we are sharing a our concerns in the robust way particularly with ideas and accounting service. that is what concerns us that has no controls that we need to have the assurance of the numbers that they give us. >> likewise we have the top leaders of the department of

defense with the comptroller i think everybody is working collaborative lead to get there from here. >> i believe the largest customer the are we has equally extended our concerns to the appropriate authorities. parts of the problem quite frankly is the customer base is coming down to write a few were checks to you decrease the business flow and i know you were under state and the realities of that kind of trend line perhaps more than anyone else but i have not saved a commensurate amount of response with the inescapable reality. i don't want to ascribe the

motivation but it will affect the ability to receive a clean audit given the relationship. >> for all of your responsibilities with the full throated commitment to talk about the american taxpayers to have those financial statements with the approval that is out there with the face of sequestration and budget cuts thank you for your efforts. i will yield back specific comptroller will be here with us tomorrow with another opportunity to raise this issue. it is really important if we break the case to increase defense spending there has to be accountability that goes with it and it carries

big implications. >> the beneficiary of close air support so i am disturbed to hear it is back on the chalky -- chopping block in the era where we seem to be more engaged and the type of combat is it wise to put it on the chopping block? and if it is what is that weapon systems platform that can provide support to infantrymen? >> let me start because he is extremely knowledgeable. the 810 ended up with the greatest of reluctance as a budgetary matter if after

reviewing the alternatives because of this single purpose nature with other aircraft in an but -- inventory that is how we got to where we are today. in terms of the next aircraft that would bridge the gap they would be with us for years to come that will come into play that is on the horizon that will come on line in the next few years. >> to that point to the platforms you just mentioned is death 30 mm gun is that just says capable with support? >> it depends of the scenario.

to have 25m35 just like the f-16. the issues of budget control act to talk to the combatant commanders let we will take the cuts and were they prefer they gave us clear answers. we have done the operation in but i would say the impact on this battle station. it is just the front end. the f-16 has been cancelled nine the a-10 and sonny preferred that ac 130.

the scenarios change that requirement to kasten or 20 or 50 years from now happily we transition to the future capability with expert battlefield with the marine corps or the navy with that weapons systems no question to have 140,000. >> i would love to say the steady from my understanding of the past efforts to replace teeeight nine and 80's and 90's were up -- was a dead and had no

effectiveness that the a-10 did so of you to share those studies especially to put the at ease the with those infantrymen would like to have that assurance simic we would love to come talk about this. >> i yield back my time. >> ladies and gentleman date you so much for your service especially recommended during these challenging times. to follow up on comments made earlier with sequestration the somewhat dash efficiencies within the pentagon. some of the clashes are of the acquisition their procurement process. lucky and how we fix that

too and power decision making the research team as efficient as possible to get to the pentagon. with those current acquisition process is there a need for additional authorities? what can we do to make sure it is as efficient as possible that every penny that goes to the pentagon gets to the right place to make those decisions? >> i will start briefly here is a chart of what we have to do to buy anything. takes forever and is costly but what you could do for us is cut out a lot of this. we are happy to give you details and we have been

doing that that we agree with the current system of require read after requirement after requirement many of which don't add anything to that end value of the weapon it needs to be pulled back dramatically. >> over the to see an increased role of the service chiefs would to a significantly reduced its 1986 i think it is important to have their experience as we go through this with some authority and i would also tell you i agree with the bureaucracy. the number of people back and say no to our system is significant and that increases the time it takes. specifically in the army of legacy the limit raised to those that require specific oversight with over 10 million alibi to see the hour rehab the

responsibility and accountability to venture they are capable and that would enable them to speed up the process. >> pilot give you was an example of the complex bureaucracy with that of artillery system it was reached by the hour be october 2013 but that one milestone required 3,185 pages of documentation and it took 1,742 calendar days just to develop those documents do get through the process. 1800 days to approve that. not all that is bad but it there is overlap has the chairman gore and very and mccain and the other house

and you are focused we could say if a lot of time acquisition means money not giving up the assurances that i believe are important >> i don't have a cool prop. i like that. but i agree with trying to streamline the reporting requirements ideal the tendency when things go wrong to put more oversight and process but the agribusiness perspective the less is better benchrest people and hold them accountable. in terms of the service chief involvement i am not sure how everybody else handles it but my chief and i we do everything together so we're already heavily during program reviews the best we can. >> i don't have anything to

add that i would associate myself with the general tete commons we are responsible for those resources smother the gatt this service chief responsibility for outcome as well. >> besides the simplification also of the etf that with terms of scheduling i think this service chiefs would opportunity to have a voice in the process. >> admiral i the fact agility point is well respected decade time to be agile and respond is essential. >> thanks to each of you for

service to our country. first i will offer my condolences to the families of the seven marines who lost their lives in the gulf of mexico trade the exercise. anything i can do in the second congressional district please do not hesitate to call upon me or my team. the first question as congress debates said new authorization for military force one of my priorities is knowing shed we engage militarily service members go into the fight with confidence to take care of them when they return home. in 2007 the commission recommended the establishment of recovery

care coordinator to care for wounded warriors. service members it should become severely ill or wounded while serving our country we will do everything in our power to get them the care they need when they return home. so what you're britches' doing to insure the transition from active service to the veterans administration for the most were did and what more can we do to make sure we identify every discharge service member who qualifies for federal recovery care through the v.a.? and i have another question. >> if i may start coming it is a critically important question in that i tried to allude to it opening comments. we have a legal responsibility, but a moral responsibility to ensure that they get the medical

care that they deserve with wounded warrior care facilities to respond to the realities of the diminishing budgets with wartime activities we have been doing the last 30 years but to ensure we are providing care in the most efficient manner possible. but space that v.a. care is challenges and successes with no small measure to is a congress and to insure the process by which the medically retired has improved a much different story today than in recent years while a reading of the

current time frames as the development with the scheduling of the physicals and such to provide day dash board so they can see exactly where they are but the frustration in the past was they did not know when their next appointment was and we provided that flexibility. to meet the standards said dot has there are still challenges between the v.a. and military dod and we support the v.a. to meet those objectives and it is a moving target update to understand it may not be in compliance with the process. hopefully it will start next year. >> we have no higher greater responsibility then to care for those who have borne the battle.

through the experience that we have had to describe some of these things with the wounded warrior battalions battalions, is to aid in the of medical care with reintegration into civilian life those have been wounded to give each of them an advocate to help them through the process to tell them what benefits are available in for their care givers and family members or friends who have assumed the burden of caring for them. and also btu exceeding the requirements in terms of time but even though we're

doing that we can do better. >> if the other witnesses want to add please do so in writing so we can move on to develop four to read a letter every have to add -- to whenever you have to add. >> you may add dress additional questions in writing. >> one to congratulate our panel of service chiefs and secretaries during this critical time in history. i want to a sign secretary james in the general chairman as well because

with the nuclear triad and enterprise and is such a high priority level. i am very concerned about our bovvers in b-52 and if you have a long-range strike ballmer is in your sights i appreciate that. i will ask a general question of am not sure who was better qualified to but it may be a chairman question for the budget committee but talking about supplementing to get beyond the caps but the question is how much of that or what way can that be used beyond the underlying purpose? >> federal claim expertise

but i can write a response from the army perspective through those articles i believe the committees are looking at a place saying the cost at about 450 into oco that is the utilization to provide the hour me a rough estimate of 4.2 million dollars in relief of the $6 billion the president's budget would have over sequestration that is a far better outcome but we do have to be mindful. to have 5.$5 billion with the current v.a. account that should be on the base that is from things that has happened in theater.

we have to move that money over some point. it is a challenge but it is important to understand it will add to the challenge getting into the base budget with those of insupportable funds that there currently residing. >> i appreciate your a answer so it is useful for that purpose but i am very concerned for those in my district with future rounds of investments of trading area for military construction bill yet we can see down to as low as 2,000 troops it is a huge money always going forward for overseas operations. for the air force how does

that affect what you do? are their limitations? >> under the rules of what is allowable from what you've heard the secretary talked about i of not an expert but the overseas operations are funded through oco but we also have a presence that rightfully belong in the base budget. i simply don't know how to fix this but it is allowable i am all in favor to get over the hump. >> their real issue for us to be in that dire place the

without long-term investment or modernization. civic i appreciate that. in then we begin the downward spiral. it is being creative side the military so with that i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman chairman. one of the things that comes up in the budget discussions is what members of this committee or congress put in

front of you have the right to take a minute when we hear about the cuts that you want to make but it featured you could talk about in greater detail these challenges to reassure that year due your job? >> for a specific example? taking 80,000 out of the act it is at 120,000 and 10,000 of our reserve we have reduced our size and ability to respond and in addition greece still don't have enough money to go down to

that level tuesday through 2020. which we desperately need. >> i'm asking for cuts you do want to make but for political reasons you cannot make it. >> first a year and for most with half a million dollars of infrastructure and we have to address that issue with the army aviation a restructuring so if we don't get those who have to find $6 billion or another half a billion because that is what it cost so if we don't get

those things we have to get the money. >> for the ndp or the record -- navy and the marine corps we simply have to do that. where for each use between keeping people that they need to do their job the proposals are reasonable and sound with the marines around the world what concerns the most is they have the tools to do the job with the baby and marine corps is expected to do.

>> in addition i certainly agree that over the last couple of examples we have a series of aging platforms were we have proposed retiring some of them to freeze up monday to modernize the rest for the next generation. and those have tended to be blocked but there is is the series of those in that regard and one other is that liable love high but we have too many over all see what there days with all the shortages that is a platform we have too many so we're trying to reduce the all overall numbers and upgrade so we have all this going on at once and trying to shift

around the country to get better efficiency to provide certain coverage because we don't have authority but that the entire plan is on hold so we cannot do it until we have additional information so those are additional examples. >> we appreciate the work with this statement modernization of the operational fund if we get to do the original intent. >> the key point is to put lives at risk with that tradeoff i appreciated. >> i appreciate the pitiless did i have been this is the very carefully and i think

it has provided great detail of the negative impact of sequester and 2012 with that bipartisan budget unfortunately i only got 38 votes but then they got the freeze over two years so we can for a period of time going for word. but you mentioned agility that is try want to go with this with those nations states how much of the world's actions can be explained in deterrence's

roughly assembled with the capability and though will indicted interested to delve into strategic maneuver to strengthen the he hands of deployments -- diplomats started with the air force would ensure commitment to the global response with the exercises? bivouacked but the problem we have is with issues of operations in their roles. we have a limited capacity we have the isr ability with a brand and control and as a result we cannot meet that today.

and has to have hurt us discuss already today the problem will get worse. are you doing something about that? >> first guy would say we should document the risk at how critical it is to what degree talk about every day i ran and north korea but we have not talked about our role. >> our situation is we're committed to the cool response force -- the global response force but it are those then are 50% that are the concern so what causes

that ichiro -- issues. >> the first thing that happened we ended up eliminating deployments to get them ready to go. with the ability to have that next step ready is right now we have two carriers ready to go. we're going back to the larger research capacity or the ability to maintain that first generation civic we

have enablers who are prepared to go but then when i would say with that capability at of the rv the importance to increase it effectively but then the airborne division it is a belt that totals for the -- forced to respond quickly in different directions and i worry about readiness levels as it has a capability to the level that we expect. >> i ate appreciate putting that joint dod point - - piece on that and we have a long way to go. thank you.

>> from the parochial perspective with that 55th air wing in the service faking of rules were to but is no scheduled to be demolished. so we're very proud so thank you for all your support so i still don't have an answer. it is just that the gimmick sofer we were with his dynamic that if we don't do

something about sequestration we don't know what is coming next so it is redundant but i would ask wintertime what you see the next one or two years through 2016 with the possibility of this situation in the the least becoming more difficult or where the level is that now? >> at the minimum with that moderate resistance we go with the the air support necessary. also but that is the minimum.

but to make then a decision for that assessment but then to be prepared to do that. are we prepared to do that? >> the only thing i would add to talk about dynamic is the shia and sunii issue that is a dynamic with iraq and syria specifically but we don't know what will happen in tears 2016 the talks about our readiness makes it all the more difficult spitzer but that is what we can expect under no uncertainty.

i take that leads to frustration and then that will lead as this situation changes again. and then to save the will have to the end that operation in. >> but to observe what is going on with the team thank you very rich -- very much stick before this hearing began the alarm one-off for the house budget the embargo that was lifted this morning it help you can assist me

with these questions. >> the arteries erectus somebody year have the number? >> 561. >>, much for overseas contingency operations? >> it is close at 50 billion. >> i have 51 billion? that gives a total of 600 pro billion? is that right with a budget request? with 523 billion that is

$38 billion more than what the budget says it is permissible. how can i do that the wreckage just disregard the budget control act that is $30 billion more? >> rabil lusby to why. but with that discussion. >> if i could interject. >> of that title to an authority i do not. >> them monday mouflon to the house proposed budget.

the basic 523 billion but then he has 94 billion for oco in order to go beyond with the president has requested to. rand of 74 billion through oco 20 billion is a reserve that we may not ever see. as opposed to those federal is a the aircraft. doesn't make any difference the with those overseas contingency operations. with a buddy like to respond

? >> for those that assist it one your -- year civic i have one minute left. let me move on to something more specific. control, that the state of alabama. >> and accruals is that a fair statement? was looking at the missile defense is that outside the oco monday? general teeeighteen? >> as far as i know we

doodad have that flexibility. we don't know how that is to find. >> is it fair to conclude with the prepared house budget to the extent it does have some adverse effect on our national security capability? would you agree? >> yes sir, it does prevent -- present challenges. >> yes. >> the worst of all is if we don't get it. >> thank you. >> i was happily surprised to see if those initiatives is your written testimony.

i have always felt there is is a strategic imperative with 2003 and 200780% of all supply trucks but during that same time period 3,000 americans and stem contractors were killed. every time we talk about energy with that conversation for what they're trying to do. and a loving those marines to push further.

and talk about insurance in this time on stage to project greater power. in the thing vetted tables - - enables us to do that. is to undertake specifically with the strategic terms. >> thank you so much. but some of the specific things we're doing with energy efficiency to doing voice planning to the slower speed building. the marines as always are bidding go away with the statistics because we were

losing them in afghanistan it is too high a price to pay but now we have field teams that are net zero in terms of energy they make it where they are and make the water where they are. for every company they use solar power with the radio in gps they save 700 pounds of batteries per company and they don't have to be resupplied with that. in a larger more strategic scale, with the ability to use fuel as a weapon with the volatility of a fuel prices goes up and down dramatically that creates immense problems in terms to pay for the fuel and planning every every to and on fossil fuel solution in

the fuel market to provide competition but also smoothed out that volatility to create american jobs of the homegrown solutions bin i thank you. can you talk about the army? if you could produce the new fuel on base if there fran the up there for the generators that would be a good thing. >> as we discussed before this committee in the past there really is a matter of soldiers' lives in that is particularly true with respect to operational energy programs. we conduct we have constructed a realization by 17% in recent years but the frustrating thing is the cost continues to rise

nevertheless. having said that we think we have a responsibility to our soldiers to leighton their load and like all our friends in the marine corps will have reduced equipment for battery usage. and solar blankets to be used in just about in the climate to charge radios or batteries supplies significantly listening the loading and also using them more efficient engines causing the need to resupply which is much less than before. . .

the capability that this committee has been asked for command right now it is a cost-effective way. we are looking to save money it is cost effective and expensive for adversaries to try to defeat. but nations are catching up at a time when we don't need that delay deployment of

this particular work -- weapon system. the timeliness of the closing of the technology gap and outright encouragement by this congress earlier this year. not committed to building by 2016 which is not a limitation on technology authority, or funding. please tell this committee and myself if there is any reason the air force cannot deliver in 2016. >> i do not know a great deal about this program, but it is 1 i we will look into more based upon you bringing this to our attention. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> to look at and new way -- thank you of using this platform that is designed to be operational. the 2nd thing is we wanted to have a longer range, be more efficient, effective. it so. so that is the near-term focus. we want to produce the family of weapons so that the idea of walking away from this concept is simply not true. one of the problems we have had which has made us an efficient is that we have built weapons and electronic warfare capabilities into separate capability portfolios. so recognizing this problem directing a cross functional

study to bring electronic welfare folks and weapon producers together to test them to give him a them a study in the future of this weapons approach. we would be informed. to your to your specific question, we plan to produce this weapon. no, sir. we cannot get they're. they have increased the capability of the system they have indicated that to get out in the field today

is better than well yes it would be great to have the usable platform in the future and should continue on the venture to get into the field in a short timeframe and low cost by using an existing platform is a stopgap something you fit in knowing full well you need a long-term approach but today it gives the war fighters, the army fighters the army and the navy and those that need the capability right now and right now i mean in terms of the year or two versus ten years out. >> a major issue for us right now i would love to have my staff come and talk

to you. sit and so you exactly where we are. >> i i appreciate the time both of you spent in my district. your remarks at the christening of the montgomery thank you. the likely impacts to the combat program. fy 19 we have given the cause down because of that

from a beginning whole to $350 million. it's hard to get that. he and the economy of scale we have now. looked at how to make these ships more lethal and after an exhaustive look at every possible type ship, upgrade

far more lethal and survivable. in those bounds you have to keep this going. you'll be looking at far more expensive job training that you will have to do because you have lost so many tradesmen not only for the lcs. a much higher cost.

of his our way to approach it. he slowdown the builder the ships. that ship right now couple with the fire scout tremendous capability potential going to bring flexibility and agility. the longer we stretch at that the less we can offer. week. >> we have demonstrated in need. we will not get there under the current bill plan until 2028.

so to his.we will be low in terms of these for the next decade. >> some comment learned new things and circumstances. is it any different with regard to become a frigate. >> your great right. that takes a lot of time. creating the mission packages, the weapon system separate from the platform so that we can more quickly

adjust to emerging threats. >> i appreciate your leadership on that. you have you have the continued support of this congressman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and to all the witnesses. i want to direct my question today and recently you said because of sequestration the army will reduce strength to uncomfortable levels by 2019 likely losing another six brigade combat teams and potentially division headquarters. as you know very well privilege to represent.

in order to support arms forces. the levitated world war ii era buildings still being used due to another round of sequestration. these these cuts would have a huge economic impact. fort drum is a training help and houses the army's most deployed division said 1990. because of potential cuts due to sequestration would you be able to give us your thoughts on how these cuts would impact the army's current and future missions overseas? >> thank you, congresswoman and best wishes. you represent a place that i

obviously think is pretty special. as i said in my opening comments, the reality of sequestration is simply this every camp station program that the army conducts will see significant reductions. mathematically it is inescapable. that includes fort drum. we are blessed as an army, to have a plethora, if you will, of amazing bases in places like the north country in your district support and provide an incredibly effective training ground and welcoming home. but what we are faced with other realities of the numbers that the budget will provide.

at 420000 as you know, as you know, we're looking at possible reductions for major military installations of up to 16,000. that is in play. there is an irony here. i went i went through three base closure rounds and understand how painful they are. i watched a base in new york thanks to the great effort of that committee that part of the world came back. it was not easy and took a lot of hard work. i recognize and understand. here is the reality. we are forced rather than to take access infrastructure where we believe it exists and spread these cuts almost any. but are in a peanut butter kind of fashion across all bases and installations to the.you

made, to keep up the facilities that are soldiers and their families rely upon and call home. this is a dangerous spiral in which we find ourselves. alternately is a military are concerned with meeting the nation's defense needs. sequestration we feel we cannot meet the defense strategic guidance but it is also a question of the inability at sequestration levels of providing a good home and inadequate training facility like we currently enjoy in places like fort drum. >> i agree with your concerns about sequestration and have been a strong voice against the sequester. in terms of the long-term impact on our readiness and frankly i believe it puts

our troops lives as risk. thank you for your service both to the north country and to the country. >> and thank you for your's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks all of you, for your testimony. i i would like to ask you, you have said in the past soldiers are confident. is that still true? i have a lot of questions. >> yes. >> and you have said that your soldiers preferred the a-10. >> it depends upon the environment. >> you have also also said it is the best close air support platform we have today. do you still believe that to be true? >> in iraq and afghanistan next thank. >> thank you, sir. i want to do a shout out to the a-10 forces deployed.

secretary given the general statements that he just reaffirmed is the decision to my ball mothball the a-10 a budget decision only? >> yes it's about the budget >> so if you had more money you would keep the a-10 in the inventory? >> i would yes. >> i think your budget request is about $10 billion over the sequester number? >> ten million, and i must add that we would need dollars above the president's budget level. >> that's what i'm getting at. how much more would you need above the request in order to not mothball the a-10? >> i think the one year cost would be on the order of four and 500 million come but please let me check that to be sure. over five years it is closer to 4 billion. >> but just next year would you give back to me with

what that cost to be? i am assuming there may be other unfunded requests above that. would you keep the a-10 in the inventory? how much money do you need to keep the a-10? >> we would have to look at it because it is beyond the a-10. manpower. it it is beyond just the cost of the a-10. >> thank you. i noticed in the discussion last year, and it is an important one because we are talking men and women on the ground under fire in harms way having that capability overhead in close proximity where they need firepower and survivability in that environment where the a-10 brings the best ability overhead. in the pastor has been a discussion that the a-10 is old, aging command we need new capabilities but you

highlighted your youngest b-52 is 63 years old 63 years old and you would like to keep it in the inventory until 2040 which would mean your youngest would be 72 years old and 2040 you are keeping an aging airplane that cannot survive in a high air defense environment. we have invested over a billion dollars in it to rebuild its wings and avionics and capabilities. >> we do not have it in the inventory. we need 80 to 100 bombers. we do not want the a-10 define its mission when it is 50, 60 70 years old. that is not that is not fair to the sons and daughters of america. >> so it is still flying because we don't have the ability to replace it with

the a-10 is being asked to be mothball but we don't have the ability to replace it even though it cannot. >> it is being retired. >> got it. >> other aircraft that can cover the mission. >> not under the circumstances i mentioned. would you not agree with that? >> i do. >> if we have the funds is a 2028 were it could fly for it needs to be retired? is that true? >> the highest platform of the future.

it will replace the capability. argument that. a c-130. the high-end. >> my time has expired. i do not believe it places the a-10 in the capabilities it brings to the fight. i love the f 35 but but it does not replace those capabilities. >> the a-10 cannot operate in a high threat environment closer support environment. >> okay. i appreciate the discussion. >> thank you for your patients. a couple more.

the appointed by the administration as well as the service chiefs here today. if nothing else comes from your financial stress the stress to our military and the fact that we are going to have to start having different debates on the policy that you have nothing directly to do with my luck this weekend heard mr. mr. rogers and want to bring this up quickly. a simple question that you might or might not be able to answer. they sanctioned murder torture, rape. cia cash ended up in coffers of al qaeda. that is a problem for congress to help you get the proper funding for your military. that is not your doing all

your fault. that that is the fault of the administration and the congress itself because you follow orders in uniform and are there because they selected you to be the service chiefs. we continue to find absolute millions and millions of dollars in afghanistan and get these articles. this is the problem of the american people have because they do read the articles. that does not take away from their respect. not at all. when you cannot sell them we have not done much to help her get infrastructure. we cannot building infrastructure america.

spending billions of dollars that is the problem with this debate about whether we have sequestration are not. i asked general campbell last week i was taken aback by his answer. whatever you answer to nine more years in afghanistan spending roughly 25 to 50 billion per year being worthwhile? a chance to say in three years we give them pitchforks -- benchmarks. then we say we are out.

he said that his hope is that he believes that this will be the start. well, every history book i have ever i have ever read, you not going to change it no matter what you do. i want to know in an informal setting do you in the military here today in uniform get a chance once a month or once a week to sit down with general dempsey take off your time relax have a beer or glass of wine old whiskey and talk about where we are going in this country and how it is impacting our military. to the service chiefs and i have one minute service chiefs, do you get the same thing with now secretary carter where you get together and talk about the

foreign-policy of america and our military has fallen apart because there overworked tired and equipment is overworked and tired. >> we meet once every week. we discussed these issues in detail. >> one of the service chiefs >> all the service chiefs, combatant commanders. the department of defense senior leadership to have exactly the discussion you are talking about. >> mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you thank you for your service to our country and your patience and handling these questions. i we will help to finish up. now, the navy has operationally deployed the system. a directed energy weapon which can be used against a variety of threats. i believe that it has turned a corner and is one of the keys to our asymmetrical advantage using technology i'm not sure the other branches are as up-to-date on this. anyone other anyone other than the navy leaning forward and directed energy.

mortars, rockets, great application. we are into that. for us it is about getting as small enough and having enough directed energy to meet our needs which is absolutely essential. >> we have a program. i cannot quote you the dollar figure. i was just out of kirkland air force base in new mexico doing work out there with lasers and directed energy. furthermore testing and aircraft defense system which would have lasers involved and laser communication system. we have quite an active program as well. >> they are doing wonderful work. may not as seriously as we have to.

the navy is getting. cutting missile-defense ability ships from the budget. we cut the modernization of some of our aegis destroyers to make them ballistic missile defense capable purely as a budgetary thing. it was one of the hard choices that had to be made. we can meet today. takes the place of 16 we are continuing to modernize the aegis system of our cruisers

and are destroyers but not as much as we would like to in the budget situation. >> i cannot obviously always respect to missile-defense. it is one of if not the most high demand low-density assets we have that she spoke earlier today about the incredible amount of deployments. even at that we're still not meeting combatant commanders we would be less than honest if we so that we have not already to the budget cuts we have experienced in recent years, particularly in our programs not had challenges to date.

not growing as quickly as we would like. ninety-two missiles will begin. we see that demand increasing. >> the missile-defense responsible for quite some time. one of the four pillars of missile-defense is offense of operations.

>> thank you all very much. thank you for your responsiveness and service of the country. with that, the hearing stands adjourned. >> the republican national lawyers association held its policy conference last week. the same executive branch overreach.

[applause] >> this will not be entertaining are intellectually stimulating. literally the simplest case i have ever done than anyone could ever do because the law is so clearly on our side. the relevant provision says subsidies for the exchanges are available on exchanges established by the state

under section 1311. the obama irs reading that language said that means, of course, they are available on exchanges established by hhs under section 1321. the the issue is whether or not an hhs exchange is state established. this is not a complicated question at least for the nonlegal mind. this would be relatively straightforward, and, i mean, that. a mortgage deduction case. what are you talking about? involving the affordable care act, people are taking this argument seriously. i we will not bore you with walking through the various statutory nuances, but the basic pitch on the other side your ripping these words out of context. what an extraordinarily odd

place. why would they ever put a tax credit in the tax code. so you really cannot take this language seriously. our response is normally tax credits are in the tax code. they are not hiding any elephants in muscles. the only provision in the affordable care act is section three to be. the only provision that even discusses these subsidies. all of the limits on when subsidies are available are contained in 36 be. it is quite clear if you brought insurance outside of an exchange you cannot get the subsidy. everyone seems to understand that. naturally this would be the place it would be. as to context i can assure

you we did not stand up to the supreme court and say please just focus my aptly on these words and ignore the statutory context. we said approximately 7,000 times we employee to look at the context of the overall act because each and every particular structure and purpose reinforces the most obvious contextual. section 1311 says it states shall establish the exchange. congress chose the strongest possible language to convey its deep desire for his days to create these exchanges. thirty-six be tells you that there are no substitutes available unless the states create the exchange. 1311 tells you why congress has done that. they they did it because they needed to provide an incentive to undertake the

thankless task of creating these exchanges. if you don't then your citizens don't get subsidies this is not some novel invention. this is medicaid, exactly how they get the states to participate in medicaid. if you don't do what we want your citizens will not get medicaid, a key part with a greatly expanded medicare. my final boring contextual.is the government argued it was because section 1321 says if the states down establish exchanges and hhs to have hhs shall establish such exchanges. yes. it says such exchanges. hhs will establish such exchanges. thirty-six be turned on who establishes the exchange.

if it is hhs you don't. if there is any ambiguity where they were trying to somehow magically transform all you have to do is look at the context and provision dealing with territory. territories are also required or authorized to require such exchange. they tell them to do that and shall be treated as the state for these purposes. we know that congress knows how to treat a nonstate entity as a state entity when it wanted to do so. the argument on the other side this myopic approach and giving this affect to the statute. and while people might buy that argument a serious

person can because after all they look at other manifestations of congressional intent, most obviously legislative history. whether or not clear text can be established by contrary legislative history my.has always been however that debate is resolved will affect his gaze because you case because you can look through the volumes of legislative history and you will not see a single expression by anyone anywhere suggesting subsidies are available on hhs established exchanges. if you exchanges. if you look at any legal material a justice is looked at, here is what you arrive at. subsidies are only available on state exchanges. clear text explaining why so that they can incentivize

and not a a scintilla of contrary legislative history. as i began this the response again is well secretly congress did not intend this and we know this because msnbc keeps telling us that congress did not intend this this is not only a legally irrelevant argument but it is difficult to hypothesize an argument that is more insulting. think about how insulting this is. they sat down and wrote the words established. according to my opponent they did not intend to

convey that. they explained why a rational person who intended for subsidies to be available not only did they consciously break down the opposite of what they intended, it never even occurred to them that someone might interpret the words established by the state to mean established by the state. they went through the entire legislative process and it did not occur to anyone that we meant hhs but said the opposite of what we mean. so this was a giant mystery some kind of scriveners error. among the many problems with that is the phrase appears 11 times, 11 times.

so it is so it is not an error for some type of bizarre tourette's syndrome where they keep saying what they don't mean over and over again apparently without any ability to control this. so what they are arguing and what everyone in the courtroom knew what they were arguing was the naked policy argument. thirty-seven states has said no not surprisingly says they would have got nothing out of it. two two thirds of the states will not have the subsidies if you follow the rule of law which is bad. the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. because this problem.

if they knew that billions of dollars would have been deprived have caused this problem. you must perpetuate which to me is like the criminal defendant who kills his parents and pleads for mercy because he is an orphan the one who created the problem but nonetheless need something. i stopped making predictions i we will identify two or three things that may be of interest.

justice justice kennedy asked, if they did condition the subsidies isn't that unconstitutional? the government has not made this argument. no state that has a stake in this argument is in front of the court. so i obviously think he has taken this argument seriously, but it does not have the normal prerequisite for him to actually opine on the constitutional issue in addition to the absence of anyone arguing this. he really to find that this coercive -- to find that it is unduly coercive from just three years ago clearly they did endorse a form of funding.

you can condition all medicaid funding their eligibility requirements as least as problematic as anything involved here in the face of precisely the same kind of arguments we were receiving. if you do not -- if you accept this argument then we will go bankrupt. we get less money for serving poor people low income people and in exchange we will get increased medicaid. if we don't we will go bankrupt. twenty-two of the states have rejected the deal this is exactly the kind of argument that was bothering justice kennedy in terms of the insurance. the other practical. look we look we are going to

reject this exchange deal regardless. the notion that it is unduly coercive strikes me as odd. i don't think justice kennedy can argue that constitutional question but federalism if he does this will result in a worse results for them than if we prevail on the statutory. conditioning medicaid funds -- excuse me, conditioning subsidies on establishing exchanges is no good. he is not going to say i we will therefore extend subsidies to all 50 states. he will he will say no state skip the subject because the deal was unconstitutional. that is exactly what justice kennedy wrote. if the medicaid deal is to coercive the answer is not to let medicaid funds go without but to eliminate

entirely. in these circumstances people on the other side of the aisle taking hard from his opinion should actually be quite worried. if you interpret another way it does. avoiding the unconstitutional coercion. two statements made and a couple of other points with you that that we will happen in in order to do that you need an unambiguous interpretation of the statute. justice kennedy was justice kennedy was clear that he did not think there was ambiguity.

he also made, and i think this is the key., the basic separation of powers principle that you can't take money out of the treasury unless it is authorized by the custodian of the purse. therefore it needs to be clear that the subsidies were available and you the government, lose the ambiguity. if you think about that, you cannot therefore say because there is ambiguity in the statute i we will now expend subsidies to all 50 states when congress was clearly opposing some kind of condition. he would create a huge separation of power that he himself identified. there is no way to interpret the statute. the government version the

employer mandate is tied to subsidy. in in other words, the employer does not have the obligation unless one of his employees goes out and reaches and gets one of the subsidies. if he is saying that now subsidies would be available that would extend the employer mandate. states would have no ability to veto whereas they would under our interpretation. what he is really saying is the federal government has the ability to tell states that they have to provide certain kind of insurance benefits to employees which is the four principle of federalism.

you should not be able to tell states how to conduct relations with their own employees. so it raises serious constitutional questions. in light of all that what i think might happen and would be a resolution that would preserve justice kennedy's constitutional concerns and not affect the outcome of the case is to do what he has done a number of other cases where he will join proper statutory interpretation holding of the court but write a separate concurrence saying this is a grave constitutional concern. how will not make predictions about how the court will rule. these things remind me. people are like chief justice roberts did not say a lot. his gorbachev looking to his left? [laughter] i think it is generally a

sucker's game. make any sorts of predictions about how the justices are going to behave. my bottom line the reasons i have articulated. [laughter] some of the argument turning to nuance a certain level of skepticism but nonetheless once they have read the briefs and considered it will be a short five page amendment. [applause] >> thank you, michael. since today's theme is the imperial presidency i we will act imperial he.

we will extend lunch ten minutes. >> you did a fabulous job. a lot of arguments. i have never seen by the liberals in any other case. my question is this. justice justice ginsburg will let you get out one sentence. >> but a really good sentence. >> yes. [laughter] >> before he brought up the issue of standing which is such a settled issue that the government did not even argue it in their brief. the 1st time it was brought up was a month before on msnbc which is a good sign of what ginsberg reads. my question is i read i read that as a sign that the

liberals are desperate because they gauged how the other justices were feeling about the case and were hoping they can bring up the standing issue to dispose of the case without disposing of the substantive grounds. is my reading off on that? >> i have to disagree with your premise. he is fully receptive to my argument. [laughter] >> i just told you she was on my side. it was bizarre. every judge a very vanilla case no one disputed, the government affirmatively dropped the argument. there was no serious issue about it. in a way she was doing me a favor i must say. it killed the standing issue in its crib.

not giving them any solace. i think at the end of the day it was a non- issue in terms of the candid exchange of viewpoints. the justices were not only interrupting my answers but their colleagues questions. it was a hard bench. this was unique because it is the 1st time i have ever seen chief justice roberts on his own say you get ten more minutes. impossible for us to get my answers out. >> let me go to the dark side for a minute and ask if the court some holes that

the statute means what it does not say are you able to discuss at all what you think that means for the canons of statutory interpretation in the future? >> well, if they continue to interpret statutes the way that you have to interpret the statute to me north means south and black means white then they're will actually be no law in the united states because it would be impossible to enact the law that denies agencies. i take solace in the fact that it will be only in this case in this act and then they will revert to honest and neutral interpretations. there are a lot of issues in

terms of policies from the policy implications of the affordable care act. this case is about whether or not we are going to honestly and mutually interpret an active a coequal branch policy concerns trump it. the argument for justice scalia said you did a fine job arguing, but he made a mistake. these policy arguments are so convincing. we have congress right across the street and they can fix it. the solicitor general said, this congress? [laughter] which elicited this kind of snarky laughter, but i'm

looking at chief justice roberts and some of the other justices, and the notion that the solicitor general of an administration would say your deference to congress turns on the polished and leaders of that congress is something that courts will never take seriously and i thought they were blanching at the notion particularly since my own prediction is congress will take steps in the wake of our victory. numerous beds saying that there is a way to fix this. so i am hoping that assurance that if they interpret the law to mean what it says will not result in dire policy consequences. it should be enough solace. >> okay. one more question in the corner. >> you mentioned that the chief justice gave both

sides ten more minutes, but there was no other case scheduled that day. did that did that mean that they were anticipating giving more time? >> no. you are right. it was actually very strange they had another argument scheduled. they cannot find the complainant. so they accepted the case and said well, i guess he is not going to be here. [laughter] >> she has got one more. >> a quickie a lot of people will lose subsidies. how do you see the implications of this playing out politically for the republicans and the future of obama care?

>> right. work. they will lose subsidies. a little exaggerated. they have not been available except for the last 15 months. then i say that because it is important to recognize no one is arguing the absence of subsidies. the proponents are arguing the other provisions make insurance so expensive pre-existing conditions that those will drive up premiums and we need subsidies to offset them. the republican response of the federal level is what i indicated a moment ago. a good a good way to get people who need the money the money. given the tax credit but don't say just by insurance

on the exchange and not this restricted insurance that the affordable care act 2500 the affordable care act you cannot buy catastrophic insurance. all of those kinds of things by the insurance you want. they they are thinking go and buy insurance across state lines. the.would be people who need the help i getting it in the same way they are but they are getting it in a way that empowers the consumer to make the choice that the consumer likes best my own view is that that should be amenable to a consensus of republicans in the house and senate and very difficult not that he won't difficult for president obama to say no because after all he would be saying these people are not getting their needed monies simply because

they're not getting it in the way that i want them to get it which i think is tough and of course, if they can't reach a compromise -- prior to this pres. obama has been perfectly amenable and easy to say no, we're not changing anything. he maintains the status quo that exists if we prevail, under his own predictions they will be a meltdown of exchanges there will be an employer mandate in 34 states and i assume he i assume he would view that is detrimental to what i assume he views as his legacy. it will be interesting politics over the summer obviously. ..

later, ways to improve federal elections for voters. >> the supreme court heard oral argument monday on whether officials in texas must issue a license plate that tee pickets the confederate battle flag. texas, like many states create special license plates for a feet. but the texas division of the sons of confederate veterans had their request for the license plate with the confederate flag denied after the vehicle board determined it offensive. the sons