have. it shows it will take her than what we are offered today to be able to provide the quality of life to be able to allow them to stay in but at the same time i am laser focused on the qualities of service aspect on this because even if i pay them more if i don't get them in the air they are going to walk. >> senator mccaskill. >> i want associate myself with the opening statement of senator mccain in many ways because i think you all honestly step forward and lead an amazing fight force. i think we owe the american people honestly about the military budget and what is going on in the house of representatives this year is once again they have only budget gimmick to pretend that they are somehow being fiscally conservative as they are using the overseas contingency operations funds to fund the base operations of our military. that is dishonest on its face.

it is inefficient and ineffective for military and general sublive i would like to bring us home to my state. obviously we have the port that dates back to world war ii in terms of some of its buildings and we have temporary military construction dating back to that time and we are in an aggressive up dating of that facility which is such a key facility for our army and i notice that they even have the nerve to put military construction and to these at aces in the united states in the overseas contingency operating funds paid can you comment about how this impacts your ability on readiness and training when you are being put in a fund year-to-year and not certain and you can't plan with it? >> sure senator.

you are exactly right you can't plan with it and you can't just go year-to-year and things like multiyear contracts and having relationships with industries to upgrade your weapons and equipment etc.. specifically what you are talking about is infrastructure which is a key component. we have demand train and equip but also the infrastructure on army bases are not as modern as they should be. it's not just in missouri. to many other places. that's a big concern. we been robbing that account for quite a few years now to maintain readiness. that's another area of big concern is that infrastructure. >> our men and women aren't deployed we certainly shouldn't fund their money. general goldfein i had an opportunity to go to 139 airlift wing over the last couple of weeks and you know it is the top

gun of airlift in terms of training and the frustration there is there seems to be a disconnect in all made you and people that you interact with can fix this and that is these are strategic level courses. we are training people from all over the country at this facility in terms of left and internationally i might add our allies as you probably well know. for some reason they are having to deal with annual funding issues instead of getting programmatic funding. i don't get that. i don't get why the national guard and the air mobility command cannot get together because you know what they are both doing? they are doing this. one is saying we are putting in and the other one is saying we don't have it and it's really frustrating for that excellent facility to have to continue to beat on the store and have nobody answer and i would like your commitment today to look

into this and see if you can get this resolved once and for all. >> yes maam i will tell you quickly we have this come up in the pilot aircraft business and what we found was because there are so many elements associated with getting an airborne and the getting a sore tea that we have gone to build requirements at layout over an entire year so the wing commanders were having to plug holes in go month-to-month so as a result of that we put together a team and we are working with it directed the air national guard to layout national requirements and once we have those requirements who fund them on an annual basis. we will take this on to make sure. >> that would be terrific and finally for you general miller i'm a big fan of the marines but i was struck when i saw portland would and i had a chance to visit the recruits.

they were in their ait training and i had a chance to visit with the men and women. i was struck of him at reince for in this training class from south korea and honduras coaster rica. we just on the naturalization ceremony for 67 soldiers. .. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator reid and gentlemen for being here today. i'm going to pick up a little

bit on senator mccaskill's expression of frustration and expand back. many times the american people hear different stories, different information from different source and i would like to highlight part of that today and get your response to that if you could clarify it. "the wall street journal" published an article by general petraeus last month and it was entitled the myth of the u.s. military crisis and he characterized the army's weapons military in the following way. while some aircraft and other key weapons are aging and will need replacement or major refurbishment soon most equipment remains in fairly good shape and according to the sources in the military, army equipment on a mission capable rates today exceeding 90% and

that is historically high leve levels, general do you believe general petraeus was correct in his assessment that the equipment and the mission capable rates are what he says they are and what does that tell us or possibly what does it not tell us about the state of the army? >> i know general petraeus while along with mr. o'hanlon who is the co-author of our very talented but as you might suspect i don't necessarily agree with that on the readiness issue. i don't know if crisis is the right word. it's packed with all kinds of emotion but there are serious challenges today and the operational rates for the key weapon systems are not above 90%.

they are below 90% in some cases and that is the cause for great concern they are improving but they are below 90%. that is the standard. the weapon systems are not in that condition at this time. >> than >> thank you for clarifying that. also it goes on to argue training for the full spectrum operations is resuming and it claims by 2017 the army plans to rotate nearly 20 brigades about one third of its force through national training centers cheer. the marine corps plans to put 12 infantry battalions through large training exercises and the air force is funding its training and readiness programs at 80 to 98% of what it considers fully resourced leve levels. general do you think that accurately petraeus your services and their readiness to

conduct a full spectrum operations? >> it is a partial answer. with the flagship training event to combat team ithe combat teama combat training center and a few years ago we had a decisive operation actions against high air threats. we changed gears about 24 months ago and about 12 to 18 months ago we started putting brigades through the paces of going against the competitors unless they were designated to go to afghanistan or iraq. at the end of fy 17100% of the brigade combat teams on active dutduty who have one rotation. so if you were back in the day a typical battalion commander or a company commander you would have

three, four, five, maybe more rotations to a training center by the time they reached those levels. today we have an entire generation of officers going into the field commanding battalions were even in some cases companies that have very little or no experience so by the end of 17 it's the amount of reps. you have to do it over and over again so the data that i have, the forecast is by the end of 18, 24 months from now we will have nine of the brigades with three rotations, 18 of them with two and four with one. that's not bad. it's better and there's more to it than jus then just going to e training centers. that's the key part. manning levels are holding us back. we have 30,000 in the regular army today.

that's an entire core not available for a variety of reasons and that's not even talking about the basic training and the overhead to run the basic training so the personnel piece is big and equipment maintenance those are all parts of readiness with the equipment modernization, the system we have today. five or ten years from now there's lots of systems up there that we need to invest and to get them online to people to deal with that great power if that day ever comes. i don't subscribe 100% with general petraeus as much as i respect what he wrote. >> i'm out of time general. if you could get that information to me i would be happy to put that out and i also respect the service general petraeus has given to this country but i think it's important that we get correct

information out to the people of the country so they understand the situation that we are facing with our military. >> on behalf [inaudible] >> thank you gentlemen for your testimony and service and the service of the men and women whom you read. over the course of the many hearings this committee has had with regards to the negative impacts of sequestration we have been provided with objective information as to those impacts that cause me to question the the article my colleague just talked about as much as we appreciate the service general petraeus. i've been monitoring the progress including visits to okinawa and i know that it will be important to have adequate

training facilities. can you talk briefly about the current status and if you have any concerns about the progress so far on the layout plan? i just read an article recently about the position is. >> we are still in the execution of the current plan. the facility has been separated from the move but from the beginning it was based on the fact we could maintain their readiness once deployed because of actions of others and environmental impacts, right now but is potentially at risk and has pushed the timeline to the right so we are still committed to going to bomb but we have to

be able to sustain the readiness of the force so i am concerned with it and watching it. i think there may be some other forces involved causing delays. there's also still issues that the building to the north of the facility tied up between negotiations between the government and japan and we continue to monitor that. >> i share your concerns because there's a number of moving par parts. i am very concerned about p6 i realize we are doing a build up the necessary that we can't send our troops unless they have a place to train so the discussions that we are having with that government is critical

and i would appreciate you keeping me at highest as we go along and anything the committee can do to help. >> i want to commend you in the leadership of your respective services including the national guard components in your mission. the combined force is imperative to the defense of the country. the full committee hearing on cybersecurity this week the important role of the national guard plays in the requirement was discussed. can you talk about progress in other areas where you will be depending on the guard component to fulfill army and air force requirements? >> i will give the general a break. we are looking across the entire enterprise of the five core missions the air force does to

look at where we can partner with the air national guard to leverage that component into the air force reserves across all these missionaries of cyber, intelligence, command and control, conventional air power in terms of the bomber and fighter force come here looking at all of that and the mobility portion you go to the c-17 and ask a question whose active, whose reserve and very often all three hands go up because we are that connected. we have three components, one air force, five missions looking across all those missionaries. i predict that cyber will be a growth industry when it comes to including the air national guard because it is ideally suited for that mission set so we are looking across the enterprise in ways that we can increase that. >> we have made a lot of strides

in the last year to enhance the readiness of the national guard and it's my assessment would have to significantly improve the readiness of the national guard and the army reserve. we are the only service that has over 50% of the structure in the reserve component. we have about 53%, so significant chunk of the army is in the reserve and as was designed many years ago. at the bottom linthe bottom liny cannot conduct, sustain land campaigns overseas without the national guard and without the united states army. it's not possible. it's the way the system was designed many decades ago. so today what do we rely on? there's a considerablthere is at of force and army national guard we are moving to 26 brigades with the president's budget. there's a lot of artillery and combat national guard, a lot of attack helicopters and so on.

if you look at the combat support logistics units about 62% of the united states army's logistics is all in the reserve component so the army bottom line couldn't fight, feed itself, maneuver, conduct any kind of extended land campaign anywhere in the world without the guard and reserve. it's critical to what we are doing and we need to increase the readiness as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> gentlemen, i want to thank you for your service. as a matter of fact, what we testified last time a number of us have had a lot of criticism with some of the obama administration's foreign policy national security but one area that i want to commend the president is the quality character of the men and women he's been nominated to become for this committee for confirmation to leave the

military. i think the four of you exemplify that quality and character and i want to commend you for that. part of the reason the chairman has already touched on it is the honest views you have been given since the confirmation and important positions leading the men and women in uniform in the nation. thgeneral, when you were here a couple months ago, you talked about the issue you and you already restated it from a veneer full-spectrum threat in terms of conflict. you stated the military would be at a higher risk and you mentioned the national security strategy. do you continue to hold that view and then i would like to

have each of the other service chiefs here give us your assessment of where the service is in terms of risk. there's a high military risk. it's pretty remarkable, and i just want each of the service members in terms of the full spectrum in the ability to meet for the nation's security, where are we in terms of risk for the service. thank you, senator. my assessment remains the same. just as a reminder, what does it mean when i'm using that term i'm talking about the ability to publish the military tasks assigned to the army units. the ability to do it online and the ability with an acceptable level of cost expressed in terms of casualties troops.

it's high military risk. >> that's right. you start to lose the sense of what that means that as the general described if we get into one of those conflicts, we will win and it's going to take a lot longer than we would like and it's going to cost a lot more in terms of dollars and in casualties. general miller. >> senator, we build a force that has been focused on the counterinsurgency fight in the way we've been doing this effectively. our potential adversaries have capitalized from the ground up that will force but has significant capabilities to grow every day so we are in the process now of getting ourselves back to looking at those capabilities and we need to

match that up. the cost would be higher. so the high military risk. >> if we had to do it based on the contingency plans that was one major contingency and the simultaneous the second one >> that is the key for the discussion. if the guidance tells us that we have to be simultaneously ready to defeat the adversary. while at the same time imposing the costs and deterring another adversary while at the same time ensuring the safe in the secure enterprise while defending the homeland to the level that it wiltheywill be required at high.

but you've got to walk down that line. >> that is what we expect of you. >> we talk a lot about cost, general and i know some of you in the army and the marine corps are still given to the infantry officers to read. can you talk just a little bit when you talk about cost when we are sending the units into a fight we talk about the cost of sounds like a dollars and cents what is it, really at the first summer in 1950 in korea. because the americans is that correct? >> that's exactly right. the cost is the bill was paid in blood for the forces and we have a long history of god.

it is thought to be short when they begin and often thought to cost less than they end up costing and end up with terms that you never know. it's a dangerous thing and that this thing i know of is to ensure it is equipped and capable to prevent the war from starting to begin with and once it starts to wane fast and decisively and that is the most humane thing to do when you engage in combat otherwise your expending lives that i don't think it's necessary. in the korean war, task force smith the 21st registr 21st regd infantryman went forward to the peninsula on relatively short notice and they were essentially decimated and it wasn't because they were bad or because they were incompetent. he was an experienced world war ii guy. it's because they had

90-millimeter rifles and their ammo wasn't done and the training wasn't done and they were not in great shape. they were doing occupation duty in japan. they were sent into harms way on ready and they paid for it and tens of thousands in those first six months. it's not a pretty picture. readiness matters. equipment matters and to do otherwise for us at this table is the ultimate sin to send someone to combat that isn't ready. >> that is a risk we are facing right now. >> i think you delivered the line of the day for me the only thing more expensive is losing the war and that summarizes the situation. i would like to ask a couple questions specifically on afghanistan and then go to the more general question. i know the president has

modified the troop drawdown schedule in afghanistan which was an appropriate response to the situation. where are the authorities maintained for the forces that we have that allowed them to act effectively to assist the afghan forces? >> as i understand it yes. i'm heading over the next month and i will see if i had gone as i understand they are adequate to do the test that i will double check and get back to you. >> the second question are the nato commitments that have been proportional to ours being maintained? >> i believe yes but let me give you a better answer. >> this hearing is focused a lot on the end and i think it's important that there be some context. in 1967 defense spending was

8.6% of gdp. in 1991 it was 5.2%. today it is 3.3 and i think often the public and all of us get caught up in these numbers but the reality is our commitment to defense has fallen dramatically in the last 45 years in part because the perception the world was getting safer and because of budgetary issues. the other thing i would point out is the net interest on the national debt is more than a third of the military budget and we are out an all-time low with interest rates it's going to only go up which will tend to make budget constrained even more. i just think we need to be talking to the american people about the fundamental responsibility of any government just to keep its people safe and

the dramatic reduction and commitment that we needed to defending this country. the follow-up plan which has been made previously is that since 2011 and the budget control act, we have had cvs, isis, south china sea, ukraine, north korea's nuclear development and cyber and to maintain a rigid budget structure in light of those changes it just seems to me as dumb and we are trying to protect this country. it's similar to the discussion we have had about the troop levels in afghanistan we have to respond to circumstances on the ground and the circumstances have dramatically changed the last five years in terms of threats in this country that this country faces and the other

point that has been made by the ranking member certainty as important and i think you testified to that. the other way we are not serving the public is by the absolutely ridiculous process of adopting budgets during continuing resolutions getting the money in the middle of the year which doesn't allow you to plan what to do the capital planning or long-term planning you need to do and i realized i've talked a long time. the other is the nuclear capitalization and i've got some slides that i think make this clear cut to me are rather dramatic and what we are facing is a very large bulge if you will in the commitment and if we don't make some additional overall way of dealing with that

issue it's going to eat up everything else and we won't be able to maintain or develop the ship. we have to have a special way of accounting for this and it doesn't mean borrow but it does mean funded in some way otherwise it will crowd out the necessity of modernization across the rest of the enterprise. if you can find a questio queste you are welcome to it. >> i will jump on that because between the general and i., we are lockstep trying to solve this problem in every way we can. i think it talks to a number of the points you made. it's much cheaper to detour the war and this is what it's all

about. you look at it before and after the startling difference. each of these recapitalizations the first time i one in the 60sn the 80s and now we are getting that mission done for less and then to your point we can get it even smaller if we have predictable funding in place we will recapitalize if we get that to the predictable funding to buy the package in a block we could get those probably for the cost of ten or 11.

it's absolutely essential that we get this done because without it deterrent effect we think things are bad it would be much worse. thank you for your outstanding testimony today. >> thank you mr. chairman lets see if we can summarize all of you agree there is a long term that is bad for the military. >> yes. so when they are wishing for the long-term you don't wish for that to my house colleagues, he lost the problem with what they are doing? taking the money to fund the military? >> do you think the funding is not stable.

why do they do this, they don't want to bust the caps or take on the right. the sequestration is and working to be told the president what you're telling us about the state of the military under sequestration. have you had a conversation with the commander-in-chief telling him what you just told us. >> were that the marines out of that the air force, what are you doing at the white house, mr. president? >> you are threatening to veto a bill that would increase defense spending because it doesn't have nondefense increases.

i see the wall walls in the hous doing. i can't believe the commander-in-chief sitting on the sidelines taking this attitude that if you send me a bill that increases defense spending without increasing nondefense spending by the veto it. i find that as repugnant as with the houswhatthe house is doing. >> okay. by the end of 2021 will be spending 1% of gdp as fully implemented. does anybody know? 2.3%. senator king made a very good point. do you think by the end of 2021, given the threats that we face as a nation it is wise to cut the spending in half in terms of historical numbers? >> no sir i do not.

>> no, sir. >> somebody should ask. how could your congress and president allow that to have been? i ask that all the time and i don't have a really good answer. if sequestration goes back are we putting people's lives at risk because of the affected eff sequestration in terms of training? >> yes, sir. >> does anybody else listen to these hearings besides us? how do you live with yourselves and i say that including me. i am part of this body. i voted against sequestration but that's no excuse. if you want to do revenue to fix it, but i'm not going to do is keep playing this silly game. from the nationstates and the terrorists would use a sequestration is a threat to the military? >> scheuer. >> would you agree that the congress is going to shake down

more in an enemy than we can think of in the near-term? do you agree with people park more marines and take them out of the fight to ban any that we can take out the sequestration? >> we are going to go fight and be at risk. >> what is your budget in terms of personnel costs? >> weepy about 61% for the personnel. >> 60% of the budget person out if sequestration goes into effect, are you going to lose marines? >> yes, sir we will. >> how many ships will money be have come admiral? >> they say 278. is that about right? so the congress is going to think how many?

>> how many brigades are we going to wipe out? >> would you agree you have to put them in ethnic if you don't fix the sequestration? >> i'm not required to answer that question. >> i'm not judging. >> i will abstain. >> there are certain questions you are not required to answer. >> i was about to say i was going to re- ask the question.

i want to say how much i respect your service and i think we all do regardless of the tough questions that have been asked. we approach this as an effort working together with those that devoted their lives to the service of the nation with extraordinary distinction and bravery that goes for you and all who serve with you and i just want to begin with my profound thanks for your service. admiral, i want to talk a little about submarines. i know that we are moving towards building to submarines a year. in the testimony you noted your concerns. what is the navy strategy to do with the shortfall when the wite

to 48 vote minimum to 2025 reaches a low point potentially placing the nation in jeopardy tdo we have a strategy to addres the shortfall? >> that shortfall highlights a fundamental element of the shipbuilding plans, and some of these things are very difficult to correct in the short term it takes to build the submarines and capital investment as well but we are building two per year and continue to do that and are also going to look to every way to extend the life of the current los angeles class carrying the burden today so we can carry that trough as much as possible.

.. >> your point about planning is important to the american people who often think we can stop her fingers and turnout the spigot for submarines. but we know and so do the dedicated men and women at electric boat that planning also requires investment and skill

training, and the defense that consists of the men and women who in many ways are like the men and women in uniform because they build the platforms, the submarines who make our projection of power possible around the world. >> i would completely agree. in terms of their talent and skill level i wish we we could take every american to that facility with a vote and seeing that in all of our shipbuilding facilities just to see what american can do when it puts its mind to it, stunning. >> as we ramp up for a higher replacement the biggest challenges the workforce and bring in the skilled labor on. so i agree you 100%. it is a team effort and it is a tough job. >> i hope you'll come back, i have been privileged to go through electric boat with you. i know senator reid has come on many occasions as well and this investment is not spending, it

is investment in our future. i think it is really vital. likewise, on the blackhawks as you know, the national commission on the future of the army issued aviation recommendations earlier this year and these recommendations create some budgetary tension with the aviation restructure initiative in 2014. i'm concerned that the plan, you aged 60 black hawk hawk procurement which is a vital modernization initiative for the active army across the nation will be reduced to pay for other programs as you move forward with the army aviation the fiscal year revision. are they future modernization

plans will be sustained in light of the recommendations? >> aviation is one of our top priorities and when i mentioned in our opening statement. absolutely we are committed to the modernization and we have several initiatives underway with respect to the national commission we have some of the requirements and others we are funding. so we think they commissioned a great work and we intend to implement the recommendation to the extent we can. >> think you. >> thank you mr. chair. gentlemen, thank you for being here today. it is a privilege to be in the same room as you. we do have a lot of difficulties coming up especially with sequestration. i don't think think i could be any more eloquent than senator graham. admiral, i would like to start with you, i do understand the navy is facing some significant budgetary challenges and this is true of all of our services.

however, i was able to visit one of your ships earlier this year and i was stunned to learn about the requirement for up-to-date paper charts aboard u.s. navy ships. and the low priority of celestial training. i did send a letter to the navy on this topic about two months ago and still waiting for a written response but what i would like to know from you is what steps are you taking for basic knowledge : celestial article training for your sailors and removing -- from electronic devices. we understand that these enough the shelf a product that other civilian navigators use as well as a program that is specific to the navy. they just don't get it up-to-date and downloads. they don't have the paper charts necessary. maybe you can fill me in a little bit. >> with respect to navigation we

take it very seriously every moment we are underway and looking into the future. with respect to minimizing our vulnerability with those sorts of systems a multifaceted approach, the we have started take teaching/navigation so those types of courses are back in their curriculum at the naval academy and other places. we can use technology to move us beyond in terms of proficiency and accuracy there. and then one of the things that i am working hard with our industrial base partners is that there are other ways to get precision navigation and timing into our systems which is critical not only for navigation but also for weapon system performance and everything across the board. that is an area of emphasis as well. these should be systems that

would be independent of gps and more precise than gps. we are working very hard across the spectrum. >> we can't forget that we need to stay a little bit old-school. >> that's outstanding. thank you. i appreciate that. >> general i recently did have the opportunity to visit one of my iowa international guard units, 180 fifth air refueling wing in sioux city, one of the things i noticed was the pilot shortage. they continue to talk about that and i know the the chairman has already addressed this issue. what i would like to know from you is that is there a solution for the guard and reserve force as well? what can we do to better enable them with our pilot shortage? >> is a very similar solution as to what we look for because the motivation is the same in the same pilot who joins is very often as you know the international guard came from

there. so the important part for us is to ensure they are getting the same opportunities to train in the international guard as they are in the active duty. and as set for the army, the air force is structured in a way as well that we cannot do the job that we are required to do without the international guard, and all active components working together. especially the mobility community is the most connected in terms of these associations and how we get together. what i mention in terms of quality service, making sure they have the hours to fly, they have the resources to be competitive, at the same time we provide the financial incentives to stay. all those come together to improve our retention rates and were committed to that. >> wonderful, thank you very much. very briefly, and march the army announced a new associate unit a new unit with an app active

brigade combat team. my understanding is this could greatly increase the readiness of our reserve forces and reduce costs. general, do you have any updates on how this program is working so far? again, very briefly please. >> we have 14 associate units right now the pilot program. we think and hope that it will increase the readiness of the garden along with increased ctc rotation and inc. creased for manned area. >> out outstanding. we love our guard folks. thank you sir. >> thank you mr. chair. and thank you for being here. i know that i was here for your opening comments, had to concurrent meetings i had to run to. you said something that may meet reflect on the 440th and i will not refer focus on except to say you're saying that you

need flexibility to get to access infrastructure your going to meet some of your budget constraints. i think the 440th was a classic example because i know very well that they released five or six other sites that were statutorily protected or protected that in your opinion what a been a better more appropriate way to get to the target you're hitting. hopefully we will repeal sequestration. if we don't we need to find other ways to provide you with flexibility to weather the storm. one question is it really has to do with the nda a from fy 16 which has a requirement to retain 1900 aircraft. how are you going to comply with that requirement, or can you? >> we will comply with that, in the next afterword is going to be a challenge. as we bring on new weapon systems given all the other challenges we face, being able to maintain a 1900 is going to be a challenge as we also increase investment and other

key areas the nation require. >> so we should probably outside this committee hearing talk about shedding light on that versus putting a requirement in there that i don't think you're going to be able to achieve. today, of general, i spent a lot of time at north carolina cherry point, we had discussions appear and i continue to hear about challenges facing readiness for the aircraft. then you have have the second and third order effects on challenges for flying time and training time. how would you assess the current state of readiness and give me an idea what that looks like. >> the current state of readiness for marine aviation is dependent on the series but in aggregate it's improving but it is not where we need it to be. it is below unacceptable level. we are not not flying enough. we don't have enough now freddie base aircraft and that means the aircraft that we fly get turned faster and so they are harder to maintain. we are right at our flight

program because not that were flying a lot of hours but that's where we get our parts. so we are not where we want to be, i don't think we will be where we want to be assume a consistent stable funding if we can increase the support funding it will help happen faster if we can get more airplanes but the trendline is up slightly. >> one thing i saw at cherry point, is that if you are where the rubber hits the road and you see these repair operations in the way that it works they can go so far was certain repairs and then they're either waiting for parts are relying on some of the part of the supply chain to finish the repair. be me a plane second probably be ready to go but for changes in some of the processes and other things that we may do to provide you with the flexibility to do it.

i know that has to do with funding and the accounts that have been depleted over time. we have got to shed light on that as we go into planning for next year. general millie, you made a comment about where mortgaging our future readiness to be ready today. we are creating a debt. would you mind getting into specific examples of what that looks like? >> specifically with respect to the budget over many years we have undercut or reduced rsn to t and r&d parts in the modernization accounts. that part of the budget not part of the pie has reduced over time. that is the part that his future readiness is ten or 15 years from now those are neat projects and they become real weapons or real equipment. that is what i am talking about. that part of the pie has been reduced. we are trying to this president's budget make some hard choices as a service given topline and given basically a fixed amount on a compensation piece of it to try to balance

the readiness today versus modernization and infrastructure et cetera for tomorrow. these are hard, tough choices. in the army's piece of it we are prefacing and biasing today's readiness because of the gaps in the last 15 years. we have to get them up to speed because of the threats we're talking about. >> thank you all for your service. thank you center mccain for his position on the effects of sequestration that is going to continue to have if we take nothing away from it we have to be unified and to end this ridiculous way to budget and protect our nation. thank you all. >> thank you mr. chairman. they call for being here. in 2014 the jacob section of the military suicide prevention act was signed into law to the fy 15

and eaa. there was the first bill introduced after joining the senate. it's named after a soldier we lost to suicide in 2009. asher was the four straight year with us more members to suicide than to combat. my colleagues, senator king is sponsoring a showing of a movie, thank you you for your service what touches upon the subject. i'm a talk about taking care of our troops when we talk about readiness, we talked about maintaining the strongest fighting force the world has ever known i cannot think of any thing more fundamental than ensuring the physical and mental health of our men and women in uniform. the act that they are provided a robust health to every member whether they are active, reserve or not. i'd like to know how your branches are doing in implementing this requirement. if you could touch on that. >> thank you senator. one thing within the army we are

seeing in the last year an improvement, meaning a reduced number of suicides, slates but significant enough to be noticeable across the force. that is important. of the efforts we have done with your help in the congress help and lots of folks help over the last several years are showing leading indicators of improvement in suicide which we recognize as a component of readiness. because it's a tragic event. specific to to your question, we are implementing through med, annual health assessments for the force of the regular army. i would have to check on the guard, reserve and how that's been done. we are doing that throughout the force. we also do routine postemployment health assessments. so once if you go to iraq,

afghanistan come back we do tbi checks. we have a lot of programs right now throughout the force to focus on the very thing we are talking about. were taking it serious and we think were making improvements. >> thank you i know your team and in many ways on this, if you could touch upon it. >> sir, exactly the same commitment. we are on track to implement that completely in compliance with your intent. we share your deep commitment to the mental health of our sailors. with respect to the other measures to prevent and we find that the more we can make our sailors feel like a member of the team, that they have a network of support to fall back on, that seems to be one of the most effective things. that in combination with an assessment we hope to turn this thing downward. >> thank you general miller. >> according to the senior medical officer who is a navy admiral for the marine corps, we are in the process of one

implementation, he estimates on the active side of fy 17 it will be implemented. the reserve will probably take longer just because of the nature of their drilling on weekends and having access. but as far as filling out the questionnaire online and having the care provider contact them and having a conversation with all the intentions of the legislation or law, we are planning on being fully implemented by the end of fy 17. >> thank you. >> all just say the same, were in the same boat and we will be fully implemented by the mid- part of fy 17. we are taking a different approach as well. fairly well knew, we are taking the -- approach and their approaches if we were taken in aircraft off the schedule of a certain periodic time to do maintenance and then take it off to do other maintenance and make sure they're in good shape and put them back in the fight, why

would we do the same thing for him in? so were looking at taking your initiative to the next level which is a periodic maintenance schedule for the human to increase performance. that takes a stigma off because if you have to go and based on the schedule and everyone is having to do it we think it will have profound effects. >> emil richardson, your kind enough to visit creighton naval base in its integral to several modernization efforts that we have going, most -- out is that on continuing resolutions impact your ability to modernize the navy? >> think we all feel the pain in some way or another. this continuing resolution business really undercuts the trust and confidence that we have with our suppliers, with the industrial base t to providing not only at the ship

level particularly in this business but also on the component level. when you disrupt that trust and confidence, when you double the amount of contracts you have to write just to get through the year, when you prevent the ability to buy things over a long period of time the only thing you're doing is increasing cost in time and that translates to increasing risk. >> thank you for your hard work and dedication. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think you all for your service and being here today. one question i want to task on its -- the united states air force stand in the tradition and coalition building which will do. and it's having a significant role against isil which you have all done quite effectively. as you may know only four of our fellow native coalition members spend at least 2% of their gdp

on defense spending and the target for nato countries, there is is 28 and it should be a 2%, including five with u.s. that leaves 23 that doesn't make to make any attempt whatsoever. i can't figure why that condition was put in if it is not intended to be kept or met. so so i think i would just like to hear your assessment of this somewhat affected is having. i know there's been some wild political statements made about what would be done, i don't subscribe to me that. but i'm thinking why do we have that condition if were not going to force or any retribution if you don't. how is it affecting?

>> the secretary has been over there talking to nato significantly about contribution and increasing their investment in defense and that's something all of us at the table would like to see in all the domains. one of the areas were focused on in the air force specifically is coalition friendly command and control. the information age of warfare's more warfare is more about data sharing and more about information sharing been able to connect into a, network and architecture and technology has increased security over time. it is made that harder. so as we partner with our nato allies and others around the globe, being able to have them connect into a common framework and network and to fight as a coalition is going to become more important in the future, not less. >> i know know that, but i'm saying how much of a strain is that that we know that our challenges we have financially and everyone else's around the world. if they are basically able to neglect that thinking we are going to do all the heavy lifting which we have done and i understand, but also come up with the financial means to do it as well, sir anything we could do that, do you see any movement in the positive direction? i understand germany

takes the lead on this and the rest follow in germany doesn't take it serious is not to happen. >> we've had this conversation and i know i do it as an air chief my partners to hear as well, that is, we call something high demand, low density and that we tend to admire it over time. we do the best we can to increase the density but it does help a. it would be helpful if our nato friends could raise the bar for everyone as opposed to sometimes what they choose to invest in. >> when anybody have any comments? >> i would just add that first this is not a new problem. i was a nato officer in the 90s and after the end of the cold war they have not reinvested. second, our military counterparts, they want to

participate in they want to play and they play within their capability to think we need to provide them opportunities to do that, whatever their percentage of gdp is for investment. lastly i think it is changing. i think the world environment and strategic environment particularly in europe is causing them to recognize that they have under invested in particularly the eastern european countries are going, so i think there will be change and i think we should encourage them and i think there are military sales which they should increase their interoperability and then whatever way whether it's fms or with their own money will encourage them to increase their capability. >> i will add onto that first, just like the general miller said, my counterparts in nato are as frustrated as anybody as per they want to be full participants in securing not only their patient but europe and contributing to global security and stability. to that end, the importance of american leadership to provide

an example and be there is so as a team weather is equipment or ability, commanding control, they want to participate in they are as frustrated with the policy decision. >> as you know senator we have had a long history in europe with the army and we still have 30,000 troops over there doing exercises we are putting out aps systems. with respect to the nato partner spending, what i have read is their defense spending is actually increasing with many of these countries lately lithuania, poland, even germany, sweden, finland, norway, these countries are reversing some of these trends because of what they have seen in your crane in crimea and elsewhere.

so they are investing and expanding. the key now is to work as a team. nato is a critical alliance. there has been a long piece in europe in europe since 1945 it's gone on seven decades. part of that is because of nuclear weapons also because 300 soldiers stood up on the wall but also because of european allies shoulder to soldier facing down the civil the union. i think it's mutually inter- dependent between us and them in order to achieve effect on a future battlefield. >> of this is one of the conditions the members of nato member nations had when they formed nato, how many other conditions are not being met? >> there's no enforcement, no no policing. there's no attribution. it just seems if your not gonna do anything when we have it there? and they're to say don't worry about that americans will pick it up, they will pay. you understand we go to our

constituents and it's hard to explain why is it there? if not going to make them do something there's no retribution i'm not saying were not not going to help her defend, but maybe you know world bank interest rate, thing of this sort they give them privileges of being a nato member member that there might be a penalty or a push. i'm understanding this not from the military, it it must be coming from the policymakers and the state department's. thank you for your service. i appreciate it. >> thank you on behalf of general mccain. >> thank you for general, on april 6 secretary testified that the required numbers of ships necessary to provide the lives of two marine brigades to conduct joint forcible entry operations is 38 ships. that number, but he also said that numbers fiscally constrain 234 ships with an operational

availability of 90%. we often hear about combat commander requirements requiring amphibious ships. general, you are the man who provides as the marines who operate off though ships. was the right number in your opinion and what mix of ships should that include? >> you are correct, combatant commanders they could meet all the requirements it would take 50 ships. the fiscal constraint requirement is 58 with a 90% availability. right now we are at 31 and we'll go to 34 by 2022. >> will get to 34? >> will get to 34. >> where would that leave us? what that not permit us to do sir?

>> it will not give us, based on the average availability, the ability to about two marine expeditionary brigades which is ability to about two marine expeditionary brigades which is the minimum requirement for forcible entry. >> so ultimately will get to 38 but it will be beyond multiple -- and then it will start to go down if we don't sustain it. >> so what's the right mix? the right mix is ideally 12, minimum of 12 that can handle f35, 12 lpd 17 class and then 12 other comparable forms, ideally in lpd 17 repeat or what we call -- >> that's only 36. >> you'll also have 2la hr's and other ships that would get you 238. we have two non- well deck big well ships that would get you 214 big deck. >> between the lx are, can you get more ship at less cost of the schedule is accelerated?

>> first well thank you for giving us the 12, absolutely. similar to what they set about some rings. anything that we block buying can give the shipyard, whatever shipyard it is certainty where they can get the workforce and train the workforce and they can learn as they build the ships, they can build these ships faster for less money. if we were to block five lpd 17 replacements are lx are we could probably get three and have ships for the cost of five. but that's a big number. but i know you would agree with that it goes with any type of shipper platform where there is an airplane. the more we can provide certainty to both notches the primary vendor but all the subs that build the parts we can drive the cost down and the workforce gets better, smarter, faster. >> thank you. general, about afghanistan, my

understanding of our goal in afghanistan is to participate in a sustained partnership with the elected leader ship there. and i would observe that we have a sustained partnership for decades with our friends in europe and a successful sustained partnership in korea, although this not much kinetic warfare going on in korea at this point. we are there, we've had a sustained partnership and i think it's been successful for the people there for americans also. what is the understanding in your opinion of the afghan people about our purpose in being there in our long-term relationship? >> senator, thank you. i have a fair amount of time in afghanistan. in general, the afghan people

are very supportive of the united states military being there. they would be fearful of us withdrawing. at least in the near term. so what we're trying to do is working by, with come in through the afghan security forces who have been built up to a significant size now. what we are trying to do is train, advice, and assist them in order to maintain stability against their enemies so that the government and the other elements of the campaign, the economy and rule all could be sustained over time area and i think that is going to take a considerable length of time. the attitude of the people at least my experiences that they would prefer that we continue to stick with him and i think that is our plan our current u.s. plan, i think it's also the nato plan. to continue to sustain that

effort. >> for one concur in your conclusion. is it unsettling to be after people to hear that we might leave early? >> i would say yes. but i think that we, the united states and nato have been very firm in our commitment and we have said what we are going to have and going forward. i think that that the government, the military, and the people understand that, we are not going to abandon afghanistan. >> mr. ranking member, and understand we have had our discussion about sequestration. my understanding is that no one has asked these panelists if they are designing that reflects the return to sequestration.

i realize i'm a bit over my time but i think it would be important for us to hear. i know they are horrified at the thought of sequestration returning. but if each of you could tell us , you designing a future year defense plan to reflect going back to sequestration? >> sir, we are not. >> you're not? >> wears. >> where's the law of the land. >> well, general miller. >> sir, we are not designing one but we have had discussions about what might be the cop's clients and some actions we could possibly have to take if it became if it went into effect. >> and admiral richard sick? >> it's security that americans expect of the united states navy. but we always always have to start that conversation with the sequestration levels which puts us in a bind to meet that

mission. >> so nothing that actually looks at what you have to implement. >> and finally,. >> we have done preliminary planning. >> so i understand what the order of magnitude actions would have to take place in the event of sequestration. however, no we have not developed to that level of detail that would be submitted to the president congress. >> is really hope we can avoid it but as i have said years ago senator reid, it is the law of the land and it surprised us all less time when we got to that point it went into effect, hope we can avoid it and thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you all very much for being here for your service to our country. i apologize, i had two other hearings this morning so i am am

sorry that i missed much of the discussion. i'm sure you may have already answered this question but i think it is important to ask again. as i have traveled around the month of august when we were not here in washington and met with businesses, one of the things i consistently heard from many of our businesses in new hampshire and we have a significant number that provide, that have contracts with the department of defense that provide equipment and technology to our military. it was concerned about two things, one about the budgeting process and about the fact that we are going in, again with no budget for the upcoming year and a short term continuing resolution. hopefully we will have a longer-term budget after the election. the other was about the reduced investment in research and development. so, can i ask you to speak to at

the impact is, not just of your budgets in the military, but also of the industrial base that supports our military that we need to maintain if we are to keep our technological edge? >> and general, i see you nodding so maybe you could begin. >> the impact to industry when we cannot provide some stable budget and projection for them probably hits them the hardest in their technical workforce. so what i see is a rather technical forces when i'm talking to a company that is building an air to air or a missile they have to

keep a certain amount of that workforce engaged over time and so when i go to them with one your budgets until the my procurement quantities are not going to be here in the next you're because of traits they're going to be down here and i checked them around back and forth it causes an incredible challenge for industry to be able to sustain their workforce that we need. that does not even go into our point to go to them and say because of the global security environment i need you to search and build even more capability and produce more weapons over the period of time. what they tell me is that we got rid of that workforce because you told me you were coming down this year. so everything that we deal with in terms of an unstable budget and one your budgets actually gets accelerated into industry as well. >> you alluded to the impact that has on our national security and our ability to be prepared, can i get you to elaborate more on that? >> it goes to what kind of weapon systems that we need to modernize. so for the air force, like all the services we have aircraft

that has exceeded their service life and they have got to be replaced. so we rely on industry to support us with our acquisition programs going forward. if we don't have stable budgets, if we don't have the research and development dollars to develop that technology for the future then what happens to us as we continue to push it to the right and like millie said you start mortgaging the future to pay for the current readiness. the other challenge you have is the aircraft age over time. they become more and more expensive to fly. so you take more the dollars that you need for research and modernization and you shift them to older weapon systems. it adds up to an increased risk. >> thank you. >> if i compile on to that. support of my fellow chief and this is a really a team effort. this message of stability is critical. it is not just government r&d,

those businesses that you visited our best in their own dollars and they need to know if they're going to get anything back on that investment. when we don't give them that signal of stability and confidence are not going to invest. they will cash out of the out of the business. the other thing is particularly with technology today and senator reid highlighted in his opening statement. what used to be long-term future has become a more short-term future. were not talking decades into the future, were talking single digits of years. things are moving so fast and directed energy and manufacturing, electric magnetic warfare, artificial intelligence, technologies, we have got to keep on the step with this because we are not the only team out there looking to capture these capabilities. >> thank you. hopefully that is an admonition

to congress that we get our act together and produce a budget and some certainty for the long term. can i ask one more question. >> senator will have one too if you let him. so you go first. >> i know this is on budget but i just came from a hearing in the foreign relation on afghanistan and i heard the mask about afghanistan. i wanted to ask you all about the special immigrant visa program for the afghans because as i'm sure you're where it is about to expire. congress so far has it declined to extend that program and therefore we have several thousand afghans in the pipeline who is questionable whether they will get visas and many of them are under immediate threat or the families are being threatened. can i ask you to speak to the

importance of that program to our men and women on the ground and light would be important for congress to extend? >> thank you. we have had hundreds and thousands of afghans work for us, the united states military. they have been interpreters, analysts, they have been doing a lot of things. many of them have asked to become american citizens, etc. i. i personally would be in favor of extending that because those are brave men and women who have fought along our side. there are men and women, american men and women in uniform alive today because of a lot of those afghans put life on the line for their own country, to be sure, but with us. now they want to become an american citizen and i for one would like to afford them that opportunity. >> thank you.

would anybody else like to add? >> we saw similar thing in iraq where your other shoulder to shoulder with marine and soldiers risking their lives ensuring the risk in providing great services to keep our citizens alive. i interviewed them myself to make sure they understood that this is not what you may have seen on tv. you're going to to come and work if you have the opportunity. i think there is a proper vetting process. i know commanders up to the rank are involved in this. i signed off on all of these myself and i know there is background checks. i fully support, with the proper vetting process that this program be allowed to continue. >> thank you all very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> just briefly, one of the privileges of serving on this committee is the relationship we have with our services and one of those relationships as the military fellows that are

assigned to our offices. today marks probably the last hearing for lieutenant commander dennis wish meyer, a naval officer who served in my office served this year and i want to recognize the importance of that program, recognize the work that the lieutenant commander has made. if i ask good good questions they have been his, if they five stb questions they are mine. i wanted to provide that recognition. thank you. >> you must've been here today senator king. >> let me thank you gentlemen for your testimony forthright and very sobering. thank you for your service individually and please extend our thanks and gratitude to the men and women that you lead so proudly. with that i would adjourn the hearing. thank you.

>> no. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] the use.

together with the european parliament we have a little bit further towards the parliamentary process. they lead to walk hand-in-hand on this road. today we have the chance on

the speech on the state of the union address. it is a very important moment in the work of the european parliament. a very historic moment. in a very important moment when it comes to the development of that two days before the summit in brussels. we have the opportunity together with the european commission to get some signs on this. it is something that has been there. you guys had worked very hard on this. we are very happy to hear your words. in the presence on how the state of the union address.

late is a judgment members of the european parliament. courtesy of the council colleagues. one year ago in september 2015 in my speech on the state of the european union i stated that the state of the union left much to be desired. the dinner only apply to europe in our union. there was not enough union. in spite of the progress it has been made. it still applies. the european union still does not had enough of those. things have improved. but others haven't.

and this has something to do with the crisis of the european union. there are too many areas in which they can't reach it. the scope in which we go together is too soon. the national interest come to the floor. we should not misunderstand that. we cannot have it left to the interests of individuals. they cannot become that. a colorless this was the case the commission does not intend to get rid of the nationstate.

we don't destroy we don't want to undermine we want to construct europe is not going down the path of nationalization. the aspects it exists. and that leaving that. we have to be aware of that. [applause].

it was really high time more than ever that we really take a look at the situation. it is currently rising. social injustice continues and that's why very quickly we have to get to work on the basis of this equity. it is not social enough we with to make that here.

they continue to be at a higher level. a drop in deficits rate. and so we don't want to see the flexibility act. we need to show intelligence in the flexibility there. so we don't break or hinder growth. i think we also need to look into the eyes of those who are observing us from afar our friends and partners worldwide who deeply regret brexit and they are wondering whether it is the beginning of this process.

allowing you here and today that we respect and at the same time regret. we would be happy if the request could happen as quickly as possible so we can take the specific steps which need to be taken. and so that the relations with the uk and only those can have unlimited access to the internal market. to accept that there will be

free access for that. there cannot be other access to the supermarket. our partners constantly raise the question as to whether it is still in a position to enter in to trade agreements with the rest of the world. the trade in area we had trade agreements with hundred 40 countries worldwide. i am not a blind fanatic on this. i do believe to have trade and trade means more work. they are dependent on this. one in every seven jobs in europe depends on our experts.

$1billion more in export volume an additional 40,000 jobs in europe. and therefore i am very much behind the trade agreement with canada but the most progressive. the kind of piece that we need can be specified in the procedures and we can rule out the conservatives of which exists. in the future also in india

and japan. it is a global and legally binding agreement and it wouldn't have come into being in the absence of the european union. we drove this forward. and sometimes we also edged others to act we recall the steps to be taken we are calling on them to rectify this. basically dragging her feet under man's our international

capability. basically it goes amongst ourselves and interaction to depend on this. were not the united states of europe. which i making today and cannot be compelled in any way. the history of europe made it this way. it made us what we are. that is no reason to make things even more complicated and difficult than they are already. he requires courage but we

need to speak in committed terms about europe international parliament as well. if we protect that we want that. for all of the logic in the hearings. it cannot be for any longer we have to look them straight in the eye people in europe don't want the end between the very different institutions people expect of europe that they see

clear results and the results that are there in due time. [indiscernible] tranone tranone and it

waited. and all of these. the liberties what it means to be part of this european union. to remember nations and how they come to work together. the base of that. because it is a great nation. [applause].

to remember why they have that. the young democracy. of the fear of solidarity. to remember that it is a rising force. something i am supporting. it has to be done. [applause]. it means peace. it is no coincidence. seventy years of lasting peace in europe with those

conflicts. of course we still have our differences sometimes we fight. but we fight with words. the european way of life is there. the values in the freedoms in the democracy the rule of law. they could never. it has been there in the streets. [applause].

the belief in the independence and effective justice the systems support economic growth in the fundamental rights. they promote and defense the rule of law everywhere in europe. it has the right to have your personal data protected. or the companies. two every mouse click. this is why they count with the commission with that protection. in europe privacy matters.

european also means. [inaudible] for the same work in the same place. this is why the commission stands behind the posting workers. it's not the place that workers can be the standards of others. it is not the right way. [applause]. and exact playing field. it means in europe consumers are protected by powerful

companies. no matter how big or small has to do it where it makes its profits. i was promising you that my commission would fight against tax evasion and many of you didn't believe me. that's what we are doing. this commission is delivering on the fight against tax evasion. being european often means standing up for the steel industry. and then they subsidize the measures in place to protect from the unfair competition. you need to do more for the production in some part of the

word and they take us out of work. this is why i was in china twice this year. this is also whites proposed to change the lesser duty. and on this parliament to support the commission and strengthening our defense. we would not be naïve with the free traders but to be able to respond as forcefully as the united states of america. it's all part of the way of life. i want to preserve our agricultural sector. the commission particularly when they go through difficult moments last year the sector

was hit with a gun imposed by russia. this is why they immobilized $1 billion to have them back on their feet because i would not accept that milk is cheaper than water. in the european it also means you. the global financial crisis is the leading policy. often invisible. takes $50 billion in interest payments thinks to the central banks. $50billion extra that

governments can they invest in the economy. they can be used for debt reduction. to fight the presidents report. tranfifteen >> we need to work for you are that empowers our citizens and our economy. today, both have gone digital. digital technology and digital communications are going into

every aspect of life. all they require is access to high-speed internet. we need to be connected, our economy need it, people needed. we have to invest in that connectivity. that is why today the commission is proposing a reform for our european communication. we want to create a new leader and framework that enables investment in connectivity. businesses should be able to plan the investments in europe for the next 20 years. because if europeans invest in new networks and services, that it at least 1.3 million new jobs in the next decade. connectivity should benefit everyone. that is why the commission is

proposing a fully deployed -- across your pain union by 2025. this is the potential to create 2 million jobs in the european union. everyone will be benefiting for connectivity no matter where you live or how much you earn. so we will include all european venues in every city with free wireless access in public life by 2020. as the world goes digital we have also to empower our access and protect. the creation is not a hobby, it is a profession. on journalists, publishers, authors to be paid fairly for

their work. whether it is made and studios are living rooms, whether it is online or off-line, whether it is published by a copy machine or high-tech. the copyright rules we are proposing today that is exactly that. [applause]. empowering our european economy means investing not just in connectivity but in job creation. the 350 billion -- which has already raised 160 billion in investments in the first year of operation. thanks to the european strategic investment.

and now today we propose to double the duration and to double its capacity. we feel support and we will make sure our european investment will provide the total of at least 500 billion to half a trillion in investments by 2020. we want to reach a 630 billion by 2022. of course with members contributing we can get there even faster. we also need to create the right environment to invest in. european banks are in a much better state than two years ago. thanks to our joint european efforts. europe needs its banks, but the

economy, almost entirely depends on banking project for financial stability. and it is good for business. that it is it is now urgent we accelerate our work on the capital. the commission is putting this on the table today. we will make our financial system by far more resilient. it will give companies to diversify access. imagine your step up and a bank refuses alone. what what now? the options are very limited. the capital market union we offer alternative.

business interest, venture capital, to just mention one example our proposal of -- has been on the table of legislators for almost one year now. it has the potential to bring up to 100 billion euros of additional financing for european businesses so let us speed up its adoption. our investment plan is better than anyone expected inside europe. and now we are willing to take it to your. today we are launching an ambitious investment plan for africa which has the perp possibility to raise investments. it can go up to 88 billion. this will complement our