with sequestration will result d th in the need to develop a new the strategy. wed simply will not be able to will execute the strategy with the implications of that cut.ications thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before youbefore this morning. a i look forward tond your questions. >> i thank you. al i thank you all for a very compelling statements and i hope that all of our colleagues and in fact all of the american people could hear the statement and see the statements that you made today.cted m our most respected members of our society. a i would also have an additional u c request, that is that if you could provide for the record all of you a list of some of the f s decisions you would have to make if sequestration continues to bee enacted and there is no amelioration of the situation

that you're in. i guess the only other comment i. would like for you to answer, because i'd like all my y colleagues to be able to have time to answer questions is the old line about those of us that ignore the lessons of history. general odierno, you made reference to it. when general shymire came beforell this community and said we had amembe hollow army, i know my friend ere senator reed remembers that also and we were able to recover hardwarewise and ships and airplanes and guns and -- but it took a lot longer than that to restore the readiness and the morale of members of our military and all four of you made reference to it.

i would like you to elaborate a little bit on the personnel side br of this because it seems there is always the best and the . brightest that leave first when ot you're a pilot that can't fly m and on a ship that doesn't leave br port and on so maybe each of you can give a brief comment about great the intangible that makes us the greatest military on earth. i'll begin with you, general odierno. >> thank you, senator. the center of everything we do em is our soldiers. the army is our soldiers. and without them and their lt capabilities, our ability to do our job becomes very, very difficult and it is something n y that happens over time.readines my concern is when you're ment o fundingf readiness, you're funding the development of our

jung sole young soldiers and you can't do thatha episodically. you have to do in a sustained execute manner. it allows them to execute the oming most difficult and complex missions we face. in today's world, those missions icul are becoming more complex and . more difficult. that my concern is is as they see maybe we're not going to invest in that, they start to lose ust faith and trust that we will give them the resources necessary for them to be successful in this incredibly complex world that we face. i think sometimes we take for granted the level of capability thei our soldiers bringr and the investment we have made into theis education and training which iscannot central to everything that we seques do. and we can't lose sight of that. and unfortunately with duce sequestration, we are going to four have to reduce that over the take next four to five years for sure because we cannot take in and strength out fast enough to get the right balance because of ourhave commitments we have.

therefore you have to look at readiness, training and modernization. we're losing cycles of this training that develops these young men and women to be the best at what they are the best ar of what they do. so for us we can't forget that. >> as chairman, i bring something to everybody's r attention.iing when we hadto sequestration, we w say, we exempted personnel as if, hey, that's good. that means they got paid. but that doesn't mean that they l got -- that's their quality of th life and we gave them their housing allotment, that's good.qua but the quality of their work, are which is what you're alluding to, when they go to work and what general was -- the general was alluding to they're not proficient at what they do. and they're not -- therefore ey they're not confident. as a sailor you're out to sea, ot you're on your own, you need to be confident and know you can beyou proficient. you alluded to pilots.on you have a have and have not. if you're deployed you're if flying 60 hours a week

sometimes. if you're not deployed, you may be flying ten hours a week and some may be in a simulator. you're sitting around the classroom looking out the windowclas at your strike fire hornet it looks great but it is on the he tarmac. that's not why youmac. joined.ou the same at sea. if you're a destroyman and in a u submarine, you're not operating.havior that becomes behavioral problems eventually because the idle mindt. is the devil's workshop. we're out and about, our alcohol problems go up. i alluded to it i saw it in command, saw it as a jo.i this is what happens.is then this gets to family o problems, it starts cascading. b you bring all that together.we t we have an all volunteer force lunt thatee wants to contribute and and they want to do things, they want to be professionally supported in that regard. thank you. >> general welsh?like >> chairman our civilian airmen felt we committed a breach of mplete

faith with them. h they still have not recovered horrib completely from that. if it happened again it would be absolutely horrible. and i believe we would see the effect immediately in retention. i can't emphasize enough my agreement with what john just peo said about people not joining this business to sit around.squadr pilots looking out at their hollow airplanes parked on the ramp it feel like a hollow force whethering t we define it that way or no same thing with the people who want to fix the airplanes load weapons on them, support them joined from the storage area all they they d want is to be the best in the is t world at whatever it is they do. all of our people are that way.t the if they don't think we will educate them and train them and equip them to do that, and to em fill that role, then they will are, p walk.ey st they're proud of who they are y repr proud ofes who they stand beside and proud of what they represent. and when they lose that pride, f t we lose them. w when we lose them, we lose everythings. a

>> also, we're going to have, asgnifi you made reference to, a significant draw from the airlines as the vietnam era pilots retire from the airlines. i think that's an additional issue that we are going to have g to face up to anyway without sequestration sequestration. >> we see it today, sir. >> chairman, thank you. you alluded to the hollow force of the 1970s. i was on active duty during that time. i was a lieutenant commander where we had an organization of to the about 190,000 marines, we didn'te have proper landing, didn't have proper training didn't have nizati proper equipment.out where we saw the impact was in poor enlistments discipline rates. we were unable to maintain the quality people that we wanted to have and quite frankly i know to ma myself and manyin of my at counterparts at the time had a difficult decision to stay in the marine corps.my c and many of us only made the dec decision to stay once the marineand

corps started to turn around in made the 1980s.ay as you alluded to, it took five the 8 to seven years after we0s started it to make an investment for the morale to catch up. the thing i would add to what wo the other chiefs said is that i think most of us would be -- would not have been able to predict the quality of the all volu volunteer force and its ability to sustain now over 13 years at war. there is nothing that has allowed that force to sustain except for intangible factors.is no it has not been how much we paid them. it is the sense of job satisfaction, sense of purpose, been sense of mission. as a lewdi alluded to, their sense of trust. none of us wantea to be a part of our last tour and active duty want to be part of returning llow back when we had a hollow force. i think we're phoridfortunate we're not tested at that time. >> thank you very much, mr. hank chairman. thank you, generaler again for y and your testimony for your great nati service to the nation.nce you have already reduced

training. you already reduced maintenance. you already stretched out acquisition programs, et cetera. whatever we do i think you willdo, manage and which presents the interesting problem is that we could be in a period of a steadye c accelerating, but invisible decline until a crisis. and then the reckoning will be near. i think's l we have to take appropriate action now and the jus chairman's leadership is dividu critical in althat. let me just go and ask you individually individually, with all the cuts you already made, with all the losses looking forward what are w the one or two capabilities thattw you will see leaving or lost if sequestration goes into effect. i'll ask each of you. general odierno?night >> i often get asked the question what keep me up at night. and the number one thing that keeps me up at night is that if we're asked to respond to an unknown contingency, i'll send

soldiers there not properly if trained and ready.as we simply are not used to do pr that.eady. the american people and we doing expect our soldiers to be prepared. and that they had the ability to train, they understand their eo equipment, they have been able to integrateur and synchronize p their activities so they're very th successful on the ground.integr that's the one thing that i ccessf really worry about as we move tothe futu the future. the second thing is our ability to do simultaneous things.e what we're coming to the point ng's now, we'll be able to do one thing. we'll be able to do it pretty t t well. but that's it.wre this world we have today is requiring us to do many, many things, maybe smaller, but many many things simultaneous. i worry about our ability to do nizati that. >> admiral greenert, please. >> we're at a time of modernization. our benchmark is the year 2020 and our ability to do the missions i refer to. and for the navy, a lot of those missions require joint access to areas around the world and,

against an advanced adversary. i look at the futures, perhaps versar the y.inability, we'll fall further behind in what i call maneuv electromagnetic maneuver er em warfare. it is an emerging issue. electronic attack. the ability to jam, the ability ess to detect seekers radars of satellites and that business. and we're slipping behind. our advantage is shrinking very fast, senator. ou also, anti-air warfare. our potential adversaries are advancing. we're losing that. and if we don't have that advantage, we don't get the job done in the 2020 time frame. the undersea domain we dominate in it today but we have to hold that advantage and that includesbu the ohio replacement, the sea based strategic return in on addition to toanti-submarine it warfare. it is aboucet access and the ability to get that access where we need. cyber is also another one. one we talk about a lot.an

lastly, i can't underestimate we the fact that we're good and we will continue as joe dunford said, our forces we put forward,eady we'll put forward and they'll be the most ready. we're required to have a response force, a contingency force. we owe that to the combatant commanders. if we're not therew todaye and we'll just never get there, if it we go to sequestration.n ti we'll remain at about one third neve of what we need to be.thank thank you. >> thank you, general. if you could be succinct. >> infrastructure that gives youtraini long-term ngcapability, training ranges, test facilities we haven't been investing, it will cost us the ability to operate in the future. multiple simultaneous aneous o operations. wewe s simply don't have the capacity anymore to conduct bilit that, particularly in areas like isr, refueling, et cetera. the capability gap is closing ash john mentioned between the c people trying to catch up with y the technologically and they have momentum. if we let the gap get too close, we won't be able to recover

before they pass us. space and nuclear business and in b space business, we cannot forgetat that that is one of the fastest growing and closing ahea technological gaps in the cyberarena if we don't try to get ahead in that particular as race, we'll be behind for the next 50 years as everybody else has been behind us in other areas. those are my r biggest concerns. >> thank you. commandant. >> the two capability areas first would be our ability to come from ship to shore we're in a vehicle now that is over 40 years old and replacing that is bility both a an issue of operational capability and safety. also our air frames f-18 are tiona both over 20 yearsl old, an issue of operational capability and safety. but i would say, senator, you alluded to it, my greatest m concern in addition to those twoumulati capability areas is the cumulative effect of the cuts we made to date and the cuts we make in the future. every day i'm still finding out t second and third effects of the e to cuts made to dateda in the will sequestration that was put in effect in 2013. >> thank you very much.her

further complicating your lives li and our livesve is that this is a focus today on the problem of defense, but the ramifications goon to government.ple and the impacts will roll back on you. s one more obvious example is if n. the state department is subject to sequestration, they won't be able to assist you in the field and general mattis brilliant in his testimony said last march his t if you don't fund the full statethe department, i need to buy more ammunition. that's one effect. there are even more subtle effects. we provide impact aids to the department of education. the department of education is t subject to sequestration.of there will be an impact. secretary of education duncan before the appropriations committee last year said the independence school district in texas, 22,000 connected children to would lose an estimated $2.6

million. so we have to take not only a view towards the department of defe defense, but across the whole al government. you all talked about retaining those troops.rs when those young stole jers inoldiers in fort hood don't thinhek the not education opportunities are good as they should be, they'll vote with their feet. it will affect you in so many . different ways, you will, as general dunford, will be waking hat i up, gettinsg complaints about how the schools are bad and i'm leaving and that's not title ten. so, general, thank you for the >> service and the testimony. >> senator to wicker. >> there are committee members going back and forth today to the budget committee hearing. we have a debt problem in this country. general mattis spoke about it yesterday with another distinguished panel.

no nation in history is maintained its military power, failed to keep its fiscal house e in in order. we're balancing the spending i problem we have in the government overall with really a frankly a lack of funds in the defense department that you talked about today.or s general odierno you said in your 40 years or so of service this is the most uncertain time you've seen as a professional military person. and admiral greenert this is the fewest number of ships we had since world war i. is that correct? >> that's correct sir. >> general welsh, as an air hear force veteran myself, astonishing to hear this is the smallest air force ever in the history of the united states. you did say that. >> since we were informed in 1947, yes, sir. >> right. and, general dunford, in talkingtalki

about sequestration, you say it is the funding levels and also it is the rules of sequestration. so i thought i would start with you and theni go back up the panel there. if we were able a little more g easily or quickly to give you flexibility within the funding levels, and some relief from the rules to what extent would that help you in the short run? or in the long run?on. >> thanks senator for that question. just the funding capsule on -- would reduce the overall budget by $4 billion to $5 billion a year from where we were in s present budget 12.ercent. so that's for us about 18 to 20%. it would certainly be better if we didn't have the rules associated with sequestration and what i can guarantee you are senator is whatever amount of money the congress provides, the united states marine corps would build the best marine corps it can. but even at the budget control act levels, without

sequestration, we will reduce the capacity to the point where we'll be challenged to meet the current strategy. >> joe welsh, to what extent would flexibility within these very low levels be somewhat of a help? >> senator, i think all of us understand that our services the department has to be part of the debt solution for the nation. we don't live in a mushroom farm and not believe that that has to be true. the things that we would need though, with any kind of levels of funding is we have been looking at is stability and predictability and funding over time. and then the ability to make the decisions that will let us shape r our services to operate at those funding levels are less than lity t predicted. for the air force, if you look what at the 12 budget where we came out of and said, okay, we can vels l execute this strategic news guidance, the 12 budget was $21 billion more per year than we strat will have at bca levels. $21 billion a year requires some very tough decisions to be made, bill

some very hard and unpopular bca decisions to be made, but without the ability to make 21 those decisions, we will continue to be stuck not sure where we're going in the future. >> the clock is tickingt away on ake that predictability, isn't it? >> yes sir, it is.wher >>e admiral?tu >> myre colleagues have spoken to s tick the value -- the number that is the dollar value, but i would say if the verb sequestered as th you know that's an algorithm, sa we have been through this we know spend months reprogramming with your help up here on the hill e and we lose months, we lose th four, five, six months on a program like for us the ohio t replacement program where we don't have time. ship building gets held up. projects get held up. people aren't hired.to h and that loses that trust with industry. so precludingts g getting sequestered is helpful.d and continuing resolution stop -- have a similar effect in that we're not doing any new sequ

projects and some of these are d in pretty critical as we go into the years and need to modernize. >> senator the first comment i are make is over the last two years we have been giving money above the levelm of sequestration and it was still only 33% ready.evel of and so, yes, flexibility will give us the ability to manage insufficient funds in our department. but that's all it does. it allows us to better manage. ab today, we had to extend our -- ment b all ourut aviation programs so the cost for every apache has gone up. the cost for every ch 47 has gone up because we had to extend t the programs longer and longer and longer. we're paying more money per system. we're inefficient, even with the less dollars we have. even exacerbates the readiness are problems even more. so flexibility would help, but it is not going to solve the problem we have, which is a s t problem of insufficient funds to sustain the right level of ibilit readiness.

>> thank you. let me justolve t ask briefly there a was a decision we would pivot to asia pacific. to what extent do the joint chiefs of staff consulted on that. we have got -- we have got eastern europe russia still have the middle east and everything going on there. doesn't seem to have calmed downnsult as some people thought. to what extent was this a pentagon decision that we could have even have a repivot to asia pacific? and afford it? >> that was part of our discussions. we had numerous discussions with the white house and within the pentagon when we did the defense strategic guidance in 2012.sion. so that was one of the kind of the foundations of that strategy. so i would say, senator, i felt we had a good discussion on the re -- what we call the rebalanced asia pacific. >> i would comment, i agree with that. we had thorough discussions and we thought the rise of china in -- this is 2012, was very

important. we had to be able to a have the capability to respond potentially to that. and also the problems with north korea and other problems in the tant asia pacific. and we made some assumptions about where we would be in the rest of the world, those have not quite played out the way we tions thought withab iraq isis and specifically russia. and their increased aggression. the strategy is still good we just have to recognize that there are some additional lly threats out there that we didn'tll expect. and that we have to deal with those. thatt increases the risk as we look at sequestration and other budget cuts. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you, mr. chairman.>> t thank you, all, for your service. general welsh, i wanted to ask you, in regards to our nuclear mission, it is a very, very critt cam mission, oncritical mission

obviously. what impact is sequestration going to have in your area?our ef >> two specific areas at the top of the list. nuclear infrastructure i mentioned before, we're at a point in time where we have got list. to start modernizing and capitalizing some of the ntione infrastructure in terms of facilities built 15 years ago moderni now. we have an investmentev plan designed. it is prepared to be t put into place. we actually have it in the lities president's budget this year.50 if we go to sequestration all to of the facility maintenance and new buildings that we have put into that thi proposal will fall offwe go the table, except for a single weapons storage area at one of the bases.dings we so that's the first point. pr the second one is that we do have a requirement, as a nation to make decisions on what do we want to recapitalize and rst . modernize in terms of nuclear o h weapons and nuclear command and control capability over the next 15 to 20 years. it affects the air force and the navy. the decisions on that need to becontro made in thel near future. sequestration and bca caps will limit the amount of things you e

can do in that arena and make in the those decisions more important tratio to make earlier so we don't a ca waste money leadingbs into the time when those things have to e be done. >> admiral how will this affectarlier the plans you have for the ohio class? >> if i get back to the verb if we are sequestered, we lose months as i was saying before hiring engineers and we're on a >> if very tight timetable to start we are building the first ohio in 2021. that's kind w of one piece we have to continue to do that. the sea based strategic deterrent is my number one a program. in fiscal year 17 through 20, we have $5 billion st invested as advance procurement for the first ohio, which in 2021 is $9 billion on top of the ship building plan we have now. very difficult to do. in we have to do it though, senator, so we'll have to continue to work in that regard. >> thank you and i obviously ve have the same concern you all do

on our war fighting capabilities. when you look at the sly difficulties in syria, and iraqcapabi and that area what are the kind of things we're not able to do diffic there that you look and you go, if we were doing this, and this it would really help move the ball forward. not where are you being placed in a tighter spot right now? general odierno, if you give us he a start. f >> i would just say it is -- the first thing is this fight t righ against iraq andt syria is a long-term issue.t this is not something resolved in weeks and months.isil something that will have to bein resolved in years. and it is going to require a goin combination of efforts with the local indigenous governments, going to require efforts from going training and indigenous force c and support from us for a very long period of time. and it is going to require continued assessments and adjustments on how we believe weeriod will continue to support that effort.

i think over time if that threat continue, we have to reassess we wi what our strategy is so that's the hard part about it. this is not a short term tha problem, it is at long-term we wil problem. it is going to take a long-term dedicated effort to solve it across many different lines of effort, whether it be through g-term diplomatic p efforts combination of joint capability and enabling endith us in forceenable ing indigenous forces and the capability we need to do that. >> so if you're facing a long-term challenge, and as you look long-term you may have less tools in the toolbox to u ar deal with it. >> that's correct. >> general dunford. >> senator thanks for that question. right now, as i mentioned the earlier, we're taking all the risk, not with our deployed units, but units and home stations. so everything that general austin asked us to do from a marine corps perspective, we're g un able to doit now. but as general odierno said, s should this continue on really for us it is a question of s to capacity to do everything that ively we're doing at a sustainable o.

deployment to dwell rate just to give you some idea of how fast our marines are turning now. they're all deploying for seven ent months, home for 14 months or in some cases less and back out forre seven months in perpetuity. that sustained level of operational tempo is something that concerns me and isil is part of that. >> and that also makes it prettyhat difficult on the home frond, doesn't it? >> senator really two issues. one is the time available to train for all of the emissions. and the second is the time available to spend time with your family. and we're particularly concerned with our midgrade enlisted marines what it comes to that particular challenge. >> general odierno in regards, ncer as you look forward how are youular cha planning to mix with the national guard?d and how does that figure into your plans as we look forward? gua >> if you look at what we have done, so in the end, if we go to

full sequestration we're taking lo 150,000 people outok of the active army. the large majority of our cuts are coming out of the active army. because of that, we have to relyple more on the national guard u.s. army reserves.t of and we have to remember what we're trying to achieve is our ationa national guard and reserve provides us a depth to respond to complex problems.g and so the issue becomes as we have to rely on some areas, more on our -- on them in the beginning, such as in logisticssome a and area likere that, where we don't have enough structure in the active component now because of the reductions, we have to rely more heavily on the national guard and u.s. arm struct reserve for things such as that.these and in terms of the combat more capability, there is still going to have to provide us the depth. we have less capability in the active component. a so thisg all gets to this balance sa we're trying to achieve.

i worry about the fact that if we reduce the active component t too much, our ability to respond quickly is going to be effective because the world today spins much quicker than it used to. is instability happens quicker. the necessity of us respond -- for us to respond has to be quicker. i worry we're going to lose thatof us to capability. that's what we expect our active component to do and we expect our national guard and reserves to be behind us, helping us as tha we move forward with this.s wh and i worry about that as we go forward. >> thank you, all, for your e leadership.rward thank you, mr. chairman. ab chairwoman ayotte? >> thank you chairman.ur appreciate it. i want to thank all of you for . your leadership and what you're doing for the country and most importantly this discussion about sequestration and i think it is very clear the impact that it is going to have in our ability to defend the nation as one that calls all of us to act

tot address this for each of you pact and so i thank you for being so to act clear about what the t impacts th will beis today. and yesterday we heard the same thing from general mattis and general keane and admiral fallon about the impacts of sequester. there is a clear consensus amongl keane those who have served and have formally served in the military, the devastating impact on our ability to defend the nation andg our men and women in uniform.who i want to ask each of you when our men and women volunteer for service, in the armed services, they give up a number of rights e that the rest ofn us enjoy.es they volunteer to tell our government we tell them what to wear, what to do, where to live. and to some extent they give up to some degreet what they can say. and most importantly they obviously are willing to the sacrifice their lives to defend our nation.

in return for these are restrictions, and expectations . congress guaranteed these brave men and women the ability to and communicate with us. and i believe this is very important. in fact, congress put in place a law, ten u.s. code 1034 that ngress prohibits anyone from restricting a member of the armed forces and communicating with a member of congress. m to all of you who agree this law is important, yes are or no?ngress >> yes. >> yes, ma'am. >> absolutely. >> yest senator. >> thank you. general welsh i want to ask you about comments that have come to my attention. that are reported to have been made by major general james post, the vice commander of air combat command and he's reported to make these comments when addressing a group of airmen this month. and what he has said to have made in comments to the airmen

was anyone who is passing information to congress about a-10 capabilities is committing format treason and as part of those comments he also said if anyone accuses me of saying this, i will deny it. let me just ask you this, ny it. general welsh, do you find those comments to be acceptable in any way to accuse our men and women in uniform to say you're committing treason if you communicate with congress about the capabilities of the a-10 or the capeabilityies of any of our ngr other weapons systems? yes or no?the >> no, ma'am. not at all. capa and there is an investigation her currently ongoing into that ms incident. when i readno? the newspaper article, i contacted the general officer involved. and his commander. the department of defense ig is per overseeing an investigation being run by save ig and will

present the facts to the committee when the recession is complete. >> i hope that this is a very fac thorough investigation becausets obviously i know this is very serious to accuse people of treason for communicating with congress. one thing i would like your commitment on that i think is ess very important, do you -- unconditionally denounce if it is found to be true. and air combat command in responding to press inquiries d about this has not denied that the general made those comments. but do you denounce those s comments and do you support the those legal rights of members of the air force to communicate lawfully with congress about the a-10 or any other issue? and do you commit that the air force will take no punitive action against airmen who are exercising their lawful right toake no p communicate with congress?o are

>> senator, i complete to the lawfulness. i support any airmen's right to discuss anything you want to discuss with them. my job is wait until the facts are known. and make recommendations to the secretary and then report the nest o decisions as she makes as a result of that when it is done. >> i appreciate that, general welsh. it worries me about the climate hat and the tonewh that is set if me members, airmen, airwoman, are told that they'll be committing treason if they communicate with us. what i'm hearing is that there is actually an investigation i going on in reverse to find out who has communicated with congress and to me that seems ind the opposite of what we would bemmunicat trying to accomplish in looking that at whether -- what general post te said and o whether it was lawful or not. so i hope that there will be no ener

punishment oalr any kind of id the pursuit of people trying to communicate with congress.ope ther will you commit to me with that? >> i know of nothing along those purs line at all.ople i would be astonished by that. and certainly i'm not part of it. the secretary is not part of it. that? i would not condone it. >> thank you. i' >> senator m shaheen, happy i woul birthday. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we won't talk about which birthday it is. but it is certainly better than enator the alternative, so i appreciate that. thank you very much for being here, gentlemen, and for your appre service to the country.re gen apropos senator ayotte's questions, one thing i hope is that you're men and women in the military would let members of congress know about their concerns with respect to r men sequestration because i do thinkitary it is helpful for each of us to hear from people serving what oncer they see first hand about the use i impacts of some of these policy

decisions. so i'm hopeful that we will hear more of those discussion ss. you know i have been pleased chairman mccain has started the kn armed services committee been p hearings this year with a broader view of national d the securityar policy.his and one of the issues that has been brought up with respect to national security policy is that one of the concerns is the fact res that we have not had an ongoing budget process that people can count on, that we have a debt that in the future is a concern. and that it would be important that p for us to address that. i certainly put sequestration inul that category that it is important for us to address this and do it in a way that provides certainty, that deals with the

short falls that our military is wi facing and that it is important for us to do that with respect to all of the agencies of the federal government that deal with national security. i wonder gentlemen, if you agree that's an important goal we should be working towards in ree that congress. general odierno? >> i think the strength of our workin country is based on many different factors. it is important we understand that as we go forward. we certainly understand that.n many what i would say to that is that the important part of our defense spending, important part under thatst rolled out and ensuring security should be considered as we do that. i know you know that, senator. >> thank you. does everyone agree? >> yes ma'am. >> yes, ma'am. >> yes senator. >> >> thank you. >> so to be a little parochial

this morning as i think most of you are aware the port smith b naval shipyard is a shipyard li that shared between new hampshire and maine and is i think, one of our very important public shipyards. i know you know this. think i wonder if you could talk about the importance and the impact of sequestration on our shipyards, on our depos and the concern that that provides. we talked about the impact on our active duty military. our civilian workforce is also litary affected. >> the impactar was very much underestimated. that's part of your point. a fews facts.impac we lost 70,000 mandates of planned shipyard work we had to defer because we had no overtime and we furloughed them. how do think feel about the importance of it? what are we losing that we loste import

you understand, 1700 submarine days. that's like taking five submarines and tying them up for a year. t that's the kindhe of impact. i worry about going -- it takes five years to recover from that collectively. we talked about the importance of they ab nuclear deterrence. these public shipyards can't the underwrite all that. im because of port smith, i can do work in the other shipyards. port smith is a major part of a ship maintenance enterprise that we must have. and i worry about it in sequestration. >> thank you very much. does anybody want to add the -- hat to the impact on depots and the ch. country? >> senator, i can add from an aviation perspective. we lost a lot of engineers and artisans and now 50% of however ks f-18s are out of reporting.

it was mentioned in most of our opening statements we talk about trust and we talk about retaining high quality people predictability is important to people.d and iin fear h that some of the t folks that were furloughed won'ty come back as they do have other that opportunities. >> i share that. and admiral greenert i know you appreciate this, one thing i >> i heard from shipyard employees isow you as we're looking at an 18 ha workforce and the need to hire new people and the shortage of stem educated people that engineers, mathematicians, scientist scientists are in small supply.e they'll look in the private if sector and that creates a real tainty kwirb for all of us. wor >> i could add, you know, we already duced 4500 out of our

depos, what we found following we ha the furlough is asve you pointed out, our doctors, engineers, our behavior health specialists all of these people, because of the worry of the uncertainty and jobs available for them other places, they are taking those worr jobs at a higher rate than we have in the past.bs that's the impact we have.hey the experience we're developingthe pa we're losing. it is a big concern for us specifically in the stem area you're talking about. >> yes. thank you, all, very much. my time has expired. >> senator ernst. >> i appreciate your continued >> service to the united states.here general odierno thank you for mentioning in your brief the reserve and national guard forces. and also to senator donnelly forrd

bringing that point up as well. we feel the impact. we're hurting too through well sequestration. withhe respect to the dod and sequestration, general you mentioned just this morning that we must appropriately care for our soldiers. and our soldiers and families are bearing the burden of the decisions. we mus st train, maintain and burden sustain a force and equipment.intain but with sequestration in place, we recognize we have to utilize eq taxpayer dollars to the best of our ability. could you please give examples of ou to the panel on where we are . holding our military leaders accountable and how they are best utilizing taxpayer dollars in such a time as this. >> a couple of things that we continue to do that i think are important. we are -- we are reducing all

our headquarters.>> t and the reason we're doing that, so we can get more capability toat the soldiers that are serving. so we made a decision, the army, tore reduce all our headquarters to the two star level by 25%.we and what that -- to free up dollars in order to train our soldiers which helps. we have reorganized our brigade combat team and eliminated in headquarters so we're able to ch hel fund andps train the best we can. we are trying to reorganize in iminat our aviation capability so we're fund getting rid of aircraft that are no longer capable of doing the things we need them to do. we're transforming our training strategies. we have just now developed a strategy a total force strategy and forces command where we are training every -- training -- we all training we do is a comma combination of active guard and u.s. army reserve. so we can maintain that capacity so we're trying to make it as combin efficient as possible. we're also looking at how we arecan making the most out of our to mak

traininge dollars in live ef training and virtual training and constructive training. h so all of those things are the kind of things we're doing. we're also streamlining some of our sustainment activity because we became too overreliant on r contractors during peak years inivity iraq and afghanistan. we want to retrain our green suit capability because we have th to sustain that at a very high level. and that also will reduce our dollars we're spending on contracts that allow us to do this. so these are just a sample of the kind of things we're trying wi to do to put money back in that will allow us to take care of the soldiers.rs in >> thank you general. and as a follow on to that and th maybe all of you can just very n briefly respond, just last week we had the state of the union.y briefl i had invited a friend of mine res from iowa state, we were cadets

together, to attend. he lives here in washington, d.c. at least temporarily and he responded, joni, i would love to, but i can't i'm being ere - fitted for my new leg. he well, he's stationed at ft. bragg but lives here at walter i'm reed. leg great friend of mine. i was able to visit with him on monday. so his last tour to afghanistan at fr was a little more difficult than most. and because of that, he has lost his left leg. we have a lot of soldiers, a lot of members that are going through difficulties and challenges. and i would like to know just briefly, from each of you, the impact of sequestration as is inom e regard to our medicare and follow on for soldiers and their families, briefly, gentlemen. >> one of the issues that we're for s working through that we have to watch carefully is we have to t ve consolidate ourr medical capability and facilities.rough

as we do that we have to make watch sure that every soldier and their family member gets provided the same level of make support no matter where they're stationed. that becomes a challenge as you start to reduce and so we have statio to be careful to ensure that. we will still have the best s highest level care. the issue becomes the sustained are care over time across the country and overseas because n where our people are serving andss the making sure they get the right coverage for themselves and their families. there is some difficult where decisions that are going to haveey get t to be made. i do worry that one of the things we -- they should be able to rely on is the best medical care for them and their familiesorry as we move forward.o rely this is something we're going to have to watch very carefully as we move forward. i >> admiral?ing >> i think the general got the very key points for us there. as it is about the resiliency programs and the wounded warrior care and recovery programs. we have to fund them and we have to make sure they don't get prog

caught up in some overall rec reduction. we have to be vigilant in that. f for us, it is a program called e safe harbor. i watch it myself, to make sure we don't inadvertently have these kinds of things caught up and, again, the verb, they get sequestered. so we have to watch that. >> thank you. >> i think the key for us is what john highlighted there and se that's identifying where they t could get caught up in this. and then come to you and ask for help. i know you'll provide -- the committee will provide it.here this is one of the sacred trust things. >> thank you.i this general? >> maybe ite address also the nonmedical care aspect of it. we establish a wounded warrior e regiment to take care of our wounded warriors ten years ago uld and we're very proud of the way we take care of the marines and e as generals welsh said, it is ior about keeping faith.wanted we have funded that to date through oko funding. take one of the challenges now as we move forward. we have to move that into the

base and move it into the base at the same time you're dealing with sequestration. that will certainly remain a priority for us, but one of the other things that competes with we the resources that we're going tr to have fewer of.one o >> thank you very much gentlemen. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator kaine. ou >> thank you, mr. rcchairman. and to the witnesses thank you, all. i did my back of the envelope math and this is 156 years of service to the united states >> sitting before us at the table elope in military capacity.and and we owe you thanks but we ought to listen to you. of for the record, i just note i nd voted with enthusiasm for the list nominations that were before us early, but there were 42 nominations to lieutenant colonel and colonel and there was not one woman among the nominees. those nominated were superb nd qualifications, that's a fact of interest and i wanted to bring it up that people on the committee pay attention to that. the sequester was voted in by d to congress in august of 2011.

and i think as some of your testimony indicate and as we all know, when it was voted in, everyone wanted it not to as happen. the idea was that congress wouldas voted find a better path forward, all agreed a sequester path would have exactly the kinds of consequences that you have ngres testified tos this morning. since august of 2011 as you alsowoul testified, the world hasn't gotten simpler. we have seen the rise of isil g. and ebola threat increasing simpl russian bellicosity toward e goal nations, ocyberattacks, decline in the situation in libya, and toward other nations in africa flexing of the muscles by the chinese, flexing of the muscles by the iranians, the challenges have gotten only more intense since august of 2011.ng of but while the challenges are getting more intense, we are in needlessly inflicting pain 2011. through budgetary mechanisms on our military. general mattis testified yesterday in the chairman ugh

indicated this as his opening statements, it is a pretty powerful statement when you think about it. no foe in the field can wreck ta such havoc on security that mindless sequestration iste. an wre achieving. there is powerful foes in theak su field, but the general's testimony yesterday was that none of them h will have as much affect on american national e powe security asrf sequester. and that's why it's imperative that we reverse it. we have to take steps to reverse it. if you look at budgets budgets tell you about priorities.ev we can sayer all we want about how we value military service and the defense mission. but at the end of the day, our budgets tell usn something about w what we really value. in 2015,eow 1.3% of americans' gdp really was spent on interest payment. that number is rising. 3.2% of the gdp was on defense. that number's dramatically falling.sp 3.2% 3.3% on nondefense discretionary discretionary. that number's falling even more dramatically.

5.6% of gdp was spent on federal health care, that is growing dramatically.fallin 4.9% on social security that is growing dramatically. c but by far the largest item on that i thes expenditure side is tax . expenditures $1.5 trillion of diture deductions of s exemptions. 8.1% of the gdp and rising. what our budget is tells us is dits we support tax expenditures much more than any of these other areas. and we need to find appropriate ways to rebalance the budget in more sequester and invest what we need to combat the challenges that we'vetha discussed. general dunnford i wanted to dig in with you on the testimony you gave about the relationship have d inis the marines between readiness and forward deployment. we've demanded of you that you i wa be more forward ntdeployed in the aftermath, for example, of this gave of the horrible tragedy in benghazi. we've asked you to restructure to havere expeditionary units and afterm rapid response teamsat closer to

the action. we've asked the same of other service branches. but deployment has a cost. talk about what sequester does in terms of what you have folks for deployed or have them back home. and if that's the case, what is ta the effect oflk that on our out ability to respond to crises? >> thank you senator for that question. our ability to be deployed is based on our capacity. abi and as i mentioned earlier, today, our units for deployment fo for seven months, at home for 14on months and back for 7 months. if we get sequestered, we will reduce capacity. and we'll reduce capacity to the point where we'll be closer to a 1-1 deployment to dwell rate, meaning the marines will be where deployed for seven months back out for seven movants and deployed for seven months.ning our that's a significant cost. again, we talked earlier about both the impact on training, r very difficult to maintain core cost. competencies with that quick a turn around. and we have experienced doing that. we are at or about that level about four or five years ago at

the peak of the requirements in afghanistan in iraq. and so you know that's the biggest impact on sequestration is that reduced capacity. now, that's the most significant one. the other impact, though, is because of its mindlessness and cuts across all of the lines it'll have an impact on home is station training, facilities, they're available, amount of fuel batteries, the things you need to do to properly train when you're back at home station. all of that degrades two things senator. one is the number of marines that are forward deployed. and as we've discussed before, in the wake of benghazi, i think there's an expectation that marines and sailors will be there and respond within hours to a threat against our diplomatic core u.s. siptcitizens or u.s. abroad.th the longer the time line it is for us to be able to respond.sts ab and with sequestration, i also ines a have concerns over time about the capabilities that those marines have both from the equipment and training perspective and the human factors, again, because it had abo

quick turn around from a deployment to dwell perspective. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired.he >> colonel sullivan. qu >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your wonderful service to our country. i just wanted to echo what general --el s senator wicker mentioned.try. colonel wicker in terms of general mattis' comments yesterday about the strategic colo aspects from a national security perspective of the national debt that we've racked up over the last several years.rspectiv 18 trillion and increasing.f i think we all see that we're struggling with the issues of sequestration with the issues of i th readiness. but with the broader issues of ith how our fiscal situation in this country actually impacts national security.but with appreciate the testimony here. i also appreciate the focus on what's happening, what

potentially could be happening the t with regard to training, readiness, moral, particularly given the global security y coul threats that id know that we all recognize are out there. similar to senator shaheen, i also like to focus a little bit more on local impacts. i think it's important that the simila people thatr we represent also local hear what the potential for local impacts could be with regard to sequestration. i'm sure all of you gentlemen wouldbe agree that alaska is one of the most strategic most important military places that we have in this country whether it's missile defense, world mo class unrival training areas and ranges, platform for rapid deployment into the asia pacific pl into erasia. you'll be hearing me talk about that a little bitra as my colleagues will, as well.

but the number of army air force base and personnel in alaska, i think, is a testament to the important geostreakategic location. you mentioned the importance of training.th probably the premier air space for air force training in the training world. larger than several american states.r air s and general i know you're headed up to alaska soon. sir, we'res looking forward to that. i wanted to let you know, there was an article today in the ow y alaska dispatch. it mentioned how the army is looking to eliminate 120,000 positions looking at potentiallyatch 30 installations that could be impactedhow including a couple combat brigades possibly from ft. rich or ft. wainwright in alaska. obviously, this is having big concerns in my state. can you -- is sequestration driving this focus in the army ob to lookv at 30 different tay. installations including brigades

in alaska? is that something that's being driven directly by sequestration? >> it is being driven directly n alas by sequestration and the fact that we will have to reduce ng significantly the amount of tratio forces that we have in our act of national guard component. so we have toa throughout all of the united states and overseas, we'll have to take reductions. and every installation could be t affected as we make these decisions. >> so thatitas -- that exercise right now just described in the alaska dispatch is a direct result of you preparing for sequestration? >> direct result. yes, sir. i >> general welch, i know that a the f-35s is a top program with a regard to the air force.he alaska, as you know, is a front f-35 runner for a future f-35 basing. something that we're quite excited about, i think it would be great, not only for alaska, but for the country given our location.ont- i look forward to having future

discussions with you on how to cement that decision.ou but i actually wanted to ask you about the impact ofnt sequestration on that program. if there is any if the future basing could be delayed or undermined with regard to the f-35s, is that something that would also or could also be co impacted by sequestration?m >> senator, if sequestration 5 beca occurred, again, in '16, it might be necessarys to defer some of the aircraft bye out of '16. d and the details in our budget rollout. we'll be able to discuss those in detail with you and your staff beginning next week.e deta but that is a possibility. we have defended this program, as you know, from the beginning as a priority program for us. and so we hope that does not pos become reality. that would not hav by the way, put the initial operational capability data at risk in my view. p.r and clearly, your emphasis on oul the strategic benefits of the state of alaska and the training

capability at j. park are prettyts of well ath supported by the ng decisions we're trying to make by f-22 already made and now consideration of leading -22 candidate. so i would agree with everything you said about thean location and strategic value. >> yes, sir, thank you. and, again, i look forward to having that discussion in more depth with you and other members of your staff. general dunnford you mentioned and several of you mentioned the the -- your experience with -- ned when you initially joined the service, kind of the hollow army or the army marine corps. could you provide a little bit h more in details, any of you or e all of you quickly on specifics rps of kind of then and now. when you join the service, saw the initial kind of hollow i military versus the high level f then of training we've had with regard to our troops and readiness.

>> senator, i start by talking about the quality of people. have in the aggregate, there's absolutely no comparison between. a quality of the men and women ta that we have in uniform today lking and equality we had in the wake of vietnam during the 1970s. we certainly had some very, very good people. but the comparison i would make during today in quality of people would be very significant.s. but really what was going on in the 1970s is we didn't have sufficient money to train. and so the training was not re effective, our capabilities weren't growing. th we didn't havee significant n't h amount of money to takave care of money our t infrastructure and our barracks. and i can remember days lead m pipes, raw sewage in the ra barracks. in the 1970s. but i think, you know, the one thing that's different today.w rr the spirit the will of the y force. much of the equipment we had was is t old.

but the most importanthe w thing of the intangible quality of the force today.ti we've all spoken about trust the ability to predict the support that you're going to have when you go to harm's way.in t and all of those things have and given us that spirit will, and edict discipline. that's the thing i'd be most u go i concerned about losing is the quality of the force. and those characteristics we see today. >> senator manchin? >> thank you, mr. chairman.he forci and thank you all for your outstanding service to our country and we appreciate it very much.ors i don't know a person in west virginia that wouldn't sacrifice for our military not one that i wouldn't do without, that wouldn't give up something that they're getting now or benefit. for our military. i don't know of one. that but they do ask the question, can we do it better? can we make it more efficient? and i just remember the bill we just passed there was $5 we d billion of new equipment in there for the department of defense. that i understand nobody asked for. so i'm sure if it was built in my state or some other state, we weref wanting y'all to abide and

pushing it on.nse th there's got to be a more my effective, efficient way of procurement. we've got to have enough resilience. i know the chairman has foughtwou on this forever. i heard him whenf i was governor ent. of the state legislature. t there's got to be a better way. and when eisenhower said beware i w of the industrial military in complex, man,o he knew what he was talking about.and wh even back to george washington knew there could be a problem. we've got to break that so we can go back to the people who ev are willing toen sacrifice whetheruld be it's my state of a west virginia, arizona, or wherever it may be o and they said, fine, what's everybody else doing? i'll sacrifice, but are we doing it better? we don't have an audit. i've never been able to run a business without an audit knowing where my problems were. and we have a hard time getting ave an audit out of the department of defense because we know've where the waste or a efficiencies or an aud things of that sort. m we force stuff upon you all that you don't want and i know you p can't speak and it makes it de politically veryfe challenging. but we've got to be there for you. and if we're going to have the

best readiness and prepared and support, the greatest defense have department the world has thseen, we've got to make sure we're doing it in the most efficient fashion. so i look at that and i have a whole different approach to thisorrtme two years of military service. i was a product of wvu, i enjoyed it. if i nevero had the chance, the draft process and everything that went with that. i still believe in two years of public service for every young person. and really, we could tie it to this two years of college, and lieve says you earn two years of college if you give two years ofvery public service. y doesn't have to be military. y'all could pick and choose the best if they wanted to go there.he pre and we stillsi had that option. i think it has more value and buy in to our country if they do that.e i just want to know, and i have the most frustration with the procurement of thisif w process of ours. why it takes so long to get a --ave

an idea for new technology to market.y take why s is it so long for us to get that? and the cost that goes in that.or f-35, i know our chairman has been on thisrk for many years as i can rememberng. there's no quid pro quo. there's no incentive or reward or penalty, it seems like. we don't run the private sector the way we're running the procurement in the military that i know of. so, it's kind of an open end and i like anybody's comment that would want to chime in what you like w start with the general and go ike down if any of you want to chimended in on this.uld li give us some direction that we ct to can help you andch how an audit would work to reveal the inefficiencies so the transparency that we need up here to give you all the support you need. general? i >> senator, thank you. first, we are working very hard towards autoability. we are starting to put the thank systems in place enabling us to better see ourselves in where rds au we're spending money, where we're wasting moneydiin ask where

we're underfunding money. and we're getting there. and i think requirements by 17, but we're working very fast to get there.underfun we're starting to see some of that come to fruition.. by we're taking that very seriously seriously and we're making some progress. it's not where we need to be yet, but we're making progress.that i and we should bet prepared by '17 to meet the goal. a couple things i'd comment on o what you said is, yes, we are still having to procure systems we don't need. excess tanks is an example in the army.you >> absolutely.said >> hundreds of millions of don't dollars spent on tanks that we simply don't have the structure for. there's reasons for that i can simply understand, but there are d things that go on. and when we are talking about . tight budgets couple hundred million dollars is a lot of money.e are th and we got to understand how we lking do it. the other thing is, i know illion there's lots of people that look at procurement reform. and the one thing that's been frustrateing to me as the chief at of staff of the army is how little authorityer and thi

responsibility i have in the procurement process. i have a say in requirements to some extent, but i have very respon little say. now, what i have to do is use my influence.re use my influence as a four-star general and the chief of staff of the army to try to influence the process. but frankly, i have no authority. inside of that process, outside of requirements.ff of and so, you know, i think when you're in this position, been in serving for decades you've been -- fought wars some experience in what is needed and how we develop and procure items. and i'd like to see us in the uniform get a bit more involved. and i'd ask as we review this that we'd all take a look at that.item >> we, too, are working on t. auditability. this year we're going under what is called the schedule of budgetary activity. that means the financial transactions. r what we should complete that by december. that should take us to the next bu t step, the four classic areas of shou

auditability. the knavesy is on track. we'll continue to keep the committee and yourself informed. when i look at the procurement process, ray has iitt about right. we need to clarify what we call -- clarify the chain of p command. there are too many people involved in the process. if i say i need a thing then it starts moving toward somebody building it, and there are a man lved i whole lot of peopln e telling us, no, this is what you really need. i'm talking about in the pentagon. just to get it out of the building. that's one. two, we need to be able to i compromise. once we tell somebody to go build us something. to be this fast, this greatness. and i'm reac to tell somebody to build a something. if i say it has to be this fast in this grade and i'm reaching hard it is quite expensive in the technology may not be there. we may need to descope this. it won't deliver on time. cost and schedule need to become

a much bigger factor in this process that it is today. i think it ought to be a key performance parameter. if you breach this you have to go back and stop and take a pause and look at it again. >> if i can just finish. my time is up but i would love to speak up i can because i'm intere what you just described as what ho you need versus what some on the outside thinks you need.all those are the things i'd like what y you to think about.is i'll come and visit with you all if i may. th thank you very much. i'm sorry, mr. chairman. li >> thank you, senator manchin, and that is our second top priority item, i think, for this committee. t in the coming session.ou senat senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman.rity gentlemen, thank you for being here. your leadership s co and your service to our nation. i apologize for being out.nk you m i've got a competing committee meeting over in judiciary with y the appointment of the nominee. but my question to you is -- i came from north carolina

legislature and we had a very, we had a budget crisis back in 2011 we had to cut. what i heard from the heads of the various administration members were that they could absorb some of these cuts if the legislature were willing to provide them with the flexibility to determinee where they do it. and, potentially even changing to some of the processes i think alluding to what the admiral eded said on procurement processes.ng s has thereom been much of a comprehensive focus on if you could make changes to the way nsive you procure deploy and prioritize spending and provide that feedback to the congress ges that's one. another question is with respect to sequestration i don't know s that much about it. pr although, i do know that i would vote to repeal it. can you describe what kinds of constraintsesqu prevent you from being able to absorbow i the suggested cuts with

sequestration sequestration? may make it easier if it were to stay in place and go down the line?t cu >> senator, the one thing i would say is i think sequestration level of budget is simply not enough budget ford us i wou to meet the demands that areld on the force.y i want to be very clear about budge that up front. i just think it does not allow us to meet what we believe -- nds on what is our fence strategy and the defense strategic guidance that we're operating under now. that said we are inefficient inating just theun sequestration itself is inefficient. it is in some cases salami sliced cuts that limit how you manage. and it's stretched programs longer than they need to be. the cost per item is more.s it is causing us tost training andprog some of our other monetization activities much broader than we need to.e tra it is causing us to cut end strength too quickly. so all of those add to an

inefficien t use of the resources that were provided. so we can make some adjustments around that would help if we were able to change some of the mechanisms associated with so sequestration. that said,nt i just believe the wo level of funding under sequestrationul is not enough for us to do the things that we need to do.hms >> general, does that suggest that the -- if i were having that discussion with someone in business, the question i would ask is how productive and how n efficient do you think your organization is?d t are you suggesting now that the ask cuts suggested by the sequestrationis are beyond your capacity to driven efficiencies and productivity out of the organization? >> no, i would not, no.y there was always room in the army for continued efficiency.ld and we have taken several steps to try to improve our efficiency, whether it be in how we let contracts whether it be how we size our headquarters, whether it be how we manage some of our programs we always have

to be doing that and adjusting and adapting how we do things and be more efficient in our ability to train. said to we're always looking at those items. there's always room for that. but i think we have to understand the levels we're talking about.ways r really hinders us in i believe a difficult security environment to meet the needs of the nation. >> thank you. admiral? >> i echo what the general said is the absolute value of money that it takes to do this strategy and what the country needs the military to do today. it doesn't balance. what i'm saying in my testimony was, you have to change what you're asking us to do while thebalanc world's getting a pretty big vote on this. there's a mismatch and imbalance in that. as the general said, i'll give just a quick anecdote. in the president's budget '15, which we brought up here, there was a $90 billion change over

what we say -- difference from what we say we needed and what we had.y bill 20 billion of that we made up through overhead reduction efficiency, buying more efficiently, if you will, we call it better buying power and that.educti so we are doing our best to be as efficient as possible.etter bu i would say that takes time for these things to come to roost. the efficiencies the kind of reductions we're talking about are today.i so there's a mismatch in that, as well.he >> thank you. the k general welsh? re >> senator sequestration is a blunt force instrument. it was intended to be as referenced earlier in the hearing so we wouldn't keep it in the law.uestra the problem with it is there is nothing about that instrument that you would use in the business world.ohearing you would never expect to create great saveings the first year you can decided to restructure your the busi business. >> and justd. for the record, that's why strategically it's a you poor approach towards addressing or vetting or gettingde driving y i out efficiency. so i agree with that general welsh. >> yes, sir.

and when irtow comes to efficiency we in the air force have not used our auditor general well. we've never done implementation audits for new programs, new ideas, new organizations. we've started that over the last 18 months. we found that if you get off to a good start in the changes yourganiz have a much better chance of success. that same logic applies to acquisition programs. 18 if you start procurement with a bad milestone chart, bad funding plan or acquisition strategy, we will end up in here explaining on to you why the program is failing. we have gott to do a better job ad of starting the right way and that involves a number of peoplestale. supporting us in changing policy law and us paying more attention to it.e right >> thank you, general. >> senator, i'd associate myselfng with the comments and maybe because you asked about what about the methodology makes it very difficult? in 2013, our manpower account was exempt from sequestration. we spent somewhere, almost 70% of our budget is towards people. and so the full weight of sequestration then fell within sequ 30% of oures budget. so if we went back to just sequestration in 2016 it would be a similar impact with a full

weight of sequestration comes on against 30% of the budget.o so there's absolutely, not only s do you have no flexibility in the application, but it's a very narrow part of my budget where the full weight of sequestrationes would fall. >> thank you, general.t its app that really gets to the point about the constraints. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator king. four-w >> thank you, senator.. i just returned from the budget committee and apologized for the missing some of the discussion. and i may touch upon some of the points. >> not accepted. >> thank you. >> always a pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman. >> i want to emphasize a point that i understand senator kane made. and that is, number one, y sequestration was designed to beasure stupid. did you know that?rk with it was expressly designed to be so stupid and unacceptable that t congress would never allow it to to go into place. i remember campaigning in 2012, y de people said, well what do you think of the sequester? i said, it'll never happen. but here we are.

and the -- one of the reasons it wi that it doesn't make much sense is that we're focusing all of our budgetary attention on a declining part of the budget. as w the growth in the budget right now is in mandatory programs. the and particularly in health care costs. medicare, medicaid children's health program that's what's prog driving the federal deficit. it's not defense. it's not national parks. it's not m the head start program. and we're focusing that the sequester is like invading brazil after pearl harbor. it's a vigorous reaction, but is l it's the wrong target. that's -- this is not where the problem is. and we're headed for a moment ng by the way mr. chairman, where discretionary spending includingd we a defense is at the lowest level ever. ever. and we simply and we -- we

really shouldn't even be having this discussion because it's such a pointless exercise in terms of trying to deal with the budget. we need to be talking about a much larger question, particularly the extraordinary cost ofd health care in this country as a percentage of gdp and per capita. so i know you've had all the country testimony, and i heard it at the beginning about how devastating it will ber-. and it -- we really have to start talking about how to deal with it. and i hope, mr. chairman, this committee which sees the impact of sequester more than any other committee in the congress because it's half of it, more than half of it falls within oures the jurisdiction. can lead the way in trying to find some kind of solution that will make sense. i don't really have any specific questions, except to underline what i heard you, all you gentlemen say in your opening

statements is that this will really be devastating. i americans' lives are being put at risk by this policy. would you agree with that, general? >> yes, sir.eing >> admiral?this >> yes, sir, i do agree. yes, sir. >> yes, senator. >> that should be the headline. americans' lives are being put at risk and we go to such >> extraordinary risks to protect ythe the lives of our people. and yet, by compromising readiness, by compromising readin morale, that's the inevitable result. and you guys are having to go through the extraordinary gyrations to tryco to deal with this uncertain budget situation. and the danger is risk to american lives.this u both our people in uniform and our civilians. so i certainly want to thank you

for your testimonys.. also, i'd like to ask one other question. is the -- i would assume that the uncertainty of this whole situation is almost as bad as al the dollars. is that correct, general?le s >> it is.rs. there's a lot of angst in the force about what's in the future, what's going to happen. they're focused on what they're doing today but do worry a bit about what it means for the the futu future, our soldiers and their focus on families. and so it is w creating some angsttoday in the force. and that's concerning to me.bu and for the army, especially, because we are reducing so much ng force structure might be required to reduce so much more force structure it's creating great angst in the force itself.iall >> one final question for you, admiral. mig talk about the risk to the industrial base. my concern is thatf you can't turn on and off the industrial base.ut when welders leave to go my somewhere else you can't just rn pick them back up the next year. and isn't that a deep concern to the navy? >> it is, senator.ve to we're at the point where in our

shipbuilding plan we're at rn about, if you will, minimum sustaining.t is s the good news is we are buying in and efficiently. but that all comes unravelled if you startdi dropping out ships nimum here or there and aircraft and bu weapons, we are at minimum rcraft sustaining. people think the big primes a will we go under that won't happen.sust that's not the concern. it's what you said. it's kind of the mom and pop, the smaller or mid business people that do -- that make very specific and refined equipment.om a nuclear, over half our nuclear industrial base is sole sourced. we really, really need them. and so this, this lack of dustrial planning, the inability, it s can't keep them open. you can't buy an economic order quantity, and it is a deep is la concern. and as you said, you can't bringabilit it back fast.you >> well, and the irony is that when you have to delay multi-year procurement, for example, you end up paying more in the end'. so the taxpayers lose both ways.

>> they absolutely do.delaye it's like some say eating at 7-eleven every night, it's not sustainable and it's more expensive.>> >> i have 7-elevens in maine so i'm not going to comment. thank you, mr. chairman. sust >> senator king, i want to thank you for the work that you are doing along with a number of efforts to try to address this issue. senator cotton?you >> thank you very much, chairman mccain. gentlemen for your distinguished service to our country. want to look back on a few of the statements you made at the dist last hearing we had. general, starting with you.statem you had said that if sequestration level reductions continue in fy '14, 85% of our bcts would not meet readiness levels. are we in a situation now where 85% of our bcts are not, in fact, ready?els >> we got down to actually 90% at one time in '13.

because of the bba, i think, we built that up back in '14 or '15 to 33%. we'll be back -- if sequestration begins at 16, we'll be headed down to those and numbers again.14 >> how are you managing that lack of readiness? dow >> so what we have to do -- what we've had to do is had to develop a force. we're saying okay we're going to take this amount of the army and give you the money and train you to the highest level, which to means the rest of the army is ing training at a significantly ke t lower level, which really concerns me. oans because what i worry about i've got to have some level of the force capable of deploying to an unknown contingency. we're not funding the rest of dep the force, affects morale, affects capabilities, and it takes longer to recover from it.oe >> and so in a concrete sense, starting bcts only doing individual tasks or platoon and company level collective oes training? >> individual squad and some

platoon. and that's it. >> okay. p you said that only 20% of the rain operating force had sufficient funds, is that the case? >> that was the case. and again, when we got the additional money in '14 or '15 above sequestration, we were able to increase that to about 35% of the force.e but if it kicks in again at '16, above we'll go right back down again. >> where do we stand on schools now? basic professional schools. >> >> so there'll be -- right now, they're funded fully. if sequestration kicks in, we'll start to see a reduction in our special training school. so we'll try to fund those. in we're going to have limit ranger airborne path finder aining about 85000 spaces will be limit ra unfunded in our specialty schools, which are critical to providing high-level competence that we need. >> what kind of percentage decrease would that be for the w specialthiych training schools? >> well, we'll have to hig -- it'll

hat ki be somewhere around the 50% to 60% level. >> have you seen that affecting retention? >> well, we haven't done it yet. we would have to do that if we go back into sequestration. >> do you foresee -- >> yeah, i think it'll affect retention. all of this affects retention. most important thing we do is make sure they are absolutely trained to do the mission. when we start backing off on their ability to train, it will affect retentionmo.st mi >> you'd projected the need to go from -- just over 530,000 troops to 420. is that still your assessment?d >> that is, in fact, the case, senator.e >> at what levels are we going to see the most declines in personnel, soldier junior, senior, field grave officers? we >> it's all. we manage officers by your group. we're already going through boards now. even just to get to 490 p. and we're involuntarily separating naged officers at theof captain major just g

lieutenant colonel and colonel level. we're also reducing the amount of ncos. we're reducing the amount of soldiers we're bringing in, and we're actually over the last at couple of years have reduced the ability for people to reenlist. that will increase if we have to go to sequestration.last >> and at those level, those are thepeo soldiers who tend to have to the multiple deployments underneath their belt?>> >> that's correct. >> you're losing their combat experience. >> that's correct. >> with new privates and ltiple lieutenants who don't have it? >> yes, sir. >> general, if i could switch to you for a moment. your predecessor projected that you would have to decrease your of strength of about 187,000 to 174,000, ispr that projection ase yo still accurate?ur s >> senator, that's correct. with sequestration. >> with sequestration. could you explain to a layman what might seem like a t is c relatively small reduction of about 13000 could be so hurtful to the core? >> again, senator, thanks for the question. the biggest impact would be it would have an impact on the

deployment to dwell ratio. we did a study on this in 2011. the optimal force would be today 186,800 marines.consider that would allow marines to be gone for seven months home for e 21 months and gone for 7 months again. and we call that 1 to 3 deployment to dwell.for se when we came down to 182,000 that puts us at a 1 to 2 deployment to dwell. we're deploying 7 months home for 14 months, back out for 7 months. if we go down to 174,000 and really, with a marine security for 1 guard plus, it'd be about 175 would be the only change i'd make from my predecessor's comment. many of the units would be close to 1-1 than 1-2. fo marines would be home from eight or nine months between 7-month deployments with an impact on the quality of training we're able to provide as well asom impact on families. >> okay.deploy admiral, you had testified that traini if sequestration remained in place you'd only be able to pact o sustain about 255 ships, which

is approximately 50 less than today, is that still the case?e abl >> it's not, senator. that was about 15 months ago when i did that testimony.ain. that was a scenario based on use using fore structure retirement. and have kind of taken that off the table. so i would look at other avenues, probably other modernization. and it concerns me about when i talk to capability in the er ave future, that's more likely where we would go for that kind of savings.ncet capa >> my time has expired. thank you, all. >> senator mccaskill? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you might be able to tell, i don't have much of a voice today, which is being celebrated many places around here. i won't spend a lot of time questioning because i have questions for the record i would like. i know that senator manchin touched on the acquisition ebrated process. i would certainly recommend to the members of this committee and topl the leaders in our nchin

military, the t report issues by the subcommittee on investigations under the leadership of senator mccain andommitt levin where they took of se information from a variety of l important experts about our acquisition process and particularly the f challenges that the bifurcation represents between the civilian and the military and how awkward that bet has been and how expensive it's been in the long run. that's a technical term, "frickin," i figure i can say that that since i can't talk.is i will use this time to briefly ask one question.ay t and one ofha the things i have discovered as i have done an his enormous amount of work in the one area of acquisition. and by the way getting rid of sequestration, i think is maybee done a the most imperative bipartisan challenge we have in the senate.retting and it is a bipartisan challenge.trat and we're going to have a lot of them. have in and how we on this committee

step up in a bipartisan way to try to address it i think will be meaningful. one of the problems in thear military is that it is based on leadership and your ability. to the be promoted. and what positions you have are relevant to whether or not you're promoted. and it's kind of the short stick to get to be a systems manager. and so what happens, these program managers, they don't want to hang out in those jobs.get they get all the heat when things go wrong. they are not seen as bright and rising stars within the military. go it's not the career path that is the most desirable whether rig you're back in the days when we couldn't get theg companies to the mo even give anybody with authority that clipboard to check on coul contracting, the representatives. i mean, when i started doing this, you know, it was the lamest member of the company that was handed that clipboard

to do the contracting checks. so i would love if not now but and ined writing later how you all believe you can elevate these positions so they're seen as part of a trajectory of success within the military. because until we get quality suc leaders running these acquisition systems these programs, we're going to continue to struggle with costs that we just frankly can't afford in this country anymore. pr and i've only got three minutes left. if any of you want to take a stab at thath that would be ffor great and i apologize for my voice. >> senator, we're very aware of the issue you just brought up in terms of insuring that in certain parts of our service they have the ability to move up and get rewarded for the work that they're doing.of our s we manage it very carefully. with our acquisition corps he w specifically, we have management guidelines that we're attempting

to follow. c for ame, it's more about, it's not only that, it's more about the mixture of experience are between acquisition and operational experience. and that would help also in that area where we make sure we have that dual experience.perien and we've moved away from that a little bit. where weat put -- make somebody an acquisition officer very early on. we but that said, we have put programs in place to ensure that the promotion rates are at leastbut equal. but with that said, i believe we have to constantly review it look at it, and ensure that they are having the opportunities forprom promotion. and we will, i will respond in writing in more detail. e >> in the navy we have a corps called acquisition professionals not literally a corps. it's a subspecialty.nd and it's in statute how they are promoted and what jobs they are required. but we need to do some work in 's in there. number w one the report of pr fitness is very similar to an that.

unrestricted line officer. so the attributes they are evaluated on don't match up with of the reality of what they do day rstood in and day out. we need to revise that. that's in progress. the and i'm working with our acquisitionth professional. number two we need to cross eed to pollinate. people r who may not be acquisition professionals need to serve with them and understand what do they do so that as we go back and forth and describe what i need and what they need, the reality, we need to understand that so we can do better. number three the assignment process needs to beribe -- it's likederstand a conga line right now, we need to go in and find out, who are these people performing very throug well? get themand in the right job, keep o them there so they can develop le the program and we're not just shifting people through there.ll, and lastly, encourage our program managers to come forward forward .d we the program's not going well.st we've got to evaluate them and actually reward them for coming forward and saying i've got a the

problem here. go what happens is they fill in the data and say check it out, doingad well, i've got to get out of here before this thing goes bad. and then the poorth person that comes in and it explodes gets the heat.r >> senator, i think this is a in fascinating area for study. i spent about 2 1/2 years in the acquisition business. and the thing i walked away with >> is my primary lesson. i didn't understand any of the i spen rules whent i left any more than ye i did when i walked in.a it's complicated. what i did understand was the 't und quality of the peopleer we have in the acquisition business in the air force. it's a specialty for us, we get a lot of people actually wantingis the to come into the air force, young acquisition and for contracting offices. we start to lose them where they become disconnected in their duties when they get to the mid hem career. they don't feel they were becom critically important toe the big n air force.air they feel they're critically important to their program. and not having that connectionfo e is a big problem.o in my view. we have a number ofair general officers who are acquisition officers.ot we have some of our contracting proble

officers. so there is a path for them if we can make them want to stay eral long enough to enjoy it. it's tough work. you have to be very talented to do it well. a and we have to make sure they want understand that they're ng critically important to the air force. this is where that civilian military connection w i think will make a big difference if we can get it right. they have to feel like we're all in the same air force. not that they're in a separate section. it's just buying things for us. that won't work over time. >> senator, i think we have a similar construct to what admiral green had talked about with the navy. i understand the question you were asking. i don't have anything to add, but we will take the time to respond thoughtfully in writing. >> colonel graham. >> thank you, captain. nato partners are reducing their spending regarding defense in general, is that fair to say? >> yes, sir.

>> how many nato nations spent 2% of their gdp on defense? >> senator the answer's two or three, i believe. >> two or three. >> so that's a dilemma for us because as you look over the next coming years, the capabilities of our nato partners are diminishing, not increasing, is that fair to say? to sa >> in the ground side, yes.y? yes, sir. >> the uk's improving their navy, but the capacity is small. >> same for the air force. >> yes, sir. the problem is the capacity problem for -- >> okay. >> so what will we be spending on defense?awi at the end of sequestration? what percentage of gdp will we spend on defense? is estimate. >> i believeca it's about 3% senator. >> i think it's 2.3.ur can you do me a favor and check among yourselves and send us if you can find agreement among the mili four of you the number that the

military views we will spend on defense relative to gdp? and then also add into that letterth the average the nation has been spending on defense to the let's say since vietnam. i think it would be very instructive to the committee to understandue the true effects of sequestration. i believe it's around 2.3%. and that's about half of what wee. normally spend on defense since h vietnam. but i could stand corrected, just let us know.this pro have each of you talked to the president about this problem with sequestration? >> we have, senator. >> all of you? >> yes, sir. >> what does he say? >> the conversations that we are having --issi i think as you see ourll submission of the '16 budget, you'll seedget that, in fact our

budget is wellb above i sequestration. and that's a budget that we haveli worked with the president.defens so i think you would see that he believes that the department of defense h cannot operate under sequestration sequestration. >> has he suggested a solutionobe to replace or repeal sequestration beyond the '16 budget? >> the answer is d -- >> not to us, senator. >> okay.ecided does he seem upset when you mention to him the consequences of what the congress has decided to do with his signature? >> i think the discussions that we've had with the president, he understands the challenges we have, he understands the security environment. he understands the pressures that is being put on all of our services. and i think -- >> but has he submitted a plan ou to you and say i understand what you're telling me, this is unacceptable as commander in a pl chief, here's how i intend to you fix it.. has he suggested such a plan to

any of youf?es who c >> i'm not aware of one direct directly. >> we're the ones that created this mess. the president signed the bill, soo, you know, it's not just fairngress for me i to comment on the president. the congress is in the same boat. we don't have a plan, but senator mccain credit is challenging some of us on the committee to find a plan.ou mr. president, help rus, we can't do this by ourselves.f we're going to need the commander in chief to weigh innf and inform the american people un that the sequestration cuts are unacceptable, not just on the defense side are you familiar with the foreign operations account underh the 150 account?nt? foreign aid account? are you all familiar with what we do? the state department, other agencies?m in t do you agree that's a vital program in terms of national defense all of its own? >> it is.y to

>> have you looked at what ric happens under sequestration to our ability to be engaged in ds and africa to deal a with malaria, with aids and a variety of other health care issues?al? >> i have not, senator. >> have you, general?h >> we have through our commands understanding the cuts and what that could mean to stability. >> well, you need to take a look because the military's been the strongest advocate for a robust foreign assistance account. if you think sequestrations are ou a problem for you, you ought to look at what it does to our state department. having said all of that, do you all agree that once we get m o sequestration fixed and right, whatever that turns out to be, that we should reform our benefit pay and compensation packages to make the military more sustainable? >> yes, senator. because if we don't regardless of sequestration, we would have in to take significant cuts in our capacity.

>> do all of you agree with whatur the admiral just said. >> i agree sir.ous >> would youly urge congress to look at this commission report seriously?ith on pay and benefit reform? >> senator, i wouldem urge to look at it seriously. but not having to get into the details of the report itself ju i'm not sure the merits of the report itself at this point. >> nor would i, but i would suggest we need to look at reforming pay and benefits be s generous but sustainable. l as to the marine corps, what is your infrastructure account looking like general? >> senator, we're programmed fore about 70% of the dod recommended amount against infrastructure. because over the last couple of years -- >> what does that mean to the on marine corps? >> we have an unprecedented $8 on't b million program over the last in few years, and what will happen over time is we won't be able to properly maintain it.ay that means there'll be mold in a the barracks, the barracks will means not be maintained at a rate

where they're suitable. that means the ranges won't be properly sustained. those are some of the impacts.ncerns? >> do the other services have >> similar concerns?>> wil >>l absolutely. we've taken significant risk, sir. >> will that affect retention andt family quality of life?p >> it'll affect family programs t it'll affect quality of life, and it'll affect the ability to train the way we need to train. >> thank you all.an, i >> thanks, mr. chairman.wo mr. chairman, i would apologize for being absent, but i know that my apology will be not rejected. so -- i won't even endeavor. because there's no committee hearing or meeting more important than this one going on today. >> you're forgiven. >> thank you. but on a more serious note, i would like to thank the chairmanrwar for his constant and relentless focus on this topic and for a raising it again, at the very

outset of this session of the s in congress so that we can put a tuents lot of these issues in context.a many of my constituents who are st digging out from a major weatherr event in the northeast might be forgiven for comparing sequestration to the weather. there's an old sayings everybodyoes a talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.estrati and we have talked about ut sequestration a lot on this side fo of theit, but the congress has yesterday to do anything meaningful about it. and i thank the chairman for th putting it very much on the front burner as we begin d consideration of this budget. i take iti admiral that in your testimony there's no mention of i at brac because there's no planning for one and none is on

the table at this point.o >> well, the department has to requested a brac.en in my testimony i didn't speak to it.a i'm always open to it.oc it's a good process.wi butth i'm satisfied with the navy's infrastructure as it diate exists today, base infrastructure. >> so -- >> there's no immediate need for a brac in your view? >> in the navy, i'm satisfied with my base lay down there in re that regard. but again, the process makes the bases i have that much more efficient. it's not a bad process per se. >> you spoke very cogently in your testimony about theut fragility of the maritime industrial base, which i think is athat major consideration that under very often the public doesn't understand as a consequence of sequestration. and you note that the damage can be long lasting and hard to reverse. that's truer of facilities and a

manufacturing plants, not only at places like electric boat, t but also in the supply chain across the country and particularly in the immediate vicinity in connecticut, for example, wherea parts and componentse and supplies are necessary to in effect make the weapon systems and platforms thatt make our military as is powerful as it is. is that correct?s a >> yes, sir, it is correct. in fact, i would worry less abouts company like electric -- a larger companyth but as you saidrimes the key is they have to go do p these subprimes, if you will particularly nuclear and we are sole sourced in so much of our nuclear technology and our plants, that's a huge asymmetricsmal advantage of ours. that goes at risk if these smaller businesses close, where us do we go? do we go overseas?

this is really a serious subject, sir. >> thank you. >> there's been some discussion of the mental health consequences of losing professionals as a result of the sequestration process, as you may know, senator mccain and i have spearheaded a bill to provide better mental health i care to ourte veterans the clay hunt bill, which i hope will be if voted on literally in the next day or so next few days, if not today. general odierno, can you speak to that.bling, p within the active military, also extremely deeply troublingbo perhaps you could elaborate on that point. >> thank you, senator.ator unfortunately, you know, we've ca had to decrease, actually our to behavior health capabilities d over the last couple of years.tim not something we want to do. and this is during a time of

concern where we believe we should be increasing our behavior health capabilities in ong- order to support our soldiers. this is a long-term probletemat ande ou it's not one that goes away because we're out of iraq or out of afghanistan. it's one that be sustain itself for a period of time. and it's our requirement to do impo this. so it's one thing that's very important to us.d and we'rege trying to be as ev efficient as we can.but i w we're trying to get it down to the lowest levels possible.. but i -- i worry about that. we're trying to improve it. but it is an issue that is of great concern to us. andrad frankly, when we had to ked a furlough civilians, one of the specialties that walked away c from us was our behavior health specialists.a because such a need for them and many other walks of life that they decided because of the uncertainty that they would go work somewhere else.>> l and that's very problematic for us.et as a service. >> let me ask, generally, there's been a lot of talk about retention.

which is extraordinarily important. what about recruitment?st which is as important, you want the best to be attractedb.ou has sequestration affected recruitment? >> we've been able to meet our goals for recruiting. s but it's starting to get more difficult.nd l and so we're a bit concerned as those we look ahead to the next two or o three years. we've had highf standards able pu to meet those standards.beca part of the problem as well as the population eligible is decreasing.ot because of the other problems we're having in the youth of our society. so for us, it'se becoming critical. and i think of the uncertainty of military service and the constant discussion of reducing military budget is going to have an affect on reenlistment and

recruitment. >> is that true of the other nth of services, as well? >> we're meeting goal, but one t of the measures is at what week this of the month of the four weeks do you finally meet goal?h is and we'reve starting to get into the third week, which is very unusual for the last four years gh-t in theec high-tech ratings. >> thank you a..word-o >> senator, i think for us, the big draw to the air force is word of mouth from those who on have served. our testimony from thosey currently serving.s o increasingly, that testimony is through social media. and people see it on blog sites and other comments. sequestration lit up the blog sites with this job sucks kind of comments.ge that has diedr off but it will come back and it will come back stronger than it happened hi before. and those are the testimonials i'm worried about affecting recruiting. we haven't seen an impact yet.ainly >> senator there's an area. we're not complacent about the need to recruit high-quality people. we've not seen an impact.r this >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i want to thank you for your leadership on this issue that you just discussed with the witnesses and i'm afraid it's

only the beginning, but i think it's a good beginning. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we struggle with sequestration and, yes, we all agree that we should eliminate it. but as we s -- as i said struggle with how to do that, though. generally, when confronted with a complex issue like this, you look at how you can achieve more efficiencies and you've talked er about that. and there's a whole range ofththat other things that should be on the table. and i think of senator king also mentioned we should be looking at the mandatoryh i spending side of things. which is a whole other ball of lems problems.. shouldn't we also be looking at the revenue side of things in order toh look at how best can we have more revenues so we can

have less of these kinds of hugejust cuts all iacross the board.ts abo not just to the military, but on the domestic side. do you have any thoughts about that? any of you?de. >> senator i'm not sure what you're referring to by the - revenue side. if you're talking about efficiencyies to our operating ou budget -- >> revenue such as we look at our tax structure, for example. >> oh, yes, ma'am. well, i think that's really the issue for the congress. as we've heard discussed already, where are the cuts coming from? where are they of most benefit ua to the nation?ve we have the real privilege and r the much easier task of making w recommendations to you on budgetks fo on military risk.erent you have a much broader problem and have to consider risks from many different factors and society. that's why you deserve the big money, ma'am.

anyone else want to chime in?ave rel, we talk about big picture.disc ius do think that we need to have an honest discussion, a frank . discussion on the revenue side of the picture.think we general general, even as we speak, the army is conducting listening sessions in hawaii.and and i think we can -- to our national security as to do our men and women who are serving in all other areas. but i'm also aware that the we second strike brigade combat team, the 25th infantry decision from scofield barracks is d planning to leave for joint korea military exercises in a thailand, south korea and the philippines. can you speak to the importance ofni this kind of mill-to-mill programs and maintaining stability in the asia-pacific region?

especially as when the rest of the world particularly in the middle east and africa are very wo unstable.ex if we can provide stability in the asia-pacific area i think op that is worth pursuing, so would i give us your -- >> first senator, this program tha under the under the guise of what we call pacific pathway is an important program -- this is the third year, but we're increasing each year. what is it is to build confidence in our allies, our strong allies we have and developing capabilities that allows us to sustain strong partnerships with many militaries. as wasi discussed here with us being reduced, it's important that we are able to leverage our malty national partner capability. through these ear exercises we can working together, gaining confidence with each other getting used to working with ng

each other so it's absolutely critical to our future strategy. you know having these forces in hawaii are incredibly important to us because that gets us about half the way here. if we comore from the continental united states it makes it much more difficult. having those forces in hawaii isic important for us because the ability to do this at a more -- in quicker fashion.ility to >> is sequestration going to the negatively impact our ability to engage in these mill-to-mill programs? >> it will. cer it reduces the dollars to do events like this.pr we would certainly rather not bel have it reduce -- we think we w they're very important but i believe we will not be able to ca do events like that as much. we'll have to reduce them and itugh will cause us problems in developing a future of security architecture throughout the pacific region. kinds >> can you provide us with the you specific -- the specifics of

which of these kinds of programsco you would have to reduce if 2016 sequester comes into play? >> so, the problem we have in the army is if sequestration d goes -- there's only two places it can come in.unds modernization accounts and readiness accounts. th part of the readiness accounts, deci which funds many of these rcises exercises. so, we will have to make decisions on which exercises we do not do. and so although we would like to continue to do some of these all will be affected. so, we have to reduce them to some level. frankly, we'll also reduce the readiness of our units conducting these missions. i >> thank you p.m. some of your testimony you discuss the importance of sustained investment and cy technological infrastructure w and as we know that cyber warfare is very much upon us.hrea so, for what you can see in this

forum, with the increase threat ut of cyber warfare cue address the potential impacts to our cyber security capabilities should sequestration come into play in 2016?is, bu >>t if i could -- we've increasedfr spending in cyber, but we have a lot of infrastructure kind of ou things we have to do in order toa better protect our networks thatng better protects our nation. and that's going to be pro owned. last year at the end of the year we were hoping for about $800 million. we werecr hoping to improve our ot infrastructure particularly aimed at increasing cyber security. unfortunately, it wasn't do approved. because of thatr that puts more strain on the dollars we'll havepl available over the next four five years. if sequestration comes into play, it will take us longer to -- to consolidate our networks and make it more i difficult to protect them from outsider attacks. i'm very concerned about that. >> although my time is up, i assume that the rest ofu you

agree this is going to make it very difficult for you to keep your cyber security t. infrastructure in place or to a to even build it? >> it would be hard in the navy, but it would be a top priority right after the sea base strategic deterdeterrent. >> same comment.er nothing to add to that. >> it's a core capability that se will sifr from the same effects > t asha all the other areas with i sequestration. >> o senator heinrich. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank all of you for your service and really for your decades of commitment. so seeing the level of experience at this single tableso it highlights something i think is worth mentioning just so that the public understands why these rekrument and retention issues are incredibly important. her

the military is fundamentally different from other government agencies, from the private c sector. you can't hire in a colonel or general from the private sector or from another agency.ansent r and i think the incredible amount of experience that all of you represent really helps highlight that to our constituents. i've got a couple ofera questions that i want to ask general welsh in particular. e i want to thank you, on my first question speaking to this issue in the media recently. it's something i've been very concerned about recently.t that is with respect to remotelyuis piloted aircraft pilots, and the crews that make those missions possible, i've become very concerned about the current level of resources supporting

the training receiptthe retraining the retention of those rn than personnel. an d what i want to -- i know you share some of that concern. what i want to ask you is if ed we're as challenged as we appear to be because of the tempo/pace, in large part, if the budget control act goes into effect scal can you give us a sense of the scale of what we're going to be eg facing inar terms of not meeting the demand with regard to remotely piloted aircraft in a o way that's really going to put us at an enormous disadvantage, in my view, and i don't want to put words in your mouth, but i ol want you to articulate the scalect and of the challenge for my colleagues. >> senatort sequestration went into effect we belief we would have to cut the number of orbits those pilots and the other air -- the other crew members fly.w to

which in a strange way would actually make the problem we're discussing better. we have enough manning to fly 55 or bitters with a sustainable life battle morphed over time. but we're flying ten above that. abo we have been since 2007. ten above the number we had. because we surged nine times ro with this particular force because of mission requirements. which those crews understand. they love doing the mission. they're excited about the work but they're tired. if we went to 45 caps, we'd happe create a more sustainable battleld rim em virtually as soon as that happens. so the problem would be operational requirements that ev wouldn't be met but the manning problem would be alever ated to a great extent. and that's -- so the issue really is meeting combat and commander requirements once a sequestration hits. that's a different problem but cant still a significant one. >> i hear you.nd tob but do you see that operational tempo and the demand for that do

going down in the near future?talked o >> no senator, i don't. we keep thinking we have it topped out and we have a plan to get there and then it increases again. trai we've just been chasing this m requirements rabbit for a long e time. we have to get ahead of it.all we have to train more people he than move in and out of the system every year and we haven't been able to do that yet because>> r all the trainers are doing operational support. >> right. on another separate issue, general welsh, if the -- if the s bca levels do go into effect do you see any feasible way to modernize the existing triad-based nuclear problem we have? >> it has to be modernized. the question is, what parts do ss i s you modernize and what do we as a nation expect --forc >> i should say in its entirety. because i think -- i think that we forces some very difficult conversations. we've seen talk here within