provide ready forces to meet our domestic and overseas missions. the adjutant general have been provided with near-term majors to assist them to mitigate budget risks and threats to readiness. examining and reducing overhead, curtailing and cancelling conferences, not renewing temporary civilian personnel, implementing hiring freezes, and reducing aircraft flying hours are now in effect. the national guard rapidly expand the capability and capacity of the active component when called to federal service as well as supports civil authorities in the 54 states, territories, and the district of columbia. we provide properly equipped military units on a very short notice to support first responders as typified in last week's snowstorm response in the midwest.

most notably, in 2012, in response to hurricane sandy, governors were able to put thousands of guardsmen on the ground within hours to come to the aid of citizens. we were able to do this because of the institutional procurement, training, educational and depot-level training that the army and air force provide a separate reductions in these critical areas will have an immediate impact on national guard readiness. the air national guard is scheduling invention of aircraft and engines in to the depot maintenance program. because our lack of flexibility to manage dollars currently

under the continuing resolution. this delay will returnees assets to their units. facilities sustainment and modernization will degrade and already aging infrastructure. the continuing resolution prohibits any new starts and construction, further threatening our modernization program. the quality of facilities located in 3000 communities impact readiness and our ability to respond to disasters across the country. because of the real responsibility -- the real possibility of sequestration, thousands of americans who support the national guard i full-time basis are likely to face for low of up to 22 days. this would equate to losing 9

million man hours of productivity in our maintenance and areas of training. our military technicians to work alongside our civilian personnel would sacrifice almost 800,000 department defense employees. we would lose up to 20% of their pay for five to six months. potential for lows and maintenance, funding impact on aviation will be the first to fall. we anticipate a reduced level of readiness by our pilots because of a reduction in pilot training and our ability to dip into training at a time when we're going into structure changes in the air national guard and aviation will be affected as well. aviation as one of the essential things we rely upon during disasters.

this will be -- preparations and training of 13,000 soldiers and airmen assigned to units given them this and to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear, or terrorist attacks or industrial accident will suffer as exercises and training events are delayed or canceled by reductions in operation or maintenance funding. the fiscal situation today and after the first of march will have a measurable and dramatic negative affect on a critical national guard capabilities and our ability to rapidly respond to domestic and federal requirements. thank you for the opportunity to being here today. look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. this has been a very powerful hearing so far. i just wish everyone be in our

country could hear the real story as you told us this morning. thank you for that. i'm going to do my very best to get every member in for questions. >> i appreciate the chairman yielding. >> thank you. >> i think the chair and ranking member. i'm going to have to leave, so thank you for giving me the opportunity. under normal circumstances, the department of the fed -- department defense hires 2000 personnel per week, 44 percent of them are veterans. sequestration could have a significant impact on veterans employment. the army alone plans to furlough 250,000 civilians, many of whom are veterans. how will your sequestration fans affect hiring of veterans and what other areas do you

anticipate veterans will be impacted and how will transition assistance programs be affected? >> thank you very much. first, we are doing our best to continue to ensure veterans have hiring priority. as we have hiring freeze is in place now, that limits us to hire anyone to include our veterans. the more important fact is as the army is downsizing, we expect every year for the next five or seven years that we will transition to hundred thousand soldiers per year from the active component of the national guard out of the army. we are paying a lot of attention to ensuring we are able to transition them into appropriate employment.

we stood up a soldier for life office that is coordinating with many of our community partners are on the country, but all of this could be affected as we move forward toward sequestration and our ability to help them implement the programs to ensure we have proper transition of these great men and women who have served. >> you said in a letter to congress on january 14, that you talked about how you began your career in a hollow force. a hollow army was the correct words. i do not want to end my career in a hollow army. during your 36-year distinguished career, you have commanded the army at all levels. can you describe for us what it was like to begin your career in a hollow force, provide a comparison to what a hollow force with look-alike in areas that did not exist like cyber

warfare, women in combat roles, and what do you see as a long- term consequence of a hollow force? >> thank you. as i started my career, i sigh force that was under resources. they were not able to do the training to meet the readiness levels, they were undisciplined, we did not have the ability to mend the force appropriately, so we had a miss balance between readiness levels and strength in numbers and we were not modernized. we had no significant modernization. as i got into the army and in '80s and '90s, we brought in that m-1 tank and started to increase our ability. we got matched up with the readiness and modernization programs, so we became an army

that was trained and ready which has executed on several occasions and has been successful. i am worried that we will have this mitch -- this mismatch between strength, readiness, and modernization. there are a couple of things we have to do. we have to make sure we have the flexibility to ensure we sustain this balance in the force which gets to some of the comments on the flexibility necessary. there is a certain level of capacity we have to sustain in order to deter and that has to be ready at all times and it's our responsibility and that's what i worry about as we move forward. >> thank you. i will submit the other questions for the record. >> thank you. >> thank you individually and collectively for what you do and it thank you for looking at the men and women deserve so

probably and recognizing we have over 60,000 serving probably and bravely -- bravely in afghanistan and other parts of the world. i think the general comment initially to reflect a masai's of your respective services, the budget control act, the continuing resolution which affects the size of each of your forces, and the sequester is going to be damaging in that regard. could you give us further reflections on the size and let me make an additional comment -- other nations are watching us. some of those nations are depending on us. they are looking at how we are right sizing are fortresses giving -- given these challenges. >> last year, i testified under

the budget control act, as we move the army reduction, that i am comfortable with that because of the fact that our army had grown days that are conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. we still had some risk and at the edge of risk, i was ok and reducing our forces. with sequestration, we will have to reduce the army somewhere around 100,000 people. that will break down to 40 or 60,000, somewhere around 30,000 in the national guard and 15,000 or 20,000 in debt reserve. that gets to our ability to resolve multiple contingencies and need an uncertain future ahead of us. >> deployment, obviously. >> yes. >> people like to count ships in

the navy. but before the budget control act, 2020 is our benchmark year for the current items that we have. before the budget control act, we would have had 315 ships in 2020. after the budget control act, we will have 295. with sequestration and a continuing resolution to reconcile all that goes with it, we are looking at about 30 or 40 less ships, looking at 265, depending on how it all comes out. >> we are on our way down from 200,000 marines to 182,000. considering the future security environment, that's about the right amount. it gives us the balance to of a

force as well manned inside each unit, not having an -- a hollow unit that is ill-equipped. it also accounts for the last 11 years of war. when airplanes at the buildings, we were -- you might say what is the matter with 173, since the airplanes hit the building, we have added 3600 marines for marine special operation and 2500 marines for cyber warriors. that is on its way up to 3500 inside my force. we added capabilities like human intelligence and capabilities that have become the lessons of war for the last 11 years. we are on our way to 182. sequestration hats, and not sure that is the ground floor. i don't see how we can maintain it. >> i came into an air force with

roughly 700,000 people and we are now at 329,000 and going down to 326,000. we have been downsizing for quite some time. we have reduced about 500 aircraft and 5000 airmen. going to 326, we believe matches the strategic environment and defense strategy aligned with it. it outlines what i believe is a very grim reality. in my view, what we are going to have to do is figure out what the reliable string of numbers out through 10 years of sequestration. we will have to look at what kind of capability will the air force need to provide the joint where fighting force 10 years from now and can we provide that at what capacity? then we will have the back up and figure out how we go from here to there. it will look very different from

the air force we have today. >> the army national guard today is headed for 350,000 at the end of the current drawdown. that is where we were previous to 9/11 and not only have the threat to grown but we're facing in the late 1970's and even before that we were protected by oceans and geography. we are no longer protected. both our guardsmen and, air, and army are in every contingency plan and we want to be able to provide capability to respond to disasters and we're planning very closely with fema. sequestration will put the numbers at risk. the air guard will settle out at

about 105,000. >> thank you. mr. moran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me address the impact of sequestration because there's no question it will be going into effect on friday and there's a good chance that it will be incorporated through much of the fiscal year if not the entire period -- entire. for example, your overseas contingency account is subject to sequestration. uniformed personnel are not. i do not know how you solve that. not all of you have to address it, but i would like for some of you to give us guidance. the continuing resolution

itself poses some real problems. the continuing resolution as currently structured to stay in place for the balance of a year and the pentagon would be substantially short of base budget operations and funding a. we are told it would be short of no less than a $14.50 billion and. i know you have more flexibility, but there's a real shortfall right now and if we do not move a lot in, i would like to know how you're going to deal with it. and then the overseas contingency account. the army estimates a shortfall in excess of $6 billion. the navy has a shortfall of almost half a billion because the additional carrier presence and the air force estimates a shortfall of almost $2 billion.

from an appropriation standpoint, we need some guidance. the current six months c.r. and accounting balances leading you to slow your burn rate, that may be how you're going to deal with it, but i would like to hear from you how you will deal with these imbalances that york currently facing particularly in the zero endemic count. maybe you should start with a general luthier know. -- in the o & m account. may do is start with a general odierno. >> it is $6 billion in the continuing resolution on. i do not want to give it too much detail, but as we went from the told to the 13 budget, we moved a lot of it in that was to the base. because of that, the $12, the

continuing resolution, has shorted us significantly. we need authority to be able to move that around. it as you so adequately said, $14.50 billion on the ground, that number is a problem. with the overseas accounts with afghanistan, yes we are reducing personnel, but as you take people out of afghanistan, as you close bases, as you redeploy equipment, the amount of money necessary was underestimated. this only increased the cost. all of these combined has now left us a very significant shortfall. what we're going back to do is dealing with the sequestration and now we have to take it out of our army accounts to pay these bills. frankly, it leaves us, after we

take that out, we only have about $1 billion last and they were running installations, training, health care. we have had to stop training for about 80% of the force. we're going to have to reduce the maintenance of our facilities and installations which will cost us more money down the road because we did not maintain them. we will have to cut programs. for us, we have no choice. we have to pay those bills. it will cost us significantly which will then create another readiness problem because we're going to move a lot of the things you should have done and we're going have enough money in 14 to make up week -- to make up what we could not do and it continues to build. >> we're looking at $15 billion of. that is $11 billion from

sequestration and $4.50 billion due to the continuing resolution and that is all in the operational account. you go where the money is. it is in installation, and as the general mentioned, we bring that down to what we believe is feasible and responsible. we have done that. we are slowing the burn rate. as time goes on, you say we have to do this now. you have to fish or cut bait. this deployment came up and got press because we said, we need to present an option to command, to our bosses and say, we deploy or we do not. if we deploy, we are concerned because the money we are using to deploy, we will not be training the follow on. we have to look down the road.

those guys will not be trained to deploy. we will send to truman and not have somebody ready down the road so the decision was made to pole and so now we retain one of them. a lot of that is going on where we say, ok, what's next? a ship is due for maintenance. do we commit the money or do we hold? it's a lost opportunity. we have lost $600 million in opportunity for real readiness because of the decision in february to slow the burn rate. it would be another $1.20 billion in march to do not have relief from sequestration for the ability to move money. because of the continuing resolution, while it moves over into 13, in our investment accounts, we have more

investment than we planned. if we could get access to that and move it into operations, it would help our critical shortages. atthis year, we're sitting $1 billion short just for the marine corps, just for operations. we value readiness and you know that. we have to maintain a high state of readiness to be able to respond with today's force today. we get mu'min into our operational readiness. i move about $400 million from the facility sustainment, modernization, restoration. the ability to reset the equipment coming out of afghanistan. i guess we have a $3.20 billion bill out there in the future for the reset of the equivalent. we are taking money out of those accounts and putting it to

operational forces currently deployed to maintain readiness. and also those forces next to deploy, those getting ready to increase their readiness. i am shuffling the deck, on the titanic to pay this bill. it will eventually come to roost next year or the year after which the readiness in equipment, my facilities, the ability to be able to train back home will be reduced as i force readiness in the next deployed units. >> i hate to say we have just a $1.80 billion shortfall because this is serious money, but in comparison, it's not as large. we've already gotten approval to reprogram which drives some of the other impact to mentioned in my opening statements. if we had the authority and the ability to transfer, we would

take it from investment if there were no other options. now we are back to readiness verses modernization. >> we rely heavily on the air force and the army to get our forces ready to go overseas. when returning equipment back backlogere's already a there. it would further delay getting equipment back into the armory to be utilized in the homeland. additionally, this is forcing our air guard to be able to get some of our aircraft into badly needed maintenance. this aircraft will have to be parked for a longer period this year because of the inability to move money even between the air force and guard. the more immediate impact we're

going to see if the backlog in advanced individual training, pilot training and the services need that to keep these open for us. >> thank you. >> the topic of today's hearing is the dod's fiscal challenges and we've all agree that we provide resources not only for equipment but for the people needed to defend this great nation. today, we have discussed the budget challenges and i want to focus on the veterans and the war fighters because they should always be our top priority and how we find these critical services they need when they return from the battlefield. we must not balance these needs by sacrificing the health care of our military. i have heard directly from my constituents that the services we provide, has, at times, been

not adequate. when they say they would rather go to our iraq any day than go to fort bliss, it causes me great concern. many of these come from army soldiers and in the past year i ever heard from over 30 in my district to believe that instead of receding -- receiving a diagnosis, they were diagnosed with medical conditions unrelated to their service to allow the army to discharge them. the soldiers say their command threatened disciplinary action if they question their diagnoses. i want to make sure the subcommittee hears the story of my constituent. he sought treatment after suffering a brain injury in combat. the command staff insisted he had in non-combat related heart problem instead. this diagnosis allowed him to discharge him without providing

treatment. after his wife contacted my office concern that he was not getting the treatment he needed, he was physically attacked by two officers from the wounded warrior transition unit. these facts have all been substantiated. the army published a report of an investigation conducted by the western regional medical command of the wounded warrior transition team and a founder ranking officers would make fun of soldiers in wheelchairs' and they were met with a toxic environment and soldiers needing help purple to keep their mouth shut. the army has decided to conduct an on-site investigation and the general has promised that improvements are under way. this is progress, but they reported last year on a similar issue and we have yet to hear

the result. this is too important for this to be been happen one time. general, last year, are former ranking member brought to your attention the problems at the joint they it. you're aware of the problems. do you believe this is a systemic problem related to budgetary concerns or is it limited to a few negligent ports? >> we take everyone of these very seriously. we did an extensive look and we just looked again at fort bliss that was completed within the last couple of weeks to address some of the concerns you have raised. i truly believe that these are, what i would call, anecdotal individual events we have to deal with it to make sure we have the right people dealing with our wounded warriors. it is not about the resources we

have involved with our medical care. it is about getting the right people doing the right thing with the right command oversight and we take every one of these allegations very seriously. we continue to look at them very carefully. overall, i believe our system is good but we do have out fliers. -- outliers. we need to investigate to make sure our soldiers get the best care. we want to take care of our young men and women who deserved at all. we will do everything to ensure that happens. >> listening to you distinguished men, the wonderful job you do an impossible situation to have been put in with the cuts that are occurring, we have to do our very best for those who have served, their treatment, and

certainly when i look at this and we look at over 30 cases, 64 since september 2010, and we have seen similar statements made over and over and we could not get the intermission we needed or the information for them and we cannot make those cuts in the health-care of our soldiers or any of the services and now we're hearing that from other services also, so please take that very seriously. i know you have the review that the secretary general ordered on the army's practice of a evaluating psychiatric borders. no when that will be released. -- do you know when that will be released? >> it should be very shortly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with a quotation and from president john kennedy to set our problems are man

made, and therefore they can be solved by man. the sequester is a man-made mass that is completely and wholly reversible. gentlemen, i believe your dire predictions on our military readiness, capability, and our overall national security. we're shooting ourselves in the flood, literally. responsible leaders lending revenues come a tax expenditures, and coming up with a deal to protect the american people because this government provides services and protections for every american and. i voted against the budget control act because i oppose passing bad law in the foolish hope that they never take effect. when i came to congress in 2001, the budget was $310 billion and the federal government was predicted have a 10-year budget surplus.

since then become the pentagon budget has doubled on programs that have all been put on a credit card. for much of the past decade, the brave men in uniform have been fighting in afghanistan and iraq. not one penny of additional revenue was raised by congress to pay for those wars. to fight the is, absolute and total sacrifice was demanded an given for military leaders here today, men and women in your command, all of the families. they have served with honor. the rest of the american people have been asked to sacrifice nothing. they have not contributed anything extra. this congress right now is doing nothing but watching while education, public health, infrastructure, and military

readiness are gutted. again, revenue was off the table. even if their results in our nation being less secure. we have an obligation as the congress to act. as americans, we need to pay for the government we want and we need to pay for the privilege of living in a free, democratic nation. if that means paying higher taxes, and willing to pay for that. but we're looking at changes off of head start and poor moms off wic. while military personnel accounts are protected from sequestration, it would appear that an important service supporting these families are not protected. my question is what will be the effect on sequestration for military families? the quality of life for those loved ones who support our

fighters? for example, is an accurate that cuts to a child of elements centers will directly help the children of servicemen and women? finally, what do you believe will be the impact on retaining our best and brightest members of the military? from this fiscal mess, it means that their jobs are more difficult and it undermines the well-being of their families, especially their children. how do we keep our best and brightest from a gentleman? >> congresswoman, we have a little over 19,000 civilian marines whose salaries come from appropriated funds. a large percentage of those, if not all of our people who deal with child development centers to train our children, our

mental health providers, the ones who work with not only our families who feel the stress of combat but also those marines to return back, these are civilians that we have hired in the last year-and-a-half as a result of an impetus to eradicate sexual assault. they are highly qualified and they're part of the team now and they are all eligible for the furlough to begin which will happen shortly. that will be a 20% production in child care, mental health providers, teachers where we have a government school on basis -- on bases. it will impacted. the hours are going to reduce. if a base has five, two of them may close. these are the kinds of impacts

that will happen in. beyond that, which i think is the question, because you talk about the quality of young men and women who enter the service today to sacrifice along with their families. we recruit a marine and we retain the family. the all-volunteer force will feel the strain over the next couple of years and i think that is the quality that i am probably most gravely concerned about. it will put that at risk. those young men and women who come forward today to say they want to be a part of the institution will be more reluctant to come forward in the future. >> we need the means to move money. if we could move money, we have to go where the money is right now, and this furlough is a big deal. it seriously affects, obviously, the civilian personnel and these people populate many of the programs

you spoke to. we sat down with the secretary of defense chiefs shot and said we willand said with in short life, safety, and security that and that those overseas right now are properly sourced. wounded warriors in family programs, we need the mechanisms and we can take care of it. it is a top priority. >> we talk a lot about keeping faith with our soldiers. we have all had many discussions about this and it's part of it. they will do anything for us. they will deploy on that no notice. all they want us to do is to take care of their families. we are going have to cut some programs. general amos mention child development centers will be able to lose flextime so we will not

be able to do our in child care. we will have to reduce spouse deployment services and reduced victim advocates support for domestic violence victims. these are all critical issues. we do not want to reduce them, but we have no choice because it is a combination of a civilian furlough and reduction that causes this as well as the reduced funding translations. for us, it's absolutely critical. it's a very difficult situation for us right now. we're trying to pick the most critical programs, trying to sustain them, but even when we do, we're going to have to reduce the capability within the programs. >> this is an absolutely fantastic question, thank you. i hope you know no one cares more about families than the people sitting at this table.

women get together, our conversations do not start talking about airplanes, ships, tanks, we talk about the soldiers, airmen, marines and the difficult. they have been doing. the problem we have right now is that at every installation, they're looking at how we mitigate the impact of these things and how we preserve the readiness programs, child care support, all of the things that are so important. a 35 million man-hours from be furloughed work force will be awfully tough to mitigate. that is where we need help. we cannot control that. that work force that we are doing a furlough is someone else we should keep the faith with. they have not had a pair raise and now we're taking pay for the rest of the fiscal year? for the air force, this is a critically important part of what we do, but also will lead the guard and the reserve as

well. a huge part of the reserve component is the dual status technicians of the civilian work force. your last point about recruiting and retention, i will just say this. i have limited exposure compared to the other gentlemen at the table, but i have been to a number of air force installations and i have conducted calls with the entire air force population and the first question is always about sequestration. every single time. they are paying attention. they are concerned. they know there is an impact coming, but they just do not know how it will affect them. there are not worried about capability, but the impact to them, their unit, and their family. >> congresswoman, when you look at the 800,000 civilian and military technicians, 800,000 civilians across the dod, many of those members served in the

reserves and national guard as well. there are probably 2000 technicians deployed today. one concern that we have, and i'm sure the service chiefs do as well, is that these return back to their duty assignments back, and for our guard technicians, it is back to their armory where they serve in a civilian capacity and within months, they could be furlough. the young, larger families, their normally a bit more mature and they could be faced with losing homes and cars with the moms. we are watching that very closely and we're trying to reach out to some of the support organizations making sure we have the help in place when we do return. for the long term though, we rely heavily on mental health professionals we have put in to help people understand and work

through their second, third, fourth and climate and help deal with issues of the families are gone. if you look at full sequestration and the tens of thousands of veterans coming back to your home towns, your communities, that help will not be there for them. we're working very closely with the va to see what we can do, but it concerns us even more. some of them will go into your home town and there will not be anything there for them. >> mr. crenshaw. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask you about something that is maybe not as glamorous and that is the maintenance part of this equation. we talk about readiness, operations, men and women, but it seems like maintenances

something and is always kind of in the background. if we're going to have a backlog of maintenance, whether it is ships, planes, tanks, there is no area that is going to be exempt from that. and when general odierno talked about a hollow military, that seems like it's the first step, ignore the maintenance. i know in my district, they decided to cancel about $200 million worth of maintenance contracts. i read the navy said if we go along with the sequester and the sea are built, they will cancel all of their maintenance contract for the next two quarters. sometimes, i read one of the reasons that happens is because it's less visible and also considered to be the most reversible. you can skip some maintenance but you can always make it up. that's not where i think you

want to be and that's not where i want to be. that's not always the case. there was an example, again, in my district where there was one of the last conventional aircraft carriers and when it came time to deploy for the gulf war, because they had skipped a maintenance, it could not deploy. .

>> it does seem like numbers matter. that's the thrust of my question. we're ask you the navy to do a lot of things. we're asking you to send humanitarian aide to haiti and send some invoicers into the mediterranean to defend against iranian missiles carriers to the persian gulf. by the way keep an eye on china. it seems like the world hasn't gotten smaller, the world hasn't gotten safer. the question to you admiral, one is how do you decide the priorities that you're asked by

these commanders for these different missions? how do you make that decision in terms of priority when you only have limited assets? two, are there areas of the world where your presence will be decreases because of this? number three, what impact does this have on our national security and global security as well? if you can address those and any other folks would like to address it as well. >> the decision as to where we go is a debate we have with the joint staff and eventually with the secretary of defense and the outcome of that is my command signal, this is what i have to provide. it's called the global force management allocation plan. it's where we distribute naval access. i got to be where maritime are.

that's in the arabian gulf and in the gulf in the western pacific and down by the straights in malaka. we decide that and lay that out. that is my demand signal. whenever there is a reduction in the budge like we have today, we sit down and say okay, what's the priority. we go to the defense strategic. the mideast is extremely important today because that's the lifeblood of energy and a lot of products. we balance those two but my point to you congressman, it is a conversation of the secretary of defense and commanders as well as the joint staff. that's kind of the areas of the world. the impact, what happens now? i have $8.6 billion in deficit in my operations account. well, what will happen is, we will keep the gulf at one --

most of the combatant ships there today. in the asian pacific, we have 40 ships out there day in and day out. those ships are already there. they're in japan and they're in guam and they're in singapore. those ships will remain there. the problem is, if you don't do maintenance what happens then? well, it's a debilitating effect. it starts to hollow you out. you got to pay this back sooner or later, you seen example, you seen it, wow, look at this tank. it's a debate at the level in the department and the harris s. truman decision was an outcome of a similar debate as to where

we go. we will reduce presence in the central command by one carrier now and a couple destroyers. we'll reduce in the southern commander to the point we won't have any ships in there at the end of this year. that's tons of drug that we won't be a part of this year. similar story in the european command, again, the western pacific in a fortunate manner. we have a number of ship there is but we still aren't supplementing them to the story of four destroyers. a long story to tell that we can help reconcile if we can get some funding mechanisms. >> thank you. >> in the interest of trying to get a fair balance here, i'm going to move on to another one on this side. we'll balance it out here.

let me go to mr. talbert. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you all for your service and leadership and the enormous impact that our budgets are operating under and continue resolution and sequestration will have on defending our nation. one issue that i wanted to bring up is truman brought up. if in fact, we're able to give you more flexibility in more programming. your product is our national defense of our nation given if you are given enhanced reprogramming

authority, with understand defense budgets caps growed to in the budget control act will remain in effect, what specifically would you cut in order to ensure your service is able to remain effective as possible over the coming years? i guess i open that up to anybody. >> the current core structure in where we're headed was a core structure of the future, absent, sequestration, coming down 182,000. it is purpose built for the strategy that the president passed a little over a year ago. the strategy that we all worked on and we're a part of and have agreed to. at this point for me to be able to say what would i do without or how would i reach in and change programs and that kind of thing, i can't do that based on

the current strategy. what was going to have to happen if this sequestration and c.r. continues, we will likely have to go back in and revisit that strategy. from that strategy then, like general welch talked about, you figure out what are the requirements. what the marine corps piece with that. at this point i can't answer what we will specifically gaining. what we have is strategy driven and we don't know what the future will hold with regards to a strategy. >> congressman, with the budget control act, we developed a strategy that was in line with the numbers that came out in the budget control act. for the army, it's about us continuing to balance three stats, which is ready and modernization in such a way that

allows us to be able to provide the capabilities to meet the defense strategy. if we get additional cuts, sequestration specifically in this case i'm talking about, 48% of the army budget is in people. in order to maintain that balance, it's going to have to be the reduction of people. military and civilians. we're going to have to figure out what is the right balance again between the end strength of readiness and the modernization. what is this mean to us is significant reduction in capacity. although, we're confident we can meet the new strategy with the budget control act numbers, i believe as joe amos just said, we'll be significantly challenged to meet the strategy with the sequestration. we're beginning to probably have to do a review of the new strategy. that will be the impact on us. it's our ability to respond to

any contingency whether it be in the middle east or korea. >> one other concern also i have is in the acquisition process. obviously, we all want to say the government money, i suspect sequestration has a potential to cost for more in the long term when you look at it contract by contract. can you kind of give us an idea what we likely to see the most on this acquisition process? what mechanisms are causing these over runs and approximately how much money the government will need to spend in results of sequestration that's holding up these contracts, restarting thee contracts? >> i can't give you the specific number but i can talk about a few things. we're having to stretch out our programs. it's going to cost more per item

whether it be an apache helicopter, whether it will be a ch47 helicopter. whatever system we have it's going to cost more per term. the cost becomes more per item. it becomes more inefficient. that's the only way we can do it if we want to sustain these modernization numbers. i can't give you a specific number but i will try to get that to you. multiyear contracts, one of the problems with the c.r., we can't do multiyear contracts. we were suppose to execute multiyear contracts but we weren't able to do it. now is cost us more money in order to execute this program down the road. >> i know you have enough problems in the acquisition process already for not having the sequestration problem put upon you. if all of you can get us a report to the committee, what

you believe additional cost of the sequestration will do and the acquisition process, that would be helpful. while you're at it, since acquisition process period has been problematic over the past, any changes that you can suggest the sequestration process that could help bring those costs will be more manageable in the future will be helpful also. thank you mr. chair. >> mr. ryan? >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you gentlemen. chilling hearing we're having here today. i first like to thank general amos for a program that both in the army, u.s. army 25th infantry division and u.s. marine first marine with the training institute. it's an amazing program i've been working closely with. i think it's something that can help build the level of

resiliency that we need in our troops to prevent them from really experiencing the kind of trauma that they carry with them throughout dealing with the early stage. i want to thank you for that. i think it's a wonderful program and look forward to continuing to work with you given these young men -- giving these young men and women the skills they need. i want to thank you for your leadership there. general welch, i have a lot of members of the air force in my congressional district. you hit a nerve when you started talking about the reduction in flying hours lost, scaling back training up to two-thirds and what really hit me was that we will be non-mission capable by

july. then it would take six months for us to return back to full capability. can you just make that point again and let us know and the taxpayers know what kind of cost we would have to incur to get our men and women back to mission capable? >> yes congressman. this is unique to the air force. after we set aside the forces committed to supporting operations in afghanistan, other named operations some in africa showed support other things, forced korean peninsula, we just run out of flying hours. our combat air forces, they are not involved in knew clear --

nuclear mission. but their combat capability, all the different thing they do to be ready, we'll erode beginning in march. by 60 days later for most of our pilots, the pilot themselves will be non-mission ready. by july the pilots will be non-mission ready. to recover, when we start the next fiscal assuming we have the right amount of flying hours to keep those pilots continuously ready, that's not going to be enough. we will need more flying hours to bring them back up to speed, which will take more training more demand from evaluator time. it will take about six months to return to force to readiness it will cost above what we already have in program for flying hours next year. >> if they're not mission capable by july, the further out we go, it's six months.

the worse it gets. is six months the number to get them back to mission capable or does that length of time get longer the longer their out? >> it extends the longer you go. >> if we ride this thing out until next year or the end of this year, we're talking about having a good number of not what you said in the air force, but across the military -- this is an important point. the longer this goes, the more complicated it gets, the more expensive it gets and the less ready and prepared we are. >> exactly congressman. and higher the risk. it's important for all us to understand, if there is a contingency that occurs beyond what we're operating at, it's not that the nation is not going to respond. we're still going to go.

the risk goes up because of our force will not be ready and capable of performing at peak levels. that's our concern. >> i just have one question and may be just a couple of you can answer it. it's important with the air force i think what's going on why asia with the navy and the restructures that will be made there, put us first risk. the one issue, i hope this committee is appropriate question, or cyber terror. my real concern is that as we go through this, we're still going to be able to maintain what we're doing with regards to cybersecurity and reading the paper, as americans, we realizing now how active and engaged a lot of people are with our banking system, our military, our government, our financial institutions. anyone feeling the spirit to address that issue on

maintaining that capability as we go through this budget process. >> can i can make a quick comment in the beginning. one of the things that's important with that critical piece of our four structures we talked about before, civilian workforce. in the air force 40% of our air force -- our ships and our aircraft are instruments of cyber. if they're not out and about with trained operators, you're losing arrows in the quiver. the quiver itself, that is cyber headquarters and our componency they're in. we're doing everything we can to hoard money, if you will, to keep it where it needs to be. i'm okay with that but time is

so critical here. every month that goes by we lose opportunities to train especially flying. it's through all of our units. >> we are cause and effect as we downsize. we have budget constraints. all of the services were increased the number of people that will be involved with cyber. we are starting to train additional people now. that has become one of our top priorities to make sure we develop that capability because of that potential threat to our nation. we've identified that as a key component of our future strategy but it's added cost. that's one of our priorities and

we will increase our investment. >> even within the sequestration? >> well, yes, even within sequestration. we're moving forward with increasing our investment. because of the criticality that we believe is to protect ourselves. >> would there be more of an increase without sequestration? >> i can't answer that right now. i think what will happen right now we kind of agreed to do this prior -- set we agreed to this increase, we weren't sure sequestration was going to happen. my guess is going to happen, sequestration will delay the implementation. it will not eliminate the implementation of our increased deficits. >> the mechanism of sequestration we can't fence it off. it goes to every single program except personnel. if we have the means to reallocate money, we can get to a raise and get back to that priority program. >> even if there's an increase but the ship that's are needed

as a component of the program that will still be effective? >> that's right congressman. limits are cyber options. they're instruments of cyber as well and doing other things. in my world, that's an impact. >> thank you, that's my concern mr. chairman. if something happened here, they're going to look at us, what were you all doing. >> very good question. >> thank you mr. ryan. >> thank you mr. chairman, gentlemen. i was at camp pendleton a few days ago. one of the generals there, i won't call him by name, he was echoing the concern mr. crenshaw raised about the maintenance issue. his analogy one many americans can understand, if you buy a new

car today and you don't change the oil on it, you can probably run it for three or four years and it will still run. it's not advised to do that. in the outyears, the longer you own it, the more expensive it is. you all echoed that to some agree. admiral, i like to ask, correct me if i'm mistaken, the information i read in the testimony was, the navy plans to cancel the depo maintenance in this fiscal year and that means 25 ships scheduled for maintenance availabilities will not be included in the repair facility. if i'm correct in that, i guess question is, given there would be no direct readiness impact,

did you consider -- i know this is small change to the billions we're talking about -- but did you consider delaying the induction of the u.s.s. enterprise defueling as a part of your budget considerations? >> we did congressman. if we can get the authorities that we've been discussing here, that certainly something i would like to -- the secretary and i will talk about, split funding if you will and using the asset in 2013 to get to buy back this maintenance. it's lost opportunity. i want to get it back. >> that goes to my second and last question, i got many others i'll submit for the record mr. chairman. in my ways, you've all painted a grim picture. as we say in the south and other parts of the country, before

this committee, you're preaching to the choir. we're concerned about the impacts of both the c.r. as chairman rogers outlined, the solutions we trying to work through the house. don't know what the senate will do and really don't know what the president will do. whether you voted for the budget control act or some did or voted against or you're the president who signed it into law. we all have a responsibility. we've seen the deficit clock continue to go up and its impact on our nation. i guess the question i would have to each of you, i'm not trying to draw you into a political discussion here, respectfully, given what we've discussed today, given the consensus with the flexibility in the c.r. everyone here indicated their desire to give that you, is

there anything you can recommend to the commander in chief that he could do to minimize the effects of sequestration and that he could do to help with his signature in a continuing resolution or some type of instrument to get us through the balance of this fiscal year, to give you the flexibility that you're asking for that many of us would like for you to have? >> congressman in our dealings with our commander in chief, he's made it clear personally in front of me, he doesn't support this and he wants to do everything he can to avert sequestration. without getting into the political parties here, that's

what i see. i don't have the benefit of the day-to-day interactions but that's what i see and that's what i seen in the press. our president doesn't want this to happen. he understands the impact. that's just firsthand limited knowledge. >> general, i'm not disputing you, i'm just saying -- i haven't met a single member of congress, democrat or republican, that likes sequestration and taking your assessment and taking the president's work, he doesn't like sequestration. you don't like sequestration, i doubt if we ask for a show of hands in the room if anyone likes sequestration. yet, it is upon us. that's why i ask the question, you may have an opportunity -- we passed legislation in order for it to be signed into law, it takes both branches of

government to work hand in hand on that. i just would welcome any input you could offer at the appropriate time if given the opportunity through the chain of command, through the secretary of defense. he's been outspoken against sequestration. we all bear some responsibility to try to avoid the devastation that you're presenting to us today. >> to add to what general amos said and i agree with him. we went through great pains working with the secretary of defense to ensure the president understood the impacts of sequestration. there are two instruments here. the sequestration and continued resolution. together, there very debilitating. i'm unaware of an executive order we can ask the president to do. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you gentlemen for your

service. i will be remised if i did not extend general mcdonald warm regards to you. he told me to do that. we've talked a lot about the damages obviously, the sequestration and the c.r. inflicted upon the force. by would -- i would like to pull you back a little bit and ask each of you to think strategically and globally about what the impact this has for the country in its ability to project power and preserve stability around the world. at a hearing last year, general welch, your predecessor described with great pride what the air force had accomplished in iraq and afghanistan and then almost on the fly in libya and the extensive operations has gone on to help our friends in japan and their crisis. i asked him, given the cuts of

last year that we were talking about and you all were adjusting strategy, will we be able to do that again in two years, he said no. we can't do all four things again. now we're talking about something on top of that. i would like each of you to tell us the things you won't be able to do that we take for granted because you done it so well for so many decades. one last point, great book by a guy named robert kagen about the extraordinary things the united states of america accomplished in the world since the world war. he credits the american military

with tremendous part of that accomplishment. it's been the great maintainer of peace not just a winner of the wars, but the maintainer of peace. again, we're going to diminish that capability pretty substantially. again, if you can tell us some of the things you're not going to be able to do almost without reflection our.

.....

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2013] >> congressman, right now today we have canceled our operations

in central america, south america. we have canceled our exercises of dissipation. we have reduced 30% of our exercise support in the pacific area. that's the area where our nation is elected by our strategy to reorient to. that's some of the near impacts. plus as a navy-marine corps team, we are forward-deployed, forward engaged. we're an insurance policy. you don't know what is going to unfold in the world out there, but you buy an insurance policy as a hedge against the unknown. that's what our forces do. we are a forward-deployed force. we are engaged. we are dealing with limited partnership relationships. relationships count. we won't be able to do that. we're doing it today. i have a whole host of teams

since 2010, that the may have navy has been able to do. we have had operations in pakistan, operations in northern japan to help our friends after that earthquake and tsunami. the philippines, haiti. combat operations in afghanistan. we are going to be limited on what we are going to be able to do. this time next year, we will have not deployed, if things continue the way they are, we will not have deployed two marine expedition units. that's a total of six ships, 5,000 marines and sailors out there doing operations around the world. who is going to be able to do that? the last point i would make is, when things happened around the world, we need to be globally engaged and leading as a nation. we won't have built those relationships. you can't insert trust in the

middle of a crisis. you can try, but it is very depult to -- it is very difficult to surge trust. the global environment will be severely affected. >> congressman, you have supported us. the abrupt and ash trarey nature -- arbitrary nature of these cuts have taken effect already. if sequestration continues, it will have a more dramatic effect. strategically congressman crenshaw referred to this earlier. there will be a decreased presence overtime. in this business, quantity does have a quality all its own. i don't care how capable your platform is, the fewer places

you can be. impact on national security is actually very simple. it limits options. so the nation has to decide what appingses it wants -- what options it wants to be able to preserve. it is not our decision. we just execute the decision. finally, i have concerns strategically if this happens with our ability to connect with the american people over time. we already have difficulty with that because of the lower and lower number of people who have served in our voluntary force. that will get lower if our services get smaller. our guard and reserve will get smaller accordingly. that connection to the mainstream of america will get tougher to maintain. over time that could affect the quality of the force we have now, and that would be cat strask. >> congressman, we have a duel mission to augment and support the army and air force on the federal mission and then supporting the army in the states. if we go back to before 2001,

many of our guard units were, as far as fully organized units, were about one-third of what they were expected to be. because of investment by the army and air force, the guard now today is much, much better than that. we can deploy a lot quicker. i am very much concerned that with full sequestration we will go back to that. active forces will not be as modern and ready as needed. on the nomeland side, we -- on the homeland side, we are looking at how we respond to complex catastrophes. a 7.0 to 8.0 earthquake, we are not ready for those today. we are making plans. we are looking at the 10 essential capabilities that the

governors will need at that time. this will set us back in that planning, sir. >> house speaker john boehner spoke briefly after meeting with the president at the white house. here is what he had to say. >> the american people know washington has a spending problem. while there are smarter ways to cut spending than the process we are about to engage on, the house should not have to pass a third bill before the senate does anything. the house has laid out a plan to avoid the sequester. i would hope that the senate would act. but let's make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on january 1. this discussion about revenue,

in my view, is over. it is about the taking on of the spending problem here in washington. i did lay out that the house is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government past march 27. i am hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we are dealing with the sequester at the same time. the house will act next week. i hope the senate will follow suit. thanks. >> why did you wait until friday to meet the president? [reporters speaking at the same time] >> also from friday, president obama in the white house briefing room talking about the automatic spending cuts and taking questions from reporters. >> good morning, everybody. as you know, i just met with

leaders of both parties to discuss a way forward in light of the severe budget cuts that start to take effect today. i told them these cuts will hurt our economy. they will cost us jobs. and to set it right, both sides need to be willing to compromise. the good news is, the american people are strong and resilient. they have fought hard to recover from the worst economic crisis since the great depression, and we will get through this as well. even with these cuts in place, folks all across this country will work hard to make sure that we keep the recovery going. but washington sure isn't making it easy. at a time when our businesses have finally begun to get traction, hiring new workers, bringing jobs back to america, we shouldn't be making a series of dumb, ash -- arbitrary cuts to things that businesses and

education depend on, like infrastructure and defense. it is unnecessary, and at a time when two too many americans are still looking for work, it is inexcusible. what is important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. the pain, though, will be real. beginning this week, many middle class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. businesses that work with the military, like the virginia ship builder that i visited on tuesday, may have to lay folks off. communities near military bases will take a serious blow. hundreds of thousands of americans who serve their country, such as border patrol agents, f.b.i. agents, civilians that work at the pentagon, all will suffer significant paycuts and furloughs. all of this will cause a ripple effect throughout our economy. layoffs and paycuts mean that

people have less money in their pockets and that means they have less money to spend in local businesses. that means fewer profits and fewer hires. the longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy. it is a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day. so economists are projecting we could see growth cuts by over one-half of 1%. it will cost about 150,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly. so every time that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, next two months, next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we will know that that economic news could have been better if congress had not failed to act. let's be clear. this is happening because of a choice that republicans in

congress have made. they have allowed these cuts to happen because they refuse to budget on closing a single waistful loophole -- wasteful loophole to help the budget. just yesterday they refused tax -- they protected tax breaks for the well connected, and they think that is more important than protecting our military families from the pain of these cuts. i believe we must replace these cuts with a more balanced approach that has something from everybody. smart spending cuts, entitlement reform, tax reform that makes the tax code more fair for families and businesses without raising tax rates, all so that we can responsibly lower the deficit.

it is the kind of approach that i have proposed for two years. it is what i ran on last year. the majority of the american people agree with me and this approach, including, by the way, a majority of republicans. we just need republicans in congress to catch up with their own party and their country on this. and if they did so, we could make a lot of progress. i do know that the wins republicans in congress who privately at least say that they would rather close tax loopholes than let these cuts go through. i know there are democrats that would rather do smart entitlement reform than let these cuts go through. there is a caucus up on capitol hill. it is just a silent group right now. we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard. in the coming days and weeks, i am going to keep on reaching out to them. both individually and as groups of senators or members of the house and say to them, let's fix

this. not just for a month or two, but for years to come. because the greatest nation on earth does not conduct its business in month-to-month increments or by careening from crisis to crisis. and america has a lot more to do. we cannot allow political gridlock stand in the way of other places where we can make progress. i was pleased the house passed the violence against women act yesterday. that is a big win for not just women but for families and the american people. it is a law that will save lives and help more americans live free from fear. it is something we have been pushing on for a long time. i was glad to see that done. it is an example of how we can get some important bipartisan legislation through this congress, even though there is still these fiscal arguments taking place. i think there are areas where we

can make progress, even with this result. i will push with these initiatives. i will push for high-quality preschool for every family that wants it. i will push for the minimum wage so it is one families can live on. i will keep on pushing for immigration reform, and reforming our voting system and improvements on our transportation sector. i am going to keep pushing for sensible gun reforms because i think they deserve a vote. this is the agenda the american people voted for. these are america's priorities. they are too important to go unaddressed, and i'm going to keep pushing to make sure that we see them through. with that, i am going to take some questions. i am going to start with julie. >> how much responsibility do you feel that you bear for these cuts taking effect? is the only way to offset it at this point is for republicans to depend on revenue? >> no, look. we have already cut $2.5

trillion in our deficit. everybody says we need to cut $4 trillion, which means we have to come up with another trillion and a half. the vast majority of economists agree that the problem, when it comes to deficits, is not discretionary spending. it is not that we're spending too much money on education. it is not that we're spending too much money on job training or that we're spending too much money rebuilding our roads and bridges. we're not. the problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care process. and programs like medicare. and what i have said very specifically, very detailed, is that i am prepared to take on the problem where it exists on entitlements and do some things that my own party really doesn't like if it is part of a broader package of sensible deficit

reduction. so the deal that i have put forward over the last two years, the deal that i have put forward as recently as december, is still on the table. i am prepared to do hard things and to push my democratic friends to do hard things. but what i can't do is ask middle class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire entitlement reductions when we know there are programs not contributing to growth or our economy. it is not fair or right, and the american people don't think it is fair or right. so, you know, i recognize speaker boehner has challenges in his caucus. i recognize it is very hard for republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions

to me. sometimes i reflect -- i don't want house republican caucus members not -- to paint horns on my head. i genuinely believe there is an opportunity for us to cooperate. but what doesn't make sense, and the only thing we have seen from republicans so far in terms of proposal is to replace this set of ash trarey cuts with -- of arbitrary cuts with another set of arbitrary cuts. that is not going to help the economy, it is not going to help create jobs.

so in terms of going forward, my hope is that after some reflection, as members of congress start hearing from constituents who are being negatively impacted, as we start seeing the impact that the sequester is having, that they step back and say, all right, is there a way for us to move forward on a package of entitlement reforms, tax reform, not raising tax rates, identifying programs that don't work, and coming up with a plan that is comprehensive and makes sense? it may take a couple weeks and it may take a couple months, but i am going to keep on pushing on

it. my view is that ultimately, common sense prevails. but what is true right now is that, you know, the republicans have made a choice that maintaining an ironclad rule thatly we will not accept an extra dime's worth of revenue makes it difficult for us to get any comprehensive deal. that's the choice they are making. they are saying it is more important to preserve these tax loopholes than it is to prevent these arbitrary cuts. and what's interesting is, speaker boehner just a couple months ago identified these tax loopholes and tax breaks and said we should close them and raise revenue. it is not as if it is not possible to do. they themselves have suggested

that it is possible to do. and if they believe that in fact these tax loopholes and these tax breaks for the well off and well connected are contributing to growth, are good for the economy, and can raise revenue, why don't we get started? why don't we do that? it may be because of the politics within the republican party they can't do it right now. i understand that. my hope is that they can do it later. and i just want to repeat, it is not as if democrats are not being asked to do anything either to compromise. there are members of my party who violently disagree with the notion that we should do anything on medicare. i am willing to say to them, i disagree with you, because i want to preserve medicare for

the long haul. we're going to have some tough politics in my to get this done. this is not a situation where i am only asking for concessions from republicans to get this done. i am saying everyone is going to have to do something. the one thing to remember is, try to keep in mind, we are not here for ourselves, we are not here for our parties. we are not here to dance our electoral prospects, we are here for american families who have been getting battered pretty good for the last four years, are just starting to see the economy improve. businesses are just starting to see some confidence, and this is not a win for anybody. this is a loss for the american people. if we step back and remind

ourselves what it is we are supposed to be doing here, hopefully common sense will prevail. >> you see this as a republican problem and not a responsibility you would bear? >> give me an example of what i might do? >> well, just -- >> no, i'm trying to clarify the question. what i am suggesting is that i have put forward a plan that calls for serious spending cuts, serious entitlement reforms, goes to the heart of our long- term deficit problem. i have offered negotiations around that kind of approach, and so far i have got a rebuff, and what the republicans have said is that we can't do a dime's worth of revenue. so what more do you think i should do? because if people have a

suggestion, i'm happy to hear it. this is a room to full of smart folks. >> mr. president, the next couple points, how do you truly reach the leverage of your persuasive power? is there any indication that this isn't the way to go? >> i would like to think i still have some per swacive -- persuasive power left. let me check. no, the issue is not my persuasive power. the american people agree we should have a balanced approach. the question is, can the

american people persuade the members of congress to do the right thing? i have caungs that over -- i have confidence that over time if the american people express their opinions, congress responds. sometimes there is a gap between what the american people think and what congress thinks. eventually congress catches up. for our viewing audience, and not talking in washington goble dygook, what is important is to make sure government functions continue, i think it is important to make sure we don't have a government shutdown. that's prevent yab. we have a government control act

. we agreed to a certain amount of spending each year and certain funding levels for our education and military and so forth. if we stick to that deal, then i will be supportive of us sticking to that deal. it is a deal that i made. the sequester, our additional cuts on top of that, and by law null until congress takes -- and by law until congress takes the sequester away, we would have to aboyd by these -- abide by these additional cuts, there is no reason we should have to shut the government down. >> so it continues to fund the government at these lower levels? >> i never want to make myself 100% clear with you guys -- [laughter] >> -- but i think it is fair to say, that i made a deal for

certain numbers. there is no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. it is a deal speaker boehner made as well and all of the leadership made. but if the bill that rises on my desk is reflective of the commitments we previously made, obviously i would sign it, because i want to make sure we keep on doing what we promised to do for the american people. >> couldn't you just have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal? >> well -- i mean, jessica, i am not a dictator, i am the president. so ultimately if mitch mcconnell or john boehner say we need to go to catch a plane, i can't have secret service block the doorway, right?

i understand. i know this has been some of the conventional wisdom that's been floating around washington that somehow, even though most people agree that i am being reasonable, that most people agree that i'm preventing a fair deal, the fact that they don't take it means that i should somehow do a jedai mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what's right. well, they are elected. we have a constitutional system of government. the speaker of the house and the leader of the senate and all those folks have responsibilities. what i can do is i can make the best possible case for why we need to do the right thing. i can speak to the american people about the consequences of the decisions that congress is making or the lack of

decision-making by congress. but ultimately it is a choice they make. and this idea that somehow there is a secret formula to get boehner or mitch mcconnell to say, you know mr. president, you are right, we should close some tax loopholes for the well connected in exchange for some serious entitlement reform and for spending cuts for programs we don't need. i think if there was a secret way to do that, i would have tried it. i would have done it. what i can do is i can make the best possible argument. i can offer concessions, and i can offer compromise. i can negotiate. i can make sure that my party is willing to promies and is not

being ideological or thinking of this just in terms of political terms. i have done that, and i will continue to do that. what i can't do is coerce congress to do the right thing. the american people may have the capacity to do that. in the absence of a decision on the part of the speaker of the house and others to put middle class families ahead of whatever political impair tiffs -- imparatives we might have right now, i will keep on reaching out and seeing if there are other formulas or other things to jiggle this thing into place so that we get a better result. >> what do you say to people like mayor bloomberg, who is no critic of yours, in general, who

says there is posturing with these discussions and the defense spending cuts are being over-stated by the administration? >> jessica, look, i will give you an example. the department of defense right now has to figure out how the children of military families are going to continue with their schooling over the next several months because teachers on these bases are typically civilians, they are subject to furlough, which means they may not be able to teach one day a weebling. now, i expect they will be able to manage around it. but if i'm a man or woman in uniform in afghanistan right now , the notion that my spouse back home is having to worry about whether or not our kids are

getting the best education possible, the notion that my school or my children on an army base might be disrupted because congress didn't act, that's an impact. mayor bloomberg and others may not feel that impact. i suspect they won't. but that family with -- will. the border patrol agents who are out there in the hot sun doing what congress said they are supposed to be dog doing, finding out suddenly that they are getting a 10% paycut and having to go home and explain that to their families, i don't think they feel like this is an exaggerated impact. so, yeah, i guess it depends on where you sit. now, what is absolutely true is that not everybody is going to feel it. not everybody will feel it all at once. what is true, the accumulation of those stories, people that

want to get out of welfare, they have their kid in headstart, and now that slot in headstart is gone, and they think, how am i going to keep my job because i can't afford child care for my kids? some of the suppliers for the ship builders now down in virginia where you have some suppliers for small businesses, this is all they do and they may shut down those companies and those employees are going to be laid off, the accumulation of all those stories of impact is going to make our economy weaker. it is going to mean less growth. it is going to mean hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. that is real. that is not -- we're not making that up. that is not a scare tactic. that's a fact. starting tomorrow, everybody here, all the folks who are

cleaning the floors at the capitol, now that congress has left, someone is going to be cleaning those floors and taking out the garbage, they are going to have less pay. the janitors, the security guards, they just got a paycut, and they have to manage that. that's real. i want to be very clear here. it is also true that this is not going to friendship at a time the kind of crisis we talked about with america defaulting and setting problems around the debt ceiling. i don't anticipate a huge financial crisis. but people are going to be hurt. the economy will not grow as quickly as it would have. unemployment will not go down as quickly as it would have. and there are lives behind that. and it is real. and it is not necessary. that's the problem.

>> mr. president, your administration weighed in yesterday on proposition 8-k. it looked like you might be averse to doing that. i wanted to talk about your deliberations and your thinking on that. were there conversations important to you? were there things you read that influenced your decisions? >> as everybody here knows, last year upon a long period of reflection, i concluded that we cannot discriminate against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage. that the basic principle that

america is founded on, the idea that we're all created equal, applies to everybody, regardless of sexual orientation as well as race or gender or religion or ethnicity. you know, i think that the same evolution that i've gone through is the evolution that the country as a whole has gone through. i think it is a profoundly positive thing. so that when the supreme court essentially called to question by taking this case about california's law, i didn't feel like that was something this administration could avoid. i felt it was important for us to articulate what i believe and what this administration stands for. although i do think that we're seeing on a state-by-state basis

progress being made, more and more states recognizing same sex couples and giving them the opportunity to marry and maintain all the benefits of marriage that het sexual -- heterosexual couples do, when the supreme court asks, do you think that the california law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same sex couples other than just the notion that they are same-sex couples, it is frequently asked of me, or my solicitor general or attorney general, do we think that meets constitutional muster, i think it was important for us to answer that question honestly, and the answer is no. >> given the fact that you do hold that position of gay marriage, i wonder if you

thought about once you made the decision to weigh in, why not argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people in this country? >> well, that is an argument i have made personally. the solicitor general in his institutional going before the supreme court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. the specific question presented before the court right now is whether proposition 8 and the california law is unconstitutional. what we have done, we have put forward a basic principle, which applies to all equal protection cases. whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the court asks the question, what's the rationale for this? and it better be a good reason. if you don't have a good reason, we are going to strike it down. what we have said is same-sex couples are a group, a class, that deserves heightened

scrutiny, that the supreme court needs to ask the state why it is doing it, and if the supreme court doesn't have a good reason, it should be struck down. that's the law as it applies to this case. the court may decide if it doesn't apply in this case, it can't apply in any case. there is no good reason for it. if i am on the court, that's probably the reason i would put forward. but i am not a judge, i am the president. the basic decision is, let's treat everybody fairly, let's treat everybody equally. and i think that the brief that's been presented accurately reflects our views. >> thank you, mr. president. you said a few minutes ago that the country has to stop careening from crisis to crisis. so with a few crises behind us and a few in front of us, how as the leader of this country to

stop the country from careening from crisis to crisis? >> well, a couple things. one, to make sure that we keep making progress that we can on things that are important to middle class americans and those fighting to get into the middle class. so if you set aside budget fights for a second, you know, we have been able to get now the violence against women's act done. the conversations that are taking place on a bipartisan basis around immigration reform are moving forward. we have seen great interest in a bipartisan fashion around how we can continue to improve our immigration system including around early childhood education. there have been constructive discussions around how do we reduce gun violence. and what i'm going to keep on trying to do is make sure that we push on those things that are important to families, and we

won't get everything done all at once, but we will get a lot done. that's point number one. with respect to the budget, what i have done is to make a dace case to the -- what i have done is make a case to the american people that we have a balanced approach to the reduction of the deficit. part of the challenge that we have here is that not only congress but i think washington generally spends all its time talking about deficits and doesn't spend a lot of time talking about how do we create jobs? i want to make sure that we are talking about both. i think that, for example, that we could put a lot of people back to work right now

rebuilding our roads and bridges. this is defered maintenance. we know we're going to have to do it. i went to a bridge that connects mitch mcconnell's state to john boehner's state, and that's a rotten bridge, and everybody knows it. well, let's improve that. that will reduce commuter times, improve commuter safety. that has to be part of this conversation, not just this constant argument about tightening and spending. so i guess my point is, what i want to do is make sure that we are constantly focused. that our true north is on how are we helping american families succeed? deficit reduction is part of that agenda, and an important part, but it is not the only part. i don't want us to be paralyzed on everything just because we disagree on this one thing.

and as i said to jessica, what i am also hoping is that over time, perhaps after republicans step back and -- you know, maybe they can say, we have stuck tough on this sequester. it makes us feel good. the republican caucus is in a better mood when they come back, maybe then we can have a more serious discussion about what the real problems are not on deficit and deficit reduction are. the good thing about america is that sometimes we get to these bottle necks and we get stuck and we have these partisan fights, but the american people pretty steadly are common sense and practical, and eventually that common sense practical approach wins out. i think that's what will happen here as well.

in the meantime, to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this. this is not going to be a -- an apocalypse, as some people have said. it is just dumb, and it is going to hurt. it's going to hurt individual people and ts it is going to hurt the -- it is going to hurt individual people and it is going to hurt the economy overall. if congress changes this, there is open running in there for us to grow our economy more quickly and advance the agenda of the american people dramatically. so, you know, this is a temporary stop on what i believe is the long-term outstanding prospect for american growth and greatness. thank you very much.

>> now defense secretary chuck hague l -- hagle on the across-the-board spending cuts. >> the deputy secretary and i wanted to take a few minutes and talk a little bit about sequestration and what was announced today. many of you saw the president a few hours ago. i will make a statement, and they the deputy secretary and i

will take questions. i have just spent an hour and a half with the joint chiefs to talk about this issue and to talk about consequences and how we will continue to adjust to the realities facing our country and that face this institution. in particular, i would like to address the uncertainty that the sequestration is causing and will continue to cause this department. but at the outset of my remarks, let me make it clear that this

uncertainty puts at risk that we fulfill all of our missions. at the pentagon all of us have two serious concerns. first, the abrupt and arbitrary cuts imposed by sequester, and second, a lack of budget management flexibility we now face in the current continuing resolution. for the past two months, d.o.d. has begun to see the effects and consequences of that uncertainty. as sequester continues, we will be forced to assume more risk. these are steps that will progressively have far-reaching effects. let me address a couple actions we are taking as a result of these budget constraints. the navy will gradually stand

down at least four wings. the first wing will stand down in april. effective immediately, air force flying hours will be cutback -- cut back. this will have a major impact on training and readiness. this will everyone except those going to afghanistan. this affects nearly 80% of army operation units. later this month we intend to sureb preliminary notification tozz thousands of civilian employees who will be furloughed. these steps go on top of those the department began in january to slow spending and deal with this uncertainty. those included are imposing civilian hiring freezes, beginning to layoff temporary employees, and sharply cutting

back maintenance. also, beginning reviews to delay contracts. if sequester continues and the continuing resolution is extended in its current form, other damaging effects will become -- will occur. our number one concern is our people, military and civilian, the millions of men and women of this department that work very hard to ensure america's security. i know that these budget cuts will cause pain. particularly among our civilian work force and their families. i'm also concerned, as we all are, about the impact and readness that these cuts will -- readiness that these cuts will have across our force. for these republicans reasons, we will continue to work with the administration and congress to help resolve this uncertainty.

specifically, we need a balanced reduction plan that leads to an end to sequestration. and we need congress to pass an appropriations bill to deal with d.o.d. and other agencies. today america has the best fighting force in the world, capable of responding to any challenge. this unnecessary budget crisis makes that job much harder. but we will continue to ensure america's security. that you. i will take a couple questions and then i will ask for response. >> you have laid out a number of

consequences there. the language you used is not as dramatic as language used by others in this building in recent months, and i'm talking about catastrophic and disasterous results if sequestration happens. are you of the opinion that this is not a situation which the u.s. will be reduce today a second-rate military power? and may i ask a question also on syria. what is your view on whether the u.s. ought to be doing more mill tearly -- militarily to help the rebels? >> america -- and i have concluded my remarks. america has the most capable and able fighting force in the world. the management of this interests constitution, starting with the joint chiefs, are not going to allow this capacity to erode. we will manage these issues. these areinds of realities. we will do what we need to do to

assure the capabilities of our forces. on syria, i think it is clear what the administration's policy is on syria. nonlethal assistance. second of state kerry has recently commented, as you know, about his trip around the world. and i think the policy that the united states has -- >> sequestration has been described as a slope, not a cliff. in your opinion how long can sequestration going on before there is real damage to the defense of the united states? >> we are adjusting for the realities not just of what happened to you today, but as i noted in my remarks, we have a continuing resolution that expires on march 22, an

additional complication. i have confidence in the president and the congress that decisions and consensus will be reached to, at some point, to avert tremendous damage to this institution. this is the security of the united states of america we are talking about. that is the highest order of any government, any leader. and we will do what is necessary and what it takes to assure that security, as i noted before and in my comments. >> mr. secretary, your predecessor and many others have expressed concerns that jest racial -- that sequestration

will prevent the administration from unveiling the programs they presented last year. what is your opinion on that? >> as i said, adjustments are being made. we have anticipated the required adjustments to our budget to assure the capabilities and readiness of our forces. dd we have been implementing strategic guidance and we will continue to implement that policy. >> given your role inside nato, what is going to happen inside nato? would you be in contact with the allies and the secretary general to explain the situation?

>> we have been in touch with our nato allies. we are, as you know, in constant communication with our nato allies. i think they are not unmindful and not unaware of this issue that we are currently engaged in. our nato allies have difficulties as well with their economic issues. the fact is, nato represents probably the most successful collective security relationship in the history of man. that relationship remains strong . if will continue to remain strong. it must remain strong. >> house speaker john boehner and national economic council director gene sperling also talked about the impact of

sequestration this morning on the sunday talk shows. >> they claim air traffic controllers will be laid off, and then they say they didn't have to. and when they claim teachers in west virginia are being laid off as a result of sequester. we found out that wasn't quite true. and then they release thousands of detainees down in arizona before the sequester even takes effect, there are a lot of questions about how the white house is handling this. >> you called the sequester dangerous and that it would, quote, threaten u.s. national security. were you exaggerating?

>> i am concerned about its impact on our economy and its impact on our military. listen, we have known about this problem for 16 months. we've known the sequester was coming. that's why the house last year acted twice. why didn't the senate democrats act? where was the president's plan? why didn't they pass something? and here we are beyond the 11th hour looking at each other without having acted. >> there is no question that on day one it will not be as harmful as it will be over time. let me give you some sense of what people should be concerned about. every independent economist from the chairman of the federal reserve to macroeconomic advisors to the congressional budget office that it will be harmful to everybody. the congressional budget office said this will cost us 750,000

jobs right at a time when it is starting to look like our recovery could take hold. what that means is every time you see an economic number for the next few months you will know there are less jobs being created than would have been had we come to a bipartisan agreement. >> we'll have more on the sequester tomorrow morning on "washington journal" with a look at how sequestration could affect workers with jacqueline simon. then say discussion of the pipeline. and then back to sequestration and its possible impact on workers. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> coming up, "newsmakers" with oregon senator and new chair