those combat teams going into theater. that has a training impact. on the readiness side, we have thatfied that the fact those units that are going into the war are the only one that we are training to the fullest level. those are the ones that teamsher brigade combat are not getting the opportunity because we don't have the money to send them in. as a continue to move forward, readiness levels continue to come down from c3 to c2. they continue to degrade down to because we do not have the funding to train them to the highest readiness levels. >> thank you for the question. part and parcel similar to chairman turner tossed question and i would like to

answer it in two parts. the two takeaways are the terms .ncertainty and inflexibility uncertainty is the budget environment we are in right now. not knowingnty of when we are going to have a budget or with the budget is going to be. as a navy, we are asked to with capablence ships to do our nations is this. to do that, we have to plan. we have to plan a strategy, a budget. aviation andan for ship depot maintenance. we have to train our people and we have to have a plan for that. we also have to have a maintenance schedule. with the uncertainty, it is comes toid, when it the planning. with the inflexibility that we budget environment

now, we haveht already seen what happens in 2013 and when we look at 2014, the combination of a continuing resolution and a sequester will impact our training. it's going to reduce the number carriers that we can effectively train. had two carrier rings then had to go to reduce training. in 14, it's going to be more than twice. half of our carrier air wings will be at reduced training. ready to beas, were going overseas will have the training that they need, but this is starting to impact our surge. to the sequester in 2014 will impact maintenance, procurement, facet of the navy

because it is inflexible. when you take that inflexibility and you stretch it out for 10 is a navyt you have that is less and less capable of that we used surge to. it is a navy that is increasingly challenged to have the readiness standards that we need for the non-deployed units. a navy that's challenged when it comes to filling the missions of the defense strategic guidance, specifically to project power. to deter and defeat, to provide the kind of support that we need for counterterrorism and regular warfare. >> thank you. inust want to make one note the issue of the language that we use with respect to sequestration.

when we talk of lifting sequestration, people who are discussing it want, generally, offsets to occur so that sequestration can be removed from the department of defense. we are not just saying increase spending. the issue of flexibility or inflexibility, there are two aspects to sequestration and i just ask you to address this in your closing comments. the bottom line number under sequestration is also not right. if we say flexibility is what needed, you are stuck with the lower numbers in capable of achieving your goals. as the president structured sequestration never supposed to be a rational and indiscriminate in its effect and was to not have the department of defense have flexibility. it was structured to be a penalty. they wanted a budget deal to be found to solve sequestration, which is we are hoping is what

is solved now. clear statements of the effect being damaging because of inflexibility, i do not want people to conclude that we will does provide flexibility and we will not provide additional dollars. i know that is not what you intended but it just want to make that footnote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you being here and all that you do. i am an army reservist, have been in 15 years, one year in iraq. before i came here, like anyone else, i know there are places we can make cuts. there are things we can cut out number reprioritize, but i have grave concern about our readiness at this point. i have seen the numbers at least on the army side with the projections and what they will look like. clearly it is not a force that is ready to take on the problems of the world and what we have seen recently, we cut the military and then deploy them. we ask them to go into libya.

we talk about going into syria. this is a combination that cannot want. i still -- i still serve as a surgeon at walter reed and i can tell you i know firsthand that we are still at war now. we're asking way too much with way too little. we need to maintain a strong deterrent force in this country whether we are at war or not. there should be a baseline that and add the ability to ramp up when we need to and do it quickly.

what we're looking at doing today with cutting personnel in this economy, you have people going on unemployment, and i know that it comes out of your budget, ultimately. them anyway. it's really a shame, the trend that we are on. i sit on these committees and i see everyone's concerns and i know you have to testify in front of other people. with the senate and hopefully the administration. to ask, isst want there anyone who does not get it? do you find opposition to what you're saying when you say, "we are not ready?" is anyone saying back to you, yes you are. we are fine with what we have. i need to know that.

>> congressman, i never heard anyone say that sequestration has had a positive effect on service readiness across the board. you know the negative impact on fy 2013.orce in i will go back to ranking member sanchez's questions about the gao report. key places we went in 2013 was our readiness accounts in order to cover down on our .nvest in the counts in fy 2013, 31 combat-coated squadrons stood down for a significant amount of time. seven additional squadrons were reduced to take off and landing currency only. they were flying at the minimum rates. services, weother deferred critical maintenance on our aging platforms another -- in order to make sure we can

continue with our investment --ounts with minimal impact that's not true. our accountsact on that we would have had if we did not go to the readiness account. from an air force perspective, we were not ready in 2013. we will conquer our readiness of that we are ready to fight tonight. earlier, we are brigadesaring those that go into the fat. in the past, we would try to maintain -- we are only preparing those brigades i go into the fight. we are now going down to the platoon level and sometimes to the squad level. guard andional reserves, based on sequestration, it may go down to the individual crew and squad level, the lowest level we've gone through.

>> if i may, i talked about a deterrent force. what you're saying is we really don't have one right now. the ones that are trained and ready to go are the ones that are going. would that be correct? full are not trained to spectrum operations for the rest of the force. >> this is on us. i yield back. >> to the questions in two different areas.

the recent estimates based on a flight our testing revealed life cycle cost are 20% lower than originally estimated with the marine corps estimate analysis am at a cost per flying hour of lower than earlier pentagon estimates which achieves a savings of $12.3 billion over the next five decades. to the threeestion services that have the f 35 is do you feel the initial operation capabilities as well as the lifecycle for your respective version of the f 35 and in what way will that be impacted by sequestration? >> let me start. i will ask admiral myers and general myers -- the admiral in general to step in. the data that you just described in terms of cost reflects the positive trend that the program is on in terms of driving down

we enter the as in-service portion of the program, greater feasibility to the operating and support costs that we are able to attack and we're seeing projections come down in that regard and it is all good. the ioc dates set by the service chiefs earlier this year that reported to congress, those dates were set with a clear understanding of the requirements and capabilities and what they would need to be as well asthem realistic schedules to go along with them. both the marine corps and the navy received dates in the 2015 3ft and then 2018 with lots capabilities. with thetand capability will deliver and equally, and more important, maintaining the path that goes beyond the initial capabilities to the continued development of

the program. effort on after great the part of the program and industry to turn things around in terms of cost and technical performance, we are seeing the positive returns we have been yearning for through a long program. would like to bad that the sequester pressure rises the navy's ability to get to ioc with plot 3f. we know that unchecked or , the sequester will remove the f 35 from the u.s. this from the u.s. marine corps, but the continued sequester, and i use the term "inflexible," and i mean that the sequester applies a percentage to a program project or activity.

as you take those percentages in the case of fiscal year 2014, a 10% sequester where we exempt military personnel, the navy is having a 14% impact on the program and it put pressure and delays into the development and, ultimately, it puts at risk our ability to get to ioc in 2018. f 35, iur point on the know a lot of the data we have is rum the one the marines are flying right now. we are still on track and we note the sequester and 14, we still think we can get to the 2017 and deployment of the aircraft to where it needs to be. more to your point, on sequester and related to the cost to operate the aircraft, like all aircraft i have seen in my dueer, if we do our diligence and we get money in

the program and we get the engineers to look at it, the cost to operate will come down. weequester, i fear if continue along that path, it will reduce those efforts and i would hate to see us bottom out on the cost to operate those aircraft. we need his efforts to continue so we can operate the aircraft that the most cost-effective way in the future. i think that is what you were looking for, sir. >> excuse me, just a quick comment that the air force is seeing the same potential positive developments. we have some momentum going on controlling the cost but more work has to be done. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate the comments on ioc. beyond ioc when you talk about multiyear procurement, i am a

navy pilot by trade. 18's.w hot guys, f- we work hard to get multiyear procurement of something i thought was critically important for our carriers and my concern is i've heard testimony that because of the sequester that we are in a situation where we are aing to have to give up hawkeye in the procurement process. of course, the reason is the cost per unit is going to be higher if we cannot do multiyear procurement and i guess my would be that there are a number of concerns. number one, the cost per unit of course will be higher than it otherwise would be, so that's a problem for the taxpayers. beyond that, we have an industrial base that will, in the future, to enter into long- term contracts for multiyear procurement.

now there is a political risk in doing so beyond just the technical risk. comment.f you could how does the sequester affect multiyear procurement? >> there are two parts to this. since you brought this up, i will speak to it specifically. the multiyear procurement authorization is awaiting passage of the defense authorization act. it has been supported by both house and senate but we cannot move forward without the authorization. step one, get it off the rise and it has to be included in the appropriations bill. authorization and appropriations that provide for the multi-year. the second impact, when we put together the multiyear construct for the five-year procurement, , that brought the

requirement for substantial savings that goes with the certification. the impact ofat sequestration in the first year of the multi-year where you are at risk of losing one of the first five aircraft and then the potential over the five years of continued sequestration, now you have this the stabilizing effect toa program plan trying bring stability and affordability that comes with it. what we are trying to hold on to hear is this ability that the multi-year provides, not just for the affordability it gives us but also for the industrial base and we are trying to do that in the face of this storm called sequestration and we are working with industry, the contractor, as we negotiate this and we are waiting on congress to pass it and go through the appropriation bills so we can execute. what we have to do is we have to do this in such a fashion that

if, downstream, there is another budget, werms of the will plan for the multi-year that we provided. is an atomic shift in -- thatet, they mel may well effect this so we do not lose the savings of the aircraft that we ultimately buy. >> as far as contracts, would there be a cancellation as a result of the sequester, the longer-term contract? >> if you look across the board, i think we have seven multi-year on the books right now. one of them, for example, is an ongoing multi-year. sequestration in 2014 threatens three of the aircraft in that budget year. that would break the terms of that multiyear contract. i will tell you that the savings

that we get across the multi- are core to our total program plan. regardless of what comes out of the congress in terms of appropriations and 2014, we are going to continue to work with industry to hold together the goodness of this going forward and for each of the multi-'s -- multi-years we are staring at. >> when he think about the future of multiyear contracts, would it seem reasonable that industry would build into the risk of the product the that multiyear contract might not be worth what they otherwise ,ndicate on paper and, as such we would not benefit as such from future multi-year contracts. is that a fair assessment? >> almost. frankly, the risk is on the government's part. when we sign up, we make a commitment to a certain quantity

over a number of years. back toustry provides us is a cancellation ceiling. if they cancel, we understand what our liability is associated with the nonrecurring costs they have incurred in order to achieve savings that the multi- year promise. aree, the government, break part of the contract, we are been a negotiation situation to make it right for whatever we ultimately procure on the balance of the multi-year. it's a bilateral negotiation and we will ultimately arrive at what is fair and reasonable for both parties. >> got it. i yield back. i yield back, thank you. commentseciate your today including your written statements and we greatly appreciate your written statements. you have competitions to manage funding, technology, vehicles, congressional lack of action, or action. or with each of you, not only

are you anchored currently in the present but you see the future. you see what we need to do, what is possible, and what our options are as we move to new threats. that is why i think your statements on sequestration are so important because is not just about what happens today or tomorrow but also the future as a result of these effects. as i indicated, i want to get each of the military officers an opportunity to add to their comments, anything they believe they would like to conclude with on the record and i will offer that also to the secretaries. -- turner, termer ranking member sanchez, thank you for the opportunity to present the statement today and answer your questions. the army leadership understands the gravity of our current fiscal situation. resources tote balance manpower, readiness, and equipping for the army to meet its a defense strategic guidance

and its budget priorities. however, the combined effects of the continuing resolutions and the magnitude and inflexible nature of sequestration puts at risk our ability to fully meet the requirements of defense strategic guidance. these cumulatively weakened the effort over time delaying new starts and reducing procurement quantities in short order to drive up our costs and ultimately postpone the fielding of much needed equipment for soldiers. for the purposes of illustration, if the army operates under a full cr in fy 14, we would be forced to do for counter hazard programs for soldiers protection against ied's. we also delay the building of the strikers to the third brigade t-man we would reduce combatant commander patriot missile loads for four rounds. as we has reduced the testified, fastrmy cannot reduce

enough so readiness and modernization will take the brunt of cuts through fy 17 resulting in significantly degraded readiness and extensive modernization short all's in the short term. 18-23, the army may begin to rebalance some readiness and modernization and try to meet those requirements related upon us by our nation in we would do that i paying force structure and strength and adding significant risk to the to look at sustained combat in the future. if sequestration levels continue this will compound the effects of the acr and this would cause the army to assume significant risk in combat vehicle development and reduce apache equivalent to one attack battalion and hope the information network and have an impact on 58 or gated combat teams. without relief from sequestration in the future, we

would be required to take actions by ending, restructuring, or delaying 100 programs. these levels would result in decreased capabilities for the soldiers in every area from combat vehicles to aviation to air missile defense. we strive to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars while balancing the existing resources that we had to meet the defense strategic guidance. the combined effects of cr and sequestration undermines these endeavors. the and is a less modernized that -- modernized force results in an inefficient and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and an undersized, less capable force in the future. we urge congress to provide productive ability by passing andal appropriations eliminate sequestration. we ask you to provide new start authority to help us mitigate some of these effects. urner, thank you

for the unwavering support of us and our families and i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. >> chairman turner, ranking member sanchez, members of the community, it's been an honor to discuss the impact the continuing resolution and the budget sequester have on the navy's fiscal year 2014 programming and industrial base. request4 budget supports the defense strategic guidance and it enables us to continue to rebalance our efforts towards the asia-pacific rebalance, supports our partners in the middle east, and focuses our presence in key strategic maritime crossroads. it also enables us to meet the highest priority capability demands of the geographic combatant commanders.

to be frank -- sequestration continuingth the resolution in 2014 would be very hard on our navy. a largerhave to absorb reduction than we did in fiscal from a smaller amount, a smaller submission. we do not have the prior year assets we can use to mitigate the impact as we did before. ability tove the adjust for carryover bills into the future years like we did in the past. these are going to start to come .own sequestration and continuing resolution will reduce our readiness in the near term and it exacerbates program reductions that are required under the current law and long- term. compelled to cancel

or defer maintenance and investments in critical aviation programs, unmanned systems, and weapons systems. as the nation continues to find the navy isance, endeavoring to ensure that the future war fighting capabilities are properly balanced. to do this, it's important that we establish and pursue a plan for the future to develop a deliberate nature in how we go finding fiscal certainty. we are committed to inefficient use of the american taxpayer but this takes time to implement and takes time to reap the savings from. veryalso needs to be done carefully and strategically. as i previously testified to congress, i feel it the most serious impact of sequestration

and the continuing resolution is uncertainty. it is imperative that we have a predictable budget and associated authorities. what wey -- that's need. it will enable us to plan and and execute a strategy that guide their efforts to sustain the appropriate readiness for today's navy while building a fleet for the future that is able to deliver the most important presence and capabilities that our war fighters need. as i testified just a few minutes ago, the role of the navy is to be ready with a trained and capable force. .o do that, we have to plan we have to plan a strategy, a budget. aviation and shipbuilding plants, operation plans, training, maintenance schedules. we need to sailors that are

trained and ready to man and operate our ships and aircraft when they are needed and where they are needed. sequestration and the budget uncertainty, and the immensely disruptive nature of the combination, impact our ability .o plan and act strategically it disrupt our ability to operate. fiscal year 13. it disrupts our ability to train and maintain the way we need to which then impacts the way that we operate in the next fiscal year. most significantly, it disrupts our dedicated sailors, civilians, and their family because of all of the uncertainty that is now challenging their everyday life. we understand what our responsibilities are. understand that this is something we need to work and anythingher

that we can do together to put certainty and stability back the the budget process, and automatic and inflexible sequester and the gaps would not only be appreciated but it would 634,000 navyy the sailors and civilians operating around the globe protecting this nation. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the united states navy. >> a vote has been called and we have about 10 more minutes. if you could keep your comments relatively brief and give opportunity to the other secretaries. i've got it, sir. i will throw this piece of paper away. [laughter] thank you for the opportunity to

testify today. as we testified a little over a month ago, the marine corps is the expeditionary force in readiness. we hedge against uncertainty reports -- forces poised to us with the respond offering immediate options for strategic decision-makers while buying time. we mitigate this risk inherent in the uncertain world by being ready to respond to today's crisis with today's force today. however, our ability to mitigate is compromised by our ability to get a budget approved and the facilities at the sound management personnel with limited resources from one year to the next. since this is directly linked to resources, sequestration level cuts in fiscal year 2014 will for aus to forego this near-term readiness. the impacts we face on readiness

today will have primary and .econdary effect this will begin to be observable in fiscal year 2014 and longer- term effects will be even more devastating. we are consuming tomorrow's seed corn today to feed our requirements for readiness today. has, and will continue to have, a negative impact on our civilian workforce. our civilians play a critical role in the acquisition process, financial management, ground maintenance, and installation support services. of our family support programs. in fiscal 2013, they took a six day furlough and started this fiscal year on furlough. money was not the reason they chose to work for the marine corps. they chose to work for public service and serve their fellow civilians. they chose public service to do their part in making this the best country in the world.

if we don't value their contributions, many will choose to find a line of work elsewhere. this presents a significant challenge to be able to retain and attract the talent we need. thank you for the opportunity to share my bots. turner, members of the subcommittee, this will make the air for significantly smaller, less capable, less flexible, less ready to meet our nation's current military obligations. will make itt, it very difficult for us to prepare to meet the challenges that we will face in the future. the erosion of readiness will follow far greater challenges. it means it may take longer for the joint team to win. and when we do respond, we will put our invaluable men and women who go into harms way at rader risk. simply put, if it is fully implemented over the course of the 10 years, the air force will

not be ready to fight tonight. it will struggle to be prepared to meet tomorrow's challenges. to maintain the minimum level of readiness and sustain our highest fairgrounds, the air force will be forced to cut airmen and hundreds of platforms. structure, weorce maintain the global long-range capabilities in multi role platforms that are required to operate in highly contested environments. we will focus on the investiture of entire fleets of aging and costly platforms and those less survivable and heavily defended airspace. we don't want to do this but the bottom line -- sequestration force.ed a smaller air >> to many of the secretaries have a closing comments? -- do any secretaries have a comments? >> we're reaching a historical

andin research development acquisition in the army which will continue to degrade our capabilities and modernization and put our soldiers lives at risk in future contingencies. withoutt stability sequestration and we need to have the ability to plan without acr, sequestration, furloughs, and government shutdowns. thank you for your unwavering support of our soldiers. >> briefly, the congress and the department of defense take care of our men and women in uniform. we have presented the defense strategic guidance as the , to describe tool how we intend to meet those responsibilities and we have submitted the president's budget request as a determination that we believe is necessary to meet

the defense strategic guidance. the committees, that budget was fully supported by the congress. for the department of the navy, they took $11 billion out and tried to take another $16 billion out in 2014. that results in a smaller navy, smaller marine corps, less presence, less ability to meet the defense strategic guidance. this is at a time when peer competitors are increasing their investment, capabilities, and their forces around the world. chairman, to you and your subcommittee's work. i would just finally add that we need help in getting our so we can dok acquisition for the war fighter and the taxpayer. ofthis was impacts

sequestration on modernization. with all of her testimony, we can say it is bad and getting worse. with your help, hopefully this will be offset. i know all members of the armed services committee are very proud to get this lifted and by lifted, there are offsets elsewhere so that this will not have devastating impact. thank you all for what you do. we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, questions about problems with the healthcare.gov website at today's white house briefing. then the role of the affordable care act. then former defense department officials discuss how budget constraints are affecting the u.s. military possible reach. on the next "washington journal," gene green on the affordable care act and problems .gov.healthcare

author and coulter to discuss her new book, "never trust a liberal over the age of three." >> this weekend, "book tv" is live from austin for the texas and includes two dead panels looking back on the november 1960 three assassination of jfk. coverage starts at noon and includes alan wiseman on our andre on planet earth looking at the texas wind power industry. live this weekend on book tv on c-span 2. congressman john lewis, the early years of the civil rights movement. booktv.com/bookclub.

>> have been hiring private contractors to fix the problems treated by the affordable care act. the white house briefing including how much the president knew about the october 1 launch date. >> secretary sebelius on cnn yesterday said the president was not aware of any of the problems in the healthcare.gov website before the launch. we come to find out since then that there were a bunch of red wondering whether the president feels now that he should have been made aware that should somebody be held accountable for giving them that .nformation

was he misinformed about the status? >> thanks for the question. secretary sebelius was referring to when i have said and what the president himself has said. while we knew there would be some glitches and said publicly that we expected some problems, we did not know until the problems manifested themselves after the launch that they would be as significant as they turned out to be. there was testing and problems anticipated and we did not expect -- we, broadly, the administration -- the scale of the problems we have seen. they have come into existing --

and help the existing team to identify and isolate each problem that identifies with the functionality of the website, assess what the best solutions are to creating a remedy for that specific problem and then applying it whether it is increasing server capacity, writing new code to work around a situation, providing greater accessibility for improvements in the user interface. these are all things that the teams currently operating and working on making improvements to the system are focusing on. problemstackling the one by one. they are prioritizing them and they are addressing them. these are technical, logistical problems that require the kind of expertise that is being brought to bear to fix them. we cannot anticipate the scale of the problems with the website. what's also important to

remember is that this is not the affordable care act. what has been in place since october 1 and what will be in place, for the millions of consumers who want the product, is a faster rate of affordable health lands -- health plans out there from the marketplace set up. everyday, more and more americans are submitting applications, and rolling, shopping, and finding out that they have access to affordable health insurance and they are 15%-20% of the american people who did not have insurance in the past. they are discovering they have options available to them to make it affordable and will ,rovide them, come january 1 security they have lacked in the past. the struggles that individuals have had with the website are extremely unfortunate and we take the spots ability for them

and we are working around-the- clock to fix the website to make the experience easier, the struggles, as i say, pale in comparison to the uncertainty that the single mom who is a breast cancer survivor has felt every day that she has lacked insurance. or cannot afford it insurance simply won't give it to her because she has a pre- existing condition and that's why we have to keep vocus on the end goal here which is making insurance available to millions of americans who need it. >> house speaker john boehner discussing the problems with the healthcare.gov website and the affordable care act as a drag on the economy in a news briefing where he also talked about the latest employment figures. this is 15 minutes. >> morning everyone. jobs reporter

yesterday, frankly a disappointing jobs report. this economy is not creating the jobs that the american people are looking for. wages are stagnant and part of the problem is we have the whole threat of obamacare continuing to hang over our economy like a wet link it. when you look at all of the problems with obamacare, the focus has been on the website. clearly, there are problems with the website but i would argue the problems go much further than that. how about the report the last couple of days of the hundreds of thousands of americans who are finding out that they will lose their coverage because the plans they had today don't qualify under obamacare? when you begin to look at these hundreds of thousands of people, i think what you're going to see october is that

more will be losing their insurance than those who sign up in the exchanges. this is a very serious problem affecting our economy and its affecting the ability of the american people to find a job to help them take care of themselves and their families. morning. the rollout of obamacare is nothing short of a debacle. the american people are now fearful of their health care. they are downright scared of what will happen with their health care next year. all we're hearing from the isinistration, really, unsatisfactory in terms of answers to the many unanswered questions. we all know the website doesn't work in the administration keeps saying to the subscribers who want to go on to go and try again.

well, there are so many unanswered questions that it's adding to the fear of so many american people. is a lack oflping transparency on the part of this administration. morning, i know that hhs officials will be out briefing the democratic caucus. no intention initially to brief her publicans on what was going on. last night, we learned they asked insurers not to release numbers for the exchanges in terms of sign-up. we still don't know these enrollment numbers. hhs is blocking third-party verified traffic data. this is not transparency. this is adding to the confusion and fear surrounding the rollout of obamacare. the obamacare mandate taxes going to kick in. many americans are going to have to pay as much as 1% of their income if they don't sign up on obamacare.

-- how ist fairey? that fair? it does not make any sense to impose this 1% mandate tax on the american people. that is why republicans remain committed to delaying that mandate tax on obamacare so that finally we can get the answers that so many people are seeking and we can try and reassure the millions of americans who are brewing in their fear about what this means for their healthcare. >> it's another day and a new glitch for obamacare rollout. that's wildly 12% of americans say it's going well. more than half believe it's not. i listen to the president to his press conference that we will handle it and we will fix it in a just rings back to the moment where he was proposing obamacare and said if you had your health care and you liked it that you could keep it.

it's not a glitch when american citizen receives a notice that they will not longer have their current health care. many of the constituents that i have, i see the frustration that it is not fair and they do not have the healthcare they can keep it and if they go to the website they cannot see what they can have now. when you look back and you look at the arguments, the complaint, the transparency, the accountability we have asked for, none of that goes away. where is the accountability in the process? where are the answers you?-- where are the answers? >> they continued to struggle whether it is those out of work trying to find a job and an economy that continues to struggle or those that are trying to get health insurance are losing their health insurance are having trouble getting health insurance. as leaders in congress, our

commitment is to continue to work on issues that will create jobs and opportunities and ensure that people do have access to quality and affordable health care. are coming in every day right now. the concern that this health care law is going to make it harder for people, it's actually going to make it worse for more people than it's going to help and that is why we are launching story that people share their story dealing with the new health care law so we can go to work to ensure that, moving forward, we can take the action to help individuals and give them the protections that they need with this law and the delay of the individual mandate, the taxes and fees they are facing that employers have been given a pass on, we need to provide that fairness to individuals and families all across this country.

>> conan said the other night that obama is now urging americans having trouble with the website to call the 100 weber -- 1-800 number, didn't think this through. whether it is fallon, conan, live," the jokes go on and on but nothing is funny when you already had what you liked and you wanted to keep it. nothing's funny about being forced on a website that does not work to buy health insurance that you don't want and can't afford. it's even less funny when they government acts is hanging over your head and you don't have hours on and to go through the whole circus. character change has been a complete and total failure and it's unacceptable. the american people deserve better.

>> i'm congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania. chairman of the house energy and commerce subcommittee. tomorrow, we are going to have a hearing about the exchange website and it will be about the facts. we are approaching this investigation in a thoughtful and deliver it way. here is what we know so far. hhs budgeted $55 million for just one company to build the website. less than a year in, the agency had spent $93 million it has since frittered away $300 million. other companies were hired to work on this website. all told, more than half $1 billion was spent on a website that doesn't work. the energy and commerce committee's will be continuing our ongoing investigation into what went wrong and getting answers on the record with the contractors and secretary sibelius. repeatedly over the last year, our subcommittee was told by

numerous officials, don't worry. everything is fine. we have this under control. we know that it was not the case. either they didn't know what was going on or they were deliberately misleading us and the american people with the hope of avoiding us knowing what was really happening. given all these questions, we should press pause on this tax surge where he wants to spend untold more amounts of money. to throw that after a bad website when we don't really know if this one is salvageable. this surge is comparable to trying to fix a car by overhauling it while it is still rolling down the highway. at some point, you have to decide if they can be fixed. if 55 different contractors could not successfully build, test and run a website in three years at a total cost of over half $1 billion, why should we believe the administration is capable of fixing it in two weeks?

we are going to find out. did the breakdowns occur with the contractors or were they told to do it this way by hhs? did the contractors notify hhs when there were problems? how many people have been able to sign up using the website? are they even capable of knowing how it is working? was the site design poorly because the white house sought to hide it from the public and hide the premium increases families are seeing? why we work to get the answers, we are deeply concerned about the number of americans who are being told they will no longer have insurance. they are looking to this as an answer. throughout the initial rollout of this when congress was voting and we were pushed away from being able to work on this, we were told repeatedly that this website would be a wonder. people would look at it, compare policies and make thoughtful and informed decisions. we still wonder what is going

on. they're quite frightened. thank you. >> you have done many efforts in the house to repeal obamacare. we know what happened to the efforts to defund obamacare. now that americans are waking up to the issues, do you think you have a better environment to do something? what is the legislative strategy at this point? >> i think the congress's job is to provide proper oversight of the executive branch of government. whether it is obamacare or issues at the department of defense, it is our job to hold them accountable. when it comes to obamacare, there is an awful lot that needs to be held accountable. >> speaker boehner, your friend said this morning that paul ryan would unveil the house gop plan for health care reform sometime in january. is it your understanding that is going to happen?

>> i will let you talk to paul about that. >> mcconnell said the defund was a tactical error. do you agree with that? >> we went through a tough period. we fought the fight. we didn't win. we live to fight another day. the fact is, we are going to have that debt ceiling to deal with again. the looming problems that are affecting our country are still there. we are spending more than what we bring in. to the tune of $700 billion this year alone. the problems are looming. it is time for washington to deal with serious problems affecting our country. >> a couple of legislative weeks left in the year. do you plan to bring up immigration? >> i think immigration reform is important. i am hopeful.

>> as you know, your party took quite a beating after the shutdown. you just came from a meeting with your members. how concerned are they and how concerned are you about losing the house? >> as long as we stay focused on the priorities of the american people, i think we are going to be fine. they are concerned about their jobs. they are concerned about their income. they are concerned about their own health insurance and how they're going to afford it. and how they are going to navigate through this bizarre plan that they have to deal with. our job is to stay focused on the issues the american people are most concerned about. thanks, everybody. clegg's house democrats for me with problems in a closed-door meeting -- >> house and crafts

were briefed in a closed door meeting. they found out what went wrong in implementation and we will hear first from the caucus chairman. >> i'm pleased to be joined by joseph crowley of new york. we are pleased to be joined by two of our colleagues. we are here to talk about health care and the fact that so many americans will now have access to it. we have had a good caucus meeting today where we discussed a number of issues including moving forward with our economic challenges and making sure we don't go through the same and you factored crisis of watching our government shut down and the potential of america defaulting for the first time in its history. we think we can build after last week's agreement on the types of measures that are necessary to

get americans back to work. we heard that 150,000 americans got jobs in the last month. that is good. not good enough. we want to continue to see that improve. we have to wake up from the bush era recession where we saw 8- 9,000,000 americans lose their jobs. a lot of progress has been made. more than 3.5 million jobs created. i'm sorry, 7.5 million jobs created in the last report five years. that is good, but we still have more to do. americans want to know that there was a good job waiting for them. on the affordable care act, a lot of us want to see this move forward. as quickly and as well as possible. for many of us, the issue is real about making sure americans

have access to quality affordable health care. it is time for americans, all americans to have the security they need in knowing that a health-care bill will not push them into bankruptcy. that is the beauty of the that is the beauty of the affordable care act. rest assured people have access to a decent doctor and a good hospital should they need either .f those for their kids, family we are here to push as hard as we can to make sure that all enroll in these new affordable plans that are being made available to out this country. we are concerned about the ss. we are not happy at the process does not work well. we are not interested in hearing about glitches. we are interested in moving forward. for us it, the process should not be a problem. the biggest concern is the

product. we want the product to be there for many americans. you have before you, three of the four of us, no what it means when it means getting americans affordable health insurance. we happen to represent the three most uninsured districts in the nation when it comes to americans having access to quality affordable health care. it would be a travesty if we on january 1 did not see americans got to start using their health care insurance that was made available to the affordable health care act, and we want this to improve. the processmprove as quickly as we can. a lot of the folks will need to have a good process and gain a

policy health insurance plan for their families. there are a lot of americans who are interested in accessing good quality affordable health care. we are ready to work. we had some individuals from the administration from the health and human services department that will come and tell us what the latest is. work is being done as a result of the presidents urging to try to deal with some of the errors that were occurring at that website and how they have improved that in how they are moving forward more access to phone coverage to give people access and of course, person to person communication as well with those interested in applying for the health care plan. we believe come january 1, lot of constituents will have access to quality, affordable health care. we will do everything we can

working with colleagues and i working with administration to make sure that is exactly what happens. the day, nof process should bog down people getting a good product. coverage that quality in health insurance for their families. i yield to our vice-chairman. >> thank you. i'm glad i'm not in the top three, but there is no question that there are still many constituents in my district who are currently uninsured. they look forward to the in their lives to afford health insurance. websitet just about the . health insurance is about health security or millions of americans who have not had the ability to afford health insurance.

under the affordable care act, that is about to change for them. is that i get lost here this will give millions of americans the access to quality and affordable health care. cancer survivors will no longer begin i coverage for pre-existing conditions. is that i get lost medical decisions will be made by the patients and doctors and not insurance companies. millions of americans will finally be able to get insurance. one sign of how much constituents need this law is that more new yorkers have completed applications and received an eligibility determination or than any other state. no offense to my colleagues. new york is doing quite well. something needs to be done to fix the technical issues. absolutely. but you can lose sight of the

fact that this is giving millions of americans options for quality affordable health insurance for the first time in their lives. republicans are looking for problems to exploit. we democrats are looking for problems to fix. we just saw the shutdown of the united states government in an effort to undermine the affordable care act. they used the threat of defaulting on our debt to undermine implementation of this law. one has to question the motivation behind much of the angst we are seeing out there with the republican party. with that, i will now yield to dena titus from nevada's first district. >> thank you. i represent the las vegas valley. as you have heard, nevada is always one of the top states for the percentage of people who are uninsured. some 200,000 people in that area don't have insurance.

nevada is also one of the states that has its own exchange, the silver state exchange. what has been overlooked in some of this criticism of the system is that those states are working well. our exchange is up and running. we have had about 1500 applications completed. about 140,000 people have gone to the website, looked at it, gotten more information. we are moving forward. i held a roundtable this past weekend with different organizations that are also helping us on the ground. that is something else we shouldn't forget. our congressional offices are acting like semi-navigators to bring people into the system. you have aarp going after that group between 50 and 65 to be sure they have information. you have campus organizations going after young people. planned parenthood is reaching out to women and navigators in the hispanic areas are going

after hispanic women. las vegas has an unusual population that is working but not insured. a lot of those people are women. a lot of them are dancers. a lot of them are in salons. they do nails, they do hair. they would like to have insurance. we are not waiting for them to come to the website. we are going out there after them. it is making a difference. it is very important that they are insured, that they have coverage. pre-existing conditions will no longer mean they can't get insurance. that is the work that we are spreading. it is being very effective. i would urge you as we look at what has happened with a website and we are trying to fix it, don't fall prey to the ecological fallacy. you can see the forest, just don't get bogged down in the trees. thank you very much. i will turn it over to marc veasey. >> thank you murray much. i represent the 33rd congressional district in arlington and dallas.

i have the highest uninsured rates in the entire country. about 40% of the constituents i represent, about 265,000 don't have insurance. when you combine the dallas and fort worth metroplex together, you were talking about over a million uninsured. contrary to what you're hearing from republican leaders, i can assure you that texans particularly in the district i represent once the affordable care act. they want to enroll. they want insurance. i am happy to report that someone i am very well acquainted with -- i read a paper today, she was having trouble on the computer but she went on the phone and was able to enroll in 15 minutes. we want people to continue to try to enroll. it is very very important that the people get insured.

as many of you know, texas decided not to opt for medicaid expansion. many consider that to be a huge mistake by the governor and the republican-controlled legislature. because of that particular decision, we are still going to have a huge gap that is going to occur in the state of over one million people. even with the affordable care act, texas is going to have these problems. it is very important that people continue to try to enroll. we feel like the bugs in the system will be worked out. we feel like we're making headway and i know that the people in my district are truly anxious for this to work. i am going to do everything i can. i have already been a part of two different programs with the congressional black caucus to inform people about this. i have been a part of town hall meetings in the district.

like tina said, going into the community to inform people about the affordable care act. that is going to be very important. i am doing my part and i will continue to do so. there have been problems but i believe that they can be worked out and i believe that people would continue to enroll, particularly texans. >> as we get ready to take questions, in california we have our own exchange. in california, it is called california covered. i wanted to mention that in california, we have seen over 95,000 people apply for health insurance coverage in the first two weeks. in the first two weeks, over 95,000 californians apply for health insurance in the exchange. we had over 1.6 million unique visits the website in california. over 100,000 people called the service center as well during the first two weeks. people are interested. people are anxious. we want it to work well for everyone. we would hope that some of the

states where you have the federal exchange would actually stop hindering the process. in places like texas, we know there is hostility on the part of state authorities when it comes to people finding out information about the insurance coverage that they will get. that is probably one of the reasons some people haven't had the best experience. it would help with local and state officials wouldn't get in the way and would try to help americans gain access to what they now have as a right. it is very disturbing to see that the website hasn't performed as well as we would like. i think it is even more disturbing when individuals intentionally work against the american people and the rights that they have now secured to access quality affordable health care.

we would urge all of our colleagues in state and local government who may not have agreed with the affordable care act completely, to please at least let their constituents back home understand what the affordable care act will provide them. let them decide. let every one of us decide as americans what we want to do. don't hinder the process and complain that a website isn't working. let's all work together to improve the website and make sure people have all the information they need so they can make their own informed decision. >> we have heard from the other side of the aisle, they have railed against this law. you have had problems with the rollout. they're saying, we told you. what assurances did you get from officials that things are getting better? as you mentioned, your uninsured constituents, that this will work for them come january? >> we have heard assurances not simply from officials here from cms.

we heard them from the president yesterday. he said that he is probably the most unhappy american when it comes to the fact that the website didn't work as well as we had hoped. i don't believe that the president is going to allow days and weeks to go by without marked improvement in the website of some capability. and in the ability of americans to gain the information they need. they are working hard and we are told that they are working hard within the administration to make sure that they have the resources in the right places. remember, part of this is congress's responsibility. we have to make sure that the administration has the resources it needs to make sure that the people and the infrastructure is there on a continuing basis to have millions of people transition over to getting quality affordable health care. we will see what happens with

that. >> should somebody be held accountable for the missteps that have resulted in this website not performing the way that it has? >> i will let my colleagues answer. i believe that somebody should be held accountable. we should find out and if possible, find out what we should do. when you hold a position, you should be held accountable. just like those folks who were responsible for the government shutdown should be held responsible for having cost us some $24 billion in economic capacity and generation. just as we saw 800,000 plus americans not being able to go to work as a result of the government shutdown. those folks that were responsible for the government shutdown should be held responsible. those who might be responsible for the website not working should be held responsible as well. >> let me just add to that. yes, one of the responsibilities of congress is to hold people accountable. let's not lose focus. what is more important than anything else is to get the system working properly.

not to be diverted. no divergence here. get the system up and running. there will be ample opportunity to look back and see how it could have been done better. and to hold accountable those who were not up to par. the other thing is to make sure that every american who wants to be covered is covered. that is the primary responsibility. it ought to be the prime responsibility of members of congress as well. >> i want to add -- go back to medicare. there was some incorrect information given to the public concerning medicare part d. it had a very unfavorable rating amongst seniors. the kinks have been worked out of that. seniors love that program. it has a 91% rating compared to the 21% rating that it had. i would say the biggest difference -- it has been pointed out before -- republicans have done absolutely nothing to try to help out.

they have demeaned the program. democrats on the other hand, democrats went into the district and talked to senior citizens. they had community meetings and showed them how to get enrolled. i think that is what america is looking for. though sort of sensible solutions on how we can make this program work better for people and not try to tear it down. >> i would say there is a silver lining to the fact that there was a problem with the website so many people went to it. they want this insurance. they want information. they want to sign up for it. they need the service. that allies all the argument you hear on the other side that people think this is a terrible way to go. this is the perfect way to get. it is the way to provide insurance disseminate people who

are obviously very hungry for it. or you wouldn't have had such a crash at the very beginning from people rushing to sign up. >> republicans said they would like to see the individual mandate penalty either delayed or a raised. we heard this morning from a democratic senator who says that at the least, the deadline should be extended. do you think the deadline should be extended for the mandate? should there be a fine? >> i am not surprised that my republican colleagues would once again either try to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. as the bloomberg editorial said not long ago, our republican colleagues continue to call for the elimination of all these rights and protections that americans have secured through the health security law. they have never offered a real replacement for it. every time they talk about either eliminating all or part

of the affordable care act, they should be prepared to tell us what they would put in its place. americans today no longer have to worry about pre-existing conditions. what will republicans do to replace those rights and protections that americans have? a child born in this country today with asthma will get coverage whether through parents or otherwise. what will republicans do to make sure that doesn't change if they try to repeal or replace all or part of the affordable care act? most of us understand that the main goal here -- for those of us who represent the district with the largest number of americans who have to fear what most of you don't have to fear that is, a child getting to sick to be able to afford the care. we should be worried about making sure they find out everything they need to make an informed decision about their health care. we believe that if we work towards making information available, that what we will do

is have americans making the right decision. whether or not they decide to get the insurance coverage, it will be up to them. most of us believe that they will make the decision to get the coverage. what we should be doing is working to try to improve the process. it is not the process people are concerned about. it is making sure they have access to the care. they are willing to pay for it. they just want it to be affordable. >> there have been incorrect pricing estimates. do you have any comment on that? >> it is a pricing estimate. that browsing feature is for the purpose of giving people estimates. it is something that a lot of americans wanted -- they are not sure what they're going to do. especially those who have insurance and they are trying to see if it might be worthwhile for them to get insurance through the exchange. they are interested in comparing. they are shopping and comparing.

that browsing feature was for the purpose of giving people a general idea, an estimate of what they might pay. it is not to say that that is the final price they will pay. until the government has all the information on that individual, you can't give a precise dollar amount for the coverage that that person selects. these are estimates. it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is some variation from the estimate in terms of what an individual will actually pay. it is an estimate for those who are shopping. if they like the estimate, they can find out what the final price will be. >> what did you mean by being held accountable? do you think someone should be fired? >> we should find out what happened. why the websites weren't as prepared as we would all like them to have been.

like anything else, you are accountable for your reports, making sure you meet your deadline to issue your article on time. we all have responsibilities. we have to figure out, how can we continue to improve it to make sure that everyone is getting the information they need? hold everyone accountable for what they did or didn't do. >> what went wrong? did they tell you how they want to go forward and improve this? >> they did explain part of the process. one of the things that everyone was surprised by was the number of people who went on to the website. back home, i have done a few sessions. i am doing a couple more still for folks in my district to get the information they need about the affordable care act and the plans they can purchase through the exchange. what we are finding is, it is human nature.

there is a curiosity on the part of a lot of people. they are looking to get quality affordable health care. also, a lot of curiosity on the part of those who have health insurance who are checking to see, might i get a better deal through the exchange? some folks were just interested. the volume of people, the millions of people on the website included those who probably don't need insurance or won't get the insurance through the website. that volume created a bottleneck. >> so they knew ahead of time that it would crash? >> they also explained that because it is such detailed information and it has to go through various agencies, you are talking about homeland security, irs, hhs, so many different departments, you now have to cap a lot of different sites. it is unlike shopping at a

department store where they don't have to check with homeland security do find information about you and go to the irs to find more information. because so many people were doing the inquiry, it did really bottleneck the process. what they are trying to do is expand the capacity. also, because so many people were just looking at first, they expect that the volume will reduce. those who are serious about moving forward will be able to access the information far quicker. they have also beefed up their phone service. people forget you can do this in person as well. they are trying to make sure they're expanding capacity in all the relevant rounds. when you are talking about tens of millions of people, they are going to have to turn to the best minds and have the resources to make sure they can go through that. >> i would just like to remind everybody to keep in mind these families.

when we talk about the process and trying to get the system to work better, keep in mind the families. over 265 thousand people in the district that i represent are uninsured. many of those families in downtown dallas or fort worth, they wait in line. often times by the time they go through the county hospital, they already have an ailment that could have been prevented and cost taxpayers less money had they been provided affordable health care insurance. that is what we need to be working towards. i want to remind everyone that regardless of what you're hearing, texans want the affordable care act to work. they wanted to succeed. the calls i have been getting in my district, people are telling me, what do we need to do next? we want to enroll.

that is what i would like to leave you with today. >> i would just say that the hispanic population, that 40% of my district is very interested in this. we have special navigators or going out into the community. we heard assurances that the website and the information at the national level will be up in spanish in a couple of weeks. that will also be an improvement that they assured us. >> we can take questions later on. in my state, since the affordable care act became law, seniors in california through medicare has saved roughly $450 million on prescription drugs. simply since 2010 when the law passed. we have 95,000 americans today in our state of california who have now applied for and will secure insurance for their

family that they didn't have before. if we are focused on the prize and the prize is to make sure that never again to american families have to worry about whether they can pay the bill or pay the rent. or whether or not the child will get the kind of care that the family needs for their children. i think what we are doing is giving people in america the peace of mind so that they know if they work hard, play by the rules, they will have a chance to make sure their kids do better than them. that is the american dream. that is why we passed the affordable care act. we want to make sure that it

works well including with the website. if we remember what the goal is. if we keep our eye on the prize to make sure no american has to go into bankruptcy because he or she has to use healthcare services, then we will succeed. we thank you for being here with us this morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow, house hearing looks into the roll out of the affordable care act and problems with the federal government website. live coverage of the house energy and commerce committee beginning at 9 a.m. eastern and on c-span.org. hours after the japanese attack on pearl harbor and before her husband addressed the nation, and lenore roosevelt was

on the radio talking with america. good, ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our history. the cabin is convening and the leaders in congress is meeting with the president. the state department and army officials have convened at the president all afternoon. the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's airships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines and sinking one of our transports on its way to hawaii. tomorrow morning, members of congress will have a full force to be ready for action. in the meantime, we, the people are prepared for action. for months, the knowledge that something of this kind might happen has been hanging over our heads. seemed impossible to believe to drop the everyday things of life and feel that there was only one thing that

was important -- operation to meet an enemy no matter where he struck. that is all over now. or is no more uncertainty. we know what we have to face. we know that we are ready to face it. >> watch our program on eleanor roosevelt at our website c- span.org/firstladies. oncontinue our series live monday. on tuesday, a panel of formal theagon officials discuss u.s. military role in the world. >> there should be a natural continuation of the themes that were highlighted in the last conversation. we are joined by people who serve on the board of directors.

a conversation about how to sustain and strengthen america's defense capabilities. i thank the gentleman who will introduce and moderate our speakers. brad is the editor of armed forces journal. it has been published since 1863. congratulations to them. he has written extensively about the u.s. navy. bradley if you will? >> well, we live in interesting times. we have left iraq. we are drawing down in afghanistan. we are still pursuing al qaeda and similar groups. syria is burning. china is rising. it has not settled whether it is rival or partner. climate change is altering the world. globalization has entwined as

productively and made us more brittle. our communications web allows the spread of violent ideas and unimaginable speed. the general who runs the development center put it this way. the momentum of human interaction is increasing exponentially. the security environment is changing. our military services which have spent much of the past decade relearning the lessons of counterinsurgency and expanding upon them are trying to figure out what they should be 5, 10, 20 years from now. the strategy side is just half of it. after a decade in which military funds were all but limitless, budgets are down again. there has been a buildup in which we did not recapitalize our arsenal. the u.s. has emerged from a decade of war with fewer aircraft, fewer ships, thousands

of combat vehicles now abandoned in foreign lands. instead of getting larger, our military has become smaller, older and more expensive. no longer can the military do it all. advancing our national ambitions with our defense budget requires serious prioritization or perhaps innovation. do we sacrifice near-term capacity to build long-term capability? do we rely on allies and partners to a degree once thought unimaginable? during his last few months in office, robert gates who led the way in making the first round of cuts was known to say, tell me what we are not going to do anymore. what defense do we need? what defense can we afford? we won a strategy-driven, resource-informed solution.

there is another twist to this. a budget process has gone from cumbersome to counterproductive to slightly insane. we will talk about that a little bit later on. you could not ask for a better panel to help us figure this all out. the gentleman to my right needs no introduction and yet i am a slave to orthodoxy so i will offer one. his term as deputy secretary of defense under bill clinton cap a quarter-century of government service that included posts such as under secretary of the air force. before that he was on congressional staff holding various positions including staff director for the house armed services committee. after leaving government service, he ran boeing's office for several years. currently he is senior vice president for national security at the center for american progress here in washington. he will speak for five minutes.

>> thank you for the invitation. i thank the sponsors for the chance to come here and participate. this is a very important discussion in terms of how to be thinking about the defense budget, how to look ahead. we are in one of those times where we need to recalibrate. a period dominated by iraq and afghanistan is coming to an end. we still have combat troops in afghanistan. their exit in 2014 is something that we have to have a focus on. moving beyond that, we have got the asia-pacific at the center of global commerce, the center of the recovery from the economic slowdown. a series of unusual economic alliances. yet, the military alliances and strategically, the security of asia still revolve around the

united states. we have a middle east that is as complicated as ever. including a civil war in syria. preliminary diplomacy in dealing with iran but unease among gulf neighbors. the perennial question of the west bank and the palestinians and their status. all of those issues, as critical as they are were in the middle of the most complicated and chaotic budget process that i think our national security has seen since the end of world war ii. that is a huge period with lots of -- dod is the most sophisticated of the government agencies.

it works off something called the future years defense budget. 5, 6 years in the making long- range decisions that the secretaries look at. they were able to do it in a strategic environment and set the direction for budget alterations and execute them across a decade. now, we have gone from the period of the five-year defense plan to continuing resolutions which were for a while six months. now there are four months in duration. add to that the sequester which is the product of the debt ceiling compromise two years ago. to quote leon panetta as he was the parting as secretary of defense, he said we can no longer go from budget crisis to budget crisis. he said this is not a game. that coming from a secretary of

defense who had unique skills, but perhaps our shrewdest budget expert in the government. figuring out a path forward in terms of how to create budget stability -- one last comment, if we look at the sequester, that is $1 trillion worth of cuts off of 10 years. the president has put an alternative number down that is a little bit more than $500 billion over 10 years. there is a huge gap between how congress sees the future defense budget and how the president does. in terms of the magnitude. a very dynamic and challenging time. the rest of the world will not stop. >> another man who needs no introduction but i will deliver one anyway.

he is a former pentagon comptroller. among his other posts have been deputy undersecretary of planning and resources. from 2002 to 2004, he worked in afghanistan. earlier, he was a defense and foreign policy analyst. after leaving government service, he became senior vice president of booz allen hamilton holding he is a senior fellow, senior adviser. he chairs the national intelligence council. he is a member of the commission on wartime contracting afghanistan. i think you get the idea. without further ado. >> thanks for a much, brad. full disclosure, eric edelman and i co-authored an op-ed not

long ago. rudy and i have been on radio a while back. what you're going to hear, you're going to hear shades of difference, but for the last 60 years there has been a fundamental consensus about the united states strategy which is forward. it involves across the board deterrence. it involves relatively stable budget. there is so much uncertainty now. because there is, we tend to be overly pessimistic. there is always going to be uncertainty about where we fight. other than world war ii, korea was unpredictable, one could argue about vietnam. we got into it far more than we thought.

just about every war we have fought, they were not things we expected to fight. we can't be certain about what kinds of tools we are going to use. you have to be very careful about what you throw out of the toolbox. we have become certain in a different way about what some people call multipolarity. they keep talking about the brics, the chinese, the russians, the indians, the brazilians and maybe the south africans. every one of those countries is having economic problems now. there is no indication that there are going to get out of those problems anytime soon. their gdp's have leveled off. their populations arrested. that kind of prediction, that somehow the united states will be less powerful because others

are becoming more powerful, i am not sure it holds water. to the contrary, this goes to some of the budget concerns we have got. i don't believe the issue is dealing with a ten-year sequester. i don't think anybody believes that. one of the reasons that i don't is because within five years, we are supposedly going to have a different energy profile. that means there is going to be a lot more in the way of taxes coming into the government. a lot more revenue. therefore, when we think about defense, we have to be careful not to cut those things that will be impossible to replenish was the money starts coming in again. i am not sure we focus sufficiently on that. right now, all the talk is about, we don't want to fight another man were. guess what, mcarthur said that. we said that after vietnam.

bob gates has said it. we don't know if we are not going to fight another man were. nobody knows. we don't know where we are going to fight next. how far you cut back on that is a very open question in my mind. we say, we can rely on special operations and cyber, and space. that is all true. to what extent do we rely? do we need other things? whether we worry about china or iran or any other places, we seem to constantly call upon the carriers and the carrier task forces to do the job for us. is this the right time to be cutting carriers are cutting the navy or cutting the air force which is trying to some extent to work with the navy on these things? we have got to think differently about what we plan to do today and what we are planning for. i believe what we ought to be doing is thinking about how to get from here to there over the next few years until the money starts to come in again.

not because there will be another war but because there will simply be more money there. we have to be very careful not to cut our noses off to spite our faces. that means thinking about efficiencies but not necessarily about things we want to cut. i will give you one final example. i have seen many analysts say we ought to stop spending money on what we used to call national missile defense. we should stop -- it hasn't done anything for us. yet this very administration which is full of people who have written and said that for decades, as soon as north korea threatened to hit the united states, whether they could do it or not, they decided they wanted to buy more of these missiles. that is my point.

once you get rid of something, it is very hard to get it back. let's be awfully cautious. >> for this to my right, ambassador eric edelman. his wide range of jobs has taken him from the ambassadorship of finland and turkey all the way back to the wild of the pentagon and white house. he was undersecretary of defense for the bush administration. eric retired from foreign service in 2009. he is a distinguished fellow at the center for strategic and budgetary assessment. you get the idea. eric, please. >> thank you very much.

as a member of the board, let me say how pleased i am to be on a panel with two great public servants, rudy deleon and dov zakheim, both of whom i have had the pleasure of working with in the past. the title of our panel -- i agree of course with most of what has been said before may. i certainly hope dov is right that we are not dealing with a 10 year sequester. i don't think we should necessarily plan on that. let me start by saying, the title of the panel was, what kind of defense does the united states need? brad added, what kind of defense can we afford? let me make a couple of comments about both.

rudy and i three years ago served together, the congressionally created independent panel to review the department of defense's 2010 defense review. the panel we served on was made up of 20 members. it was bipartisan. it was cochaired by bill perry and steve hadley. it articulated their set of things -- it thought the united states had done and continued to do. among those were defending the homeland, maintaining the freedom of the seas, freedom of transit in air, outer space, freedom to use cyberspace. maintaining a balance of power in europe and in asia through our alliances as rudy mentioned in his comments and dov did as well.

and being able to provide international humanitarian aid when disaster strikes as we have done repeatedly. i would say those are still things that the united states needs to be able to do. it is something that we have done for the last 60 years. we have provided global public goods. i think what the events of the last month and a half -- i would conclude that include both the budgetary issues and the debate over syria, they have begun to call that into question. they call into question whether the united states is willing to continue to provide these global public funds. president kennedy gave an

interview to bill lawrence on abc news after the cuban missile crisis. in that interview, he talked about the fatigue after 17 years of national exertion since the end of world war ii that americans felt at having had to provide global leadership. now we are 60 years on. clearly we are going to have to have that national debate now. the traditional coalition on the hill that existed when rudy was the staff director working for the chairman -- it doesn't exist anymore. most of the blue dogs have been defeated. they are not in the congress anymore. the republican conference is now

deeply divided. those who believe in the strong international role for the u.s. and those who believe that defense spending is no different than any other category in the budget and is useful for negotiations over cutting this cautionary spending -- discretionary spending or entitlement spending. i think we really need to have a debate. we have lived in a period where we take it for granted that the u.s. will play this role, that it will have these kinds of treaty alliances. when you look back at our history, if bob were here, he would point out that it is the exception and not the rule. those of us who have been used to accepting this, the consensus

position has gotten -- about having to make the case for it. i think we need to remedy that and make the case for why we are providing public goods is vital to the nation's security and its prosperity and to that safety of the world in which we live. >> thank you. each of you has mentioned the impact of the current budget situation and the danger it presents to the ability of the u.s. to carry out its foreign policy. it is also striking that we have heard various ways -- it is difficult to reconstitute what was once lost. there is a problem. it looks like we will not be able to do all of that. how do we get from here to there? how do we get to where we are to where we want to be? do you want to take that up?

>> sure. i want to reiterate that i have a piece that -- the tea party, what those folks do not seem to understand -- and it is not isolation. it is ignorance. america's economic security really depends on stability. stability depends on that u.s.'s ability to maintain its military capabilities. that has been -- these quarterly reports as it were were ever quarter or every four months, you have no idea

where the united states will be, it leads people to ask what i have been asking by foreigners from every part of the world -- are you guys crazy? that is not the way to promote stability. to answer your question directly, as long as we have got this madness going on, let's it is sequester ends tomorrow. you still have the cuts. not trivial money. clearly the has to be some things done that has not been done. when eric says we have to take things seriously, he is right. the pentagon has not managed well. there are efforts to manage it well. we have all done our best to manage it well, but the bottom line is that it is not managed

well. too many civil servants and to -- to -- too many contractors. an acquisition that is so bad we have set up a new rapid acquisition system to get around our own acquisition system. there is something wrong with that picture. we have defense agencies that are fortune 500 companies that are managed by -- can you imagine a gs-14 running exxon mobil? or amazon? or frankly, any of the nfl teams except the redskins? [laughter] we have to rethink how we manage budgets. let's face it, even with cuts, we talk about budgets in access of $400 billion a year. that is a lot of money. it has to be spent well. we have too many the silly

-- facilities. congress has to do something about brack. we clearly have to get our arms around health care. $49 billion a year for this year for health care. the actuaries say we can save billions right now. there are things we can do. what we shouldn't do -- and i reiterate what i said before -- eliminate capabilities that we will -- should a new contingency come that we did not see. >> anyone else want to take it up? >> most of the debate in washington right now with the sequester and appropriations, what is the timeline for dod going to be?

the problem with the duty budget dod budget is impacting the top line obviously. it got very expensive in the last decade. there is concerned it is not sustainable in the coming decades. it has to work and be affordable. it has to bring in great people. we had compensate them fairly and provide for the other elements in defense. we have got to look at some of the things that are driving costs. on the acquisition side, the google generation needs to get in touch with the boeing and

lockheed generation. our platforms are becoming integration of multiple information systems to run the ship, notify of threat, communicate back to headquarters to receive updated intelligence. as platforms become essentially integrated, fighting computers, with pilots or aviators or operators in control, we have got to bring these generations together. one of them wears white shirts like we do and the other wears fleeces and may shave every other day, but they are just as smart and capable. they have lived in these new architectures. we are in a period where the costs of personnel, the cost of the equipment, we cannot

continue to maintain those costs drivers. i think the other thing is we need to figure out how we can work across the aisle more regularly on the national security issues. serving in the clinton administration, i had a republican secretary of defense. another was regularly working with the reagan white house on big foreign-policy initiatives and later with george bush and iraqi freedom and desert storm in 1991. the talk in washington has moved from caucus rooms to blogs and

talk shows where we focus on the differences rather than our ability to make compromises. it was meant to me get more -- it was also mentioned to me we get more revenue from the energy supply we are developing domestically. all of those things require that we work across the out of work -- aisle and work with each other. i'm at a loss. maybe the exception was the cold war years where we had less political fighting. we had to figure how to do things that are not just simply common sense, it also to do things that will be hard to do.

the coalition between -- military reform in 1986. probably the significant thing that has happened in dod and the last 30 years. we have got to figure out how to work together. no top line in the world is going to satisfy requirements if we do not deal with these costs drivers that are there and present every day. >> yeah. to pick up on both what they said, if you look at the big downturns in defense spending after world war ii and korea, in each instance, we were able to generate considerable savings. the size of the strength of the force had grown considerably in each of those conflicts.

the size of the strength of the force had grown considerably in each of those conflicts. largely, savings could be derived by cutting the size of the army and the air force, etc. what is different about the current situation is over the last 10 years, the strength has increased that much. the expense of the force has. that does mean that rudy is right. we have to get at the embedded costs. it is a microcosm in some sense of entitlement problem we face as a nation. it would be difficult to do politically. personnel costs over the last decade has grown at 4.2% and adjusted for inflation. if you project that out, i think