leaders will have to work together. there was a deal done. president reagan in his social security bill with tip o'neill. both sides had to give. we have seen to lost that capability in this era. we have to find the area in the middle that we can all work toward. >> i think that is a fine sentiment. do we have a hand for all of our panel? thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington

journal" texas congressman gene green. us to discussns her new book. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. c-span, we bring public affairs and events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, and conferences. offering complete coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. created by the tv -- cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. officials from the u.s. army, navy, air force, and raines testified about how the fence as restraints -- and marines

defense budgetw restraints are affecting the military. this is about two hours. >> the hearing subcommittee will come to order. good afternoon. the tactical air and land forces committee meets today in open session to be seek testimony from each of the four military services on the impact of sequestration and continuing resolution known as cr. for over two years, this committee has held numerous hearings on the impact of sequestration to our national security and attempts to try to capture some of the decision- making and that affects on our national security. we have warned of the catastrophic impacts it would have if allowed to continue. i voted against sequestration because i believe it would be

devastating. since sequestration began, we have seen dramatic effects on military force readiness such as the grounding of squadrons and reduction in other squadrons and training exercises reduced and programs curtailed and furloughs of the department of defense civilians. in my district alone, we saw the furlough of roughly 12,000 hard- working men and women. if left unchecked, it it appears -- i fear that many of these employees could lose their jobs permanently. many individuals work in the community and are linked to the air force modernization. the hearing will focus on the effect sequestration is having on duty -- dod's accounts for procurement and research and development acquisition programs. thus far, the effect on the investment account has been much less apparent, but we believe this to be a false sense of security. if sequestration continues, dod

investment will be impacted. that is expected to grow in fiscal years 2015. this hearing will focus on those impacts. for the end of fiscal year 2013, the government accountability office has reported to the subcommittee that approximately 30% of sequestered funding for investment account has been taken from prior year unobligated funds. additionally, some funding requirements for fiscal year 2013 have been pushing to fiscal year 2014, creating must pay bills during this fiscal year. these actions have allowed the government to delay the affects of sequestration on-- investment. the situation will be different. although sequestration is an approximate 9% decrease, the military pay and wounded warriors program am not be subject to sequestration

decreases. this means that investment accounts are likely to see an approximate 40% decrease in in fiscal year 4.1 if this continues, the combined impacts will continue to increase and affecting every acquisition program and severely impacting future readiness and leaving the possible program terminations. last month, there were testimony received about the near and long-term affect sequestration will have on the total force. the remarks are sobering. today expect to hear a clear terms how modernization will be impacted in 2014 and beyond should sequestration continued. we need to provide better clarity and help make the case

to congress as to why sequestration needs to be fixed. welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. we have the beginning of our panel. shyu.di we have lieutenant general james. we have mr. shawn stackley. we have deputy chief of naval operations. we have lieutenant walters. representing the air force, deputy -- bill laplante. thank you all of you for being here. i have had the opportunity to speak with each of you. this is not something that should be sugarcoated. these impacts are real. they need to be avoided.

we hear that sequestration has not had consequences the story , in the government defense has not been told. you have been busy trying to implement sequestration and minimize its overall effects. today you have the opportunity to paint a clear picture to us of the work you have done in trying to protect our national security in difficult circumstances. you have the ability to change the future. that is what will be important. there are people working on how to complete the budget for fiscal year 2014. that requires that your story be clear and unequivocal at the dangerous and damaging effects to our national security. i appreciate the message you have for us. i will turn to ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam, and gentlemen.

today's hearing comes at a very strange time of the year. i'm happy that the department of defense could be here with us. and that you're willing to testify before us today. in a normal year, we would have probably been in conference or out of conference with a -- the ndaa, appropriations would have been already passed, we have been moving forward. this is not a normal year. not only with the shutdown and a -- the second set of sequestration, with the senate not bringing its bill yet to the floor of the senate, we are definitely in a very strange time. i appreciate you being here. we have passed our authorizing bill. we hope that we will get a

senate version to conference in. it must be difficult for you all to try to figure out what programs move forward and what doesn't and what is placed on hold. in particular, it is a little striking that we would have a gao report that would say that the first point we have on the line, the data point on the line is telling us that for the department of defense -- not a lot happened for fiscal year 2013. for the first year of sequestration, not a lot -- we drastic or something all the fears that we heard that something terrible would happen to acquiring equipment we we -- that we need etc., for the

dod. the gao report says that is not the case. i would have to say that probably is because there was a lot of programs or leftover money or programs that did not come to be or were not there. in other words, a lot of slack in the system. maybe that is one of the reasons why we do not see what we had thought we would see. that raises a question -- why was there so much slack in the whole program? but i am worried about -- and i know this is about forward thinking and what will happen in the second year of sequestration and what will happen if we have a third and fourth year. as you know, this is a ten-year sequestration effort. i hope we concentrate on what this really means for dod and what we will see. i have a fear -- i saw when i

went out and visited other arenas, what it meant for trainees. i was in nevada. to our air shows. the thunderbirds are used to fly in -- flying 200 plus shows and they flew one so far in this past season. i have seen what has happened to the operating and training of our soldiers and airmen and seamen, etc., marines. the gao says nothing has happened in the acquisitions arena. i think it is important to know what will happen if this continues forward. i hope you will be pretty

straightforward with us and talk about your concerns with respect to that. mr. chairman, i will put my official statement on the record. i'm very interested to hear from you all on what you think as we move forward and how this will affect the major programs. that are required for our troops. thank you. i will submit my whole statement for the record and move forward. >> thank you. we will begin opening statements with secretary shyu. madam secretary. >> distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you in providing comments regarding impacts associated with the continued resolution

and sequestration on the army and the industrial base in fiscal year 2014 and beyond. joining me today is lieutenant james barkley -- barclay. the cr and impact to the army acquisition programs and modernization is sobering. the instability hampers our ability to plan and execute acquisition programs in support of the war fighter. key development, testing and production activities that are planned months in advance are subjected to limited funds under cr and are disrupted by the shutdown. under continuing resolution we the lack of authority start new programs or increase production quantities, sequestration

reductions in fy-13 already reduced or eliminated margin for error on many of our programs. with our efforts to mitigate the using prior year funds, it would directly result in reduced quantities and deferred investment in new capabilities and delays in many programs. the hiring freeze, civilian furloughs, government shutdown decimates our current and future ability to recruit and have critical skills and expertise in the government workforce. this creates devastating impact to our projects, contracting, logistics, and maintenance. the long-term effects of this instability are yet to be fully

discerned. we know that the combined effects of sequestration and yearly cr would significantly increase the costs of our -- vital soldier weapons systems. constrained budgets will lead to reduced investment in new soldier capabilities at a time when we must prevent erosion of our technological edge. investment in army research programs face alarming prospect of the nearly 40% reduction over a three-year span. it is reaching a historical low. because we are unable to reduce manpower costs significantly, rda takes the brunt of the hit. especially in the short term. we are facing an unprecedented challenge in staying on track to develop the next generation of capability to our soldiers to counter emerging threats.

over 192 army programs are potentially affected by cr limitations. these include 59 new land program starts. in addition, we can anticipate to see effects such as procurement of 12 fewer apache helicopters and 11 fewer -- chinook helicopters, delays in schedules, engineering upgrades to abrams tank, and fighting vehicles. 45-50 -- delayed by six months.

for new0 new grants basic research in universities across the united states might be cut. up to 40 existing third year grants might be cut. all of this impacts the army's organic industrial base. i meet with ceos and industrial leaders, i hear about the shared desire for stability. the untold effects of investment amonglost investment large and small corporations remains one of the most significant risk associated with the current fiscal environment. there are also significant human capital costs, our capacity to maintain expertise in science , stability has

been undermined. these skills are critical to equipping and sustaining the systems affecting our programs. these examples provide a snapshot of the cumulative effects of the fiscal instability. the current environment fundamentally challenges our ability to manage public resources in a prudent manner while upholding the responsibility to provide the best equipment to our war fighters. mr. chairman, mr. sanchez and other members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the impacts of the fiscal year 2014 continuing resolution and sequestration on

the department of the navy acquisition and modernization. joining me are the deputy chief of naval operations vice admiral myers and lieutenant general walters. today, about half of our fleet is underway. many ships including nimitz and boxer and other groups and 21,500 marines are deployed around the world. from ground operations in afghanistan to maritime security, to missile defense in the mediterranean and the sea of japan, and recon, from strategic deterrence and deterring enemies and responding to crises and

-- naval forces provide protection of the interests of america. they place in the hands of our nations leaders tools and options to respond to today's world events and shape future events. the department of the navy's 2014 budget request has forces required needed to meet these missions. it provides the investment called for to protect for tomorrow. to discussre here the unfinished work of the congress as it relates to the final passage of the cr. ourrisks it poses to present and future as provided by those bills. the $156by program, billion navy and marine corps budget authorized by the armed

services committee is undercut by the limitations of the cr and the across-the-board cut posed by sequestration. operations and maintenance and investment accounts are hard- hit. as you describe in your opening remarks, an approximate 10% cut to 2014 budget would equate to a 14% reduction to those accounts to two military personnel exemptions. these reductions in 2014 would be additive to the $11 billion .equestered in 2013 after depleting prior balances, removing managing reserve and deferring certain bills to future year budgets, it resulted in canceled deployments. a reduced training, it rude -- it reduced procurement qualities. , the navy will prioritize.

with reduced ability to search additional forces, depot and nearly 200 aircraft actions are at risk. this will ultimately impact the for futureiness deployments as well as their expected service life. training will be curtailed. flight hours and maintenance and the procurement of spare parts impacting next year's operations and ourd presence, ability to search our forces. surge our forces. maintaining current readiness to the extent possible under sequestration comes at expense to our investment in each are readiness. in 2014, absent congressional action or mitigating circumstances, the continuing

resolution and sequestration would cause cancel procurement up to three major warships and 25 aircraft. various utility training and unmanned aircraft. to this total, about 400 missiles and weapons at risk, cutting our inventory at a time when we are striving to restore our weapons to levels called for by the commanders. the impact of the continuing resolution and sequestration denies the ability this committee authorized for advanced hawkeye, the mh 60, destroyers, submarines and missiles. it places at risk greater than $5 billion savings. our carrier force which today falls below the statutory requirement for 11 carriers will be greatly impacted with a risk

of halting construction of our newest carrier, delaying construction and delaying the refueling complex overhaul. this outcome, we must avoid. beyond these impacts, virtually every navy and marine corps development comprising those advanced capabilities that are critical to ensuring superiority, air and missile defense radar, navy integrated fire control, sidewinders, amphibious combat vehicle that the goals, radar, every major development suffers delay or reduction or cancellation. uncertainty seemingly got every decision. we need to consider the impacts on our industrial base and acquisition workforce which we rely upon to develop and to deliver these systems that underpin military superiority.

we need to be mindful that as many as 100,000 jobs are at risk as a result of potential cuts to navy marine corps operations. skilled workers and engineering talent across government and industry -- the same professionals who have been bearing great stress while performing their critical jobs in the face of furloughs and layoffs triggered by distortion of this budget process which congress has otherwise faithfully executed in prior years. these examples do not capture the full magnitude and they do not begin to approach the impact of subsequent reductions. unabated, the reductions will profoundly affect the size and shape and readiness of your navy and marine corps. and the roles and missions which they are able to perform. again, i think this committee for its work on 2014 operations. our appeal is the congress complete its work on the 2014

budget request with a passage of the authorizations and appropriations bills and that this mechanism for addressing the nation's budget impasse somehow be reversed before we are driven to irreversible actions which impair our defense. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i just want to point out, because we are in a house hearing, the house has passed the national defense authorization act and defense appropriations which are sitting in the senate. although congress, in order us to congregate together, must complete it together, the house has done all of its work. we are continuing to be in this period where the house does it work and we wait for the senate. that period of uncertainty makes it difficult for us. i understand your frustration. there are bills that are sitting there for action. dr. laplante.

>> thank you, chairman. thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the state of affairs with sequestration. i will address the air force. in particularly, the investment in air force. i am joined by lieutenant general mike moeller. thank you rolling this hearing. we are committed to remaining the best in the world. the best in the world in 2020. that means being able to fight and win against pure adversaries. in the middle of trying to make sure we meet that future and keep readiness high, we have had to deal with the sequester. when the sequester hit back in february, it was well known that there were only two places in the budget to find the dollars to match what was needed to be cut. one was in operations, sustainment, maintenance. essentially hitting at readiness. that also hit our workforce with the furloughs. the second place is our investment.

rdt and procurement. we started with our investment accounts looking at somewhere between 10% and 11% cuts. we ended up using prior year dollars and flexibilities to soft and -- to soften that amount. make no mistake there is damage , being done. i'm going to talk about the investment situation and what is going on there. to begin with, what was done was each program was scrubbed. a lot of risk money, commitments for next year, were taken, swept up. there was a promise that some of it would be returned. what also was done was, major programs were simply stopped. i can speak to one specifically that we have been public about. it is an air force program for space situational awareness. we were ready to award the contract after a lot of excellent work by contractors and laboratories. i had a great acquisition strategy. we stopped.

we stopped the program. it may or may not get started. if it does, it is going to be but itr away from ioc, is going to cost $70 million for the same program one year later. there will be other programs coming along that are going to be in exactly the same situation. in addition in 2013, we have the furloughs. i will talk about the effect on morale which is harder to assess. there was absolutely an affect on our acquisition programs. the f 35 lost one to two months of scheduling due to the furloughs. the reason was the testing. it was prohibited to test on overtime with civilians. if you have been around testing, nothing gets done in a regular 40 hour week. it directly impacted our acquisition programs. the effect on the morale is something that is harder to measure. we won't know until probably it is too late. the lagging indicator is usually

turnover. my instinct is purely anecdotal. that is based on individual resignations that have already occurred. i believe we have broken with the younger acquisition and science workforce. these are folks who were at a point in their career trying to make a decision, is this something i can do for my full career? is this something that is reliable? particularly the highly talented and marketable ones, they are very vulnerable. we have cases of resignations. that was before october 1. the first week of october, half of the peo's in the air force, program executive officers, senior acquisition executives that run our programs, were home. we were within about two days of shutting down the f 35. i know that these are differences between sequester versus government shutdown.

the effect in the field is not terribly distinctive to the individuals in the programs. talking about 14, where we are right now, the numbers have been already mentioned. the 14% number, the number that could be higher depending on what flexibility is there. i will also say, there will be other mentions of programs that will be canceled or delayed. in addition to that, entire fleet of aircraft are on the table for consideration of divestment by the leadership. i can't say which programs are going to end up being divested going to be stopped. , the math in 15 and 16 is that bad. the final comment i will make, as we mentioned in 13 there was some flexibility. for using prior year dollars to soften the blow. we were able to transfer some of that money to the operations

accounts to soften readiness cuts. that is gone. in 13, f 35 was at risk of losing three airplanes. in the realm of no good deed goes unpunished, the f 35 program was able to negotiate a very good price and essentially buy back those three airplanes. we don't have an opportunity to do that in 14. we will lose between four and five airplanes and 14. i could go through other programs. that is a summary of the severity of the situation within the air force. i look forward to working with the subcommittee and answering your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. secretary shyu, i have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you. i appreciate your concern. could you speak specifically, if sequestration is allowed to continue, what kind of impact will that have on the program?

a program important to my district. and also, as far as modernization acquisition, speak briefly on the forecast if we can't curtail what is happening here. >> it currently is a great model program. each of the three contractors have delivered 22 vehicles and they are currently in test. the government shutdown has impacted our testing plant. our civilians who do the vast majority of our testing can't travel to the test site. they don't have money. the rippling affect of this government shutdown, just a short period of government shutdown, is starting to stretch out the program. we have to get back into the queue to do the testing.

with what dr. laplante talked about, part of the testing -- usually our testers do more than eight hours per day. if you limit their number of hours, it is going to impact them. right now, the program is very well executed. we are trying to get back on schedule. with sequestration, cutting the rda account heavier than the rest of the accounts, cutting the research and development acquisition accounts disproportionately higher than the other accounts, it will have impacts to us in terms of schedule. we could potentially delay the program by a year. >> i appreciate that. general walters or mr. stokley, would you like to address that? with jltv. >> i would add the developmental schedule is going to slide to the right. that is going to hold off when

we can get into production. delaying the start of production, i think a year is a conservative estimate in terms of that impact. it is going to impact each year of production. when you're trying to climb up a ramp and get to efficient quantities, the front end will be suppressed in terms of the number of vehicles we can procure. that is going to stretch the program out and drive the cost up. these are all spiraling impacts that take a strong performing program at the front end and revese its course. >> general walters. >> i echo the sentiments already displayed here. i will also tell you that the longer-term effect year-by-year as sequestration marches on, if it continues to march it will put us in a more difficult position of making harder choices as we try and buy out a vehicle portfolio that will

become unaffordable. >> thank you. representative cooper. >> thank you, madam chair. chairman turner said earlier that the house had done its work and was implying that is was the senate's fault. we need to operate as a congress. and fulfill our article one responsibilities as a congress so that you can do your work. i thought your testimony was excellent. i wish you had the ability to question us. the fault is on our side of the deus. i will make some points on my own about the house's and congress's inability to perform adequately in these trying times. as one of the witnesses noticed, since contractors and workers don't really distinguish between sequester and shut down, this is a nightmare that they should not have to go through and a

nightmare the country should not have to go through. let me cite a couple of articles. one is "politico." october 14, headline, gop hawks suddenly silent on sequestration. an article that cites the excellent study by the bipartisan policy center entitled "the sequester: from the merely stupid to dangerous." an article in "the wall street journal." the upside of the gop shutdown defeat, he points out "saving the sequester has been the top priority for me and my republican colleagues throughout the debate. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said, the survival of the sequester wasn't a win for republicans. the automatic cuts take a huge bite out of pentagon spending which is bound to weaken

military readiness. this has distressed many republicans and rightly so. the article goes on to say, most republicans have been willing to swallow the defense cuts. they regard the sequester as a rare victory in their fight to reduce the size of government. another article says, treasury secretary jack lew made a catastrophic miscalculation. he believed defense hawk republicans would never agree to the sequester cuts. the white house bet the republicans would raise taxes before cutting military spending. they were wrong. house republicans rightly decided that as the wars in afghanistan and iraq were winding down, defense would be cut under any scenario. it made the most strategic sense to uphold the sequester to ensure that the peace dividend

did not get spent elsewhere. as i mentioned, it is our fault. congress should be blamed. in my opinion, the house in particular. it is not enough to pass legislation. we have to conference it with the senate. both houses finally passed budgets this year. but only this week did we do a conference on the budget. after five years of begging, then we refused to conference it with them. "the wall street journal" pointed out, you can't govern america with one half of one branch of government. it takes more than that. it takes cooperation. it takes that dreaded word compromise. i am proud of the work that you gentlemen and ladies are doing. i am sorry that you are under this distress. i hope and pray that congress will get its act together fast. we only have a few days before

the budget conference is supposed to come up with a conclusion. a few legislative days. we are only meeting next week one or two days. we take the following week after that off. i think the entire conference -- the hope of compromise only has a few possible days to come up with an agreement. that is appalling. the folks back home are expecting us to work 24/7, 365 to get this done. they should be outraged that we haven't done it already. the fiscal year started october 1. this is a time for this body to get its act together. the armed services committee is the largest committee in the house of representatives. we don't act like it. we do not exercise a commensurate influence within the body. in this hearing, how many people are here? six? this is just a subcommittee, not the full committee. this is an embarrassing response to a national crisis that you gentlemen and ladies are correctly informing us of.

maybe one day, you will have the right to question the side of the deus. i look forward to that. in the meantime, we should be punished for congressional misbehavior. both houses, both parties until we get the job done. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. my question is going to be for general moeller. i have been a big supporter of the new tanker. there has been some questions dealing with -- if you don't know, i represent the east coast. 10'sme to most of our kc on the east coast.

being the workhorse of most of the refueling on the east coast and dealing with homeland security. with a new tanker coming online slower than expected, obviously because of many things we are discussing today, the fact that there is probably really not much of a decrease in how we use those aircraft here and if there is a delay in the 46 coming online, for the record, what is the air force's plan for this critical platform? is there program funding to support this asset? >> dr. runyan, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. before i talk specifically about platforms, let me just say that the blunt mechanism of sequestration drove us to look at all options from across the air force. as dr. laplante said, looking at a readiness account, our

personnel accounts, our modernization programs, we had to look everywhere in order to get billions of dollars in savings. especially in the near years. that is where sequestration drives the biggest cuts for us, for all of us. with that in mind, as we looked at where we were going to go to gather the savings required to balance the program, we had to look at cutting entire fleet of aircraft. the reason why is that we had -- in order to get the billions of dollars needed, we had to go after overhead as much as we did. the cuts that we are talking about are for the air force specifically. right now under sequestration, it would be over 25,000 people.

over 550 aircraft. that is the magnitude of the challenge that we face. specifically, because all of our fy 2015-fy 2019 program is predecisional, we can't talk about specific platforms. i will tell you that we looked in priority order at avoiding further readiness degradation. that was our top priority especially in the near years. cutting the more capable aircraft and/or doing irreversible damage to high- priority investment programs. >> it is just puzzling to me. i get what you're saying about needing to find places to cut that stuff. the readiness hole that i think it would create, i have yet to

find someone to give me an answer about how you back for that. with the 46 being delayed, it could be a huge problem. if you're going to take out a whole air wing that supplies critical refueling, how do you fill that gap? >> congressman, we will have gaps across the entire air force. it is not just one platform. it is not just one capability. sequestration, the levels of cuts require us to look across the air force. mitigating risk in one area is going to require offsets of others. the bottom line is that the air force, after sequestration, is going to be smaller, less capable, less ready and less flexible. at the end of the day, that is the bottom line of the effect of sequestration.

>> i would love to personally sit down with you and have the numbers put out on the table and talk about it. i yield back. >> thank you. i want to thank jackie for sitting in while at the opportunity to attend a classified briefing for a few moments. i appreciate her taking the gavel for me. now we return to regular order. regular order is such that we go through each of the members who were present at the gavel and then turn to those post gavel. i always hate it when people partisan.sue nothing is describable or resolvable in its real effects on a partisan basis. this is a committee that -- very rarely will you hear anybody and a new microphone say the democrats or republicans.

we're all just working together on the same issue. when you look at the number of members present, we have on the side of the aisle a great deal of attention on this as we have had at the number of hearings we have had. on a bipartisan basis, my ranking member and i have both work equally diligently on this 1, 1 being a republican and one being a democrat. i voted against sequestration. the president's legislation of sequestration. i voted against it because i felt that the administration did not have a commitment to resolving sequestration. when we talk about resolving, we talk about finding offsets elsewhere in the budget. we have taken over half of the budget of the allocated cuts and applied it to less than 18% of the overall budget. which is the department of the fence -- which is the department of defense. the task that the president had charged congress with was finding cuts in this issue, cuts

elsewhere in the budget to offset those. when people talk about, they want sequestration to be applied there are members who openly say that -- they are not saying they want this to be applied to the department of defense. they want the conclusion of it to of her -- of it to occur. no one in congress believes that the department of defense should continue to be subject to sequestration. it is irresponsible for any member to say that any member believes that the dod should be subject to sequestration. there are members who believe that we cannot continue to spend out of control and sequestration needs to be addressed by the process concluding. which is finding the source of those offsets. people who voted for the budget control act and sequestration who then speak about it disparagingly is one i also think is a question. i am proud of the fact that i opposed it. i oppose it now.

i want to turn to your answers as to its effects. so that we can get the motivation for congress to conclude the process of offsetting. there are many people who would like to categorize it otherwise. you can help us characterize it as a real problem. secretary shyu, you said that the issue of uncertainty is wrecking the ability for both the department of defense and the industrial base. you said that they need predictability. as we go forward, we also have -- beyond the wide level of these cuts -- the issue, the aggregate numbers and what their effects will be upon the choices that you have to make.

could you speak for a moment of the fact that these numbers themselves are so egregious that many of the tasks you have been assigned in acquisition are not going to be able to be achievable and could harm our long-term sustainability in national security? >> yes. excuse me. the fy 14 sequestration will have significant impacts. as we talked about earlier, we don't have any more buffer room left. we are going to defer maintenance on 172 of our aircraft. more than 900 of our vehicles. over 2000 of our weapon systems. over 10,000 pieces of communication equipment. we will fuel less equipment to our brigade combat teams. it will impact our production.

in terms of quantity, we will buy fewer aircraft. eight less apache helicopters. that is on top of the reduction from fy 13. this means it will have a rippling effect in terms of fielding to our units. all of the ecp upgrades that we talked about, to our aprons, bradleys, -- abrams, our bradleys, are going to be impacted. what does that mean in terms of rippling effect? it means our contractors are looking for stability. the contracts that they have can no longer plan for it. they continuously asked me, what

do i anticipate the budget is going to be so they can plan for their workforce. it is difficult to give them any numbers because we are planning at different levels. those have various different impacts. the other rippling affect it has created for us is the enormous amount of additional work for our internal government folks to plan they "what if" contingencies. we go through multiple iterations of planning, that is very disruptive. in my mind, if there is anything that this congress can do to help us in terms of stopping sequestration and bringing back stability in our budget, that is the one key critical thing that we need. not just for the army, but for our industrial base as well. general barkley, -- general b arclay, did you want to add?

>> as ms, shyu said, across all the different categories, we are going to have dramatic impacts on both readiness, training and modernization programs. as we look at both of those categories, there is a large impact on canceling training rotations. not only are we not reducing the numbers that we are purchasing, we have gone away from the new buys and we are remanufacturing those platforms. we are not seeing new platforms. in an effort to meet the dollar cuts, we are doing that across the fleet. both in our ground combat categories and in aviation. this will have a long term impact on us as we move forward. >> i don't want to repeat the theme but the theme is the same. what i would add is, first,

stability is critical to performance in our programs across the board. what we have been experiencing over the last 1.5 to two years has been extraordinary destabilizing. this uncertain budget environment that we are marching unraveling all the efforts the department is putting in. all those programs underpin current and future readiness. at the higher level, as the commandant testified, what sequestration poses is a steady decline across the board in terms of operations, readiness, force structure which ultimately equates to presence, response and national security. we're on the front end of that today.

2013, we saw deployments being canceled. we sought the front end of procurements being canceled. you're seeing delays to programs. when you compound that year- over-year, it is not a straight line. it will quickly devolve. the 300 ship navy we require to meet our strategic defense guidance -- we are staring today, potentially a navy of 250 ships in number. 11 aircraft carriers are jeopardized to drop down to numbers of 10 and nine. all that poses towards the nation's defense. >> i agree with the theme. start with something dr. paul kaminski talked about in the 1990's. program stability or more importantly instability was one of the principal causes. the implication being offering

that stability to the extent we can. from a taxpayers perspective, taking a longer-term view beyond six months, beyond three months, done correctly buying complex weapon systems is smarter. multiyear contracts done correctly are usually much better for the taxpayer than single year contracts. fixed price contracts are generally better. long-term efforts of looking at how with the contractors we can bring down the operations costs , looking five years to 10 years from now. all of that is better off in an environment where we have some idea. we understand things change. some basic idea on what the situation is. all that is put at risk by the situation we are in right now.

contracts that we put in place two years ago for the highest priority programs when we had no idea we would -- that the situation we're in today, that those contracts are put in risk. two weeks ago, we had one of our fixed-price contracts come within 24 hours of a major problem until the president signed a continuing resolution. had he signed it 24 hours later, we could have broken one of our fixed-price contracts. that is how it works. instability is so important to us. we recognize the fact that things change. we have to do better than where we are right now. thank you. >> to my understanding, i hate it when people make issues partisan. it impedes our ability to get things done. it is my understanding that mr. cooper made the statement that there are republicans who want sequestration to continue.

i have to ask you, you have been up here talking to congress members of congress. trying to tell them the effects of sequestration and its immediacy. have you ever had democrat or republican, a member of congress say to you that sequestration should remain intact? and that you should remain under sequestration. no. not one democrat, not one republican. i want to make that point as we try to avoid people turning this into partisan. i'm going to go to ms. roby. mr. cooper did vote for sequestration. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i should take this opportunity to tell each of you, thank you for your service to our country. and to your families. that means a lot to all of us here. mr. turner just touched on what i was going to ask to general

barclay. as it relates to overall priorities when it comes to acquisition and procurement, but also from a development standpoint. i would defer to the two of you to determine who is best to answer my next question. generalof the nl -- theniero testified that program was important. i know you mentioned in your written testimony that the program would be placed at risk. can you elaborate on that as to whether it remains a priority and to what extent the sequester may impact the army acquisition strategy of maintaining competition to reduce the risk and the cost? to the army because it offers significant capabilities that we currently don't have, namely 25% fuel efficiency as an example.

we very much would like to have competition on all of our programs. if sequestration continues, we may be forced to down select earlier than we would like. that is the risk of sequestration. i would like to give an example. that is what happened on another program. joint air to ground missile programs. it was a $33 million mark. then a $3 million sequestration on top of that. there was a $36 million cut. we were forced to drop one of the contractors. we were forced because of the budget. >> it is critical not only because of fuel savings, it also has maintenance savings. it is key to our developmental programs. we are working to get that into the current platforms of black

hawk and apache. it is also tied to other aircraft. sequestration places this program at risk. if we continue and it appears that we will, that program could be put at risk because it is tied to other programs. all this links together. >> can we talk for just a minute about the impact on modernization of army aviation and specifically, how that is going to impact the army aviation in fort rucker? as it relates to the sequester? >> yes, ma'am. it is in your district. it is not only just sequestration. it is the continuing resolution it already has had an impact. fort rucker was working for the aviation force.

this past year, they have dropped below 1200. we are looking to go below a thousand students because of the college rate. we work very hard to get the student backlog down to a manageable level. we are now back over 500 students in the backlog. that is about a two-year problem to get that back. it will only continue to grow as we move forward. from the training aspect, that has an impact. the other part of that is, as we look at the aviation portfolio modernization program, the training helicopter was one of

those aircraft we were looking at having replaced. that will be part of our look at the future to determine what we can afford and if we will still be able to incorporate that into our future buys and programs. >> this is the point that we want to emphasize. let's talk about how those numbers and the decrease in training of the aviation pilots in the air force and army affects our readiness and ability to do what we need to do. if you could just quickly comment on that. it is what keeps me up at night. >> it is in the navy, the air force, we are restricting all of their flight hours. we are only focusing on those combat aviation brigade's that are getting ready to the playback into afghanistan. we have reduced flight hours to where they are not at the proficiency level.

we are barely maintaining currency levels. in some areas, as night vision goggles, we are not able to maintain that currency. that has a huge impact on the training readiness of those units. >> my time has expired. i know it affects every person here in your position. it is something that we absolutely have to address, not just in the committee but as a congress. this hearing demonstrates exactly where we are going to be. thank you all for being here today. thank you for your service. >> i just want to note that our military officers will be given a chance to give a closing. after their closing comments, if any of the secretaries have additional thoughts, they will be given that opportunity. hopefully our questions will be directed and alyssa list of the types of information you give

us. in case not, you will have that opportunity at the end. >> this subcommittee has to take a look -- i know you have seen that. they said no weapons systems programs were canceled and no programs reported canceling or severely changing program contracts. they said osd officials agreed with this assessment. that kind of contradicts what dod was telling us what happened

under sequestration. we were told that the impact would be significant, dramatic, immediate. it appears that we basically avoided disaster in fiscal year 2013. my first question, and you can just say yes or no, do you agree with the assessment that no weapons systems programs were canceled and no programs reported canceling or severely changing program contracts? >> yes. >> i have not fully read the program. i want to comment on that. >> i would say that every program was impacted. we were able to use prior year to absorb some of the impact. frankly, the department of the navy had to push a significant amount of that impact. the impact is still staring at us across the board in the same programs. did we canceling? no. our priority was not to cancel and create more harm.

>> i concur with secretary stackley. what you didn't see was the ability of the services to use unobligated investment funds. those funds were earmarked or identified for each investment. we still have to reconcile. we still have to pay those bills. we were able to make good decisions in the near term. the services are always looking for an opportunity for reversibility. with the hope that the inflexibility of the sequester can be remedied by congress. >> i agree with my mates here. i will tell you that every

program we had in the marine corps was affected either by quantity or schedule. we also think the sequester in 13 has set the conditions to cancel programs in 14 depending on how the budget -- >> but i am asking about the report itself. nothing was canceled, no programs were ordered canceling. is that correct? those people agreed. >> i am at a loss because i haven't read the report. i don't know what the definition of severe is. >> i don't know if they talked to any of the service components at all. >> thank you. >> that could well be correct. i will say, the way it works is the step to cancellation is delaying. that has already started. i am not saying the program will be canceled.

but a major air force program has been put on hold. contractors were told to stop work. is that canceled? no. >> that is what we are having this hearing about. we get one report but we want to get the truth here. >> i think you have been indicating you have not had an opportunity to fully review the report. some of you have not even seen it. have you seen it at all? has anyone on the panel seen the report? >> and i won't ask that

question. >> let's provide you the report and leave this record open for you to give an opportunity and answer in our record. >> perfect. the air force -- you stated previously that it would do whatever it takes to protect your top three acquisition programs. assuming you would get reprogramming authority in a timely manner which this committee somewhat controls, do you think you could protect those programs fully in fiscal year 2014? >> i will get an answer for that. of those three programs, the two in general that are at biggest risk depending on the scenario are f 35 and kc 46. let's address each one had signed. for f 35, without doing any release, we are at risk of about four to five airplanes this next year. we will not have the opportunity to take advantage of another great negotiation to buy them back.

we won't have that. with some flexibility, that can be mitigated to some extent. the other part that we have to really pay attention to, which is beyond 14 but it is really important, is dishing the development program. the marines -- the air force, roughly 17. that is critical. anything we do that will prevent us from protecting that the government program is bad. can we protect it? i am hopeful we could. in the case of the tanker, if we are not given flexibility and it comes out to be like a 13.5% cut like we said, that is a problem. the tanker is one of those fixed price contracts that the government has a very good arrangement with.

there was a lot of excellent work after a lot of difficult lessons. >> if you could reprogram to save your top three, do you think you could do it? >> i think we could likely save those two that i am worried about with the following caveat. what that means for every other program -- >> that was my next question. >> the numbers shoot up. cutting the other programs i would say close to 30%. >> what are the other big program that you think would fall by the wayside? >> this is where we get to the discussion of everything being on the table. the types of dollars that one would have to find our only in the large platforms. you're looking at discussions of not starting new programs. if you look at the air force plan and say, assume that that is at risk. it is all on the table. >> a quick question on that. i am very interested. you talked about development of

the software with f 35. is that because of concurrence? >> no, that is separate. >> so software doesn't have anything to do with the fact that -- yes or no. yes or no with respect to concurrence. we are building this in a himferent manner. for the future, i need to know. are we running into problems? are you worried about development? >> concurrence is not driving that issue. >> ok. the last question i have has to do with the army. the testimony lays out a range of programs which will be cut because of sequestration. i think that is probably unacceptable. i am thinking about the fact that i keep reading articles all over monthlies and dailies and

weeklies, where press reports keep telling us that the active- duty army will be down to 420,000 by 2019. that is a smaller army than we have today. it is done fairly quickly. given this rapid decline in force structure, how has the army adjusted its procurement requirements and to your comments today take into account the reductions that people are projecting? >> first of all, we started as an army of 570,000.

we're going to an army of 490,000 by 17. under sequestration, we know that we cannot support an army we can't afford to pay for it, we can't afford to train it and we can't afford to equip it with sequestration. we are looking at the impact of sequestration and where we will have to take the army down to. there are numbers that range from anywhere from 380 two about a 450 number. our chief and secretary have talked about those scenarios faced on how we look at the plans, how we balance between readiness. we balance between modernization and there is still a lot of -- >> so refresh my memory.you arebefore we got into the two land wars of afghanistan andis

iraq, what was the active number in the army? >> 482,000. >> so you were thinking you were going to come down to 490. even more than you had when we got into two major wars. what does this have to do with the fact that the army is actually taking a look at other budget issues? >> i would say osd is taking a look at sequestration. we're all coming back to look at how we address those sequestration cuts that are being given to the services. we are manpower-intensive. we are about people. we are a land force. >> i know that. my husband spent 23 years in the army. >> about 40% of your budget goes against paying the bill for the manpower. that is part of our equation to get to where we need to go. we are going cap to take the force structure down. it is all components. active component, national guard and reserve. they all take proportional cuts. we have no choice but to do that.

we have taken that into account as we are looking at all of these different programs. changing the quantities, modernization impacts, different levels of where we will be -- we are. >> perfect. thank you for your answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the cuts because of the

sequester and everything else -- i have heard a few of the comments. significant impacts and other things. we have had other hearings. i think all of us heard summary startling information. basically, we were not combat ready to meet our current military contingencies. i might be paraphrasing that incorrectly. i know that specific question was addressed to all the different armed services. i think the chair was there. he can correct me if my memory fails me. my point -- the question i am leading up to, what you have said here, it almost leads to a permanent c4 or a permanent

declaration that each one of our armed services will not be combat ready in the near future, 10 years? this is very very scary. i would like you to comment on what i was saying. a lot of the things with the sequester, i don't think the average person understands it. they understand something where our armed forces are not prepared or combat ready to go to war or military situations where young men and women could die. that resonates at least in my opinion, to me, to my district. if you could comment on where i am going with this -- obviously, i am not a big fan of the sequester. particularly in regards to dod and national security. >> from an army perspective, i

will tell you i can break it down into a couple of categories. on the equipment side, you run them from the cr impact to the sequestration impact and the future budget impacts. we are putting soldiers at risk with a new start program for protection against ied's. we can't start that. there is no new start. cr has an impact on providing something that we want to start for soldiers in the fight now. the delays that result from this trying to get that third striker organization so we can get in for the last part of the fight. delaying has an impact. the patriot missiles, we will have four units that we will not have that for because of this. we talked about the engine.

it is going to the sink some programs that we are trying to attach to future programs which deal with network modernization. we're going to have to slow that down. we are now fielding only to those combat teams going into theater. that has a training impact. on the readiness side, we have testified that the fact that 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 are getting into the national training centers. all other brigade combat teams are not getting that opportunity because we don't have the money. and budget divided will -- environment we're in right now. the uncertainty of not knowing when we are going to have a budget or what the budget is going to be. , we are asked to for that. to do that, we have to plan.

we have to plan strategy, a budget. plan for aviation and ship depot maintenance. we have to train our people and have a plan for that. we also have to have maintenance .chedules with uncertainty, it is disruptive. with the budget environment we're in right now, we have artie seen what has happened to the third team. when we look at war team, the combination of the continuing resolution and sequester will impact training. it can effectively train. in 14, it will be more than twice. carrier air wings

will be reduced training. those overseas are getting ready and will have the training they need. starting to impact our ability to serve. the sequester in 2014 will impact mainly people. it will impact every aspect of it isvy because inflexible. when you take the inflexibility and stretch it out for 10 years, what you have is a navy that is ofs and less capable providing the surge that we used to. and maybe that is increasingly challenged to have the readiness that we need for the non- deployed units. a navy that is challenged when it comes to building the

strategic guidance, specifically power to to prove the kind of support that we need for counterterrorism and regular warfare. >> thank you. in theto make one note issue of the language we use with respect to sequestration. liftingtalk of sequestration, people who are discussing it generally want offsets to occur so that sequestration can be removed for department of defense. the issue ofue is flexibility or inflexibility, there are two aspects to sequestration. i would ask you to address this. is alsoom line number not right. if we say flexibility is what is needed, you are stuck with a lower number that will cause you to be incapable of achieving

goals. ans was supposed to be irrational program. it was intended to be a penalty. a budget deal we found that would solve the issue of sequestration, which is what we are hoping is resolved now. i do not want people to conclude the answer is we will provide flexibility and additional hours. i want to make that footnote. >> enqueue. -- thank you. i appreciate you being here and all that you do here. i am an army reservist. i know there are places we can make cuts.

we can prioritize. i have a great concern about readiness at this point. i have seen the number on the army side, what the projections will look like. what we have seen recently, we cut the military and deployed them. we asked them to go to libya. combination that cannot go on. we are asking way too much with way too little. i am a firm believer, and i have veterans best, i served but not during warp. i said if you were not there, we would never have peace. we need to maintain a strong

deterrent force whether we are at war or not. there should be a baseline that we maintain all waste and have the ability to ram pickup when we need to. because we cannot expect the industry to turn on and off and personnel to turn it on or not. when i look at cutting personnel in this economy, you will have people going on unemployment, and i know that comes out of your budget ultimately. shame the trend we're on. i sit on the committees and see everyone's concern and you have to testify in front of other people and you meet with the senate and hopefully the administration, and i really want to ask, is there anyone who does not get it. whatu find opposition to you are saying when you say we

are not ready? anyone saying back to you, you are ok, we will be fine with what you got. i am wondering why we're not getting this taken care of. >> congressman, i have never sequestrationay has had a positive effect on service readiness. you know the negative effects on the air force. back to ranking member sanchez question of the gao report. we went to our readiness attempts to counter down. combat coded were reduced at

that time. they were flying at the minimum rates. -- we deferred critical maintenance on our aging platforms in order to make sure we could pay the bills and continue with investment accounts. minimal impact. from an air force perspective, we were not ready and 13. it drives readiness. >> as i stated earlier, we are go intoparing those to

the fight. italian and for grade level of efficiency. we are now going down to the foot to not level. they may go down to the individual crew and squad bubble. that is due to only having the money to train them in the levels of the next the players are getting ready to go into the fight. talk about a deterrent force, basically what you say is we really do not have one right now. the ones that are trained and ready to go are the ones that are going. would that be correct? >> yes, sir. >> this is en masse us. i yield back. -- this is on us.

max thank you very much. thank you for being here. two questions into different areas. i apologize for being late. i want to clarify, one is on the . 35 revealrecent estimates life cycle cost about 20% lower than originally estimated. 16.6% lower than earlier pentagon estimates. over theeves a savings next five decades. is do you question feel like the initial operation capabilities as well as the what way will that be impacted by sequestration?

let me start, sir. i will ask general myers and walters to join in. first, the data you just described in terms of cost reflects the positive trend the program is on in terms of driving down cost, not just procurement but as we enter the in-service time of the program. greater visibility to the .perating support cost we're seeing projections come down in that regard and that is all good. the dates that were set by the service chiefs earlier this year that were supported -- that were sent to congress, they were such with a clear understand that with what the abilities would need to be to support them and realistic skills that go with those.

the marine corps and navy have 2018 withates, and capabilities with the aircraft. we have a good track on those. what thetand capability will deliver. equally immoral important is maintain the path that goes beyond the initial capabilities through the continued development of the program. right now, after much great effort on the part of the program industry to turn things around in terms of cost and technical performance, we see the positive returns we have been yearning for through a long program. i would like to add that the sequester pressure rises the .bility to get to ioc we remain committed. this will remove from the u.s.ee

marine corps. continued sequester, and i use the term and flexible, meaning that the sequester applies a percentage to a program project for activity. percentageske those , weich is a 10% sequester elect military personnel for the navy as a 14% impact to the program. that puts pressure and delays to the development and put that to get there in 2014. i know a lot of the data we have is from a 35 marines are flying right now. we are still on track.

we still think we can get to the 2017 ioc and the climates of the aircraft and where it needs to be. like all aircraft, if we get the money in the program and the engineers to look at it, cost to operate will come down. fear if we continue on that path, this will reduce efforts and would hate to see a spot him of the cost to continue. >> just a quick comment that the air force has seen the same

potential positive developments. >> a lot more work has to be done. , thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments. when you talk about multi-year procurements, i am a navy highlight by trade. we worked hard to get multi-year procurement. my concern is i have heard testimony that because of the sequester we are in a situation where we will have to give up a hot guy in the procurement is the, and the reason cost per unit will be higher if we cannot be multi-year procurement.

there are a number of concerns. highert per unit will be than it otherwise would be. that is a problem for the taxpayers. beyond that, we have an industrial base that will want to enter into long-term contracts, and now there is a political risk in doing so, beyond just the technical risk. you could comment on how does the sequester effect multi-year procurement? >> there are two parts to this. the multi-year procurement authorization is awaiting passage of the defense authorization act. it has been supported by the house and senate but we cannot move forward without the authorization. step one is we need its

authorized. it has to be included in the appropriations bill. it will provide for the multi- year. we putond impact, when together the multi-year construct a five year 32 brought theat requirement for substantial savings that goes with certification. when you look at the impact of sequestration in the first year of the multi-year where you are at risk of losing one of the first five aircraft, and potential over the five years of -- of continued sequestration. now you have the destabilizing impact of a program planet trying to bring stability and affordability that comes with that. what we are trying to hold onto here is the stability that multi-year provides, not just

the affordability it gives us but for the industrial base. trying to do that in the face of the storm called sequestration. we are working with industry, the contractor as we negotiate the multi-year and waiting on congress to fast -- past the appropriation and authorization bills so we can execute it. we have to do this in such a fashion that is down the stream there is another ship in terms of the budget, we will plan for the multi-year we provided, but if there is a shift in the budget, then that may well impact the program and have to construct this so we do not lose the savings for the aircraft that we ultimately buy. far as contracts, would there be cancellation of contracts as a result of the sequester? if you look across the

board, i think we have seven multi-years on the books right now. dear.is an ongoing multi- sequestration in two thousand 14 threatens three of the aircraft in the budget year. that would break the terms of the multi-year contract. i will tell you the savings that we get our core to the total program plan. regardless of what comes out of the congress in terms of appropriations in 2014, we will continue to work with industry to hold together going forward. for each we will go down the same path. >> when you think about the future of multi-year contracts am a what it seem reasonable that industry would build into the price of the products the rest of multiyear products might

not be worth what they otherwise indicated on paper, and as such, we would not benefit as much from future multiyear contracts? is that a fair assessment? rex almost. almost. frankly, the risk is on the government part. we are making a commitment to a certain quantity over a number of years. what industry provides back to us is a cancellation ceiling. we understand what our liability is associated with the nonrecurring cost they have occurred in order to achieve the savings multiyear promised. oure the government break part of the contract, we are in a negotiation situation to make it right forever -- for whatever we procure. that is a bilateral organization and will ultimately arrive at what is fair and reasonable for

both parties. >> i yield back. i appreciate your comments today, including your written statements. we appreciate each of you. you have very complex issues to manage. congressional lack of action or action. with each of you, not only are you anchored clearly, you see what is in the future and what is possible and what the options are as we go to new threats. that is why i think your statement on sequestration are so important. not just about what is happening today or tomorrow but also in the future as a result of these effects. i want to get each of the military officers an opportunity to add to the comments. anything they believed they would like to conclude with on the record, and then i will offer that to the secretaries. chairman turner, sanchez, and

other members of the committee. i would like to thank you for for the -- for the opportunity to testify today. however, the combined effects of the continuing resolutions, magnitude and inflexible nature of sequestration put at risk the ability to fully meet the requirements of the defense strategic guidance. annual continuing resolutions cumulatively weakened the equipping efforts over time, reducing new starts and orders and driving up the cost. of illustration, if the army operates under a full cr in 2014, we would be hase to do for new counter

her programs for soldier protection against ied's. we would also delay the vehicles to the third stryker brigade combat team and reduce combatant commanders patriot missiles for four units. as the army chief of staff has recently testified about sequestration, the army cannot reduce this fast enough so readiness and modernization will take the brunt of cuts through 2017. this will result in significantly degraded readiness and extensive modernization shortfalls in the near-term. the army may-2018 begin to rebalance some organization. we will do that by paying in structure. we were at significant risk to the army's ability. continue inn levels 2014 will compound the effects

of a cr. this is imposed because army assume significant risk in combat development and would reduce the apache helicopter procurement by 50%. it would halt the procurement of the war fighter information network. on 58ould have an impact combat teams. without relief of sequestration in the future, we would take increasingly significant actions by ending or delay in 100 acquisition programs. the sequestration levels what result in decreased capabilities for soldiers in every area from missileehicles to defense. we try to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars while balancing the missions we have. the combined effect undermined these efforts. the end state is a less modernized force at an increased cost that resulted in an

inefficient and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and an undersized, less capable force in the future. we urge congress to provide stability and eliminate sequestration. if we must operate under a continuing resolution, we ask you to provide a new start authority. doing so would help mitigate some of these effects. members of the subcommittee again, thank you for your unwavering support of the men and women of the u.s. army. i appreciate your opportunity -- the opportunity to testify today. >> chairman turner and members of the committee, it has been an honor to appear before you today to discuss the effects of the continuing resolution and the budget sequester on the navy's fiscal year fiscal acquisition program and industrial base. request sortst the defense strategic guidance

and enables us to continue to rebalance our effort towards the supportific rebalance, partners in the middle east and focuses our presence in key, strategic airtime crossroads. it also enables us to meet the highest priority capability of the geographic commanders. to be frank, sequestration combined with the continuing resolution in 2014 will be very hard on the navy. larger reductions and we did in fiscal year 2014 from a smaller amount to smaller submission. in fiscal year 2014 we do not have the prior year year assets we can use to mitigate the impacts as we did before. todo not have the ability carry over into the future years like we did in the past.

these are two compound. the continuingnd resolution will reduce our readiness in the near-term and reductions program that are required under the current law and long-term. we have felt compelled to cancel or defer maintenance and investment and critical programs, unmanned systems and weapons systems. as the nation continues to find a fiscal balance, the navy is endeavoring to ensure the near- term readiness and future war fighting capabilities are properly balanced. to do this, it is important to establish and pursue a plan for the future to develop a deliberate nature in how we go about finding fiscal certainty.

we are committed to an efficient use of the american taxpayer dollars. the reductions of this magnitude take time to implement and take time to breathe the savings from. they also need to be done very carefully and strategically. i previously testified to congress, i feel like the most serious impact of sequestration and continuing resolution is uncertainty. it is imperative we have a predictable budget and associated authorities. stability is what we need. thatll enable us to plan guides our efforts to sustain the appropriate readiness for today's navy while building a fleet for the future that is unable to deliver the most important presence and capabilities that our war needs.s as i testified just a few

minutes ago, the role is to operate going forward and be ready with a trained and capable force, but to do that we have to plan. we have to plan and have a strategy, budget. and shipbuilding plans. operation plan, maintenance schedules. thated trailer -- sailors are trained and ready to operate aircraft ships and when and where they are needed. sequestration and the budget uncertainty and immensely disrupt the nature of the combination impacts our ability execute efficiently. it disrupts our ability to operate. we saw that and fiscal year 2014. it disrupt the ability to train and maintain the way we need to, which then impacts the way we will operate in the next fiscal

year. most significantly, it disrupts our dedicated sailors, civilians and their families because of the uncertainty that is a challenging part of their everyday life. we understand what our responsibilities are. we also understand this is something we need to work through together. can do together to put certainty and stability to -- into the budget process and the automatic and inflexible sequester would not only be appreciated, but it would be 630 4000 navye sailors and civilians operating around the globe protecting this nation. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the united states navy.

>> it is my understanding the chairman has called for 10 more minutes. the chairman has asked if you could keep your comments relatively brief. >> got it. i will throw this piece of paper aware -- away here. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the marine corps is the nation's expeditionary force in readiness. our nation's hedge against uncertainty with forces poised to swiftly respond to crisis and disaster, offering immediate options for decision makers buying time for a fall on joint force. we mitigate the risk inherent in an uncertain world being able to respond in today's crisis today. our ability to mitigate the risk has compromised our inability to get a budget approved and the

facilities in sound management personnel and equipment and limited resources from one commitment to the next. sequestration level cuts and fiscal year 2014 will force us to forfeit long-term priorities to fund near-term readiness. impacts we face on readiness today will have primary and secondary effects while the primary effects will begin to be observable and fiscal year 2014, long-term effects will be even more devastating. sequestration has and will continue to have a significant negative impact on the civilian workforce. they continue to play a critical role and ground equipment maintenance, training operations and installation support services. and all of our family support

programs. the civilian workforce took a six day furlough. money was not the reason they chose to work for the marine corps. they chose to work for public service and to serve the fellow civilians. to make thehis united states the best country in the world. if we do not value contributions, many will choose to find a line of work elsewhere. this presents significant challenges in our ability to retrain and attract the talent we need. i thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. turner, members of the subcommittee -- the continuation of sequestration will make the air force significantly smaller, capable, flexible and less ready to meet the current military obligations. most importantly, it will make it very difficult for us to prepare to meet the challenges we will face in the future.

the erosion and readiness will carry far later confidence. it means we may not get there in time. for the jointnger team to win. when we do respond, we will put the invaluable men and women who go into harms way at greater risk. sequestration being fully implemented, the air force will not be ready to fight and will prepared inbe tomorrow's challenges. to maintain the minimal level of readiness, the air force will be forced to cut thousands of airmen and hundreds of platforms. are to maintain and platforms that are required to operate in highly contested environments. we will focus on the best gesture of an entire aging fleet and platforms and those less capable and survivable and heavily defended airspace.

we do not want to do this, but the bottom line is sequestration will need a smaller air force p -- will mean a smaller air force period. > the combined effects of cr and sequestration are devastating. we are reaching a historical low. , whichrch development will continue to degrade the capabilities in modernization and put our soldiers lives at future contingencies. we need budget stability without sequestration. the ability to plan furloughs, and government shutdowns. thank you for the opportunity to testify and your unwavering support of our soldiers. the congress and

department of defense share a common responsibility to protect the nation and take care of our men and women in uniform. we have prevented -- presented the strategic guidance as a document and tool to describe how we intend to meet the responsibilities and have submitted it at the president's request. did -- the determination of the funding is necessary to meet the strategic items. fullyudget request was supported by the congress. yet the department of the navy in 2013 andion out friends to take another 16 billion out in 2014. that result in a smaller navy, smaller marine corps, less ability to meet the defense strategic guidance. this at a time when peer competitors are increasing their force around the world.

turnerk you, chairman and thank you to your subcommittee work. adds finally at that -- that we need help in getting readiness back and help for the taxpayer. >> the title of the hearing was impacts of the continuing resolution and sequestration for modernization. i think we can say the conclusion is sequestration bad and getting worse. with your help hopefully we will be able to offset it. i know all members are very proud to lift it. i listed we mean there are offsets elsewhere in the budget so the sequestration act will not have an effect. thank you all for what you do. the meeting is adjourned. on c-span today, washington journal is next life with your phone calls. then, live coverage of the energy and commerce to midi

hearing on the affordable care act. minutes, we will talk with a member of the committee, texas congressman green and -- gene good morning, everyone, and welcome to "the washington .ournal e healthcare.gov tough contractors -- top contractors will be asked who is responsible for the glitches and what role the white house played in it. live coverage on c-span at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. president obama will try to pivot from the health-care law today, making a statement this morning to urge congress to act on immigration reform. live coverage of the president on c-span2