support easily. >> thank you. >> in your testimony you said having the opportunity to nominate an american to serve on the committee and appear before the committee is an effective way to ensure that the committee does not become a vehicle for creating international legal obligations contrary to u.s. interests. could you further explain why you think it is in the u.s. interest to have an american serving on the committee created by this convention? >> one of the ways in which the committee can have a legal effect even though its recommendations are nonbinding is through the creation of customary international law. the committee clearly does not have the power to create it, but its recommendations that other states react and adopt, there can be a basis for a claim that there is customary international law therefore the opportunity for the united states to appear to object to interpretations of the committee that might be thought to give rise to obligations could potentially defeat the formation that the united states would view as unacceptable. there are examples of this occurring in the context of, for example, the human rights committee taking positions that

certain rules of the state department they are not agreeing with. not ratifying the convention does not remove the ability to object to the formation of rules of customary or international either ran likewise, with effect to u.s. courts, it reduces the likelihood that a u.s. court would find there to be a rule of customary international law but to answer your question, the ability to have an american to nerve on -- to serve on the committee and the ability to actually engage with the committee likely affects the committee's work and may serve to actually ensure that those adopted are consistent with the american and option interpretation. >> thank you. it's great to have tammy duckworth here, an american hero . she is in a wheelchair and in 1990, we passed the ada to make

sure that there were ramps for those wheelchairs everywhere in our country. it would be great if she could go anywhere in the world as well and know that we are moving in that same direction. thank you so much for your service. back in 1990 when we did the ada, i was the chairman of the telecommunications committee so closed captioning for tv sets, and assuring that the phone system is available for deaf and blind people as well. in the 1996 telecom act, we extended that as well. in 2010, i authored with cliff stearns, a very conservative republican, and we were able to pass a law that says every one of these wireless devices needed to have an on ramp and we had to negotiate with the consumer electronics association, this

massive organization of thousands of companies because they had to sign off on it. now the deaf and blind can use these devices to matter where they are. wouldn't that be a good thing if that was true for the whole world? but all deaf and blind had the ability? i would like to ask attorney general this question -- attorney general thornburgh this question. what does it mean to have an open market for all of these devices that would be available to hundreds of millions of deaf and blind who would be empowered to be part of their economies? >> to ask the question is to answer it. >> not in congress. the words have to be spoken. i understand what you're saying. you believe the truth to be

self-evident but we are having this hearing. like i did not mean to be facetious. it would open up markets that are unavailable now either because of the governing process of the country in question or a lack of resources or what have you. but you get a consensus about the does liability and feasibility of these things and you can see remarkable advances taking place around the world which ought to be the business we are in. >> the consumer electronics association has written a letter of support for the treaty stating that the u.s. ratification of the treaty would encourage greater demand for u.s. companies skills and services as fellow nations begin to adhere to the new international standards. there should be no doubt, and other words, that this is a great economic benefit for american companies as well. of course we want to help all of those who are deaf and blind. that's the point of my law, to make it possible. we have to lead because we passed a law first.

pretty soon, every citizen on the planet will have one of these devices and wouldn't it be great if we were ensuring they were accessible to the deaf and blind as well? these devices made in united states have already complied with that lie and i think it -- with that law and i think it would be something that we would think would actually be in our best interests. there are several countries, including china, australia, argentina, who have already submitted reports to the disability committee and i understand the chinese admitted they have a long way to go to protect the rights and interests of persons with disabilities. if the chinese got serious about ensuring access to disabled persons, that would open up a huge market for the united states, would it not?

>> indeed. >> given that the market would open all of those markets, wouldn't you agree that a vote for ratification is a vote to support american businesses and create jobs here in the united states? >> i think perhaps that's why the chamber of commerce supports the treaty ratification. >> right now, no one from united states is sitting on the disabilities committee. if we had a delegate on that committee, do you think that would help u.s. businesses to expand their markets overseas? >> yes. >> would it not help in creating rules and regulations that would be used in order to expand in other countries? >> one would expect. >> congresswoman duckworth. >> i think the extent of opportunities for u.s. firms is really underestimated right now. we do the adaptive advice industry and it is a charm and display large one and one that

we certainly dominate in the world. we are not talking about just phones but wheelchair will -- accessible buses, homeschooling supplies for those who want to teach their kids at home. the range is tremendous. if we do not do this and american companies don't gain credibility as being the world's leader, we open the door for other nations who are competing with us in these fields, germany and iceland, where they do have industries and companies that provide adaptive devices as well. we will lose the market share. >> annie sullivan helped helen keller to teacher. but now we have moved from the palm to the palm pilot to the iphone and beyond. without that, they are not empowered.

we are doing something good for the planet as well. we're making sure we give people the ability to maximize their voice. without these devices around the world, they already have the capacity to be able to communicate and work. this is the essential agreement of citizenship on the planet if you want to be a productive person and that makes it possible for the first time in history for every deaf and blind person to fully participate in the economy of the country. it would be wrong to deny around companies the ability to make these products and to create jobs here in america. you can't do good and do well at the same time by supporting this treaty. >> i just have some final questions. mr. farris, you say this is the ideal "wedge issue" for future political campaigns.

is this because this is such a good divisive political issue for you that you have made some of the claims about the treaty that you have made? isn't why you stated the treaty proponents have a sort of soviet agenda? and your organization has made, what many of us think how much outrageous claims that the u.n. will determine how many parking spots are at american churches? >> the wedge issue comment, i believe this treaty would be the first in a line of human rights treaties coming before this committee. senator mccain misspoke, i'm sure, earlier. we have not ratified the treaty. i think that would be coming next. the conventional elimination of all forms against women would be coming next. i think this treaty is the first of many that would be in this range.

that was what was intended by this comment. on the parking space,, you have hypothetical -- parking space comment, you have a lot of hypotheticals. if there is no definition of disability and to give this organization the ability to define it, anything is possible. i was making an extreme case to show that anything is possible. >> i agree you are trying to make an extreme case. on the wedge issue, you're not talking about a whole host of other treaties. you were talking about this treaty, the social story of washington gridlock. on the question of the parking lot reference, which you yourself say is an extreme example, the organization you are affiliated with, parentalrights.org, they issue 15 things you have wrong with the treaty.

issue two, the number of handicap spaces required at your business, school, will be established by your u.n. and not your local government. i would like to submit that article for the record, without objection. i can understand and respect your view, even though i disagree with it, but when a statement like that is made, i think it undermines the credibility of the nature of how far one could take this treaty. let me ask you something else. in article seven, parentheses two of this treaty. it states that all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interest of the child should be a primary consideration. that seems like an incredibly noncontroversial statement to me. i read the testimony last year as well.

can you give me one example about why a child with disability should not be a primary consideration? >> it is a legal term of art and it means the government gets to substitute its judgment for that of the parent. >> that is your interpretation. >> i am quoting president geraldine van buren, the international expert of rights of a child. >> let's look at the convention says. it says nothing about the state setting into the shoes of the parent. article 23 describes, in detail, protecting parental rights and the rights of the extended family to care for and make decisions for children's with disability.

i'm dumbfounded how you can make a noncontroversial statement and twisted into something that is rather sinister. >> senator, the treaty the iccpr, the language is missing. if the language was in the treaty, we would be in a different position. this is a historical practice. there's no direct statement about parents rights and education in this treaty. this is a legal term of art that has been used by the german high court to take parents children away from them if they homeschool them. >> this is not a german high court. this is the united states of america. the only high court i care about is the supreme court of the united states. let me ask you this finally.

you quoted him as a buttress for your legal arguments and i appreciate you have an llm from london, which i understand is a distance learning course - [gavel] there are no comments permitted before the committee of approvals or disapprovals. they can ignore the declarations. as a matter fact, some of the most conservative lawyers concluded that, in sum, since the early days of the nation, the president and senate have attached a variety of conditions to their consent to treaties. no one has ever invalidated these conditions. finally, when you quote professor hentgen, you suggest that he would not have supported ratifying this treaty. >> he would support ratification.

>> i'm glad we agree. >> a number of internationalists would support it. they think it's good that we submit the united states to the supervision of the international community. i don't. we at least agree on the operation of international law. they're having an international law in obligation. we disagree about if this is good or bad. american self-government as part of the brand we should be exploring. >> i agree and that is why here he do argue that the treaty creates obligations of others do not see. in the new suggest that the united states must follow your interpretations in terms of ratifying the treaty. i think we have a fundamental disagreement here. under the constitution, the reservations, understandings, and declarations of advice and consent are what are binding. i ask unanimous consent to

include a legal memo to set the record straight on the advocacy. he would have recognized that just because the united states bought is adequate to comply with the treaty is not a good reason not to ratify. he would have supported the treaty, and my view, because it advances human rights and makes us full participants in the treaty. the fact is the human rights institute, which he founded, and the human rights first organization, on which he served up its board of directors, both support the treaty. we just have a fundamental disagreement as to what, in fact, will be our obligations and what will be the reach. i believe that homeschoolers will be absolutely fine. i know there is money raised on this issue. maybe it is a wedge issue, but it will modify homeschoolers

because there is very broad support for homeschool. >> thank you, senator menendez. thank you for convening this hearing to consider the conventions, rights for persons with disabilities. bipartisanship as a starkly been -- has historically been the hallmark of american leadership protecting the rights of persons him and in particular the rights of persons with disabilities. i was proud to have the opportunity to work with you, senator mccain, senator durbin, senator barrasso, and others in the last congress. ratification will serve to solidify equal opportunity for disabled persons through increased access, mobility, and protection of our disabled americans abroad, especially when did veterans. promoting the rights has historically garnered the support of a very broad range of americans. i'm hopeful the senate can come together to protect dignity for all by ratifying it in this congress.

last year he missed a great opportunity to ratify this and it is my hope that we do not make that same mistake again. we cannot afford to miss the opportunity and i encourage those of us who may vote again to ratify. if i might, first, congresswoman duckworth, thank you for your service and your inspiring story of perseverance, engagement, and continued service. i got to be able to be here for your testimony earlier. in your view, how is america's failure to ratify this treaty impacting our leadership on disability issues globally? >> thank you, senator. i travel to asia earlier this year where i went to talk to disability rights groups and talk about what's being done in the united states. one of the first questions asked by the rank and file people was

that americans did not vote to ratify the convention. sitting in that room is a representative of the united states and i had nothing to say except that we were going to work on it and try to ratify it soon. it allows me to recover for my injuries and live the life that i live and serve my nation but it could not do that with authority. one of the first questions i was asked, are you going to ratify it? i had egg on my face. if we are going to lead the world, this is in so many areas. we dominate the world in athletics. we have the olympics coming up. our athletes, our hero olympians -- para olympians, a lot of them are wounded warriors and we are

really elevating the sport around the world. anywhere there is one, they must make the venues wheelchair and 88 accessible. because of the participation -- make it ada accessible. i will now be able to go and see the great wall of china which was never accessible before. the way we can touch the world is endless. we go in with a lack of credibility because we have not ratified this treaty. we should get the head of the table and we are not. thank you mr. attorney general, thank you for your active work in supporting this. what have been some of the resident results in the crpd in countries that have ratified so far?

has it made progress in promoting disability standards? what difference does it make? >> it's probably difficult to quantify it at this early stage precisely what differences have been made. you heard today from any number of people anecdotal evidence of the change in the prospects for change that clearly will flow from our leadership role on this. i think a good project for this committee, if i may be so bold, would be to catalog. i do not have any particular and -- particular insight, but i think you have able staff who could perhaps put together a compilation from around the world of the kinds of positive changes. i say with no compunction that it would show a mighty impressive record.

it's early in the game yet come yet, is early in the game i think, if you use that for a basis of judgment. i would be greatly surprised if there were not marvelous stories to be able to share with the public. might,st question, if i mr. chairman? >> attorney general and professor meyer, it was just in the last exchange that if we were to ratify this treaty we would be submitting the united states to "the supervision of the international community." does that strike you a characterization of the american sovereignty that we would be submitting to the supervision of the international community? >> i heard the claim made before and searched the record for any indication that it is either intended or possible given the current posture of the deliberations on the convention of this body. i don't think it's a realistic assessment.

it's a bit alarmist and good propaganda. this is not a country that will "sumbit" to any worldwide body. we show our independence in any number of bodies. why we would choose to roll over on an issue where we have such a leadership role established already is unthinkable to me. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. professor meyer, would we be compromising our sovereignty by submitting to the global community or by leading and demonstrating our commitment? >> the characterization that we would be submitting for supervision would be an overstatement. the community does not have any -- the committee does not have any legal authority to compel changes to federal law. provided there is an appropriate

package, we would be in a position to say that congress and the united states continues to enjoy the ability to decide what federal law requires. >> i would like to thank all of the witnesses from the first panel, the separators -- the senators from earlier, and everyone who has testified today. >> i appreciate you letting me ask a few more questions. congresswoman duckworth, i appreciate your inspiration and your comments about being in asia. one reason we are all concerned about the legality, i don't think there's anybody on this committee does not appreciate deeply the thrust of this effort that when we pass laws begun by them. -- that when we pass laws, we go i them. by them. some of the countries that we deal with, that's not the case. i know the attorney general mentioned we are a country with a real law. it seems all of the advocates

for this treaty would agree that delving in and getting it right so that we don't end up having unintended consequences is a worthy effort as we move forward over the next few weeks. is that correct? >> they are the key tasks that have to be performed in working on the final version that will be voted on because they will spell out the explicit guidelines that will endure long past the debate that goes on in this body. >> mr. meyer, it seems you have offered some really constructive comments relative to some of the changes that may be made. we would love to work with you to try to develop those and try to address some of the issues. i know we talked about the committee. in my understanding, we would have a representative but it would be temporary. it would rotate and we would have somebody on the front-end. over time, this committee could do some things to establish customary international law. is there a way, in your opinion, to inoculate ourselves from the evolution that can occur on

these committees over time, 20, 30, 40 years that would protect us from customary international law that could be developed by the committees? >> there is a doctrine that provides state that object during the formation of a rule of international law is not down by that rule. one could imagine an understanding that the united states understands that the interpretations that the committee are not a basis for the formation of customary international law and objects to any rule of customary international law formed on the basis of the committee's interpretation alone. i think that would be the groundwork for the claim that the united states was not going to be bound by customary international law. the state department monitors the actions of the committees and make sure that we do object in those cases where we find them objectionable.

>> the committee forms a living organism. some people say, the ada standards are the gold standard today, but it could be that other laws have to be developed in our country. but you believe that customary international law, we could inoculate ourselves fully from that evolution. i see proponents of this treaty shaking their heads up and down. that would not be an object in from your standpoint to the advocates? >> it seems to me that one body cannot make rules behind its successor in the legislature. there will be a call for oversight. the definition of disability under the ada has already been

changed and it has been in effect only 25 years. that is why we have congress and the courts and not some ultimate executive branch decisions that are being made. >> doctor, it seems to me that you agreed that the issues you are concerned about could be dealt with. is that correct? >> i have to say that i am not optimistic that we could be fully inoculated from customary international law's evolving. it does not involve us. this is something that is international opinion. volvesl all -- it e internationally through other court decisions such as the columbia-argentina cases. we cannot inoculate ourselves

from what the world opinions are. i think it would be a minimum to try to protect ourselves from 25a in the treaty. i am not optimistic an objection -- i am not optimistic a reservation would do it. if we think we are getting pressure now, wait until we have to go every four years before the committee. we will get pressure to remove every one of our reservations . >> but to remove those reservations, that would require congress to act to remove those reservations. do you think -- >> forgive me, i was not clear. there are a lot of folks that spoke today that think we are

owing to lose credibility altogether. if we do not ratify, we will be out of the table. i think that is excessive. we will maintain our credibility. 138 countries have already ratified without us ratifying. great britain. spain has passed a comprehensive law. african nations are making differences. even without us ratifying, and time and again i hear when i am at the u.n. from delegates, you are the leaders on this. we understand you have not ratified but you are still the leader. again, i think we go down this path and go through reservations if we are afraid by ratifying, we have gone too far. we arty have the authority, credibility, and leadership to make a difference around the world. >> would you work constructively to do what we can to get to a place where these ruts alleviate most of the concerns you have? i know you have the concern

about customary international law. >> i would be happy to work with him. >> my final question. mr. ferris seem to strongly disagree with mr. meyer. the issues he is concerned about can be resolved. >> i think it is possible to write something that would address my concerns. rud would be illegal under the terms of the treaty. i think the rud -- >> illegal where? >> illegal in any court. the question becomes whether we really ratified the treaty. i think the better view is that we adopt the treaty with a reservation which is opposite to the objective of the treaty, we are not a party.

we are undertaking, or pretending to undertake the obligation and not really doing it. i don't really think that what what satisfy my arguments would be illegal for that reason. i haven't seen anything to date that has come close to that. given the experience of the homeschooling community in the last year with this administration, where it was interpretation of international treaty law on the child standards, the same thing we are concerned about here, we don't trust, given the fact we are being mistreated by this administration right now on an

immigration issue in this term of the law. moreover, this is the same administration that told us that if you want to keep your insurance policies, you can. trusting the promises is not at a high level right now. >> if you would respond to that, mr. meyer? >> thank you, senator. to be clear, and no u.s. court is going to disregard it whether it is contrary to the treaty. i am aware of no instance in which a court has ignored one. it is mostly that another party might object that the united states had reservations. there is no way that united states can be bound to something we have not consented.

it is not possible by the virtue of some party objecting that the reservation will be struck and the united states will be bound by the treaty. either the treaty would be deemed not to apply, or the objection would be answered and everyone would understand that united states has entered this reservation. it is possible that a committee might opine that the reservation was made contrary to the ideals of the treaty. it would be up to a state party to advance that argument. >> so, we are the country that has the gold standard. advocates would like for us to play a role throughout the world and in helping develop that gold standard around the world. you are saying that if we develop ruds in our opinion absolutely inoculate us from outside laws, and it is struck

down, the whole treaty falls on our standpoint. we are not bound to other parts of the treaty. >> that is correct. there is no court that would have jurisdiction to strike down a reservation. the committee does not have the authority to formally strike down a reservation. >> the advocates, one of the advocates, mr. general, you you would say that we would be better off with it hearing and being bound by this treaty with ruds that did this very thing. that would be acceptable to you as an advocate for us having those kinds of disclaimers relative to our own internal and domestic laws. >> i don't think there is any choice.

what we have exemplified historically in this country is a commitment to assuring to the world's people that benefits and advances that we have made in our own country. i don't see disability rights to which there is an obvious strong commitment in this country, going back to an preceding the ada. it is no different than the other important principles that we have fought and died for over the years. i don't think that any stratagem that is designed to cut our ratification of the treaty would be unacceptable. at the same time, i think it is entirely possible to draft ruds that are satisfactory to most reasonable people in looking what the problem is. >> mr. chairman, thank you and

thank all of you as witnesses for your time. >> one final comment. since we are developing a record here, i can't let go of a different view. there is a constant reference to the columbia case. i am disappointed that you use it in that way. with reference to the assertion that columbia's high court overturned the country's protection of the unborn invoking the non-binding comments of the u.n. treaty body as it relates to this treaty. the fact of the matter is the columbia case has nothing to do with the disabilities treaty. it is a 2006 case. columbia did not ratify the disability treaty for another five years after that decision. the columbia case cites a different convention, a treaty

to which columbia had no reservations, no understandings, no declarations. by contrast, our ratification, should we do so, of the disability treaty is not self acting. it could not be used for lawsuits in u.s. supreme court's. the u.s. supreme court has upheld that. you know, we need to be clear about the assertions that we make when we are creating a record. i felt the responsibility to make that clear. let me thank all of the witnesses for their testimony. i appreciate all the members that have attended and the thoughtfulness with which they

approach the issue. i appreciate and want to thank those who have bared with us and have watched the hearing from overflow room since we did not hold this in -- inside of the traditional hearing room. we appreciate your forbearance and your watching the democratic process and the overflow rooms. he record will be open until the close of business on thursday we. this hearing is adjourned. [gavel] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> some more international news now. an article from the bbc and the talks in geneva about iran's nuclear program. britain's formal -- foreign secretary says we must seize the moment. france says there is no certainty of a deal and

president obama called israeli prime minister to allay israel's fears. he updated the -- mr. netanyahu said he rejected the deal that is being worked on in geneva and his country would not be obliged to abide by reported -- to abide by it. talks will probably end today without a deal. we're going to take a look at some tweets from members of congress on the typhoon in the lapine. the chair of the house of the foreign affairs committee says my thoughts are with the people of the philippines in the wake yan.eadly super typhoon hai employment and nondiscrimination act, between illinois legalizing same-sex

marriage and the senate passing a good week for equality in america. congress will be back on tuesday. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c- span two. senator chuck grassley is our guest and we'll talk about the farm bill, nsa surveillance for a rams. he is a member of the budget --ference committee that has here's some of the interview. >> i don't believe it will be easy for us to make an agreement and thethe republicans democrats because the democrats want to increase taxes. they want to forego sequestration. if there's going to be an agreement, it needs to be a willingness of republicans to give something up on sequestration. that will only happen if there wea long-term solution that

can arrive at between social security and medicare and including tax or four. canton that happen -- including tax reform. can that happen question mark we are going to work to get to that direction. congressman ryan is working urray of the patty m senate budget committee to get in that direction. it is a tough row to hold. -- two ho. hoe. >> it is now called the mercedes-benz superdome in the new orleans. built at public expense after hurricane katrina badly damaged it. when a hosted football games again, it was a feel-good story. the public paid for the repairs.

the league put in a token amount. there has been about a billion dollars invested into the superdome. man who owns the new orleans states keeps almost all of the revenue generated there. -- rebeln't rebel of against this because they do not understand this is taking place. they feel there is nothing they can do about it. it is based on insider deals. it is largely based on insider deals. the most recent time there was a vote-- there was a public to renovate the miami's stadium. >> more with greg easterbrook sunday night at 8:00. chuck hagel talks about the use of drones and the military's new force -- force posture in asia. speaker andeynote

spoke for about 35 minutes. >> if you have ever seen the organizational chart of the department of defense, you might have noticed it's a little different from most corporate or business arrangements. the structures tend to put people in boxes. what you will notice about the pentagon is that the box at the very top has two people, not one, but two people in the same box. the secretary of defense and deputy secretary of defense. john amory and i each have the pleasure of working inside that box, not as the secretary but as the deputy. we can both tell you there are downsides to this arrangement. since the secretary chooses who gets what assignments, you can guess who gets to visit with foreign leaders and who gets to go to guantánamo. having watched firsthand from the closest possible position inside the box

with the secretary of defense, i can tell you secretary hagel has one of the toughest jobs in the world. the job entails an extraordinary range of responsibilities and demands a unique combination of personal qualities. when you consider his experience and achievements, his resume reads like he has prepared for the job his entire life. his patriotism is unquestioned. even though he could have gone off to college, he instead enlisted in the army and served two tours of duty as a squad leader in vietnam, earning two purple hearts for being wounded in combat. secretary hagel is a highly successful businessman who understands the financial and organizational complexities of the job. he is a former senator, quit to -- equipped to deal with political realities. he was involved in television, so he is ready for the public

challenges. as a former deputy at the veterans administration, he has demonstrated the compassion by fighting to elevate awareness of agent orange and the damage it did to some of our troops. in just a short time in office, he has demonstrated all of these qualities and more, proving he is the right man for the job. ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct honor to present you a true american patriot, the 24th secretary of defense, secretary chuck hagel. [applause] >> bill, thank you. to my friend john amory, thank you. thank you each for what you have done for our country, for what you continue to do, and congratulations on this spectacular new building.

not only is it a remarkable achievement, but it is a testament to this institution and what it has meant for so many years to this country as it has contributed to the shaping and molding and the outcomes of our policies in the world. you continue to do that. to your board and to your leaders, everyone associated , i congratulate and thank you for what you do and what you continue to do. i want to especially recognize sam nunn for his leadership. he was not exactly a bystander in this effort and continues to be rather engaged. he is one of those unique

leaders that our country produces at the right time. he has, for many, many years been one of the real anchors of our national security policy and one of the real leaders of our country. csisow what he has meant to and i particularly appreciated his risking his reputation in helping introduce me at my confirmation hearing. i notice he quickly escaped after that. after john warner made the second introduction, he said you are on your own, chuck. [laughter] sam was more genteel. he just left. [laughter] but i am honored to be here and i'm honored to be here to help welcome your participants and

also kickoff and always -- an always very important event. again, congratulations. today, this conference will discuss and continue to help shape america's continued national security priorities. it continues a tradition going back to 1962 when great thinkers and leaders were brought to get -- were brought together, like edward teller and henry kissinger and others like those three men for the center's inaugural security conference. their goal was to look 10 years into the future and define political, military, and economic strategies that would help america ultimately prevail in the cold war. to determine, as david abshire once wrote, how to use power in all its forms to influence the actions of adversaries or would

be aggressors as well as friends and allies. that is the essence of strategy. this kind of long-term perspective is always needed and will always be required. but it is especially relevant today as we try to manage the complexities of a volatile, dangerous and rapidly changing world. particularly when geopolitical and political gridlock and budget uncertainty here at home continue to undermine the strategies necessary to protect america's interests and enhance its future. i would like to take this opportunity to join you and looking acrossin the strategic landscape and share with you a few per spec is

-- a few perspectives on our shifting long-term national security challenges, the u.s. military's role in addressing these challenges, and what this means for the department of defense going forward. as we all know, america's challenges are far more different and complex today than the single defining threat we faced in 1962. they are also far different than they were in 2002. when our nation was reeling from the most devastating terrorist attack in our history or even a few years ago, when 100,000 u.s. troops were on the ground in iraq and tens of thousands of troops were on their way to afghanistan. with the end of the iraq war and the winding down of the combat mission in afghanistan, president obama has been moving the nation off of a perpetual war footing, one in which our priorities and relationships around the world word dominated by the response to 9/11. as the united states makes this

transition to what comes after the post 9/11 era, we are only beginning to see the dramatic shifts underway that will define our future and shape our interactions in the world. and require our national security institutions to adjust and adapt. this is the story of history of mankind, adaptation and adjustment. chief among these 21st century trends are shifting geopolitical centers of gravity, reflecting the astounding diffusion of economic power and geographic change. china, india, brazil and indonesia are all helping to reshape the global economy. regional powers like turkey are maturing and asserting greater independence from traditional allies and patriots. -- and patrons. the asia-pacific region has taken on a greater prominence in global politics, commerce and security. and as latin america and africa

develop and strengthen, they will be important leaders in helping to build a secure and prosperous 21st century world. cyber activists, terrorists and criminal networks and nonstate actors are also playing a role in defining the international system. new structures of governance and power are emerging as the world's population becomes more urbanized, mobile and technologically advanced, bringing new standards and expectations as they develop. technology and 21st-century tools of communication are bringing people closer together than at any time in history of man, helping to link aspirations and their grievances. my friend, one of the political thinkers has called this phenomenon a global political awakening. nowhere is this more evident

than in the historic turmoil that is embroiling the middle east. not since the decade after world war ii has mankind witnessed such a realignment of interests , influences and challenges. history shows these changes and inflection points are not easy to perceive. the former secretary of state recounted his own experience during another defining time in history when he said only slowly did it dawn upon us that the whole world cost structure and order we had inherited from the 19th century was gone and the struggle to replace it would be directed from two bitterly opposed and ideologically irreconcilable power centers. even as we begin to see dramatic shifts, we know the rapid pace of change will only accelerate as the world undergoes and historic generational

shift. more than 40% of the world's 7 billion people today are under 25 and 90% of them live outside the united states and europe. particularly turbulent regions like the middle east and sub-saharan africa will continue to experience these challenges as their populations increase and reach far ahead of the educational and employment opportunities that must match them. they will present more uncertainty and risk to global peace, prosperity and stability as we confront an array of new 21st-century challenges. the challenge of terrorism has evolved as it has metastasized since 9/11. this will continue to demand unprecedented collaboration with partners and allies on counterterrorism efforts. many share a common threat regardless of state differences or political ideologies. destructive technologies and weapons that were once the province of advanced militaries

are being sought by nonstate actors and other nations. this will require our continued investment in cutting edge space -- cutting-edge defensive space and cyber technologies and capabilities like missile defense, as well as offense of technologies and capabilities to deter aggressors and respond if we must. sophisticated cyber attacks have the potential of inflicting debilitated damages on critical infrastructure. our adversaries will try to use them to frustrate our military advantages and power, striking at the underpinning strength of a nation, our nation and economy. this will require we continue to place the highest priority on cyber defense and capabilities. meanwhile, natural disasters, pandemic diseases, and the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction -- destruction

present further destabilizing realities to regions in the world. regional tensions in the middle east and elsewhere continue to have the potential to erupt into larger scale conflicts, drawing in the united states and russia. some of the most complex and challenging threats remain from heavily armed nation states like iran and north korea. we continue to adapt to present and emerging threats from nonstate groups, terrorists, and criminal networks, and from within weak states. statehood can be a fiction that hides dangers lurking beneath. all of these challenges will be with us for the foreseeable future. there is not a short-term vision -- short-term solution to these 21st century threats. we must manage through these realities as we engage these complex problems, staying

focused on our long-term interests and long-term objectives and outcomes. the imperfect outcomes may be the best we can expect, working our way toward the higher ground of possible solutions. leveraging all aspects of our power, we must multiply and enhance our efforts by working through coalitions of common interest like nato. this is in fact our future. just as we have done since world war ii, but it now may be more essential than ever before. while these challenges are not america's responsibilities alone, they will demand america's continued engagement. no other nation, no other nation has the will, the power, the network of alliances to lead the international community in addressing them. however, sustaining our leadership will increasingly depend not only on the extent of

our great power, but in an appreciation of its limits and a wise deployment of our influence. we must not fall prey to the notion of american decline. that is a false choice and far too simple an explanation. we must remain the world's only global leader. however, the insidious disease of hubris can undo america's great strengths. we almost not fall prey to -- we also must not fall prey to hubris. national and personal executives about change and the rate of change will continue to dominate much of our public debate. these must he placed in a broader on texts, particularly -- placed in a broader context, particularly because many of the challenges facing us are political, not structural. we remain the world's preeminent military and economic power, and

as we deal with new constraints on defense spending, the united states will continue to represent 40% of global defense and most of the world's other leading military powers are close allies of america. but what has almost always distinguished the united states is not the existence of our great power. rather, it is the way in which we have used our power for the purpose of trying to make a better world. we have made mistakes. we will continue to make mistakes. but we cannot allow the overhanging threat of future tocalculation and mistakes paralyze or intimidate our will and our necessary decision- making today. in the 21st century, the united states must continue to be a force for and an important symbol of humanity, freedom, and

progress, for all mankind. we must also make a far better effort to understand how the world sees us and why. we must listen more. we must listen more. after more than one decade of costly controversial and that times open ended war, america is redefining its role. at the same time, americans, including elected officials, are becoming skeptical about our foreign engagements and responsibilities. a trap as as deadly hubris. and we must avoid both, pursuing a successful foreign policy for the 20 first century. possibilities for all mankind, tempered with the wisdom that has been the hallmark of our national character. that means pursuing a principled and engaged realism that employs

andomatic, economic, security tools, as well as our values to advance our security and our prosperity. out across the strategic landscape, the united states military will remain an essential tool in foreign policy. be usede that must wisely, precisely, and judiciously. securityhe pressing challenges i have described today have important diplomatic and national, global, economic, and cultural components, and they cannot and will not be resolved by only military strength. as we go forward into ahistorical he can predict the to place will need more emphasis on our civilian instruments. while adapting our military so that it remains strong, capable, second to none, and irrelevant in the face of threats marked as indifferent -- and relevant

the face of threats marked as in the past decades. critics,l always be but our success ultimately depends not on any one instrument of power, it depends on all of our instruments of power, working together, and it depends not only on how well we maintain our instruments of power but how well they are balanced and integrated, and the leaders and strategists have been arguing for this kind of shift for several years. 2007, i was honored to serve on the cs ies commission on smart power. was cochaired. it called for a developing an resourced strategy base and toolkit to achieve american objectives for strong

and soft power. its conclusions were echoed soon after by secretary of defense bob gates, who spoke on this topic here, or at the last csis., csi ask -- we still have a long way to go to fulfill the promise of that, but we are working towards it. president obama's resolve to take military action to respond to assad regime's use of chemical weapons helped create an opening for diplomacy with russia, which we pursued. that led to a un security council resolution and to the involvement for the organization for the prevention of chemical weapons inspectors on the ground in syria, working to oversee the removal and destruction of chemical weapons. we are on a course to eliminate one of the larger stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and dod has not only maintained military pressure on assad

it hasand will continue, also developed technology that may very well be used to destroy the chemical weapons. have another possibility with iran, where we are engaging on a diplomatic path to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the united states is clear i do about the challenges and uncertainties that lie ahead. clear-united states is eyed about the challenges and uncertainties that lie ahead. theill look to deter destabilizing activities of iran and to work with and protect our allies and our interests. and these are but two pieces of the global complexities we will continue to face in the 21st century. in both cases, our military power has been an important part

of the work to possibly defined -- to find these resolutions. we recognize that there is risk in all of this. a risk-o not live in free world. we never have. and we never will. we must work to find the smartest and most effective solutions and problems. military force must always remain an option. but it should always be an option of last resort. the military should always play a supporting role, not a leading and in addition to the balance we are seeking to achieve is in the pacific region. the american military power played a destabilizing role in the region. security, advance stability, and prosperity through our commitments to our

allies and our partnerships. they build new capabilities. defensedepartment of was not in the lead for the rebalancing in the asia-pacific. one thateffort that also consists with important economic, diplomatic, trade, and cultural conditions. all of these will remain a top priority as we continue to implement this strategy. going forward, the united states must use military strength as a supporting component to a comprehensive strategy to protect and advance american interests in the 21st-century. this requires striking a careful balance between all elements. overdependence carries with it risks, and consequences, letting our military strength atrophy would invite disaster.

must sustainates the kind of military power that gives our diplomacy strength, assures our allies around the world, and deters our adversaries. we must continue to have a military of unmatched fighting power, and we must be prepared to respond to confrontation and in a new and profoundly volatile world, working closely with our allies and partners. the united states military has always proved capable of redacting to new realities and geopolitical realignments, even when research says -- resources were limited. departments. we must assure our military is andinuing capacity readiness. that includes a continued focus on capacity building for our closely withrking

them and through alliances, but today, we face the danger of our current budget crisis and deep cuts imposed by sequestration will cause an unnecessary situation and dangerous degradation of military readiness and capability. the department, is currently facing sequester level cuts in the order of $500 billion over 10 years. this is in addition to, in addition to the 10-year reduction in the dod budget that is already underway. fast, too are too much, 200 abrupt, and too your responsive. dod took a 37 billion sequester cut during the past the school year, and we could be forced to absorb another cut this fiscal year. we are looking at nearly one

trillion dollars in dod cuts over this ten-year period, unless there is a new budget agreement. we are currently operating under no budget. we are operating under a continuing resolution, which continues to present dod with one of its most difficult challenges, uncertainty. dod cannot responsibly, efficient way, and effectively plan, strategize, and implement national security policies with this cloud of uncertainty continuing to hang over us. us into a very bad set of decisions. ingres's must act to provide the department with time and flexibility to implement reductions more strategically. we do not have the option of ignoring reality or assuming something will change. leaders across the department will continue to give their best clear-ide assessment -- but we alsoents,

must prepare the force for whatever lies ahead, with a clear appreciation of the dod vital responsibility of protecting this nation. greatbecoming such offense, my top priority has been helping to lead in not only responding to these fiscal and strategic challenges but also shaping the options to our advantage, and to the extent we can, controlling our own destiny. i directed strategic choices in management, which over the course of several months identified options for reshaping our forests and our institutions in the difficult scenario is. start trade-offs in military capabilities that will be required, if the sequester level cuts persist, but it also identified opportunities to make changes and reforms.

in underscore the reality that the dod still possesses resources and options. efficiently to more match our resources to our most important national security requirements. we can do things better. we must do things better, and we will. to that end, in the months since the strategic review was completed, leaders across dod and the military services have been working on our longer-term budget strategy, particularly through the department quadrennial defense review. resources being undertaken. this will require significant change across every aspect of our defense enterprise. i have identified six areas of focus, six areas of focus for

our budget and strategic efforts going forward. working closely with the service secretaries, the service chiefs, the battle commanders and dod leaders, these six priorities will help determine the shape of our defense institution for years to come. focus we will continue to on institutional reform. coming out of more than one decade of war and budget growth, there is a clear opportunity and need to reform and reshape our entire defense enterprise, including paring back the world's largest backlogs. the first step we took was to announce a 20% reduction in budgets, beginning with the office of the secretary of defense. our goal is not only to direct more of our resources to real military tip abilities and readiness but to make organizations flatter, more responsive to the needs of our men and women in uniform.

second, we will reevaluate the military sports planning. -- assumptions that guide how the military and heorganize, train, quit our forces. i have asked leaders to take a close look at these and question whichpast assumptions, will also be reevaluated across the services. the goal is to assure they theer reflect our goals and shifting strategic environment, the evolving capacity of our allies and partners, real-world threats, and the new military capabilities that reside in our force and in the hands of our potential adversaries. we must make sure that contingency scenarios drive for the structure decisions and not the other way around. the third priority will be prolongedfor a military readiness challenge, in managing readiness and

sequestration, the services have rightly protected the training of the deploying forces to assure that no one goes into harm's way unprepared. that is our highest responsibility to our forces. already, we have seen the beenness as training has curtailed, flying hours reduced, ships not steaming, and exercises being canceled. the strategic choices in management review showed the persistence of sequester-level cuts could lead to a readiness crisis, and unless something changes, we have to think urgently and creatively about how to avoid that outcome, because we are consuming our future readiness now. we may have to accept the that not every unit will be at maximum ready, and some kind of a tiered readiness there.is, perhaps,

perhaps the united states would have fewer options to pursue our objectives. a fourth priority would be protecting investments in the emerging capabilities, especially space, cyber, special forces, and reconnaissance. our potential adversaries invest in more sophisticated capabilities and seek to frustrate our traditional advantages, including our freedom of action and access, access is around the world. it will be important to maintain our technological edge. been a hallmark of our armed forces. war is a fundamentally human endeavor. our fifth priority is balance. across the services, we will need to carefully be considered a mix between capacity and

capability, between active and reserve forces, between forward station and home base forces, and between conventional and unconventional war fighting capabilities. in some cases, we will make a shift. for example, by prioritizing a smaller and more modern military . we will also favor a globally active and engaged force over a garrison force. we will look to better leverage the reserve component, with the knowledge and experience of the part-time units and ground forces. they cannot expect to perform at the same level as full-time units, at least in the early stages of conflict. in other cases, we will seek to things, liketing trying to contain runaway costs. priority is personnel and compensation costs. this may be the most difficult.

attempts toous achieve significant savings in these areas, which consumes roughly half the dod budget, and which is increasing every year, we risk becoming an unbalanced force, one that is poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness capabilities. going forward, we will have to make hard choices in this area in order to make sure this is available for the 21st century. we will need congress as a willing partner in making tough choices. this is while meeting all of our responsibilities to all of our people. even as we pursue change across the department of defense, the greatest responsibility of leadership will always remain the people we represent, our men and women in uniform, their

families, and our dedicated civilian workforce. that is because institutions are platforms, frameworks, and societal structures. they are built to enhance the people they serve. it is people who change the world. institutions are instruments of change, but it is people who invest, lead, decide, inspire, to both prosper and suffer. when a nation commits its men and women to war, it is people who make the decision to go to war. it is people who fight and die in war. i began my discussion today with talking about the importance of long-term thinking. is alwaysfuture dependent on the balance of strategic thinking, decisive actions, and a belief in our purpose. perhaps no one more embodied that purpose than president dwight d eisenhower. to end mynappropriate

with an this morning excerpt from his farewell address, which faces the exact challenges facing us today in this very different world. he said, america's leadership not only on depends our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, .ut on how we use the power to foster progress in human with enhanced liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations, to strive for less would be unworthy of three -- free and religious people, very, very wise words.

and all of the institutions are great, and so is our unprecedented capacity to deal with those problems. never in the history of man has a nation possessed a world with must notapacity and we fear change, but rather embrace it. to strive for less would be unworthy of our character and our purpose, and we would fail future generations. that is not who we are. that is not our heritage. that is not our destiny. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] tweetsa look now at before veterans day. one says --

a missouri congressman rights -- -- writes -- and a representative, rick crawford, from the first district of arkansas, says -- we are going to take a deeper look and focus on veterans and those serving now on "washington journal" on monday. we will hear from michael noonan . he studies for the foreign policy institute, and we will talk about his article on the split between society and members of the military, and then we will speak with the ward of military.com, we will talkthen about issues facing veterans as

, thereturn from combat claims backlog at the v.a., and homelessness among veterans, all monday, veterans day, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things that has stuck in my mind is how balanced this change, in general, was from a political standpoint. there was probably a much less balanced political climate here. have a great deal for the right side. in fact, i remember seeing a publication in one of the two papers. i forget which one, whether it was the times herald or the dallas news. somebody had bought a full-page before president kennedy came. president kennedy's picture was on it, and it said "wanted for

treason." came down here six months after this assassination, he was the one who quizzed me. after it was over with, he came out in the hall, because he was quizzing me about the entrance wound. no question about it. i thought it was an entrance word. he said, we have people who will say he was shot from the overpass, but we do not believe they are credible witnesses, and i do not want you to say anything about it. >> marking the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's association, eyewitness accounts of those who treated president kennedy and lee harvey oswald. part of american history tv, .his weekend on c-span three presidentmonday,

obama and the first lady will be at events, including the wreathlaying. you can watch for live coverage beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and last week, the leaders of the various branches of the military testified about the impact of the budget cuts. the senate's armed services committee hearing was 2.5 hours. >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact on the sequestration required by the budget control act. we welcome today our nation's service chiefs, the chief of staff of the army, general raymond odie arnault, the chief of naval operations, admiral jonathan greider, the commandant of the marine corps, and general james amos, and the chief of staff for the air force, general

mark welch. i would like to thank our witnesses on behalf of the committee for their service to our nation and for the service provided by the men and women with whom they serve. we also appreciate the contribution made by our workers, hardod hit by sequestration and the government shutdown. sequestration is arbitrary and irrational. while this is an impact on our national defense, with sequestration, continuing resolutions and a recurring looming threat on the nation's debt, we not only failed to sustain our national security but also fail to meet our shared obligation to protect and promote public safety, health,

transportation, and the environment. when we allow this to happen, we put at risk much of what we do, and we undermined our position in the world. throughout the two years of the act, our military leaders have been warning us of its harmful consequences. if sequestration continues, they will have to cut reserve strength, reduce structure, due for repair of equipment, delay or cancel modernization programs, and a loud trading levels to seriously decline, which will reduce our ability to respond to global crises, thereby increasing our nation's strategic risk. raisedration has questions among our allies about our ability to run our affairs and has introduced questions about the availability of resources in afghanistan and around the world, and it has

accelerated the decline of a non-deployed force whose ability was seriously underfunded more than one decade before sequestration and has painfully for load much of our defense civilian workforce. i know that our senior military leaders are deeply troubled by the impact of sequestration on more out. both are military and civilian workforce. to tell little sense members of our military that we will pay their salaries, but we cannot afford to train them, and we cannot justify telling our dedicated civilian workforce, many of whom are veterans, and some of whom are disabled veterans, that they are not essential and that they are going to be for load and will not be paid. another year's sequestration only compounds the damage that will be done to our forces and our national security. if sequestration is allowed to continue into fy 14 and beyond, we will be left with a less

ready military that is significantly less capable of protecting our interests around the world. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on the impact sequestration has already had and will have on the department of defense and on our national security. the are all delighted to have jim with us back today, in full force and looking terrific. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much. i have made a request to have this hearing and another one, and it is my concern, mr. chairman, that everything you have said is true, but the general public is just not aware of it, and the crisis we are facing with significant cuts to spending,al security affecting our readiness and capabilities.

our naval fleet is at a historical low level. the air force is the smallest in its history. as our security is being threatened by terrorism, rising china and rogue nations like iran, north korea, the men and women charged with protecting undermined are being and enduring devastating cuts to the tools they need to keep america safe. we have been told over the next three years as much as $150 billion will be taken from accounts used to make sure our military men and women are better trained and equipped. some americans are wondering why this matters. the reality is the world around us is not getting safer. i look back wistfully at the days of the cold war when we had things that were predictable.

that is not the case anymore. rogue nations have the ability to have weapons of mass destruction and a delivery system. we know that is happening. it is something that hopefully this hearing will bring to the attention of the american people. war is not- tidal receding. it is the ability to protect this country that is receding. we're at a point where our allies do not trust us and our enemies do not fear us. as we retreat from our role as a global leader, we will have more failed states like syria and libya as breeding grounds for terrorism. we will have more aggressive adversaries trying to bully our partners in the south china sea.

this is why i'm troubled with the disastrous path that we are on. we are crippling our military, the people that are vital to our security, and our military leaders use the term hollow to define the forces of the future. the chairman of the joint chiefs warned us that continued security cuts will "severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy." another quote i carry with me is one that our number two person in the military said -- he said -- for the first time in my career, incidents where we may be asked to respond to a crisis , we will have to say we cannot.

this faith is sacred to me. we rely on a small part of our population to risk their lives on our behalf. the faith is being threatened. our witnesses testified before the house in september about the potential of not having the readiness and capability to succeed in even one major contingency operation. that is because most americans assume we defend against two mco's. that's not true. if we have to go through sequestration we may not be able , to do even one. that is why it is important we hear from you folks who have the credibility to make sure the american people understand this. i think about peace obtained through strength. ronald reagan is probably rolling over in his grave right now, seeing what happened to the military strength of this country.

that is what this hearing is about. i look forward to this being an opportunity for us to use the information that comes from this hearing to make america aware of the problems that are facing us. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. general? >> thank you for the invitation to speak today. if you indulge me for a few seconds. i would like to recognize the life of a champion of our soldiers, civilians, and families. what was interesting though, in his farewell address, he made a comment that i think is appropriate for the conversation we're having today. he remarked -- i have always considered each young man and woman in uniform as a son or daughter.

they are national treasures and their sacrifices cannot be taken for granted. they are not chess pieces to be moved up on a board. each and every one is your replaceable. is irreplaceable. those words are important today as we talk about the readiness of our force. as we consider future budget cuts, and their impact on our national defense, it is imperative we keep the impact this has on the young men and women, our soldiers who asked to go forward and protect this nation. previous drawdowns have taught us that the full burden of an unprepared and hollow force will fall on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. we have experienced this too many times to repeat this egregious error again. it may be popular to proclaim we are entering a new age where land wars are obsolete, but

history is rife with the wars that leaders knew would never be fought. in the summer of 1914, a british journal declared the world is moving away from military ideals and a period of peace and friendship is dawning. new technology was said to make war ridiculous and impossible. next year we will mark the 100th anniversary of the war to end all wars. i can give you an example for every major conflict we have been in. there are many comments that we would never fight wars again. that we would never send soldiers into harm's way. we did. it was with significant consequences to the men and women that wore the uniform. whether it be in vietnam in the initial days of vietnam or some other war.

we cannot allow that to happen again. throughout our history, we have drawn down military forces at the close of every war. we are drawing down our army not only before the war is over, but at a time where unprecedented uncertainty remains in the international security environment. the total army remains heavily committed in operations overseas as well as a home. -- as well as act home. -- at home. as we sit here today, more than 70,000 u.s. army soldiers are deployed to contingency operations. there are more than 87,000 soldiers foreign stationed across the globe. during my more than 37 years of service, the u.s. army has deployed soldiers and fought in more than 10 conflicts, including afghanistan. no one desires peace more than a

soldier who has lived through war. it is our duty as soldiers to prepare for it. as chief of staff, it is my responsibility to man, train, and equip the force to provide america with the best army possible. as a member of the joint chiefs of staff, i provide my best military advice to ensure the army is capable of meeting national security needs. if congress is not act to mitigate the magnitude of the reductions under the budget control act with sequestration, the army will be forced to make reductions in force, structure, and end strength. reductions will not allow us to execute the 2012 defense strategic guidance and will make it difficult to conduct one sustained major combat operation. year 14 two fiscal year 17 as we draw down and restructure the army into a smaller force, the army will

have a degraded readiness. end,ll be required to restructure, or delay acquisition programs. from fy 18 to fy 22, we will begin to rebalance, but this will only come at the expense of significant reductions in the end strength and for structure. we will have no more than 420,000 in the active army. 315,000 in the army national guard and 100 85,000 in the u.s.

army reserves. end will represent an seventh reduction over years. a 26% reduction in the active component. a nine percent reduction in the u.s. army reserves. this will cause us to reduce our brigade combat teams by 45%. army will beur determined by the guidance and funding provided by congress. it is imperative congress take action. not consider myself an alarmist. i am a realist. today's international a jointent requires force that has the capacity to deter and compel adversaries that threaten our national interest. sequestration threatens our

ability to do this. and in thens today near future will impact our nation's security posture or the next 10 years. we have accepted nearly $700 million in cuts. today, we have the premier army. it is our responsibility to ensure we remain the premier army and premier joint force in the war -- in the world. thank you. >> thank you so much general. thank you for mentioning our civilian personnel. those are our shipmates. we appreciate you mentioning them. distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to testify in the short and long-term effects of sequestration.

this morning, i will address two main points. our budget situation and plan in the near and long-term impacts of sequestration. presence remains our mandate. we have to operate where it matters and we have to be ready when it matters. we have to be able to respond to contingencies with acceptable readiness. abilitydemonstrated our to do that with deployed forces. navy assets were on station within a few days, where needed. this ability to present -- to be president reassures our allies ourin shores -- ensures interests around the world are properly serve.

the budget control act revised discretionary caps will -- our ability to execute the 2012 defense strategic guidance in the near-term and long-term. restrictions associated preclude transferring funds across programs on the increasing program quantities and starting new programs. sequestration will be realized in two main categories -- readiness and investment. several operational impacts -- but the most concerning is that reduction in operation and maintenance will result in only carrier strike group and one amphibious group. we need to have three of each in or around the conical united

states, ready to respond to a crisis. we have one strike group employed in the arabian gulf and the western pacific. consequently, because of physical limitations and the situation we are in, we do not have another carrier stryker trained and ready to respond on notice. forced toe will be cancel aircraft and ship maintenance. we will conduct only safety essential renovation of facilities. theill be compelled to keep hiring freeze in place for most of our civilian positions. we will not be able to use prior year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts like we did

in 15 year -- fiscal year 2013. we will be required to cancel the procurement of a virginia submarine.rain -- we will be forced to the lay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier and the midlife overhaul of the carrier the george washington. portfolio a balanced is the spending bill. secondarily, the option to propose the transfer of money between accounts. this would enable us to pursue innovative acquisition approaches. just to meet many him -- minimum readiness needs, we need to transfer about a billion dollars into our oem account and our procurement accounts. we need to do this by january.

after our strategic choices and completed,review was further details of our approach into what we call the alternative pond art outlined -- are outlined in detail. a sea-basedtain deterrent, maximize forward presence that we can, and continue investing in asymmetric capabilities. we will do our best to maintain a relevant industrial base. these will preclude us from meeting the operational requirements as currently written and defined by our combatant commanders with

acceptable risk. these are also detailed in my statement. with a result of a fleet of about 255 ships in 2020. that is about 30 less than we have today, about 40 less than was planned in our program. it is 51 less than our force structure assessment. i understand the pressing need for our nation to get its fiscal house in order. i am on board with that endeavor. it is impaired if we do so in a thoughtful manner. those are the attributes we depend on for our navy. i look forward to working with the congress to find the solution that will ensure the navy retains the ability to organize and equip our sailors and their families in the defense of our nation. inc. you. >-- thank you.

>> thank you so much, admiral. thank you for your consistently strong support for your military forces and for your love of our country and justified concern for its defense. all of us before you are mindful of your individual sacrifices and are grateful for your fidelity. the defense budget falls short in meeting the marine corps' requirements. in order to maintain readiness within the current fiscal environment, we are mortgaging the readiness of tomorrow's marines corps to do so. and marines are resilient determined to defend the united states of america. resolutions,nuing furloughs, and the government

shutdown, the men and women who wear my cloth are patriots first. the defense of our fellow americans and way of life is our number one priority. even over the comforts of self. of ournths furlough civilian marines was a disservice to an honorable and dedicated work source. our civilian marines are a vital part of our team. they are the technicians, experts, teachers, the clerks and our commissaries -- in our commissaries. --y provide unique seats unique skills. they deserve better. i am ashamed about the way they have been treated through the furloughs and uncertainty. during the first your sequestration, i have realized funds to maintain unit readiness to the highest extent possible.

my priorities have remained consistent. the near-term residents -- readiness of our forward deployed services. this readiness comes at the expense of infrastructure sustainment and modernization. we are funding today's readiness by curtailing future investment in equipment and facilities. we are spending approximately 60% of what is required to maintain our barracks, facilities, bases, and stations. this is unsustainable. it cannot continue over the long term. we muste to succeed, modernize our equipment and maintain the infrastructure that enables our training. we must also invest in our people. ofneed a marine corps 186,800 active duties. that allows us to meet steady-

state operations and fight a single major war. -- under the 2011 budget cut us act, a reduction to 182,000. with sequestration, i cannot afford a force of 182,000. study.iated a parallel our review determined the force size i could afford under a sequestered budget -- this was not a strategy driven effort, it was budget driven. pure and simple. the research determined that a force of 174,000 marines is the largest force that we can afford. assuming the requirements remains the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the marine 2 12. to a 1 to

dwell. dangerously close to the same combat operations we had in iraq. the 174,000 force except great risk when we commit to the next major war. there are significant reductions in my service in ground combat, and aviation units available for the fight. under sequestration, we will ivision ofines' d combat power. we will empty the entire bench. there would be no rotational relief like we had in iraq and afghanistan.

marines would like to go from the drill field to the battlefield without the benefit of combat training. we will have fewer forces arriving less trained, later to the fight. this would delay the buildup of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build defenses and would prolong combat operations. this is a formula for more casualties. 1950 andeed to look to the onset of the korean war to see the hazard in this approach. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. i am prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you, general. i hope you have your landing currency reset. it is an honor to be here with you. thank you for everything you do for our nation. the impact of sequestration are sobering. if it remains in place for fy

14, our force will be forced to cut flying air -- flying hours. our units will not be able to maintain readiness. our pilotduce production targets, which we were able to avoid an fy 13 because prior-year unobligated funds offset about 25% of our sequestration bill last year. those funds are no longer available. planpe to build a viable to slow the growth of personnel loss and reduced infrastructure costs, the only way to pay the full sequestration bill is by reducing readiness and modernization. be forced to could cut up to 25,000 airmen. to achieve the necessary cost savings, we will be forced to and entire fleets -- vest tie her fleets of aircraft.

we will prioritize global, long- range capabilities and multi role lap forms. -- platforms. prioritize training. if we are not ready for all possible scenarios, we are accepting the notion that it is ok to get to the fight late. we are accepting the notion that the joint team may take longer to win and that our war fighters are placed at greater risk. we should never accept those notions. our forecasts are bleak. it will impact every one of our programs. we are looking at cutting up to 50% of our modernization programs. we will favor recap the late- season -- recapitalization.

your air force is the best in the world. it is a vital piece of the world's best military team. what and how much will we be able to do? that will change. my personal thanks for your support of airmen and their families. i look forward to your questions. you for your testimony. thank you for also -- we are going to have a short first round because we have votes at 11:45. we also have a large number of senators, so we will have to start with a six minute or surround. thank you -- six minute first

round. mentioning the congressman. we have worked with him for a long time. memories of him marched ordinarily fond and warm. he was a unique and wonderful human being. we appreciate what he did for this nation in the war and in peace. to him and irence should have done. done that here. thank you for that reference. conclusion of the budget conference between the senate and the house is essential if we are going to address the problem of sequestration. they are looking at various getting rid ofr a mindless, rational way of budgeting.

much is going to write on their success. ride on their success. ony of us made suggestions how to come up with a balanced approach for the deficit reduction which can substitute a sensible approach or an .rrational approach we are not going to ask you to get into that kind of detail because of -- in terms of the work of the budget committee because of the conference. i doubt that you are privy to it and secondly, it is a little bit off the subject here today -- which are the impacts of sequestration. the clearer those impacts are laid out -- and you have laid them out clearly -- the more likely the budget conference will find a path to replace the

sequestration in 2014. that is something that makes sense in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of the security of this nation. youru have pointed out in , sequestration is damaging to the national security of this country. year 2013, the department was able to minimize impacts in part by using unobligated funds that were carried over from previous years. they deferred program costs into future years and utilized short- term cost reduction measures such as civilian furloughs and reductions in training and maintenance, rather than meeting -- making program decisions that

would be difficult to reverse. if sequestration continues into 2014 and beyond, will be department be able to continue to rely on those types of temporary measures? or, as you clearly testified, you have to start reducing infrastructure and major acquisition programs, i think you give us an answer to the second half. can you go to the first half of that question? were able to scramble around to a significant degree in 2013. are you going to be able to rely on those kind of temporary measures if sequestration continues into 2014? , thank you, chairman. as you put it very well